Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It is a mistake to ignore the history of the Catholic Church and its general unfriendliness to women over the centuries. I understand the rationalization behind their opposition to birth control, but as a practical matter, it is ridiculous. All women should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to have children. Many Protestant churches recognize this, and most Catholics accept it, even if their hierarchy is still stuck in the past.

This is not about prohibiting access to contraceptives. This is about forcing people who believe the use of contraceptives is a form of murder to pay for it.

There are lots of easy solutions, but instead the President made another bow to the abortion totem instead of seeking accommodation. It is all about ideology.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What you are saying convinces me more than ever that no single church should have this much power over politics.

The success of our culture depends on a vibrant pluralism. We are better off with many centers of authority and not just one. The Catholic church is hardly omnipotent, but it should have a voice in our culture. When our society evolves to a stage where the government is the sole source of authority and power, we will be the poorer for it.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I understand this, but John's earlier point is a good one. Why do large religious organizations get listened to, while the secular majority gets ignored?

If the large religious institutions were in control, we would not have Roe v Wade and unlimited access to abortion. Also, there is no such thing as a secular majority. Something like 90% of the people in the US believe there is a God.

James50

The poll asked if you believe in "God or a universal spirit," so that is a pretty wide margin of possible beliefs. Heck, I'm like agnostic leaning deist and I'd probably say yes to that question.

Even if you break it down to the Christian 60-75%, you end up with "Catholics" and "Christians" in name only. The hardcore believers want to say that the large majority of Catholic women who use birth control aren't real Catholics (until it is time to throw their political weight around). What about the Catholic institutions that already provide birth control in their health care policies? Are those not "real Catholics" either?

It is a pretty convenient way to play with numbers, so that a few minority groups can have disproportionate influence in politics.

However, if 56% of "Catholics" voted for pro-choice Obama, I doubt they'll have a problem supporting him over some silly birth control scandal.

Originally Posted by James50

This is not about prohibiting access to contraceptives. This is about forcing people who believe the use of contraceptives is a form of murder to pay for it.

There are lots of easy solutions, but instead the President made another bow to the abortion totem instead of seeking accommodation. It is all about ideology.

James50

You are buying into the dictum that contraception is tantamount to abortion.

And, anyway, what is not apparently clear here is that we do live in a secular society. We live in a republic. I don't like where some of my tax dollars go. I vote against those uses as much as I can. Some Catholics might not like where their health care dollars go. They can still refuse, on a personal level, to use contraception or have an abortion.

You can't always control what organizations choose to do with their funds. I have a personal objection to invasions like the Iraq War. I have a personal objection to funding an organization that won't police its rogue clergymen. I have a small voice in the government.

I have no voice in an patriarchal, authoritarian body like the Catholic Church (doubly so, since I have a uterus).

For me, reproductive freedom is about the dignity of women to make choices about their private sexual behavior

Originally Posted by James50

The success of our culture depends on a vibrant pluralism. We are better off with many centers of authority and not just one. The Catholic church is hardly omnipotent, but it should have a voice in our culture. When our society evolves to a stage where the government is the sole source of authority and power, we will be the poorer for it.

James50

In this particular instance, James, the Catholic Church is on the wrong side. And it is not wrong to call them out on it.

Originally Posted by James50

If the large religious institutions were in control, we would not have Roe v Wade and unlimited access to abortion.

We don't have unlimited access to abortion.

Also, there is no such thing as a secular majority. Something like 90% of the people in the US believe there is a God.

James50

What I mean by that is that most people believe that secular, democratic principles should be the basis for governing. Most Americans do not believe in theocracy.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You are buying into the dictum that contraception is tantamount to abortion.

This is not my belief. It is the belief of the Catholic church.

For me, reproductive freedom is about the dignity of women to make choices about their private sexual behavior

Obama's dictum is not about freeing or restricting anyone's reproductive freedom. It is about forcing people of deep belief to fund something contrary to their moral conscience. This is a huge and important distinction.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We don't have unlimited access to abortion.

