[dimb]

Then don't ask for government funding. Asking for funding from government, who has interest in the welfare of all its citizens (including those who the churches wish to exclude), is fucking selfish.

They are asking for funding to help people within their line of beliefs. They are not a community service, but a group with a set of ideals trying to do what they can to help people. To ask them to act outside of those bounds is at odds with the idea of religious freedom.

Government funding to these organizations should neither expect or account for services that stand at odds with religious beliefs. If that care is so important then the funding for such services can easily be allocated elsewhere. You are vilifying groups who have every intention of helping people as being "selfish".

[markot]

I'm taking the long view. This makes him popular in the Vatican. That affects the political balance among the College of Cardinals. Dolan is already a borderline papabile, and Benedict likes him and keeps giving him important things to do. Things that make him more popular among the College of Cardinals could effect the next Papal election and lead to a (highly unlikely but still within the realm of possibility for the first time) American Pope. But that won't happen for a number of reasons that nobody on GAF besides me would find interesting since I think I'm the only one who follows Church politics (it has no effect on my life and unlike what's happening in DC at the moment it doesn't infuriate me. paying attention to the Vatican is like a spectator sport, they even have potential assassination plots to talk about).

Kinda sad though, Vatican 2 seemed like the Church was delameifying, but now they are relameifying.

[Veezy]

They are asking for funding to help people within their line of beliefs. They are not a community service, but a group with a set of ideals trying to do what they can to help people. To ask them to act outside of those bounds is at odds with the idea of religious freedom. Government funding to these organizations should neither expect or account for services that stand at odds with religious beliefs. If that care is so important then the funding for such services can easily be allocated elsewhere. You are vilifying groups who have every intention of helping people as being "selfish".

I'm sure what battle you're trying to fight here.

That Catholic church, a multi-billion dollar non taxed organization, cannot receive federal funding for their non profit program because they are not following the rules to receive said funding. It has nothing to do with their "beliefs." If they don't do "X" they cannot receive tax payer money.

[peterb0y]

Kinda sad though, Vatican 2 seemed like the Church was delameifying, but now they are relameifying.

People really misunderstand Vatican II.

[Zhengi]

So religious freedom = the right to deny vital stuff to people who don't share you views?

Vital?

[markot]

The scary thing is that contraception in 2012 is still an issue... at all... in any way.

Those damn vagina havers complicating things like usual.

[antonz]

People really misunderstand Vatican II.

You expect people on gaf to have a clue?

[Veezy]

Vital?

For some women, birth control pills are a vital thing. Ever met a female with periods so painful they cannot function? For some of them, being on the pills makes them manageable. Regardless of the reason, affordable birth control is incredible important to females and lowers everybody health care costs.

[XMonkey]

Seriously? So they lost the battle in the public realm/opinion, waited months, now decide to do this? Ok

Exactly. They're stubborn morons.

[zerokoolpsx]

They should start paying taxes and then mabye they can have a say

Shots fired!

[markot]

Vatican 2 is shorthand for the general shift, maybe it was the 60's but the catholic church, at least in the lower ranks, seemed to be more open minded and what not.

[CornBurrito]

No religious institution is beholden to serving the state. Why do those institutions have to provide care that puts them at odds with their beliefs? If people are seeking alternative services those are readily available from parties willing to provide such things.

If they aren't serving state interests why should they get taxpayer funding?

[Pollux]

Kinda sad though, Vatican 2 seemed like the Church was delameifying, but now they are relameifying.

It's actually really interesting since Vatican II was, tbh, a great step for the Church. While I disagree with the no Latin Mass everything else was fine (I don't mean I'm against Mass in the vernacular, but the absolute abolishment of the Tridentine Mass gave many Catholics a sort of "well if they can get rid of THAT then I don't have to pay attention or follow any teaching" type of feeling. What they should have done is phased it out, or just placed more emphasis in Mass in the vernacular). The problem, was that there was so much done "in the spirit of Vatican II" that 1-2 generations of Catholics were raised w/o knowing what the Church taught or why. A lot of traditionalists blame VII itself, but that's not the problem, the problem was people being given an inch and taking a mile.

