The size of Canada is about equal to the US and the population of Canada is about equal to New York.Originally Posted by pbrower2a
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Posts
- 722
The size of Canada is about equal to the US and the population of Canada is about equal to New York.
It's not Sullivan's POV. It's a reader's response.
IMO, "right wingers" have many of differing beliefs as do "left wingers." In my experience, I've seen both extreme sides trying to stick their noses in my business.
So Santorum won all three events last night. I still believe Romney will be the eventual nominee, but clearly there is still a sizable element in the GOP that's not sold on him. How far to the right will Mitt go, and how far away will he run from his record in Massachusetts?
There are no "views" the church has to change. Providing health insurance to employees that covers birth control violates no Church teaching. With the sole exception of orignial sin, sin is not transitive. Thus, while using contraception is considered to be a sin providing health insurance that covers contraception is not.
It's similar to the churches position on capital punishment, which they see as murder. Voting for capital punishment is a sin, but voting for a candiate who supports capital punishment is not.
The argument about this issue is political, not doctrinal. The Church is an institution that engages with the external world and so practices politics like any other institution active in external world.
If Obama holds steady, the church will comply with the policy, and they lose this hand.
I don't see the Catholic Church caving in. Getting out of hospital business is more likely.
Been a few days since I read this thread. As I was reading through it, a few things popped out to me. First of all, I agree with everything that Rani said. The right being opposed to contraception is a new one to me too and I don't think that is an accurate statement. As a matter of fact, I've yet to come across any women in my generation who are opposed to contraception, and this includes Republicans, Catholics, etc. (I'm not saying there aren't people out there that are opposed to it, but I believe they are in the minority.) And I every Catholic women I've known, who I have discussed this matter with, uses contraception. They just don't stand up during Mass and announce it.
I also read an awful lot of "complaining" about the Catholic churches stance on contraception and abortion. Freedom of religion does not mean Freedom from religion. People in this country have the right to practice what ever faith they choose. If a devout Catholic woman chooses to follow the teaching of her religion and not take contraceptives, that's her "choice". I find it a bit ironic that people who support "pro-choice" would bash women who make a choice regarding their own reproduction. Just like it's no one else's business if a woman decides to have an abortion or use contraception, it's no one else's business to tell a woman she is wrong for not using contraception. It kind of sounds to me like the pro-choice people only support it when the woman "chooses" the way they think she should...Now maybe I misunderstood what some of these posters were saying who were complaining about the Catholic's views on contraception, but that's kind of how it came it off to me.
But more importantly, because I don't feel that whether or not a woman uses contraception is one of the most pressing issues of our time, let's get back to the primaries from last night...This really is shaping up to be an interesting race. Considering the Santorum actually won the Iowa caucus after all, I'm not so sure if we can really call Romney the front runner. The Republicans around me, also support Santorum. I wouldn't count him out yet and I from what I'm hearing from the people in my area, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Santorum doesn't win Texas.
Last edited by ASB65; 02-08-2012 at 09:19 AM.
Once again, I'm really embarrassed that Governor Romney is my distant cousin. (The last time I was this embarrassed was when he said he'd "double" Guantanamo.)
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didnīt replace it with nothing but lost faith."
Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY
I'm pleased about last night's results. It delays Romney's inevitable victory. Romney was always going to win, he's next in line, and the GOP always goes this way. However the fact that a significant fraction of the party are not, as yet, willing to acquiesce to Romney forces Romney to define himself more clearly about what he is going to stand for in this campaign. It will be very hard for him to claim he is really a moderate guy after establishing his born-again conservative bona fides all spring.
Romney's supposed strength against Obama relative to the other GOP candidates was always based on a perception, that at his core, Romney is more moderate, more concilliatory, than any of the fire-breathing conservatives running aganst him. But as he has to deal with the flip-flopping issue over and over again, we will have to assert ever more forcibly that he is just like his opponents: he hates abortionists, loves Israel, itches for war with Iran, and hates taxes just as much as they do. Each time he does so he chips away at this idea that he is somehow less extreme than the others. As a individual he has none of the personal charisma of even George W. Bush, much less Ronald Reagan.
I fail to see how Romney would be any stronger than Perry or Santorum would be have been (Gingrich has so many problems on so many levels he belongs in a category all by himself). Perry has already left the scene and Santorum has always been considered as having absolutely no chance against Obama. In my mind this either means (1) Romney has no chance against Obama, or (2) people are wrong about Santorum.
If its (1) then it doesn't really matter what happens in the primary. But if its (2) why are Republicans who deeply desire a course change going to nominate Romney? Wouldn't Santorum be a better standard bearer for what it means to be Republican than Romney who has a documented history of trying to be all things to all people?
Last edited by Mikebert; 02-08-2012 at 09:34 AM.
Rani, I think you are out your depth here.
Under the First Amendment, religion does not determine law in the United States. Do I need to repeat that? Religion does not determine law in the United States. The beliefs of a church that life begins at conception have no force of law.
The statement, "White supremacy has never been a mandatory belief in any established religion"--I assume you are using "established" to mean "mainstream," not in its technical sense--is false. The reason we have Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists in this country is that they split off in the 19th century to defend slavery.
