Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Refuse compromise. Isn't that the name of the game in today's world?
This just goes to show that it was never about first amendment rights or expecting the church to do something it was morally opposed to. This is about the church trying to force it's ideology on people, whether the people want it or not.
Poll: Defying Bishops, Catholics Support Obama Birth Control Rules | AlterNetA majority of U.S. Catholics, according to a new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, support the Obama administration's regulations requiring the coverage, without co-pay, of birth-control by employer-provided health benefit programs -- even when the employer is a hospital or university affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's how it breaks down, according to the post on the PRRI Web site:
Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
I agree with the Obama admin, as do the majority of catholics in the country. I don't see any move against religious freedom. The patrons or parishioners of the catholic church voluntarily attend services on Sunday, and they are all (with a very few exceptions) members of the faith. The catholic church does not have to provide birth control coverage to its "church workers", such as employees of the archdiocese offices (there are many lay employees there), nor in the local church parishes (and there are paid lay employees there). These are, as far as I am aware, always catholics who believe and support the faith, performing job that directly support the doctrine of the church. So, when the church is clearly acting as the church, they ARE FREE to not provide birth control coverage on their insurance.
The catholic church also operates hospitals and universities. This is a very different situation. Neither a hospital nor a university is a church. They routinely accept people at their hospital or school who are NOT catholic. They employ workers who are NOT catholic. The primary mission of the hospital and school is NOT the transmission of church dogma. The mission of the hospital is to heal the sick and the mission of the school is to educate people (not about church dogma either).
In these cases, hospitals and schools, the church manages the affairs of the institution, but the INSTITUTION IS NOT A CHURCH. Now, the church is an employer just like everyone else.
It is not correct for the church to accept non-catholic employees to perform a job that has nothing to do with the transmission of church dogma, and to force its religious beliefs down that employees throat.
The church is free to follow its dogma and specify policies to its members working inside the church, but when it leaves its role behind and enters secular endeavors, it needs to be governed by secular rules.
At a catholic university, if you are a catholic woman, you are offered free birth control by your insurance plan, there is no rule that you must use it. Nobody is saying you have to violate church policy. Just say no, and all is ok between you and the church. I see no violation of religious freedom here at all.
You know, this really isn't about the Catholic church. It's about the first amendment. You either support it or you make excuses to break it......
Can't get much simpler than that.....
Refuse compromise. Isn't that the name of the game in today's world?
This just goes to show that it was never about first amendment rights or expecting the church to do something it was morally opposed to. This is about the church trying to force it's ideology on people, whether the people want it or not.
No asshole it is not. Try getting your head out of Obamas ass and thinking with it for a change. There is no compromise, Insurance companies are not going to pay for this free of charge. Doctors are not going to work for free. The church will end up paying for it one way or another. And that makes it wrong.
Anyone who believes in a god cannot accuse others of a lack of critical thought.
Obama's 'compromise' puts the financial obligation on the insurer, right? Right.
As a business, when the costs of providing their product goes up, what do the insurance companies do? Raise rates? Right.
Who the hell do you people think PAYS those higher rates? Everybody? WRONG!
The class of policyholders that caused the costs to go up will pay the higher rates, meaning the whole 'compromise' is nothing but a big shell game.
You libtards must REALLY think we're stupid.
We're not...
They should use the money they receive from taxpayers to pay for the pill. That way they won't have to get their hands dirty.they saw thru it naturally....and the actual entity that picks up the check, since when has that mattered to the gov.?...we all know who that will be in the end...
* FEBRUARY 11, 2012, 1:17 P.M. ET
Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance
Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration's proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn't believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.
Under the new policy, religious employers that don't want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.
The shift is intended to ensure that women working at religious hospitals, schools and charities who want to use contraception can obtain it in the same way as women who work for secular employers. It also means the cost of providing the coverage for those women is likely to be spread across all policyholders by insurers.
The bishops had earlier expressed cautious optimism about the announcement, saying that it was "a first step in the right direction" but that they would have to study it.
In their later statement, they said they still had "serious moral concerns," noting that the proposal didn't contain provisions for religious employers who self-insure, meaning the employer takes on the underlying risk of covering employees' health care.
The bishops also said that the current structure of the proposal meant that if an employee and insurer agreed to add contraception coverage to a health plan, it would still be financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the employer.
"These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection... is unacceptable and must be corrected," the statement said.
more at-
Catholic Bishops Oppose Obama Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance - WSJ.com
btw, is Viagra covered for Catholics?
They should use the money they receive from taxpayers to pay for the pill. That way they won't have to get their hands dirty.they saw thru it naturally....and the actual entity that picks up the check, since when has that mattered to the gov.?...we all know who that will be in the end...
* FEBRUARY 11, 2012, 1:17 P.M. ET
Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance
Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration's proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn't believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.
Under the new policy, religious employers that don't want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.
The shift is intended to ensure that women working at religious hospitals, schools and charities who want to use contraception can obtain it in the same way as women who work for secular employers. It also means the cost of providing the coverage for those women is likely to be spread across all policyholders by insurers.
The bishops had earlier expressed cautious optimism about the announcement, saying that it was "a first step in the right direction" but that they would have to study it.
In their later statement, they said they still had "serious moral concerns," noting that the proposal didn't contain provisions for religious employers who self-insure, meaning the employer takes on the underlying risk of covering employees' health care.
The bishops also said that the current structure of the proposal meant that if an employee and insurer agreed to add contraception coverage to a health plan, it would still be financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the employer.
"These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection... is unacceptable and must be corrected," the statement said.
more at-
Catholic Bishops Oppose Obama Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance - WSJ.com
btw, is Viagra covered for Catholics?