Now that Benedict is reeling in some of these people he's being painted as an oppressor. But to be honest, the Church never changed that much, they just completely lost control and are now slowly starting to gain that control back.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds over the next few years, w/ the current Church, the trend is pretty clear - especially if the reconciliation with SSPX goes forward as planned (although both sides are getting cold feet atm). But the REAL interesting time is going to come w/ the next Pope, especially if they elect a younger Cardinal like they did when they elected JPII. Will he be a reformer or a traditionalist? It'll determine the future of Church for a generation. As of today, the traditionalists are slowly winning, the younger generation of priests is FAR more traditional than the priests who came of age and were ordained during and right after VII.

Also, a common misconception is that JPII was a liberal. JPII was actually one of the more traditional and conservative Popes we've had in a long while. Not to the same level as Benedict (affectionately called "God's Rottweiler" prior to his ascension to the Papacy) but still conservative.

Very interesting times ahead.

People really misunderstand Vatican II.

They understand the "spirit of Vatican II", and that's all they need to look at, apparently. Vatican II on it's own is fine, the way that it has been used, is not.

You expect people on gaf to have a clue?

Yea. I would hope that someone bashing the Church for their stance on contraception would be willing to read "Humanae Vitae". But maybe I'm expecting too much of people.

[les papillons sexuels]

No religious institution is beholden to serving the state. Why do those institutions have to provide care that puts them at odds with their beliefs? If people are seeking alternative services those are readily available from parties willing to provide such things.

because these institutions are hiring citizens who's views may differ, and who pay taxes. It's the governments responsibility to lookout for taxpayer and citizen intrests regardless of if the employer.

the church likes to play the slippery slope argument so whats next? If I recall correctly the bible allows for the ownership of slaves, maybe their next lawsuit will be one demanding the church access to slave labor?

[MattKeil]

They are asking for funding to help people within their line of beliefs. They are not a community service, but a group with a set of ideals trying to do what they can to help people. To ask them to act outside of those bounds is at odds with the idea of religious freedom.

You want taxpayer money, you obey taxpayer laws. The laws aren't going to change for one organization and the organization apparently isn't going to stop harping on the imaginary problem they've invented to appease a fraction of its members who don't realize it's not 1947, so that's the ball game.

Government funding to these organizations should neither expect or account for services that stand at odds with religious beliefs. If that care is so important then the funding for such services can easily be allocated elsewhere. You are vilifying groups who have every intention of helping people as being "selfish".

I guess we're now finding out if helping people is more important to them than sticking by their archaic principles that nobody actually pays attention to anymore anyway.

[Angelus Errare]

because these institutions are hiring citizens who's views may differ, and who pay taxes. It's the governments responsibility to lookout for taxpayer and citizen intrests regardless of if the employer. the church likes to play the slippery slope argument so whats next? If I recall correctly the bible allows for the ownership of slaves, maybe their next lawsuit will be one demanding the church access to slave labor?

Hey hey hey, let's not give them ideas! I like my freedom thank you!

[antonz]

