23
   

Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 04:06 pm
@Questioner,
I have been raised in the Catholic church and was taught from day one to adhere to my conscience. No one tells me what to do if my conscience tell me its wrong. It isent between me and a bishop or the pope. Its between me and my God.
Irishk
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 04:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Questioner wrote:
With that kind of power and influence, it's essentially the same as any large country walking into your buildings of power and saying 'this won't work, redo it'.
Irishk wrote:
Here in the U.S., though, only 23% of our population identifies as Catholics. Most of us are Protestants (51%).
What r the other 26% ?

Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.).

(I used the latest figures from the CIA World Factbook)
Questioner
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 04:21 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I have been raised in the Catholic church and was taught from day one to adhere to my conscience. No one tells me what to do if my conscience tell me its wrong. It isent between me and a bishop or the pope. Its between me and my God.


Then perhaps you're a minority, because there's a fundamental disconnect between what you've just claimed and a religious institution that won't allow it's membership to make up it's own mind on whether to use contraception. Perhaps yours is a rogue branch of Catholicism?


Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 06:40 pm
@Questioner,
So you apparently think all Catholics are lock-step automata who can do nothing without the explicit approval of the church. How silly you are.
Questioner
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 07:13 pm
@Setanta,
"We knoweth that thou art incapable of supporting numerous offspring, yet we forbid thee to gird thine rod and staff with a net of sterility and pray thee exercise common sense."



Setanta
 
  3  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 07:16 pm
@Questioner,
As i said, how silly you are.
Ceili
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 07:54 pm
Many of the Prime Ministers in Canada have been Catholic, of the last eight, six are/were catholic.
Pierre Trudeau decriminalized homosexual rights in 1967. "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" and "What’s done in private between two consenting adults doesn’t concern the Criminal Code."
Then decriminalized abortion in 1969, with restrictions.

Jean Chretien has been threatened with eternal damnation by the Pope, no less - I kid you not, for defending abortion and gay rights. He once said - The he was the leader of a country, not a church. I can't find the quote, but you get the gist.
I believe Paul Martin's in the bad books as well...

This proves that even the most devout can and do stand up for things the Catholic church was or is against. Canada is one of the very few countries in the world with no limitation on either gay rights or abortion.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 07:56 pm
@Setanta,
So yes, it's quite likely that I don't understand the relationship between clergy and the members. However, for a church that apparently insists that it's members make up their own minds and that things are "between them and God" they sure seem to lay down a lot of rules and go out of their way to play the part of 'middleman'.

Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 1 Feb, 2012 08:00 pm
@Questioner,
You apparently missed the burden of what Rabel was saying. It doesn't matter what rules are laid down or who is attempting to play middleman, Rabel thinks for him- or herself, and i'll warrant most Catholics in the United States do, too.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 2 Feb, 2012 06:26 am
@Irishk,

Questioner wrote:
With that kind of power and influence, it's essentially the same as any large country
walking into your buildings of power and saying 'this won't work, redo it'.
Irishk wrote:
Here in the U.S., though, only 23% of our population identifies as Catholics. Most of us are Protestants (51%).
OmSigDAVID wrote:
What r the other 26% ?
Irishk wrote:
Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.).

(I used the latest figures from the CIA World Factbook)
Thank u for this information, K.





David
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 11:25 am
@Questioner,
This really pisses me off! You are comparing me to a lock step consevrative who does as he is told by his betters. Screw you and your opinions. I WILL CONTINUE TO THINK FOR MYSELF.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 11:28 am
@RABEL222,
I 'm a conservative; witness the fact that I voted for and
I worked for Goldwater and Reagan.

I don't do as I am told.

I have ALWAYS thought for myself.
I 've never been politically correct.





David
Questioner
 
  1  
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 11:28 am
@RABEL222,
Good for you.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  2  
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 11:31 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

This really pisses me off! You are comparing me to a lock step consevrative who does as he is told by his betters. Screw you and your opinions. I WILL CONTINUE TO THINK FOR MYSELF.


And for the record, I didn't say that. What I said was your message of 'it being between you and God' didn't jive with what I understood the role between the clergy and it's membership to be.

However, a Catholic getting pissed off at being questioned is something I am very familiar with.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 01:15 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so)....

The rule would not compel Catholics to violate their consciences. It would not mandate that Catholics use the coverage to apply to anything that would violate their religious beliefs or consciences.

The Catholic church employs many non-Catholics in their various facilities--hospitals, universities, etc,. and community programs. These people currently have their health care benefits, and freedom of choice regarding health care, infringed upon and limited because the religious beliefs and religious policy of their employer are being imposed on them.
Quote:
To give an analogy, it would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews who don't follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis. The law wouldn't technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.

