Write to the American Catholic Bishops...

Believe it or not, you're on a public forum.

Because, OmDave, what they are advocating for also affects non-Catholics.

Religious freedom also means freedom from religion.

Wait.... I think C.I. just said that.

Joe( )Nation

The last time that I was in a Catholic Church, Harry Truman was president,
but I don't feel myself to have been affected by the Catholics.

Did I miss something??

I just don't see that if the Catholics become more theologically conservative,
that will make life better for me. Yes ?





David

Write to the American Catholic Bishops...

Dear American Catholic Bishops

Billy really enjoyed his sleepover at the church the other night, but i have a question. Will Holy Water and Tide remove semen and wine stains from an Altar Boy's Gown?

Thanks

Billy's Mom

Anymore letters like that and I'll excommunicate the **** out of you. The Bish.

I like the way you analogized your position.

Will you explain how Joe. Leave out transfers of cash as I think the money trail is probably too difficult for us to follow. We only know its crude result. "Free" funsters getting "free" facilities for the fun. Nobody else seems worthy of consideration. Despite them doing the paying.

What other way affects non-catholics?

You and CI have an interesting concept of freedom and "affecting" others.

There are a lot of actions and position taken by people and institutions that "affect" me. If they are religious in nature, I have a legally protected freedom from them? What about non-religious activities.

If the Catholic Church was somehow able to force people to use contraception or prevent them from using it, you might have a point, what they are "advocating" is the freedom to not fund practices with which they have a fundamental moral objection.

There have been faith and conscious exemptions in laws for many years,because lawmakers have, for the most part, recognized and honored the First Amendment. This Administration has chosen to ignore this prescedant.

Upon what is your notion of "freedom from religion" based?

The the First Amendment protects the exercise of religion and prohibits the establishment of a State religion.

I can see how the freedom to exercise religion could be interpreted to include the freedom to not participate in a religion, but that's not involved here. No one is being forced to be a Catholic, or abide by Catholic doctrine.

The courts have ruled more than once that certain practices that are violations of public policy can be restricted, despite the fact that they are founded in religion, but it's a very big stretch to consider it a matter of public policy that employees be reimbursed for the cost of contraception.

The only non-Catholics that are being "affected" by the Catholic Church's position in this matter are those who may be employed by the Church. Surely these individuals were aware of who their employer was and it wouldn't have taken much research to determine what the Church did and did not countenance.

They are not slaves to the Catholic Church and may leave their employment at any time.

I've yet to see evidence that there is a legally protected right to have your employer pay for the contraception methods you utilize.

It's certainly not the case that as a practical matter, if one's employer doesn't pay for contraception, one is effectively prohibited from it's use. Most health insurance will not cover cosmetic procedures and yet millions of Americans, find a way to pay for them. The cost of contraception is a tiny fraction of the cost of these cosmetic procedures.

Lots of fiery, righteous rhetoric from the Left, but very little sense.

You wrote,

Which doesn't make any sense. We're talking about the US Constitution; specifically about the separation of church and state.

Surely Finn it has to be the employer's customers who pay. So Catholics and others who have a moral objection to artificial contraception, the real thing is free, are justified in boycotting the goods and services provided by a business providing "free" artificial contraception for its employees. In fact they have a moral obligation to boycott such firms if the know about its policy because they are paying for it.

Ms Fluke wants a subsidy for male orgasm. A sort of mass vasectomy only the woman is called upon to undergo it. The male resistance to vasectomy is based upon the undermining of his manhood and yet these macho guys are happy to undermine womanhood in a similar way. What rabid misogyny.

The Bible itself recommends vasectomy. "If thy eye offendeth thee, pluck it out".

If thy vas deferens offends thee tie it up. Short op. Short recovery. But no. Let the woman spend 30 years taking care of the little dears problem at a significant personal risk.

This isn't standard misogyny for having a laugh. This is full blown, self-indulgent, gross misogyny of the very worst sort. Tossing out allegations of misogyny in a loud voice is merely a snow-blow exercise.

You will always find that the gratuitous use of the epithet signifies a deep-seated misogyny. Denial.

Really?

Joe Nation has argued that the Catholic Church is advocating a position that "affects" non-Catholics, and therefore, presumably, those non-Catholics need First Amendment protection form the Catholic Church.

If this isn't what you and he are arguing with your "freedom from religion" riffs, I've no idea what you're talking about.

Again, the US Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of a state religion. How the position of the Catholic Church is in opposition to, rather than protected by, the First Amendment is something you need to do a better job of explaining, rather than simply parroting the Left's talking points.

Finn, Get off your fat ass and try to understand the discussion between spendi and I. You're missing the whole issue.

You've no idea what the shape of my ass might be.

I responded to Joe Nation, and you decided to stick you fat nose in.

Get over yourself Pops. I'm not even trying to follow your discussion with spend, as they always follow the same pattern: You post nonsense which rips apart while mocking you. You respond by calling him a drunk or something equally unpleasant.

Don't care about your ass; just your nonsensical intrusion into something you do not understand.

Hmmm...you seem to be responding to something other that the post to which you replied. What's with the misogyny rant?

You're a pip CI.

Sorry to have been away so long, I was living my real life.
Okay.

Finn: You misunderstood. I, if you will read the initial post again, am trying to save the American Catholic Church. Not an easy task, as you can well imagine, but one that, I am sure Spendius will agree, is the most important undertaking of this era. (The image the word undertaking creates is unfortunate.)

Spendius has many times implied, he never says outright, (then again he never say anything outright) that without the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and I'm sure he includes the American and perhaps even the Irish contingents in his thoughts, our civilization is doomed to fall into a Darwinian maelstrom from which there is no escape, a reality that will be nothing but days of hideous sin and nights of perdition.

I am asking that people of all faiths plead with the Bishops to return to the wonderfully solid restraints that in days past were the ribs and timber upon which Mother Church rested.

How could that benefit non-Catholics you ask? How could it not? We're talking about the end of morality, the bright guidance between right and wrong that the Church provides gone without anything but the rough compulsions of the feral minds of weak mortal men to replace it.

I asked Spendius here because I thought he would join me in insisting that something must be done to stop the rampant disregard for the Church's teachings on Artificial Birth Control. The priests must shout from the pulpits, the radios and tvs must blare out the call for adherence to the letter of Humanae Vitae.

Once we have the women back in line, and in the pews, order will once again be part of our blessed lives.

If we don't do it, I'm afraid the Taliban will have too.

Joe(they are just priest wearing turbans, right?)Nation

Even I, lamb of the nuns in the late fifites, didn't work up prayers re darwin - I never heard of him.

Hi, Osso,
I remember clearly the day that Sister Mary Bridget explained the Church's position to us on Evolution. I was in the eighth grade, that would make me about 13 years old.
I completely bought it.
( I also liked Sister Mary Bridget very much.)
I can still repeat it to anyone who asks and the Church hasn't changed it's teaching: Evolution is God's way of having life proceed through the Universe. At some point, He 'breathed an immortal soul into mankind."

Sweet story.
So long ago.

Note:
I know that this was the incorrect use of 'too'.

Joe(The ghost of Sister Bridget still floats by now and again)Nation

I didn't get Sister Mary Bridget's story, but it was made equally clear to us kids that evolution was the way to go.

Whoever the pope was in office that ok'd that at least had a lick of sense.

Of course, he was the whore of babylon