It's actually really interesting since Vatican II was, tbh, a great step for the Church. While I disagree with the no Latin Mass everything else was fine (I don't mean I'm against Mass in the vernacular, but the absolute abolishment of the Tridentine Mass gave many Catholics a sort of "well if they can get rid of THAT then I don't have to pay attention or follow any teaching" type of feeling. What they should have done is phased it out, or just placed more emphasis in Mass in the vernacular). The problem, was that there was so much done "in the spirit of Vatican II" that 1-2 generations of Catholics were raised w/o knowing what the Church taught or why. A lot of traditionalists blame VII itself, but that's not the problem, the problem was people being given an inch and taking a mile. Now that Benedict is reeling in some of these people he's being painted as an oppressor. But to be honest, the Church never changed that much, they just completely lost control and are now slowly starting to gain that control back. It's going to be very interesting to see how this unfolds over the next few years, w/ the current Church, the trend is pretty clear - especially if the reconciliation with SSPX goes forward as planned (although both sides are getting cold feet atm). But the REAL interesting time is going to come w/ the next Pope, especially if they elect a younger Cardinal like they did when they elected JPII. Will he be a reformer or a traditionalist? It'll determine the future of Church for a generation. As of today, the traditionalists are slowly winning, the younger generation of priests is FAR more traditional than the priests who came of age and were ordained during and right after VII. Also, a common misconception is that JPII was a liberal. JPII was actually one of the more traditional and conservative Popes we've had in a long while. Not to the same level as Benedict (affectionately called "God's Rottweiler" prior to his ascension to the Papacy) but still conservative. Very interesting times ahead.

Good post.. I think people who think they know everything will be quite shocked in the years to come. As you mentioned the younger generation of Priests are far more conservative. The Seminaries of the 60s and 70s were a very rampant wild west style atmosphere where improper teaching of doing whatever was rampant.

As for the people who act like the Church doesnt do anything good in this topic. Over 1/3 of Medical facilities in this country are Catholic Institutions. To sit and act like they arent providing a real service is a joke.

[NullPointer]

As for the people who act like the Church doesnt do anything good in this topic. Over 1/3 of Medical facilities in this country are Catholic Institutions. To sit and act like they arent providing a real service is a joke.

Is anybody here saying that these facilities don't provide a service?

[Apeopleman]

They should start paying taxes and then mabye they can have a say

No taxation without representation

[antonz]

Is anybody here saying that these facilities don't provide a service?

Comments about serving the states interest etc seem to suggest.

[daycru]

Comments about serving the states interest etc seem to suggest.

These clinics are free then, yes?

[NullPointer]

Comments about serving the states interest etc seem to suggest.

That's not whats being suggested.

[antonz]

These clinics are free then, yes?

Not even the 5% of hospitals run by the US Government are free. If being free is some qualifier to if a service is useful then I guess everyone is in trouble.

This topic in general annoys me because it was nothing more than a political ploy because theres very little Obama could run on that would get people excited.

[Pollux]

Good post.. I think people who think they know everything will be quite shocked in the years to come. As you mentioned the younger generation of Priests are far more conservative. The Seminaries of the 60s and 70s were a very rampant wild west style atmosphere where improper teaching of doing whatever was rampant.

Agreed. It's going to get much worse before it starts to get better, since people who've grown up post-VII are NOT going to enjoy being told that many of their beliefs are wrong or based on misconceptions --> e.g. baking their own crumbly bread to be used in Communion; "mother father God"; ad libing parts of the Mass, etc.

It's actually pretty interesting that the fastest growing priestly orders are the more traditional ones like FSSP. Whenever I go to Tridentine Mass half the people there are my age (early 20's). So I can definitely see a rise in "traditional" Catholicism in this rising generation.

As for the people who act like the Church doesnt do anything good in this topic. Over 1/3 of Medical facilities in this country are Catholic Institutions. To sit and act like they arent providing a real service is a joke.

Agreed.

[daycru]

Not even the 5% of hospitals run by the US Government are free.

Then the Catholic Church provides service in the same vein as Wal-Mart. Why don't more people talk about all the good they do?

[Loofy]

It's not about providing birth control pills. It's about the church being required at it's schools, hospitals, etc. that hires a diverse group of individuals, a huge chunk of who are not Catholic, not being allowed to create an insurance program for their female employees that doesn't cover birth control. The employee would be the one getting the prescription, written by a doctor, and the pharmacist would be issuing the pills and the insurance company would be paying for it. All the church pays is their part of the principle, as they do for any other employee who has insurance. The entire issue is the church inventing a problem that actually doesn't exist.

Why should they. Birth control pills arent even part of the free healthcare here in canada.

Lets be real here, if obama never ever ever mentioned BC no one else would have brought it up. And why would they, wasnt the rallying cry 'no one should every be denied health insurance to save their life.' Now all of sudden its 'oh and they should get these freebies too.'
But you guys are fine with his reasoning that he doesnt want you to have babies, cause he's assuming your a deadbeat that'll end up on welfare.

[Veezy]

Not even the 5% of hospitals run by the US Government are free. If being free is some qualifier to if a service is useful then I guess everyone is in trouble. This topic in general annoys me because it was nothing more than a political ploy because theres very little Obama could run on that would get people excited.

The Church is suing the Obama administration because their for profit locations are required to follow the same laws that any other for profit location has to. How is this a political ploy by Obama?

[Duki]

They should start paying taxes and then mabye they can have a say

if you are american this is literally the most ironic thing anyone has ever said lmao

[Veezy]

Why should they. Birth control pills arent even part of the free healthcare here in canada. Lets be real here, if obama never ever ever mentioned BC no one else would have brought it up. And why would they, wasnt the rallying cry 'no one should every be denied health insurance to save their life.' Now all of sudden its 'oh and they should get these freebies too.' But you guys are fine with his reasoning that he doesnt want you to have babies, cause he's assuming your a deadbeat that'll end up on welfare.

I'm asking some honest, legit, questions to try and better understand why you feel the way you do.

Are you aware of the health benefits, besides pregnancy prevention, that women receive while using birth control pills? Are you aware of the reduction of costs to health care, as a whole, when women have free access to birth control pills? Do you really think that that Obama and his administration and people that support affordable birth control pills feel the way we do because we're scared women around the US are having massive amounts of unprotected sex and we're worried about an onslaught of newborns?

Besides those questions, you're missing the point. The reason they have to, is the Church has for profit locations that have non Catholic employees that are taxpayers. Wal Mart, Target, 7-11, ADT, and a for profit Catholic run hospital all have to play by the same rules. How is that an affront to the Catholic church? Their for profit locations just have to play by the same rules as all the others.

The Church is not being targeted. They just have to follow a law that was passed. What's the problem?

[jaxword]

Alright GAF, keep making fun of the Catholic Church. Religious institutions shouldn't be strong armed into acting against their beliefs, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Do you have a rebuttal to the fact they get to avoid taxes?

[Pollux]

Do you have a rebuttal to the fact they get to avoid taxes?

Deus Vult

[Loofy]

Are you aware of the health benefits, besides pregnancy prevention, that women receive while using birth control pills?

You can see why this isnt a very argument to why it should be provided for free. Cause ALOT of things can fall in to the category of 'its good for you.'

Are you aware of the reduction of costs to health care, as a whole, when women have free access to birth control pills? Do you really think that that Obama and his administration and people that support affordable birth control pills feel the way we do because we're scared women around the US are having massive amounts of unprotected sex and we're worried about an onslaught of newborns?

Your second point is the opposite of you first point. Yes he is scared of the onslaught of newborns cause thats exactly what he was talking about when he mentioned healthcare burdens.

Besides those questions, you're missing the point. The reason they have to, is the Church has for profit locations that have non Catholic employees that are taxpayers. Wal Mart, Target, 7-11, ADT, and a for profit Catholic run hospital all have to play by the same rules. How is that an affront to the Catholic church? Their for profit locations just have to play by the same rules as all the others.

They are playing by the rules.
Last time I checked its within their right to sue the government.

The Church is not being targeted. They just have to follow a law that was passed. What's the problem?

Cause everyone agrees with every law the government passes right?
*cough arizona

[Angelus Errare]

Do you have a rebuttal to the fact they get to avoid taxes?

Jesus didn't pay taxes, why should a church?

[Messofanego]

They should start paying taxes and then mabye they can have a say

[Veezy]

You can see why this isnt a very argument to why it should be provided for free. Cause ALOT of things can fall in to the category of 'its good for you.' Your second point is the opposite of you first point. Yes he is scared of the onslaught of newborns cause thats exactly what he was talking about when he mentioned healthcare burdens. They are playing by the rules. Last time I checked its within their right to sue the government. Cause everyone agrees with every law the government passes right? *cough arizona

Here's what I'm not understanding.

They, the church, doesn't have to provide anything they disagree with. All they have to do is make sure their insurance policy cover birth control. They aren't paying for anything special. It's all wrapped in the principle they and the employee split, regardless of the female getting the pills. They're just not allowed to make a special policy for female employees due to the fact that their employees are all tax paying citizens an the location provides paid for service and they hire non-Catholics.

In other words, I, a man, work for a Catholic hospital. I go to a club. I meet a girl. We have pre marital, unprotected, sex. It's only okay, but whatever. I contract a VD that requires a penicillin shot to cure. This is covered under my insurance plan. Under the Church's logic, they should be allowed to have a plan that wouldn't cover anything that could have occurred due to what they consider sinning and that would be the only option for me. Otherwise, their religious freedoms are being infringed upon. And that would be crazy. Just like the pill issue is.

Obviously, you disagree with that (not in the extreme, I'm sure). That's fine. I'm just not entirely sure why they're so up in arms about this issue when I'm confident their insurance plans are being used for plenty of things caused by non biblical actions.

[MultiCore]

Jesus didn't pay taxes, why should a church?

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
- Matthew 22:21

[jaxword]

Jesus didn't pay taxes, why should a church?

Can't argue with that, we all know how Jesus' followers always do exactly what he would do.

[Replicant]

They are asking for funding to help people within their line of beliefs. They are not a community service, but a group with a set of ideals trying to do what they can to help people. To ask them to act outside of those bounds is at odds with the idea of religious freedom. Government funding to these organizations should neither expect or account for services that stand at odds with religious beliefs. If that care is so important then the funding for such services can easily be allocated elsewhere. You are vilifying groups who have every intention of helping people as being "selfish".

How thick do you have to be? Catholic Church is not special. In order to receive funding from taxpayers, they have to do the same thing that others who get funding from government do. You can't ask for funding but specify which people you want to help. It doesn't work that way. Especially when the funder wants equal treatment of all that gets the benefit of their fund.

[Angelus Errare]

I was being sarcastic, I have no clue if Jesus and spaghetti monster pay tax. Regardless it'll take government intervention for people to realize that their book is outdated in regards to human rights

[Pollux]

I was being sarcastic, I have no clue if Jesus and spaghetti monster pay tax. Regardless it'll take government intervention for people to realize that their book is outdated in regards to human rights

The government has no business telling people what to believe or attempting to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong.

[Aaron]

I was being sarcastic, I have no clue if Jesus and spaghetti monster pay tax. Regardless it'll take government intervention for people to realize that their book is outdated in regards to human rights

That quote is Jesus literally telling people to pay their taxes.

[Yagharek]

Alright GAF, keep making fun of the Catholic Church. Religious institutions shouldn't be strong armed into acting against their beliefs, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

And religious groups still like to strong arm everyone else into going along with their beliefs. It's a two way street, and the church doesnt get it.

[BladeoftheImmortal]

The government has no business telling people what to believe or attempting to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong.

you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but you still have to allow for every human to have equal rights.

[Atrus]

The government has no business telling people what to believe or attempting to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong.

You are completely and absolutely wrong. The government is the highest governing authority of the people and as such is absolutely within it's right to govern by determining what is and is not acceptable.

There are religious practices that are outright banned and the government issues public awareness campaigns or outlaws practices believed to be contrary to the public health.

[Pollux]

You are completely and absolutely wrong. The government is the highest governing authority of the people and as such is absolutely within it's right to govern by determining what is and is not acceptable. There are religious practices that are outright banned and the government issues public awareness campaigns or outlaws practices believed to be contrary to the public health.

Banning a practice is not even close to being the same as changing a belief.

[Angelus Errare]

Belief is an individual thing, the only person or entity/organization that can change a belief is the believer him/herself.

The government has no business telling people what to believe or attempting to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong.

But the government has done it before

The bible approves of beating of the wife and slavery. I'm sure you know happened with slavery and women's rights in America. And lets face it, had it not been for the Civil War, Civil Rights and Women's Right. We wouldn't be nearly as far with the two aforementioned as we are right now, and many of those extremist religious folks probably would be beating their wives and saying it's ok because the Bible said it's ok. I mean shit, part of the reason slavery was even used in America was because the bible said it was okay to do such. Then we woke the fuck up as a country and was like...dude this is wrong as shit, but the cesspool portion of our country was like "We needz them don't take away our god given rights!" so the North had to whoop that ass, because their god given right was fucking inhumane.

Human Rights > Religion EVERYTIME and I will always stand by this. People who think otherwise are crazies.

I'm all for belief but not at the expense of human rights. If I'm a girl and I work for Hooter Jo's Publishing Company and your church just happens to own it. Your church can't deny me my rights to contraceptives.

1. I'm not a member of your church
2. The place I work is a NON RELIGIOUS institute which means your beliefs have no place in determining who gets what services. You have to be equal to all who come, just like every single last non profit organization in America who receives government funding. Churches don't get special exceptions just because they're a church.
3. My insurance company pays for my medicine not the church.
4. I pay taxes.
5. It's my right

The government isn't trying to make the Catholic church do something against their religion, the Catholic Church is just having a knee jerk reaction to an issue that doesn't even exist. Basic attention whoring and incessant bitching 101. If the Catholic church doesn't like it, then sell off their non religious organizations to companies who do pay taxes and play by the rules.


Simple really.

[jdogmoney]

Banning a practice is not even close to being the same as changing a belief.

Let's say I believe that raping virgins is the only way to get into heaven.

The government isn't trying to change my belief by throwing rapists in jail. The government is keeping other people from getting raped.

No one is forcing anyone to change their ridiculous belief in nonsense. The only problem here is this: that belief directly affects other people who may not share in that belief.

[Dead Man]

They should start paying taxes and then mabye they can have a say

Yep.

[Atrus]

Banning a practice is not even close to being the same as changing a belief.

Banning a practice is tantamount to changing a belief. It doesn't matter what a person believes or how intently they believe in it, if it's in the way of the governance of the people as a whole, then it need not be coddled.

Either it adapts or it gets phased out. It's their choice really and it's not like belief systems aren't prone to adapting when pressure is applied, as was the case in the Edgardo Mortara scandal.

Whether it's health care rights for employees or the establishment of organizations to help or assist same sex or transgendered persons in the school system, these rights to safety and security trump any right to belief a religious person might have.

[Pollux]

Let's say I believe that raping virgins is the only way to get into heaven. The government isn't trying to change my belief by throwing rapists in jail. The government is keeping other people from getting raped. No one is forcing anyone to change their ridiculous belief in nonsense. The only problem here is this: that belief directly affects other people who may not share in that belief.

I'm not objecting to the idea that the government can regulate implementation of a belief, I.e. regulating the practice --> especially when it affects non-believers. What I was objecting to was the government intervening to attempt to change the belief itself.

Banning a practice is tantamount to changing a belief. It doesn't matter what a person believes or how intently they believe in it, if it's in the way of the governance of the people as a whole, then it need not be coddled. Either it adapts or it gets phased out. It's their choice really and it's not like belief systems aren't prone to adapting when pressure is applied, as was the case in the Edgardo Mortara scandal. Whether it's health care rights for employees or the establishment of organizations to help or assist same sex or transgendered persons in the school system, these rights to safety and security trump any right to belief a religious person might have.

Banning a practice is not the same as changing a belief. Someone can still believe that sacrificing virgins is the best way to bring about a good harvest, but they can't practice that belief w/o bring arrested and put in jail. So the practice is banned, not the belief itself. The banning of that practice does nothing to convince believers they're wrong an lead them to changing their belief.