I find this analogy, offered by Michael Brendan Dougherty, flawed and misleading.

To mandate that a Kosher deli serve pork, would effectively exclude the main group of consumers the deli was created to serve--those who follow dietary laws and who could not dine in non-Kosher eating establishments. It would be exclusionary and disadvantaging to this entire group. Those who wish to eat pork, are not disadvantaged by the fact they cannot obtain pork in a Kosher deli, they free to eat elsewhere where that menu item can be found.

However, requiring the expansion of health care coverage, to include coverage of things like contraceptive drugs, does not exclude any group of consumers/employees from this coverage--on the contrary, it only makes the coverage more inclusive, because it is not restricting areas of coverage on the basis of religious belief/compliance--it makes the coverage for entirely secular health matters more comprehensive, for all employees, without imposing any hardship or deprivation to those who wish to follow Church pronouncements and who choose to not use these areas of coverage.

And, when deciding where to dine, people have options and choices. That is not the case with health care coverage. Most people are limited to the health care choices supplied by their employers. If you aren't provided with adequate coverage, you are left hungry--you can't stop off somewhere for more, unless you can pay for it out of your own pocket.

The Catholic church, in its role as an employer of both non-Catholics and Catholics, who work in essentially secular jobs in hospitals, universities, community programs, etc. has an obligation to provide the sort of health care coverage that would be available elsewhere in the employment market because these secular employees should not be unfairly subjected to limitations in coverage made on the basis of religious doctrine rather than on the basis of medical issues and needs. The Catholic church is, in effect, trying to mandate and force compliance with their religious doctrines by restricting the type of health care coverage offered to it's employees--in effect, disadvantaging, and penalizing and depriving those employees who do not subscribe to, or follow Church doctrine, of more adequate coverage. And the Church likely resents having to shell out the money that expanded coverage would cost them--the issue involves money, and not just "conscience", but the Church neatly avoids talking about the financial incentive involved in their opposition to the health care mandate.

Yes, they are clearly advocating political activism in furtherance of religious aims, and for religious reasons, and for the benefit of their particular Church. There is really nothing new about their doing this. And, in itself, it doesn't bother me, as long as all they are doing is suggesting that parishioners contact their Members of Congress and express their views. That they refer to the Obama administration is reasonable, given it was a decision announced by the administration.
Quote:
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law

The Catholic church is an employer in the public sector--essentially in the public secular sector. It employs both non-Catholics as well as Catholics. It is the recipient of government monies. It enjoys a tax exempt status. In return for all that, they give up their right to arbitrarily impose their religious mandates when these conflict with governmental laws and public policies.
They don't want to comply, fine. Then let them be deprived of all government monies, and their tax exempt status, if they wish to function free of either government control or privileged status.
Quote:
People of faith cannot be made second class citizens.

Nor should Catholic employees, or non-Catholic employees, or people of no faith at all, who are employed by the Catholic church, be made second class citizens when it comes to the adequacy and comprehensive nature of the health care coverage provided by their employer because that employer is trying to use insurance coverage to impose religious doctrine on secular medical choices.





JTT
 
  1  
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 09:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I worked for Goldwater and Reagan.


Poor ole Barry didn't get a chance to be a great war criminal like Reagan. But it's hardly surprising that a man of your low moral character would work for Reagan, Om.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Sat 4 Feb, 2012 08:56 am
@JTT,
DAVID wrote:
I worked for Goldwater and Reagan.


JTT wrote:
Poor ole Barry didn't get a chance to be a great war criminal like Reagan.
But it's hardly surprising that a man of your low moral character would work for Reagan, Om.
The question is whether u r a hypocritical troll,
OR
whether u r crazy. Either is possible; maybe both.
Accordingly, it makes little sense to argue with u.
JTT
 
  0  
Sat 4 Feb, 2012 09:17 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You are the hypocritical one, Om, as are so many of your fellow citizens. Your hypocrisy is blatant in that you avoid the facts and resort to these childish 'troll' remarks.

Quote:


War Crimes and Double Standards

(of Ronald Reagan and the press)

by Robert Parry

iF magazine, May/ June 1999

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/WarCrimes_Reagan_iF.html
.. The United States invites the charge of hypocrisy when it accuses "enemy leaders" of war crimes, while it turns a blind eye to equally horrific slaughters committed by allies, sometimes guided and protected by the U.S. government.

With release of truth commission reports in several Central American countries - most recently Guatemala - there can no longer be any doubt about the historical reality.

In the 1980s, U.S.-backed forces committed widespread massacres, political murders and torture. Tens of thousands of civilians died. Many of the dead were children. Soldiers routinely raped women before executing them.

There can be no doubt, too, that President Reagan was an avid supporter of the implicated military forces, that he supplied them with weapons and that he actively sought to discredit human rights investigators and journalists who exposed the crimes.

It is also cleat that the massacres at El Mazote and other villages across El Salvador, the destruction of more than 600 Indian communities in Guatemala, and the torture and "disappearances" of dissidents throughout the region were as horrible as what Slobadan Milosevic's Serb army has done in Kosovo.

But for Milosovic and his henchmen, there is talk of a war crimes tribunal. For Reagan, there are only honors, his name added to National Airport and etched into an international trade center, even a congressional plan to carve his visage into Mount Rushmore.

In the apt phrase of New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner, the 1980s were a time of "weakness and deceit." Yet, the continuing blindness to crimes against humanity in Central America in the 1980s has brought that weakness and deceit into and through the 1990s, now as a permanent trait of Washington's political class.

Without doubt, it is safer for an American journalist or politician to wag a finger at Milosovic or at the killers in Rwanda or at the Khmer Rouge than it is to confront the guilt that pervaded Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Reagan, after all, has a throng of ideological enthusiasts - many with opinion columns and seats on weekend chat shows. Nothing makes them madder than to hear their hero disparaged.

To suggest that Reagan should be held to the same moral standard as Milosovic also invites lectures about "moral equivalence," a clever construct of the 1980s that meant, in effect, that the Cold War justified whatever American policy-makers did. One must not equate "our" crimes with "theirs."

Ironically, many of the conservatives who today advocate rock-hard moral values and who deplore fuzzy moral relativism embraced exactly that sort of situational ethic in the 1980s.

They did so under the banner of the Reagan doctrine, which held that battling the Evil Empire sanctified all actions no matter what other moral laws were violated, like some Medieval crusade, blessed by the pope and then sent off to slaughter infidels.

In this context, murder of unarmed civilians was not wrong. Neither were assassinations, torture, genocide, rape and drug smuggling. indeed, nothing was wrong as long as it was done in the name of winning the Cold War.

It didn't matter that the Soviet Union was in steep decline before the 1980s. It didn't matter that there never was a master plan for conquering the United States through Central America. It didn't matter that most of the victims simply wanted basic rights that North Americans take for granted.

But even more corrupting in its own way was the slippery refusal to debate the rationalizations openly. While the "moral equivalence" debate captivated some intellectual circles, the Reagan administration's basic strategy was simply to lie.

Rather than defending the atrocities, Reagan and his loyalists most often just denied that the crimes had happened and attacked anyone who said otherwise as a communist dupe.

Mostly, this lying strategy worked. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era, the national media no longer put up any fight for these historic truths. By the 1990s, the star reporters were more dedicated to their careers than to the principles of their profession.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the shocking historical disclosures form Guatemala earned only brief notice in the major news outlets.

But in our view, there are two important principles here: first, that truth is fundamental to a healthy democracy, and second, that the rules of common decency must be applied to all human endeavors. There are some acts that are simply wrong no matter who does them and why.

Through much of this century, those principles were held by many in Washington. Under those ideals, the United States led the fight against Nazi Germany and established many of the basic principles of international law.

... The larger question is whether the United States can confront its complicity in shameful war crimes committed against the people of Latin America.

While no one expects the ailing Ronald Reagan to face a war crimes tribunal, it is time for the nation to face the painful truth about him and his presidency - and to stop rewarding him with high honors...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Sat 4 Feb, 2012 09:42 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
"We have never interfered in the internal government of a country and have no intention of doing so, never have had any thought of that kind."

Ronald Reagan, 1982



Beside being a prolific liar, a characteristic that you share with him, Reagan was a mass murderer. Now you haven't gone that far, have you?, but you so actively support this little Hitler that it's certainly conceivable that you could. As I mentioned, you seem to have no moral base.

You frequently regale in toasting these low lifes like Reagan, Bush, Bush, their sordid exploits, these war criminals, terrorists, mass murderers.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Mon 6 Feb, 2012 04:13 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The Catholic church is an employer in the public sector--essentially in the public secular sector. It employs both non-Catholics as well as Catholics. It is the recipient of government monies. It enjoys a tax exempt status. In return for all that, they give up their right to arbitrarily impose their religious mandates when these conflict with governmental laws and public policies.

They don't want to comply, fine. Then let them be deprived of all government monies, and their tax exempt status, if they wish to function free of either government control or privileged status.


That's the argument the Obama administration should make in a nutshell.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 02:51:06