Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I acatually agree to a point, but the point stops where the Catholic Church has a dominant place in a critiacl market. If, for example, the Catholic Hospital is the only one in the area, then they have a monopoly on a secular service, and almost certaily receive large amounts of Medicaid and Medicare funding to support it. I also doubt that they would be wilingly to walk away from that. How would the community respond if they did? Everyone needs access to a hospital.

As you move away fror a monopoly position, where does that change? It does in a large city with many options, but the Federal funds are still there. Can we agree that some such institutions are de facto "public", while others could choose to be focused on a religous-based service to their community? How would you sort this? Should there be exceptions?

This is much more complicated than this thread implies.

I agree that this is complicated. If the best answer is that the Catholic Church should get out of the hospital business, then more than a year of grace would likely be required.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I acatually agree to a point, but the point stops where the Catholic Church has a dominant place in a critiacl market. If, for example, the Catholic Hospital is the only one in the area, then they have a monopoly on a secular service, and almost certaily receive large amounts of Medicaid and Medicare funding to support it. I also doubt that they would be wilingly to walk away from that. How would the community respond if they did? Everyone needs access to a hospital.

As you move away fror a monopoly position, where does that change? It does in a large city with many options, but the Federal funds are still there. Can we agree that some such institutions are de facto "public", while others could choose to be focused on a religous-based service to their community? How would you sort this? Should there be exceptions?

This is much more complicated than this thread implies.

Some good old-fashioned difference-splitting is in order here.

Let the Catholic hospitals etc. get away with opting out of abortion, but not contraception (as the vast majority of American Catholics not only support contraception, but actually practice it).

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

People are claiming that the Catholic institutions have the right to impose certain behavior on their employees, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Not at all. It is a matter of forcing the Catholic institutions to fund activities they consider immoral. The employees are still free to engage in whatever behaviors they want.

Your examples are ridiculous, but I will play along. Marriott is owned by Mormons not the Mormon Church and is not a charitable instutution. But should the Marriotts be required to buy liquor for their employees who want it?

Should Jewish owned charitable institutions be required to buy pork for their employees?

James50

EDIT: Did a little fact checking. Marriott is a public corporation. The Marriott family owns about 30% of the company.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I know Shields and Brooks thought the Health secretary's edict was harmful to Obama's administration. I am a little surprised that there are so many Catholics who "as a matter of conscience" feel they must adhere to church teachings, including those the linked article said had fought for the Health Reform act, and who supposedly might now feel betrayed. Most Americans feel these teachings, especially about birth control, are out of date and don't obey them anyway, and rightly so. This is not abortion, at least. But I suppose the institutions must object, since the Church will object if they violate the bosses at the Vatican. It's not really a matter of conscience; it's a matter of conflict between authorities. The first and second estate if you will.

Your correct, it's more about the Vatican, who does have the power to shut down Catholic hospitals, if they do not adhere to Catholic doctrine.

Here's my thought on this. We need to distinguish between a religion properly so called, and a non-religious service company that is merely OWNED by a religious organization. The first is covered by the First Amendment ban on government infringement of free exercise of religion. The second is not.

If the ACA required employees of the Catholic Church itself to be covered for contraceptive services, that would be one thing. But it merely requires that the employees of Church-owned hospitals, universities, etc. be covered. My feeling is that if merely being owned by a church was enough to exempt an organization from the law, that would give an out to all kinds of things where we don't want to see that happen, including for example laws against racial discrimination. (The Catholic Church has no teaching violating that one, but the Southern Baptist Convention used to.)

The law at present distinguishes on the basis of whether a majority of the employees are followers of the religion in question. While that will probably work as a rule of thumb, my feeling is that the proper place to draw the line is in terms of what services are being provided. Religious services, religious counseling? Hands off. Anything else? Ignore the ownership and enforce the law.

Originally Posted by radind

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

It was a very amusing conversation between James and David. Framing a legal argument for Morman polygamy is much easier than a framing a legal argument for the Catholic right to deny (non-Catholic) women the right to equal medical care.

