We Are All Catholics Now

I don't agree with President Obamas decision but not for the reasons you give.

I could care less if the Catholic Church has to pay for things they don't believe in. I don't believe in the RCC and tax money is given to them to continue on with their brand of religion. I don't believe in the priests not being turned over to the authorities to be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor. I don't believe in their ways of praying to Mary to intervene for them or to the saints. I don't accept the power of the pope, nor do I recognize him as an authority figure over any of my beliefs in God, Jesus Christ or The Holy Spirit.

I find it wrong because one can't impose ones beliefs upon a religion even if one doesn't agree with it. I have no feelings of guilt or remorse towards removing the power of the RCC to interfere with the free choices of people, nor do I think their views are valid as far as birth control.

Now I would ask you this ??

What right did former President GW Bush have to impose his belief that God called him to go to war with Iraq to prevent the coming of the anti-christ ?? But you question the right of President Obama to force the payment for health care choices.

One is killing people, the other is saying lets stop the reasons for abortion.

Yet in the twisted minds of "conservatives" the one who said lets go to war and kill people is right ??

This is a rubbish, hysterical article about nothing. It's about employers and employees. If the Catholic Church wants to hire and maintain employees, they have to follow the laws of the land. Otherwise, they can get volunteers. This is just a non-issue that the hysterical zealots are using to try to paint Obama as a religion hater when that's clearly not the case. It's a matter of the rights of the employee coming before the employer. If a Catholic doesn't want to use birth control, no one is stopping them from not using it.

If the Catholic Church wants to hire and maintain employees, they have to follow the laws of the land.

Um, point of clarification Grish. Churches' employees don't are not protected by US employment laws.

There was in fact a recent ruling, Hosana v Tabor, where the SCOTUS determined that a teacher who was fired by her Church, could not be reinstated because the government can't impose its laws, including employment, on the Church by the very definition of the separation of Church and State.

If you wanna read about it, go here....

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2012/01/supreme_court_backs_church_in.html

Huh, good point. Thanks Andrew.

Huh, good point. Thanks Andrew.

My pleasure eh? LOL

.

Andrew, (and Grisham note), the ruling did not affect all employees of a church, merely those that act in a ministerial capacity. Churches are still fully bound by the employment laws of the land, and this case is just one that refines those laws.

"It should apply to any 'employee' who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith," Justice Alito said. "While a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the 'ministerial' exception, the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones."

For any church to think that they are immune from prosecution for violation of any labor law for those employees not acting as ministers is to court disaster. The church has certain exemptions for the cause of conscience, but it is not above the law.

Andrew, when you say, "Churches' employees don't are not protected by US employment laws.", you assume too much. The above ruling is an interpretation of employment law. To use the ruling as a putative basis for instituting some sort of religious law above legal statute is unsustainable.

If you notice skydog, I never said the Church was above all laws. If a priest kills someone, they will still go to jail. I said that the SCOTUS had ruled on the matter of employment laws vs the Church.

If you had bothered to read the source I posted, the teacher tried to sue the Church for discrimination under the American Disabilities Act of 1990 because she had taken a long leave of absence due to narcolepsy.

The SCOTUS equated her position to that of a Minister and after some deliberation they dismissed the suit by saying that basically, the government could not tell the Church who to hire or fire for that matter based on the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

According to the article:

Roberts said that by imposing an unwanted minister on a church, the state would infringe the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion, "which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

Trust me, I am a serious opponent of the Church. I was by no means defending it. I think it's the source of most if not all of the world's evil but I am interested in truth and when Grisham made a boo boo, I was just correcting his information.

Do I think it's fair? No. But I do like to make sure the proper information is out there.

Ha ha ha. A law debate. How sweet. *Grisham munching on popcorn*

Andrew, re-read the article on the decision. It makes the differentiation clear between an employee and a minister.

I interpret that to mean that a minister is part of the church (as, apparently, so does the SC), whereas an employee is just that.

Ha ha ha. A law debate. How sweet. *Grisham munching on popcorn*

Enjoy!! Use lots of butter!!

I interpret that to mean that a minister is part of the church (as, apparently, so does the SC), whereas an employee is just that.

Ah, but now we're going in a wee bit of a different direction. Interpretation.

Read how the decision was interpreted by Reverend Barry W. Lynn, the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington.

the decision allows a religious body to declare employees to be 'ministers' and then fire them or treat them shabbily for any reason, religious or otherwise. ... It's astonishing.

I agree with him. It is my interpretation (my turn now), that these frakking Churches could turn even a janitor into a "minister", let's say, put him to teach a class a few days, then fire him and say, "oh gee, well we can do that now thanks to Hosana v Tabor and voila."