What are the restrictions?

What I mean by that is that most people believe that secular, democratic principles should be the basis for governing. Most Americans do not believe in theocracy.

Nor do they believe in government as the sole authority of right and wrong. We elect presidents not popes.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

And it is not wrong to call them out on it.

It is a big mistake and cuts at the heart of what makes our system work.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

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.

OK, James, what is the difference between 1) a Catholic institution contributing its share of a health plan for an employee who might--might--use it to get an abortion or contraception, and 2) a Jewish institution paying a salary to some one who MIGHT use it to eat pork, or Marriott paying a salary to some one who might use it to buy liquor? I can't see any. You make it sound as if the Administration is forcing some one to have or perform abortions. That is not the case.

I agree that we shouldn't have to be arguing about this, because health care should be a basic tax-funded public good like bridges, roads, schools, firefighters, and police forces, and thus private employers wouldn't be part of it. But in the meantime I don't think employers should be able to deprive their employees of access on equal terms.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In this particular instance, James, the Catholic Church is on the wrong side. And it is not wrong to call them out on it.

I agree. I have challenged the hierarchy of that church system for many years in regards to women's issues. However, I do get concerned when the word *Catholic* is brushed with too wide of a stroke. These sisters are trying to save the hospitals that have reached out to the sick and the poor for a very long time. For goodness sake, the free medical care that is given to children with cancer at St. Judes is of tremendous value to this country. No one is turned away. That is the system that the sisters want to preserve.

Now we have a situation where the sister who is the president of the hospital association was basically used to get the health care bill passed. She is currently in a terrible situation that puts her at odds with the hierarchy who has now put all options on the table to get this overturned.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is wrong in their trying to control what women do with their bodies, but so was Obama in lying to the president of the Catholic Hospital Association.

Originally Posted by James50

The success of our culture depends on a vibrant pluralism. We are better off with many centers of authority and not just one. The Catholic church is hardly omnipotent, but it should have a voice in our culture. When our society evolves to a stage where the government is the sole source of authority and power, we will be the poorer for it.

James50

The Catholic Church has all the authority it needs or could lawfully exercise over its parishioners. In spite of that, a majority of them probably ignore its dictates about birth control. This is a free country and therefore they have no penalize their parishioners financially for refusing to obey their teaching, or to break into their medicine cabinets and bedrooms to find out if they are violating them. And I can't see any reason why they should have the authority to limit the health care choices of their employees. Actually, that's the whole point: you want them to be able to use their economic lever over their employees to affect their behavior, when they can't even persuade their parishioners from the pulpit to do the same.

And since we're on the subject. .I'm going to choose my words carefully here. The Catholic Church in the last two decades has been revealed as a terribly abusive and corrupt organization, because it requires priests to profess celibacy, and, as we know now beyond any doubt, this has attracted an extraordinary number of pedophiles preying on young boys into the priesthood where they have done incalculable damage. That was not, of course, the intention of the celibacy rule, but it has clearly been the result And the response of the hierarchy was denial and cover-up for as long as possible. The Catholic Church will revive and thrive as soon as it can drop the celibacy rule, but there is no evidence that it will any time soon. I have avoided saying anything like this in print heretofore, but as long as you, a non-Catholic like myself, want to hold them up as a moral authority for all of society, I thought I might point out that sad fact. When an institution professes rules like celibacy which are an affront to human nature, this is the kind of thing that will result. And I say this with all respect to the many Catholics who have played a big role in my life, including my current wife. I have heard Catholic women calling into talk shows saying more or less the same thing.

Some one mentioned Christmas. Christmas is not really a Christian holiday. Yes, that's what I said. The celebration of the winter solstice, complete with tree, was the biggest pagan holiday in northern Europe. When Christianity arrived, it was unable to make new converts give it up, so the Christians adopted the holiday themselves. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest Jesus was born on December 25 or, for that matter, at the winter solstice. So I don't object to it's being a federal holiday and I've celebrated it without a shred of religious spirit enthusiastically for my whole life.