In addition, religion does not determine medical practice in the United States.
Citizens of the United States are free to regulate their own behavior according to their religious beliefs--although only if they do not thereby pose a danger to others, including their own children. (That one has been litigated repeatedly.) But they are not entitled to claim the protection of the law for those beliefs. And churches have no power to compel people to observe their beliefs, except, I suppose, to bar them from their church. Which hasn't stopped the vast majority of Catholics from using birth control.
And last but hardly least, the Obama Administration is not trying to force anyone to have an abortion or use contraception. They're trying to make it possible for people to exercise those rights if they wish.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
As a Democrat, I am very pleased with last night's results. They portend a bitter struggle. And Santorum is clearly the weakest general election candidate they have--well, he's tied with Newt, who was the biggest loser last night. He's a religious zealot and a corporate whore, a most unpromising combination in a general election. Have you seen/heard the clip Maddow played in which a kid (I think it was a kid--maybe it was a mom) asked him if he could do anything to make medicine cheaper? He replied that drugs had to cost a lot of money to encourage companies to make them, period. Compassionate conservatism, I think they call it.
Just repeating that answer. . .it boggles the mind that we accept health care as a profit-making enterprise in this country. Just amazing.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
It is buried deep in the social conservative utopia-guide, but as you can see on the chart posted it is an extreme position that only has traction among white evangelicals. Are there people who want to go back in time to when birth control was a crime? Absolutely. Do they have a majority position? No, but these extremists are often in powerful positions inside religious institutions.
I'm surprised no one has called them out on it bluntly, but I'm pretty sure the reason most religions are against any form of birth control or family planning is because they get most of their recruits from baptizing the infants of their congregation. Did anyone think Mormons were becoming more common because their ideas were sound?
Of course, everyone can choose. But if basic health insurance doesn't cover the most common choices, what choice is there? If we're going to have exceptions for religious business, what are we going to do about the Christian Scientists who don't believe in medicine at all? (No one has answered that one yet, maybe they're not a big enough minority to matter)If a devout Catholic woman chooses to follow the teaching of her religion and not take contraceptives, that's her "choice". I find it a bit ironic that people who support "pro-choice" would bash women who make a choice regarding their own reproduction. Just like it's no one else's business if a woman decides to have an abortion or use contraception, it's no one else's business to tell a woman she is wrong for not using contraception. It kind of sounds to me like the pro-choice people only support it when the woman "chooses" the way they think she should...Now maybe I misunderstood what some of these posters were saying who were complaining about the Catholic's views on contraception, but that's kind of how it came it off to me.
I don't think anyone wants to force anyone else to take birth control or have abortions. The question is about whether or not employer-provided healthcare should help to cover birth control. The obvious answer to me is yes, because it is one of the most commonly used medical services. What kind of insurance doesn't cover something so ubiquitous?But more importantly, because I don't feel that whether or not a woman uses contraception is one of the most pressing issues of our time, let's get back to the primaries from last night...This really is shaping up to be an interesting race. Considering the Santorum actually won the Iowa caucus after all, I'm not so sure if we can really call Romney the front runner. The Republicans around me, also support Santorum. I wouldn't count him out yet and I from what I'm hearing from the people in my area, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Santorum doesn't win Texas.
Anyway, many Catholic hospitals already provide such health insurance to their employees. This is such a non-issue.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
E and M, I'm the child of two parents from large families (especially my father), and I have . . .let's see. . .24 first cousins on my father's side (some of them now dead, they were Silents) and 15 on my mother's. But I doubt I'm in your league when it comes to distant cousins!
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
I think you right on all counts here. I'm certainly not ready to call victory for Obama. November is a very long way off in politics and a lot of things could happen between now and then, but if the election were held today, I'm just not sure if any of these candidates could beat Obama. Neither Gingrich or Santorum could win the moderate vote and any president needs these people in order to win. I do think most people in America truly are moderate. Romney is really the only candidate that could win over moderates, but I also think anyone (especially in a tight race, which I think this may be) needs an enthusiastic base. And the base is pretty luke warm on Romney. He kind of reminds me of how the Republicans felt about Bob Dole. There really wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm for him either. He also had the charisma problem that Romney has...Although after the election, suddenly his charisma came out. Remember the Viagra commercials he did showing his sense of humor after the election? And people said, "If he would have showed his playful side and his sense of humor during the election, he might have won.
It depends on what you mean by getting out of the business. The church has been getting out of the hospital and school business for years, as the religious orders that staffed this businesses have declined in number. For example, I went to a Catholic high school that was part of the Archdiocesan system. Some years later the Archdiocese closed the school and a couple years later it reopened as a private Catholic school and still is in business today. Many hospitals formerly run by religious orders have been sold to private groups. They maintain their Catholic orientation, but they are non-profits run by professional admnistrators according to ethical business principles, one of which is to comply with the law, just as my company (Pfizer) complies with all FDA, EPA, OSHA etc regulations and goes above and beyond them in many cases.