Will they actually do that? I can't say. But the ruling has certainly opened that option.

Agreed. There will probably be further cases to deal with exactly what constitutes a ministerial duty. For instance, is it a janitor's responsibility to remove the mote in another's eye?

Agreed. There will probably be further cases to deal with exactly what constitutes a ministerial duty. For instance, is it a janitor's responsibility to remove the mote in another's eye?

Very true. Glad we agree. FR Sent. Good mini-debate :)

thanks. same here.

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/static/114.html

@#1.15

Look up there!! What is it? It's a bird!! It's a plane. No!! It's ignorance!!

Andrew and Sky dog, So to understand your mini-legal discussion the church can be mandated to provide contraceptives by the government but then anyone that takes advantage of this can be dismissed? In a nut shell?

So to understand your mini-legal discussion the church can be mandated to provide contraceptives by the government but then anyone that takes advantage of this can be dismissed?

Um no.

Obama's mandate is directed to religious institutions like hospitals or universities who rely on public funds meaning our taxes for their operation.

Since we the people pay for them, we the people in the form of the president can demand they provide healthcare for their employees including BC.

Churches on the other hand are exempt because of the separation of Church and State. That's a whole different ball of wax.

Let me fix it then: The government can mandate that religious institutions like hospitals or universities cover birth control. Then anyone that takes advantage of this can be fired. Right? Simplifying it in the words of the discussion, "making them ministers for the day".

And to the difference between the church and institutions that accept funding; any organization that accepts public money can be dictated to? The same way Reagan dictated to the states the increase of the drinking age to 21 by witholding federal highway funds? Do as we say or you are cut off?

Let me fix it then: The government can mandate that religious institutions like hospitals or universities cover birth control. Then anyone that takes advantage of this can be fired. Right? Simplifying it in the words of the discussion, "making them ministers for the day".

Um no, these institutions while run by the Church are not Churches. They still have to abide by all US employment laws just like any other businesses.

And to be clear, just because the government is mandating BC being part of the health insurance package doesn't mean that the person HAS to use it. It just means they have the option to use it if they wish. Obviously if they are devout Catholics, they won't use it. That's a valid choice too.

The government can mandate that religious institutions like hospitals or universities cover birth control. Then anyone that takes advantage of this can be fired. Right? Simplifying it in the words of the discussion, "making them ministers for the day".

Do you mean "takes advantage of this" as in uses contraception through their insurance plan?

I'd be personally surprised if an employer can get that detailed of information about their employees use of the insurance - given HIPAA.

I'd also be surprised if an actual Court acknowledged any redefining of positions so a Doctor or Janitor of a hospital would be defined as a "minister."

Or to put it another way, any organization that accepts public money can be dictated to?

Yep.

For example - every University that has anything to do with federal aid has to report numbers to IPEDS.

This includes staffing numbers, staff demographics, full finances, enrollment, completions, faculty salaries, etc.

I wouldn't think the employer would be privvy to detailed info from their insurance companies as well but you never know. I think my general question to people is if they think that if you recieve government funds then you can be dictated to by the government? Not only with the strings that are attached but any future strings or conditions? Because they recieve tax dollars then they are treated like private industry concerning employment mandates?

I think my general question to people is if they think that if you recieve government funds then you can be dictated to by the government?

Yes they can, but you gotta go a step further. WE pay the government with our taxes, meaning all us Americans, not just Catholics, so the funds these institutions are getting come from US.

Therefore WE have a say in how they can run their businesses. Obama speaks for many of us who wanna make sure that women's choice remains an option and in that effort BC is key.

Women would much rather have easy access to BC than have to have an abortion.

It is in true anti-abortion people's interests, not the fake so called pro-lifers, to allow women easy access to BC if they really wanna reduce the number of abortions country-wide.

I speak for me and my wife on this. We are both against abortion but we are not against the choice to have one. So we much rather have a woman don't get pregnant in the first place by taking PC than having to kill a fetus later on.

Not only with the strings that are attached but any future strings or conditions?

If you want to keep doing that kind of business - of course.

You can't be locked into a legal bubble based on when the business started.

Because they recieve tax dollars then they are treated like private industry concerning employment mandates?

Bingo.

Also - the text of the exemption is groups are defined as churches, auxiliaries of churches, and associations of churches. The organization to be exempt must primarily serve and employ people of their religion. The purpose of exempt organizations must be the inoculation of their religious tenets.

None of these apply to Hospitals or Universities, even if run by a Church.

So we much rather have a woman don't get pregnant in the first place by taking PC than having to kill a fetus later on.