Best...

I think that the Catholic Church is making a moral argument. Does the state have right to force a church institution to violate the beliefs of that church?

Radind, James and David were having a legal debate, not a religious (moral) one. If you don't want to frame your argument in terms of its legal merit, play with someone else.

Best...

Originally Posted by radind

I agree that this is complicated. If the best answer is that the Catholic Church should get out of the hospital business, then more than a year of grace would likely be required.

It was Catholic sisters who founded most of the hospitals in the United States. They came here mainly to serve the sick and the poor. Other than the doctors, these hospitals were staffed with nuns as the nurses and they provided most all of the services to the patients. So anyone suggesting that they shut these hospitals down doesn't understand the history or the ramifications to this country.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's my thought on this. We need to distinguish between a religion properly so called, and a non-religious service company that is merely OWNED by a religious organization. The first is covered by the First Amendment ban on government infringement of free exercise of religion. The second is not.

If the ACA required employees of the Catholic Church itself to be covered for contraceptive services, that would be one thing. But it merely requires that the employees of Church-owned hospitals, universities, etc. be covered. My feeling is that if merely being owned by a church was enough to exempt an organization from the law, that would give an out to all kinds of things where we don't want to see that happen, including for example laws against racial discrimination. (The Catholic Church has no teaching violating that one, but the Southern Baptist Convention used to.)

The law at present distinguishes on the basis of whether a majority of the employees are followers of the religion in question. While that will probably work as a rule of thumb, my feeling is that the proper place to draw the line is in terms of what services are being provided. Religious services, religious counseling? Hands off. Anything else? Ignore the ownership and enforce the law.

These "service companies" are a product of the church's belief system:

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

It is a mistake to ignore the unity of belief that is the motivating force behind these institutions.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

These "service companies" are a product of the church's belief system

I'm aware of that, but they are still not religious services properly so called. We must draw the line somewhere. Suppose a religion had a teaching that all of commerce should be done in a certain way? (Actually, come to think of it, the Catholic Church does.) Suppose the Church, or some church or religious organization, began acquiring businesses and insisting that they be run according to the teachings of the religion. Should we exempt those businesses from following the law merely because a religious organization spent the money to buy them?

No. We ban government infringement of the free exercise of religion. If we extend that to include anything owned by a religion, we open the door to undercutting the law altogether. "Exercise of religion" means exactly that, and nothing else.

Wow, just listened to Shields and Brooks from last night. Mark Shields called the contraceptives decision "cataclysmic".

Mark, what is the fallout from this?

MARK SHIELDS: The fallout is cataclysmic for the White House and for the president.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Really?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, cataclysmic. I'm not talking about -- and I say this as a Catholic. I'm not talking about Catholics who attend mass every Sunday.

Catholics who attend mass here irregularly take great pride in the social mission of Catholic Church to provide the -- to feed the hungry, to provide shelter for those who are homeless, to take care of those who are lonely, and the immigrant.

And there is a great sense of pride that this is the mission of Catholic Church. It's part of the definition of the Catholic Church. And what President Obama has done with this policy, and Secretary Sebelius, quite bluntly, is they have taken those Catholics who took a risk to support them, Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, and Sister Carol Keehan, who is the president of the Catholic Health Association, and Father Larry Snyder, who is president of Catholic Charities, who have taken on orthodox, more conservative groups within their own Catholic Church to support the president, especially his efforts on the poor, and he has left them out to dry.

I mean, he really has, with -- in just a policy that I think is, quite frankly, indefensible.

Read the whole thing.

James50

From what I have been reading in some of the Catholic magazines and materials, many Catholics feel betrayed by the president saying one thing and then doing another. If this doesn't get resolved, there will be a backlash in November.

Here's a sample of what some Catholics are feeling:

"I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to know your history. In 1978, the IRS proposed a rule change affecting the tax exempt status of private Christian schools. The rule would change the way school verified their desegregation policies, putting the burden of proof on the school, not the IRS. By 1978, many of those schools were already desegregated, even though they had first been founded as a means to avoid desegregation of the public schools. But evangelical Christians did not look kindly on the government’s interference in schools they had built themselves and, even though the IRS rescinded the rule change, the original decision was the straw the broke the camel’s back for those who wished to separate themselves from mainstream culture. They formed the Moral Majority, entered that mainstream culture, and helped the Republican Party win the next three presidential elections."

"You, Mr. President, have struck that same nerve. Catholics built their colleges and universities and hospitals. They did so out of religious conviction and, as often as not, because mainstream institutions did not welcome Catholics. It is one thing to support a policy with which the Catholic Church disagrees but it is quite another to start telling Catholics how to run their own institutions.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of treating shamefully those Catholics who went out on a limb to support you. Sr. Carol Keehan, Father Larry Snyder, Father John Jenkins, these people have scars to show for their willingness to work with you, to support you on your tough political fights. Is this the way you treat people who went to the mat for you?"


Then there's this!

What can those words “fully committed” possibly mean? They have punched Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Jenkins and many other Catholics who have taken shots for this Administration in the nose. They have jumped over the First Amendment to coerce religious organizations to do something we find morally objectionable. They have given people who loved the Affordable Care Act reason for pause, great pause. They have given the Republicans a huge battering ram with which to beat swing voting Catholics over the head.

I say “they,” but the full responsibility for this decision rests with the President. NCR has learned that the President called Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. bishops' conference, this morning to tell him the news. Wouldn’t you have liked to be on an extension to listen in on that conversation. The president looked Dolan in the eye in November and said he would be pleased with his decision. I am guessing that Dolan is not pleased. He is not alone.

MORE: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctl...ence-exemption

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm aware of that, but they are still not religious services properly so called. We must draw the line somewhere.

And the line has been drawn in the wrong place.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Wow, just listened to Shields and Brooks from last night. Mark Shields called the contraceptives decision "cataclysmic".



Read the whole thing.

James50

And it is "cataclysmic." Obama may have broken one promise too many this time.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Radind, James and David were having a legal debate, not a religious (moral) one. If you don't want to frame your argument in terms of its legal merit, play with someone else.

Best...

You may ignore me, but I can make comments as i think approriate. I am not playing.

This is possibly the dumbest controversy in a string of dumb controversies instigated by religion.

Some of the articles claim Obama is "forcing nuns to hand out diaphragms" but this is just a matter of requiring certain minimum standards in healthcare plans. What good is mandating insurance when one of the most commonly used prescriptions isn't covered?

What are they going to complain about next? The fact that health insurance covers prenatal care for unwed mothers?

Give me a break. And welcome to the 21st century.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

This is possibly the dumbest controversy in a string of dumb controversies instigated by religion.

Some of the articles claim Obama is "forcing nuns to hand out diaphragms" but this is just a matter of requiring certain minimum standards in healthcare plans. What good is mandating insurance when one of the most commonly used prescriptions isn't covered?

What are they going to complain about next? The fact that health insurance covers prenatal care for unwed mothers?

Give me a break. And welcome to the 21st century.

John, you may be missing a point. Obama *promised* certain things to the Catholic administrators that went to bat for him. Many put their jobs on the line to support his decision. Then *he* broke the promises that *he* made after he got what he wanted from them. This is betrayal. A betrayal that will have it's ramifications. Even liberal Democrats who are Catholic are upset over this fiasco.

I may not agree with any of this, but I can see where feeling used by a president, can tend to tick people off.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It was Catholic sisters who founded most of the hospitals in the United States. They came here mainly to serve the sick and the poor. Other than the doctors, these hospitals were staffed with nuns as the nurses and they provided most all of the services to the patients. So anyone suggesting that they shut these hospitals down doesn't understand the history or the ramifications to this country.

I would prefer that this issue had not been forced on us. I am not a Catholic, but I do support their position on life. However, given the current laws, it might be better for the Catholic Church to get out of the hospital business. I don't like the idea of it, but we do have the law. Elections still continue to have consequences and the majority of Catholics did vote for Obama.