Since I seem to be in a cantankerous mood today, I want to prove that I can be equal-opportunity offensive and even touch on a group with whom I have some connection. I just returned from a day up north and picked up my New York Times. An above-the-fold front page headline reads, Gingrich Patron Could Have a Plan B: Romney. The patron is, of course, Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino owner and fervent Zionist who has contributed $10 million to Newt Gingrich's campaign and publicly endorsed what Newt said about the Palestinians being an "invented people." He is apparently making clear to the Romney forces that, even though his money bankrolled the violent tv attacks on Romney in SC and Florida, he will be back Mitt far more handsomely once Mitt gets the nomination.

Sometimes I think that when an ethnic minority has truly arrived in America, what it means is that individuals feel free to act just like their stereotype. 100 years ago when people like Henry Ford talked about Jews as a rich and powerful minority pulling the strings, it was nonsense. Jews actually weren't playing a major role in banking and finance then, although they had founded some big department store chains, and they certainly weren't pulling strings. Now let's be clear: the vast majority of Jews are liberal Democrats, I'm happy to say. But Mr. Adelson, who has made his fortune as a casino owner thanks in part to our new tax code, thinks nothing of spending these huge amounts of money to put his favorite candidate in the White House to make sure that we continue to support the policies of the Likud government. (And that he can keep his many millions unimpeded to leave plenty left over to swing elections.) We have truly created a monster by eliminating both progressive taxation (in effect) and limits on campaign financing.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, James, what is the difference between 1) a Catholic institution contributing its share of a health plan for an employee who might--might--use it to get an abortion or contraception, and 2) a Jewish institution paying a salary to some one who MIGHT use it to eat pork, or Marriott paying a salary to some one who might use it to buy liquor? I can't see any. You make it sound as if the Administration is forcing some one to have or perform abortions. That is not the case.

I agree that we shouldn't have to be arguing about this, because health care should be a basic tax-funded public good like bridges, roads, schools, firefighters, and police forces, and thus private employers wouldn't be part of it. But in the meantime I don't think employers should be able to deprive their employees of access on equal terms.

Come on David, you can do better than this. Salaries are agreed mutually by the two parties. Benefits under the federal rule are not allowed to be mutually agreed upon. In this case, the federal rule is forcing a crisis of conscience on the employer. There is no need for it. The cost of contraception is trivial. It is only because of Obama's obeisance to the abortion lobby that this has even become an issue. It is a disgusting betrayal to the Catholic leadership who supported him. The real extremists are people like Planned Parenthood. It is sad Obama has to kowtow to them. I cannot support it.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I understand this, but John's earlier point is a good one. Why do large religious organizations get listened to, while the secular majority gets ignored? And is there some point where accommodating certain religious beliefs does harm to the greater society?

Leaving aside your use of pejoratives, we have this thing called the First Amendment. It's been somewhat mangled by the courts over the years, which has allowed various conflicts to arise. But it's still one of the fundamental principles the U.S. was founded upon: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

What we are heading into, given the mindset of the left, is a situation where increasingly "Christians need not apply".

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And since we're on the subject. .I'm going to choose my words carefully here. The Catholic Church in the last two decades has been revealed as a terribly abusive and corrupt organization, because it requires priests to profess celibacy, and, as we know now beyond any doubt, this has attracted an extraordinary number of pedophiles preying on young boys into the priesthood where they have done incalculable damage.

Ahh, a predictable change in subject. Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it is predictable. I will take it as a sign you have run out of arguments; a victory of sorts.

James50

Originally Posted by Deb C

For *some* Catholics, the government telling them what to do regarding their belief system is like telling the millions of fundamentalists that they now have to let gays get married in their church.