Sorry that should have read:

So we much rather have a woman don't get pregnant in the first place by taking BC than having to kill a fetus later on.

I can understand in a way how institutions that recieve taxpayer money can be subject to government control much easier then I see how government can intrude in the private workplace. When you take public money you do so with all of the strings attached. I think government is much more intrusive when they mandate expenditures and rules upon private organizations. They didn't make a "deal with the devil" and accept public funding.

That being said, if it was a private hospital or institution recieving no funding from government they still would be subject to this mandate, right? Forget the religious waters this goes into here. Say a non-profit XYZ company opened an university or hospital. They are still subject to the mandates, right? And now lets call the non-profit group a church; that would change everything, right? So in essence they could escape this mandate if they refused tax dollars or could they?

So in essence they could escape this mandate if they refused tax dollars or could they?

Sure. I don't see why not. I'm not a legal expert by any means but if they're not being funded by the government then as far as this mandate goes, it wouldn't apply anymore.

From there to say this is gonna happen, I doubt it.

For one, the Church is cheap and they're not suddenly gonna start paying for their own hospitals or universities, when it's much easier to make us pay for them. You wanna talk handouts, there is one right there.

Second of all, it's much easier for them to pressure politicians like Boehner, Santorum and the others into releasing more venomous anti-Obama propaganda about how he's violating the First Amendment or making war on Catholics and all that crap.

The great thing is that Obama is not gonna back down. He is pissed at these people trying to block him at every turn for trying to do good things in this country and he is calling their bluff and they are the ones who are gonna blink first for sure.

That being said, if it was a private hospital or institution recieving no funding from government they still would be subject to this mandate, right?

I'm not sure if a hospital can refuse to take something like Medicaid/Medicare. It seems a private University might be more likely to be able to refuse federal educational assistance - but the hospital situation sounds a lot less likely.

Ya know it all boils down to this for me.

If people want to get birth control they should be able to. I don't want a bunch of unwanted children in the world because people desire to have sex.

If the RCC wants to believe it is not a sin to force people to live by their doctrines then they are blind to sin !!! Hmmmph what a surprise there/Sarc

Allow people their freedoms of choice, we all answer for what we do individually anyway.

As the president and CEO of a faith-based public policy group, I believe that President Obama has made a mockery of our country’s religious freedoms.

Obama has enforced religious freedom. He has mandated that individuals get to determine their own expression of religious freedom, not have it mandated to them by their employer, in this case the catholic church. Finally a politician is morphing into a statesman, and telling the church that it does not have the right to impel their beliefs upon others, which is exactly the foundation of the separation clause. He has reenforced the concept that a religion is a group of people that freely bind themselves together to express their commonly held beliefs. It is that religious group's cross to bear if they wish to hire others who disagree with some of their tenets.

This is one of the great things done by Obama. Witnessed by the fact that it has fox news wetting themselves.

I guess that Fox "News" and Cornhusker4Palin are refusing to acknowledge reality...

1) Religious liberty is protected in the regulation: “The Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions,” the interim regulations says. As a result, houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt and religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule.

2) The regulation expands conscience protections in 8 states: Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost. In fact, the administration will be expanding conscience protections in eight states, where all religious institutions are required to offer birth control coverage.

3) The regulation does not cover abortions: No matter how much Republicans are hoping to conflate contraception with abortion, Plan B is not an abortifacient. It works in exactly the same way as regular birth control pills.

4) Greater access to contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions: An overwhelming majority of Americans — virtually all women (more than 99 percent and 98 percent of Catholics) — rely on contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and the regulation protects the religious liberty of women who use birth control for reasons of private conscience. One study has estimated that birth control provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent almost two million unintended pregnancies and that number will only grow as a result of the new rules.

5) Courts have upheld contraception coverage rules: Courts have upheld challenges to coverage laws, finding that a neutral, generally applicable law not targeted at religion does not burden the right to free exercise of religion. In fact, there is the possibility that a broader exemption would violate the law and allow religious institutions to pick and choose which regulations to follow. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found that the exclusion of prescription contraception from an employer-sponsored health plan constitutes sex discrimination because it only burdens women.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/01/416231/fact-check-romney-falsely-claims-obama-orders-religious-organizations-to-violate-their-conscience/

Here’s the key finding from Public Policy Polling’s survey:

A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed. It’s particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

The numbers barely budge when respondents are specifically asked about health coverage for employees at Catholic hospitals and universities, in a question framed to include the Bishops’ argument that their religious mission requires an exemption.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/catholics_the_contraception_ma035251.php