Originally Posted by Deb C

John, you may be missing a point. Obama *promised* certain things to the Catholic administrators that went to bat for him. Many put their jobs on the line to support his decision. Then *he* broke the promises that *he* made after he got what he wanted from them. This is betrayal. A betrayal that will have it's ramifications. Even liberal Democrats who are Catholic are upset over this fiasco.

I may not agree with any of this, but I can see where feeling used by a president, can tend to tick people off.

This could be huge in states like Penn. and Wisconsin that have large Catholic populations that can swing the vote to Romney. Perhaps in many states weith large Hispanic populations like New Mexico, Florida and Nevada too.

Originally Posted by Deb C

John, you may be missing a point. Obama *promised* certain things to the Catholic administrators that went to bat for him. Many put their jobs on the line to support his decision. Then *he* broke the promises that *he* made after he got what he wanted from them. This is betrayal. A betrayal that will have it's ramifications. Even liberal Democrats who are Catholic are upset over this fiasco.

I may not agree with any of this, but I can see where feeling used by a president, can tend to tick people off.

I don't know the details of the promises, and I wouldn't trust a politician's promise unless it was written on gold plates (that I got to hold on to in the mean time.)

However, this is ridiculous.

Should businesses owned by Christian Scientists be exempt from the insurance laws altogether? They don't believe in medicine, at all!

Nope. The big Christian denominations get special treatment (ahem, privileged minorities) and then they cry when their treatment isn't special enough.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's my thought on this. We need to distinguish between a religion properly so called, and a non-religious service company that is merely OWNED by a religious organization. The first is covered by the First Amendment ban on government infringement of free exercise of religion. The second is not.

If the ACA required employees of the Catholic Church itself to be covered for contraceptive services, that would be one thing. But it merely requires that the employees of Church-owned hospitals, universities, etc. be covered. My feeling is that if merely being owned by a church was enough to exempt an organization from the law, that would give an out to all kinds of things where we don't want to see that happen, including for example laws against racial discrimination. (The Catholic Church has no teaching violating that one, but the Southern Baptist Convention used to.)

The law at present distinguishes on the basis of whether a majority of the employees are followers of the religion in question. While that will probably work as a rule of thumb, my feeling is that the proper place to draw the line is in terms of what services are being provided. Religious services, religious counseling? Hands off. Anything else? Ignore the ownership and enforce the law.

The Southern Baptists( among others) were clearly wrong on racial discrimination. I don't like it, but I agree with your bottom line to ignore the ownership. The Catholic Church would then have a difficult choice and it might be better if churches choose not to also run businesses.

And the more I think about these whining Catholics the more it ticks me off. I'd love to be able to hide my business from the law behind religious claims, but in this country a religion is only "legitimate" if your holy book starts with Genesis and ends with a significant voting bloc.

Then they take all those tax breaks and legal exemptions and cry that they're oppressed. With a straight face!

They look at the holidays they stole (Christmas, Easter) and complain they've gotten too popular, to the point they're not celebrated "correctly."

Someone needs to stand up to this crap and call them out on their BS, because the various churches in this country have regularly held our political system hostage while we ignore the real problems we have to deal with.

The fact that it is 2012 and people are publicly offended by birth control - and encouraged by the media & pundits! - only goes to show how very backwards and dysfunctional American politics is.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

...They look at the holidays they stole (Christmas, Easter) and complain they've gotten too popular, to the point they're not celebrated "correctly."...

I am in favor of giving back all the pagan holidays that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Originally Posted by radind

The Southern Baptists( among others) were clearly wrong on racial discrimination. I don't like it, but I agree with your bottom line to ignore the ownership. The Catholic Church would then have a difficult choice and it might be better if churches choose not to also run businesses.

Including the numerous universities? Just curious.

Originally Posted by radind

I am in favor of giving back all the pagan holidays that have nothing to do with Christianity.

I'm in favor of Pagans.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Including the numerous universities? Just curious.

Good question. Are universities considered businesses?