So its possible that the church may step up the rate of transfer of their remaining enterprises to private hands, but this won't mean that these operations are going to close--unless there are economic/business reasons for them to do so, in which case it would happen regardless of what happens on this issue.
Of course the Church will not transfer their churches, cathedrals, shrines, monesteries, retreat houses etc. to private hands, as these religious facilities are at the core of what they are about, but the law, recognizing this, explicitily excludes religious facilities such as churches.
Not only that but perhaps potential fault lines within the Republican party?
~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."
And you know what? It is downright dangerous and irresponsible that the Catholic Church would take such a public position against birth control. People can die if they believe using a condom will double their sin.
This is not just some harmless belief that doesn't bother anyone. It flies in the face of all economic, environmental, and medical knowledge. It spreads disease and poverty, and now they're trying to use it as an excuse to skimp on health care benefits.[The Church and Pope's] position against artificial birth control, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, was harshly criticised by doctors and AIDS activists, who said that it led to countless deaths and millions of AIDS orphans. Critics have also claimed that large families are caused by lack of contraception and exacerbate Third World poverty and problems such as street children in South America.
By treating their position and complaints as valid, we send a very bad message to the kids: "Don't have sex, but if you do, don't use condoms!" Did someone mention something about oppressive sexual messages coming out around the time when new artists might be approaching puberty?
Last edited by JohnMc82; 02-08-2012 at 10:04 AM.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
But just to the devil's advocate here, do you know that most health insurance excludes fertility treatments? Which is way more costly than the average person can pay for out of pocket. It's a hell of a lot more expensive than birth control. But you don't see anyone screaming about that. (Except for the people who can't have a baby and need this.) I personally think health insurance companies should cover both contraception and fertility treatments. If you start getting into laws and dictating what health insurance companies should or should not cover, I think you should be fair all the way around. People who are outraged about the insurance companies not providing assistance to prevent pregnancy, should also be as outraged about the insurance not providing coverage to assist pregnancy. If people truly care about women's reproductive issues, they should be supportive of women who want to have babies as they are women"s rights to prevent pregnancy. That's all I'm saying.
But I also agree, contraception really is a non-issue in the whole political scheme of things. I doubt many people are going to cast their vote solely whether or not a woman can use contraception. Abortion is hot issue, contraception...not so much.
Last edited by ASB65; 02-08-2012 at 10:11 AM.
Refresh my memory - where is Rick Santorum from?
Pat, checking for home state or home region advantage in these results.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
Now THAT is a good question that I could only come up with half-baked answers too. I'm guessing the real reason is the cost, and probably also that choosing to have a kid is something of a luxury compared to accidentally getting pregnant. There are also many children who need to be adopted, especially since their birth mothers were talked out of an abortion. We talk about a lot of shortages and supply problems, but rarely in reference to the human population.
Well, that is the real heart of the issue here! I am not a big fan of how the healthcare reform works, overall, but at the very least it should be applied in a neutral manner.If you start getting into laws and dictating what health insurance companies should or should not cover, I think you should be fair all the way around.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
Ah, but this is also the church that reminds you to "render unto Caesar." The Catholic hospital business is a global phenomenon, and they've adapted to operate in all kinds of places.
I had a hard time finding details of how they operate, but this blog gives a glimpse in to Catholic hospitals in France. Incredibly secular society, universal healthcare, and the Catholic hospitals keep running. But that is nothing, because in Barcelona, you can get abortions at the Catholic hospital (and other unholy things, like vasectomies)!
I'm wondering how much of that transfer and decline you've seen is just regional. I also went to a Catholic high school, but in the 10 years I've graduated all I can say is that it has grown and a new one opened up just a few miles down the road.
Most of the hospitals in Jax FL are Baptist owned (or Rick Scott owned, lol) but no one goes out of their way to Jax for treatment unless they're headed to the Mayo Clinic. So I dunno tooooo much about the hospitals, but what I've seen suggests they're very adaptive to their local economies and political climates.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
Thanks for info on history of transfers.
I was only talking about the hospitial business, not the core church buildings.
As a person who dealt with infertility issues, I always hated that argument. It's a bit condescending. First of all, there really aren't a lot of healthy babies out there up for adoption. The adoption process is very costly and usually takes years before you actually get a baby. So when people make that statement, they are basically telling people they should consider adopting an older child (which usually come with a whole lot of baggage or an unhealthy baby which will need a lot of medical care.) Yet when a couple announces they are going to start a family, no one says to them, why are going to get pregnant with your own child, why not adopt instead? There are a lot of special needs children out there who need parents?...The answer is because, it is part of human nature for people who choose to be parents to want to have a biological child with their partner...And with today's technology, it is now possible for people who are unable to conceive on their own to be able to have their own biological child with assistance. I know this, because I have a 13 year old son who was conceived through invitro.
The specific relationship is third cousin twice removed - it's not like I've met him or anything. But that relationship is more relevant to me than the fact that we belong to the same church.
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didnīt replace it with nothing but lost faith."
Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY
He represented Pennsylvania in both houses of Congress, but he was born in Virginia and his family basically lives there.
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didnīt replace it with nothing but lost faith."
Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY
