[The Faceless Master]

human rights come first.

then people can believe whatever the fuck they want after.

[Angelus Errare]

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.

How exactly could the government ever change "the belief itself?" Belief is an individual thing, if what the government does changed your belief then you didn't belief in it in the first place.

Example, lets say the Government approves same sex marriage...how exactly does that change the belief that same sex marriage is a sin and homosexuals are an abomination? (something I personally don't believe, I rather find the people who think like this to be the abominations but whatever) If you still think like such then you still think like such. If the government past this and you no longer believe same sex marriage to be a sin, the government wasn't the one who changed your belief, you were. Nothing more, nothing less.

We blame the Government for many things, but changing one's beliefs can never be one of them.

[Jintor]

Where are you getting this idea that the government gives two shits about the belief? They only seem to care about the actual insurance coverage.

[Pollux]

How exactly could the government ever change "the belief itself?" Belief is an individual thing, if what the government does changed your belief then you didn't belief in it in the first place.

They can't...that's the fucking point.

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 Regardless it'll take government intervention for people to realize that their book is outdated in regards to human rights

YOU said, that it would take government intervention for people to realize their book is outdated...

meaning government intervention to CHANGE the way people believe. You're advocating the government get involved and change a person's beliefs directly...not me. So how about you explain how the government could "ever change 'the belief itself'" since that seems to be what you want to happen.

[Dreams-Visions]

They can't...that's the fucking point.

and they're not trying to change anyone's belief. what's your point?

unless helping catholic leaders "believe" that this is a women's health issue qualifies as a "belief shift."

[Pollux]

and they're not trying to change anyone's belief. what's your point?

I never said they were, I'm saying the shouldn't in response to someone else saying they should.

[Angelus Errare]

They can't...that's the fucking point. YOU said, that it would take government intervention for people to realize their book is outdated... meaning government intervention to CHANGE the way people believe. You're advocating the government get involved and change a person's beliefs directly...not me. So how about you explain how the government could "ever change 'the belief itself'" since that seems to be what you want to happen.

Government intervention isn't there to change what people believe, people are going to believe what ever crazy shit they want to believe. Government intervention is there so that these religious institutes don't trample on human rights in the name of religion.

You can believe gay people are an abomination until another asteroid comes down and fucks us all, but if the government says they can get married then they've done their jobs.
Religious institutes can continue to think contraceptives are a bad idea, but if they own a non religious institute and the Government says they have to provide the people who work in these said non religious institutes insurance for contraceptives, then huff and puff and bitch all they want. Those women working there are going to get those contraceptives.

And if along the way you guys lose some followers who realize that what they believed in might have been a little fucked up, then fuck yea keep it rolling. (Especially in the case of gay rights).

It always happens like this in our country,

-The ignorant hide behind the guise of religion in regards to their hate or unfair treatment of others.
-Said group has had enough, others come out in support of said group
-Government intervenes and gives said group their rights (women, minorities, contraceptives, and soon gay rights).
-Some less ignorant realize the error in their ways.
-The rest find something new to bitch about.

Par for the course.

If you changed your belief along the way, chances are VERY high it wasn't something that you really should have believed in anyway. /shrug

Without government intervention, we'd still be stuck in the 1700s all because the book said it was okay.

I mean really, what is the Catholic Government crying about? Boo hoo, it's not fair, we want the tax money, but we don't want to pay taxes. It's not fair you're making our non religious institutes insurance plans cover contraceptives for those who we hired that don't even follow our religion! That's not fair! Give me a break, my sister's insurance covers birth control pills, her company gets money from the government, what does the government want in return? equality for the employees. Sorry Catholic church, America might have been founded on religion, but it's been trying to stand on something much sturdier...equality.

[Dreams-Visions]

Government intervention isn't there to change what people believe, people are going to believe what ever crazy shit they want to believe. Government intervention is there so that these religious institutes don't trample on human rights in the name of religion. You can believe gay people are an abomination until another asteroid comes down and fucks us all, but if the government says they can get married then they've done their jobs. Religious institutes can continue to think contraceptives are a bad idea, but if they own a non religious institute and the Government says they have to provide the people who work in these said non religious institutes insurance for contraceptives, then huff and puff and bitch all they want. Those women working there are going to get those contraceptives. And if along the way you guys lose some followers who realize that what they believed in might have been a little fucked up, then fuck yea keep it rolling. (Especially in the case of gay rights). It always happens like this in our country, -The ignorant hide behind the guise of religion in regards to their hate or unfair treatment of others. -Said group has had enough, others come out in support of said group -Government intervenes and gives said group their rights (women, minorities, contraceptives, and soon gay rights). -Some less ignorant realize the error in their ways. -The rest find something new to bitch about. Par for the course. If you changed your belief along the way, chances are VERY high it wasn't something that you really should have believed in anyway. /shrug Without government intervention, we'd still be stuck in the 1700s all because the book said it was okay. I mean really, what is the Catholic Government crying about? Boo hoo, it's not fair, we want the tax money, but we don't want to pay taxes. It's not fair you're making our non religious institutes insurance plans cover contraceptives for those who we hired that don't even follow our religion! That's not fair! Give me a break, my sister's insurance covers birth control pills, her company gets money from the government, what does the government want in return? equality for the employees. Sorry Catholic church, America might have been founded on religion, but it's been trying to stand on something much sturdier...equality.

quite well said.

[Dead Man]

[mclem]

Their top-rated program for assistance to human trafficking victims was denied funding for refusing to provide "the full range of reproductive services," including abortion.

Anyone else find it worrying that a program which denies people the right to all the services they might need manages to be top-rated? How shitty are the *other* ones?

[McLovin]

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

Yeah economy is in the shit, why aren't they paying taxes? LoL

[JGS]

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

Or they could stop providing insurance altogether.

[Dude Abides]

Attention Whore of Babylon.

Or they could stop providing insurance altogether.

They should try and see how that works out for them.

[zomaha]

As Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, put it, we are witnessing an effort to reduce religion to a private activity. "Never before," he said, "have we faced this kind of challenge to our ability to engage in the public square as people of faith."

Religion should be a private activity and should not influence policy whatsoever. Your Catholic faith does not deserve to be in the public square, just like every other faith system.

And don't worry, it's only going to get worse for you.

[Aristion]

To be honest, the most mind-blowing part of this whole situation, is that Notre Dame joined in the law suit.

Yeah, I'm surprised.

[PoweredBySoy]

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

I'd also argue that religion has no business being in the insurance business.

[Seth C]

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.

Then they shouldn't run themselves as a business. Done.

[JGS]

They should try and see how that works out for them.

It would work better than taxing them.

Religion should be a private activity and should not influence policy whatsoever. Your Catholic faith does not deserve to be in the public square, just like every other faith system.

This works both ways. How can you say that it can't affect policy while expecting policy to affect it? If a policy has an affect on any institutioon they have an absolute right to say whatever they want.

I think the church is wrongheaded regarding this one since they are not even close to directly paying for BC in this case (They're not paying at all anyway), but Obama should have never set up a rule that required them to do something against their beliefs to begin with.

If they are dealing with secular companies to provide the insurance though, they should stop whining. They are more directly responsible for funding BC by giving their employees a paycheck.

[Solstice]

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

Damn straight. It's always boggled my mind that churches don't have to pay taxes.

[LuchaShaq]

So glad I'm not catholic anymore. These guys are embarrassing. I've been to church once in the last decade, for my cousin's wedding last summer. The priest went off on a rant about gay marriage in the middle of the ceremony that left me shaking my head.

Honestly I can't imagine this happening even at nay of my religious friend's weddings without someone literally removing him from the situation.

Can't think of a more disrepectful thing to do in the middle of a ceremony short of taking a dump right there or molesting the bride.

[afternoon delight]

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

[reggieandTFE]

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.

Exactly and their predominantly female workforce deserves to not be discriminated against.

[JGS]

Damn straight. It's always boggled my mind that churches don't have to pay taxes.

It's always boggled my mind why people would want churches to directly affect politics like that. It's "bad" enough with just the followers doing so.

Little to no money would be gained to boot.

[Dude Abides]

It would work better than taxing them.

Not offering insurance would work better than taxing them? What is that supposed to mean?

[Solstice]

It's always boggled my mind why people would want churches to directly affect politics like that. It's "bad" enough with just the followers doing so. Little to no money would be gained to boot.

Depends on the size of the church. Can you imagine how much Olsteen's mega church would have to pay in taxes each year?

[Angry Fork]

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.

As far as I'm concerned if church's don't stay out of politics they should be deported out of the country and their church's seized by the state. They can play with their fairy tales on their own dime with their own people but once it touches society and influences secular laws it shouldn't be tolerated.

[Megasoum]

I don't get why they bother fighting against contraception. It's not like older gentlemen can have unplanned pregnancy with the young altar boy....

[Barkley's Justice]

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

ha

[Zabka]

I don't get why they bother fighting against contraception. It's not like older gentlemen can have unplanned pregnancy with the young altar boy....

If a group of celibate old men in dresses don't know what's best for a woman's uterus then no one does.

[jmdajr]

hahaha. My church can go fuck right off.
99% of your followers don't listen to your antiquated rules.

[SouthernDragon]

I've read this entire thread, and I still don't get what the issue is.

If you take government money, follow government rules. I think this applies to all institutions.

They can still run the organization or whatever, and have it follow their rules, but they can't expect government largesse. Simple. Why is this even going to court?

[Sblargh]

I've read this entire thread, and I still don't get what the issue is. If you take government money, follow government rules. I think this applies to all institutions. They can still run the organization or whatever, and have it follow their rules, but they can't expect government largesse. Simple. Why is this even going to court?

So they can lose and claim oppression.

[bengraven]

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

[Veezy]

I've read this entire thread, and I still don't get what the issue is. If you take government money, follow government rules. I think this applies to all institutions. They can still run the organization or whatever, and have it follow their rules, but they can't expect government largesse. Simple. Why is this even going to court?

It's going to court because the Church wants to continue to pretend this law clarification is an actual affront to them, when in reality it's not. In addition, they know that politically it's in their best interest to make this non-issue an issue so that way oppression brought on by their particular beliefs can continue to be involved with the public space.

Their actions lead me to believe the leaders of this worldwide, billion dollar, non taxed orgaionization are either:

A. Idiots becuase they do not understand how this doesn't infringe upon them.
B. Liars that understand it effects them but are pretending it is doing something else.
C. Hypocrites because they only are offended by certain secular uses of heath care and not others.

[JGS]

Not offering insurance would work better than taxing them? What is that supposed to mean?

It's not rocket science.

The church would be better off not paying for insurance than having to pay taxes and insurance.

[DragonGirl]

There's something very simple religious institutions and some religious individuals need to understand about rights in this country.

I have the right to swing my fist. But my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins.

Your demand to use your religion to bludgeon other people with is not a right. It is a privilege you have assumed for yourself, and that is bullshit.

[DragonGirl]

It's always boggled my mind why people would want churches to directly affect politics like that. It's "bad" enough with just the followers doing so. Little to no money would be gained to boot.

Here's the thing though. The contract was already broken by the churches. The deal was religious institutions would stay out of politics and the government would not tax them. Religious institutions have not kept up their end of the bargain. There are many a church that preaches politics from the pulpit. There are many a religious leader that leans heavily on politicians to enforce religiously based policies.

The contract is broken, time to pay taxes.

[FyreWulff]

Your tithe money at work.

Actually, your tax money at work too, since Catholic Charities mops up government funding (ie your tax dollars) like they need it to breathe.

So essentially, they're suing to not have to provide healthcare for women they employ using your money, which is currently not going to cost them anything extra to do so, and they're not administering the care themselves anyway.

This would be like allowing the central body of the Jehovah's Witnesses having the ability to deny coverage for blood tranfusions for employees of any businesses they own.

[JGS]

Here's the thing though. The contract was already broken by the churches. The deal was religious institutions would stay out of politics and the government would not tax them. Religious institutions have not kept up their end of the bargain. There are many a church that preaches politics from the pulpit. There are many a religious leader that leans heavily on politicians to enforce religiously based policies. The contract is broken, time to pay taxes.

This doesn't break the contract if that's what you mean. The deal was they would stay out of each others business. Now, because the religious have an issue with being forced to do something against their religion, they are somehow breaking the contract?