No argument from me. Although I am not a Catholic , I do support the postion of the Catholic Church on life. My comments are based on consideration of the current US laws. I would prefer that the federal government stay out of our churches and belief systems. I want the minimum federal government consistent with defense of the nation.This would include legalization of all drugs-just treat other drugs like we now treat alcohol.

Originally Posted by James50

Ahh, a predictable change in subject. Of course, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it is predictable. I will take it as a sign you have run out of arguments; a victory of sorts.

James50

You changed the subject by arguing that the Catholic Church should have moral authority for all of society. I responded. I am not out of arguments; you haven't touched mine. I don't see anything wrong with the federal government setting some uniform rules for health plans. And Planned Parenthood is not an extremist organization in the least as far as I'm concerned. On that one I can't imagine what you are thinking.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

However, if 56% of "Catholics" voted for pro-choice Obama, I doubt they'll have a problem supporting him over some silly birth control scandal.

And there is the rub. the RCC hierarchy is completely out of touch with what their flock actually believes. The vast majority of Catholics in the US think the Church's teachings on contraception is BS. It is the hierarchy and their reactionary lay supporters that are bitching about this.

Originally Posted by James50

This is not my belief. It is the belief of the Catholic church.

Obama's dictum is not about freeing or restricting anyone's reproductive freedom. It is about forcing people of deep belief to fund something contrary to their moral conscience. This is a huge and important distinction.

James50

Most Catholics have no problem with birth control, "church teaching" is NOT the opinion of most Catholics.

Originally Posted by Odin

Most Catholics have no problem with birth control, "church teaching" is NOT the opinion of most Catholics.

Short story. I once belonged to a very progressive parish of the Catholic church. I would venture to say that 90% of the parishioners ignored catholic teachings and were very pro-birth control etc.. BUT - - - when push came to shove about breaking a particular church law (which I don't want to share here in this forum) the bishop of the Archdiocese threatened excommunication of any person that broke said law. I was amazed and astounded at how people caved to that threat. The hierarchy is a lot more powerful, especially in the US, than some might want to believe. Sad but true.

This is one of the reasons, among many, that I no longer consider myself a Catholic.

Originally Posted by Odin

Most Catholics have no problem with birth control, "church teaching" is NOT the opinion of most Catholics.

Yeah, Ireland is "90% Catholic" and they had their first legally recognized, same-sex civil union about this time last year. Abortion is still illegal there in most circumstances, but public opinion on that is changing rapidly along generational lines.

Of course, this and poor church attendance often leads many Evangelical Protestants to claim Catholics aren't "real" Christians... except when they're trying to count up a moral majority. When Gallup asks, about 40% of Americans say they go to church each week... but sampling of church attendance figures suggests the real number is probably between 20% and 30%.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Leaving aside your use of pejoratives, we have this thing called the First Amendment. It's been somewhat mangled by the courts over the years, which has allowed various conflicts to arise. But it's still one of the fundamental principles the U.S. was founded upon: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

What we are heading into, given the mindset of the left, is a situation where increasingly "Christians need not apply".

No one is forcing anyone, Catholic or otherwise, to get an abortion or to use contraception. This argument about "forcing people to pay for it" just does not wash in an age where people's tax dollars and private donations don't always go where you'd like them to go. Just imagine how many gifts to the Catholic Church may have gone to defend outrageous behavior by priests and bishops over the years.

And once again, you seem to forget that I am a Christian and that there are many others like me who are on the Left and care about the rights and dignity of women.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

You changed the subject by arguing that the Catholic Church should have moral authority for all of society.

If that is what you think I said, you misunderstood. I do not think the Catholic Church should have moral authority over all of society. I do think they should not be forced to pay for a trivial expense that is contrary to their beliefs. Only a complete ideologue would think this was worth the fight.

I have often been attracted to the left because of their pursuit of justice. Just when I am about to come over, they pull something like this that shows their true intolerance and authoritarianism. They will stop at nothing, care for no one's beliefs, and would blast through everything I hold of value if it would satisfy their ideology.

James50