[FyreWulff]

This doesn't break the contract if that's what you mean. The deal was they would stay out of each others business. Now, because the religious have an issue with being forced to do something against their religion, they are somehow breaking the contract?

Where is the Catholic Church being forced to do something against their religion?

[Monocle]

You'd think an ancient, influential institution that claims to be the arbiter of matters moral and spiritual would find something more constructive to do than gnaw at the pillars of modern society. But perhaps that's unfair of me. After all, what is Jesus known and celebrated for if not his relentless persecution of the needy?

[JokerOfSpades]

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

No doubt.

[JGS]

Where is the Catholic Church being forced to do something against their religion?

As already mentioned the church doesn't have to pay for birth control, but their organizations do which is obviously the same thing as far as they're concerned. A church is made up of people & institutions that want to worship as the church dictates, so the church not wanting to cover BC is not much different from Catholic organization not wanting to cover BC.

Overkill? Likely.

Something they don't have the right to get bent out of shape over? Hardly.

The policy is directly related to religious belief so it's stupid to think this is solely a political issue or that the president could act on it without ruffling feathers. There's not even a clarification on what BC means lol. This is more an issue with how out of touch people are outside of their own demographic.

You'd think an ancient, influential institution that claims to be the arbiter of matters moral and spiritual would find something more constructive to do than gnaw at the pillars of modern society. But perhaps that's unfair of me. After all, what is Jesus known and celebrated for if not his relentless persecution of the needy?

Although I think it's a good idea now that employers aren't directly paying for it, this doesn't gnaw at anything. This would simply set matters back to good old year 2011 and affect only those affiliated with religious based organization and are too broke to buy their own pills- something millions upon millions of women have been doing for decades.

[Chumly]

Can wait for the catholic church to support repression of their members if they work for someone who has a different religion... Jehoval witnesses anyone?? Maybe some Islamic teachings?? Gasp!

[Suairyu]

Something they don't have the right to get bent out of shape over? Hardly.

The contraceptive effects of so-called birth control drugs are a secondary effect. Denying someone them on the grounds they could be used as a contraceptive is akin to denying someone in pain morphine because they might get high.

Ignoring all that, it is absolutely not for a healthcare provider to play moral arbiter. It is for them to provide for those in need. They don't get to judge it. You either help those in need of healthcare or you don't get involved in the industry at all.

[patapuf]

As already mentioned the church doesn't have to pay for birth control, but their organizations do which is obviously the same thing as far as they're concerned. A church is made up of people & institutions that want to worship as the church dictates, so the church not wanting to cover BC is not much different from Catholic organization not wanting to cover BC. Overkill? Likely. Something they don't have the right to get bent out of shape over? Hardly. The policy is directly related to religious belief so it's stupid to think this is solely a political issue or that the president could act on it without ruffling feathers. There's not even a clarification on what BC means lol. This is more an issue with how out of touch people are outside of their own demographic. Although I think it's a good idea now that employers aren't directly paying for it, this doesn't gnaw at anything. This would simply set matters back to good old year 2011 and affect only those affiliated with religious based organization and are too broke to buy their own pills- something millions upon millions of women have been doing for decades.

they run a for profit health insurance, they have to follow the rules for for profit health insurancies. If you don't like the rules don't play the game. Faith plays no part in it.

[Zoe]

The contraceptive effects of so-called birth control drugs are a secondary effect. Denying someone them on the grounds they could be used as a contraceptive is akin to denying someone in pain morphine because they might get high.

I would really like to see stats on how many people started taking contraceptives for non-birth control reasons.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Beyond-BirthControl.pdf
Only 14% of pill users use it exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes.

[Solstice]

I would really like to see stats on how many people started taking contraceptives for non-birth control reasons. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Beyond-BirthControl.pdf Only 14% of pill users use it exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes.

14% is still a decent amount of people when you consider how many women take the pill.

[Zoe]

14% is still a decent amount of people when you consider how many women take the pill.

14% of 18% of all women aged 15-44.

[Evlar]

14% of 18% of all women aged 15-44.

So more than 1.5 million American women.