Viagra? Whats that?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feFdBL15JOI&feature=related]MADtv Viagra - YouTube[/ame]
MADtv Viagra
Refuse compromise. Isn't that the name of the game in today's world?
This just goes to show that it was never about first amendment rights or expecting the church to do something it was morally opposed to. This is about the church trying to force it's ideology on people, whether the people want it or not.
No asshole it is not. Try getting your head out of Obamas ass and thinking with it for a change. There is no compromise, Insurance companies are not going to pay for this free of charge. Doctors are not going to work for free. The church will end up paying for it one way or another. And that makes it wrong.
in this context its all good, they know darn well the cost will work its way down and be diffused amongst us all, as 90% of obamacare will be. They simply don't care.
Remember- a tax decrease is the gov. allowing you to keep more money...when you start from that ideological perspective...well...it speaks for itself.
is this government mandate so women can have recreational sex (sex for fun) ??
Poll: Defying Bishops, Catholics Support Obama Birth Control Rules | AlterNetA majority of U.S. Catholics, according to a new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, support the Obama administration's regulations requiring the coverage, without co-pay, of birth-control by employer-provided health benefit programs -- even when the employer is a hospital or university affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.
Here's how it breaks down, according to the post on the PRRI Web site:
Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
I agree with the Obama admin, as do the majority of catholics in the country. I don't see any move against religious freedom. The patrons or parishioners of the catholic church voluntarily attend services on Sunday, and they are all (with a very few exceptions) members of the faith. The catholic church does not have to provide birth control coverage to its "church workers", such as employees of the archdiocese offices (there are many lay employees there), nor in the local church parishes (and there are paid lay employees there). These are, as far as I am aware, always catholics who believe and support the faith, performing job that directly support the doctrine of the church. So, when the church is clearly acting as the church, they ARE FREE to not provide birth control coverage on their insurance.
The catholic church also operates hospitals and universities. This is a very different situation. Neither a hospital nor a university is a church. They routinely accept people at their hospital or school who are NOT catholic. They employ workers who are NOT catholic. The primary mission of the hospital and school is NOT the transmission of church dogma. The mission of the hospital is to heal the sick and the mission of the school is to educate people (not about church dogma either).
In these cases, hospitals and schools, the church manages the affairs of the institution, but the INSTITUTION IS NOT A CHURCH. Now, the church is an employer just like everyone else.
It is not correct for the church to accept non-catholic employees to perform a job that has nothing to do with the transmission of church dogma, and to force its religious beliefs down that employees throat.
The church is free to follow its dogma and specify policies to its members working inside the church, but when it leaves its role behind and enters secular endeavors, it needs to be governed by secular rules.
At a catholic university, if you are a catholic woman, you are offered free birth control by your insurance plan, there is no rule that you must use it. Nobody is saying you have to violate church policy. Just say no, and all is ok between you and the church. I see no violation of religious freedom here at all.
Let me know when you have a poll that asks the right question and get's that response. If you can't even ask the right question, why should anyone consider the results as valid?
The majority of Catholics do not want its Church forced to go against its doctrine.
This is a First Amendment issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.htmlA national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans.
So, does Americas national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?
I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?
We offer a standard health insurance package, John Yemma, the editor, told me.
That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovahs Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?
The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.
In this case, we should make a good-faith effort to avoid offending Catholic bishops who passionately oppose birth control. Im glad that Obama sought a compromise. But lets remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops sensibilities and womens health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.
Poll: Defying Bishops, Catholics Support Obama Birth Control Rules | AlterNet
I agree with the Obama admin, as do the majority of catholics in the country. I don't see any move against religious freedom. The patrons or parishioners of the catholic church voluntarily attend services on Sunday, and they are all (with a very few exceptions) members of the faith. The catholic church does not have to provide birth control coverage to its "church workers", such as employees of the archdiocese offices (there are many lay employees there), nor in the local church parishes (and there are paid lay employees there). These are, as far as I am aware, always catholics who believe and support the faith, performing job that directly support the doctrine of the church. So, when the church is clearly acting as the church, they ARE FREE to not provide birth control coverage on their insurance.
The catholic church also operates hospitals and universities. This is a very different situation. Neither a hospital nor a university is a church. They routinely accept people at their hospital or school who are NOT catholic. They employ workers who are NOT catholic. The primary mission of the hospital and school is NOT the transmission of church dogma. The mission of the hospital is to heal the sick and the mission of the school is to educate people (not about church dogma either).
In these cases, hospitals and schools, the church manages the affairs of the institution, but the INSTITUTION IS NOT A CHURCH. Now, the church is an employer just like everyone else.
It is not correct for the church to accept non-catholic employees to perform a job that has nothing to do with the transmission of church dogma, and to force its religious beliefs down that employees throat.
The church is free to follow its dogma and specify policies to its members working inside the church, but when it leaves its role behind and enters secular endeavors, it needs to be governed by secular rules.
At a catholic university, if you are a catholic woman, you are offered free birth control by your insurance plan, there is no rule that you must use it. Nobody is saying you have to violate church policy. Just say no, and all is ok between you and the church. I see no violation of religious freedom here at all.
Let me know when you have a poll that asks the right question and get's that response. If you can't even ask the right question, why should anyone consider the results as valid?
The majority of Catholics do not want its Church forced to go against its doctrine.
This is a First Amendment issue.
You have not stated your problem with the question. What's the problem? You have not posted any counter-example poll.
You say "The majority of Catholics do not want its Church forced to go against its doctrine.", but clearly this is FALSE.
The vast majority of sexually active catholic women USE BIRTH CONTROL, its 98% that do at some point in their life! How can the majority of catholics not want the church to be forced to go against their doctrine, when 98% of them go against the doctrine themselves?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.htmlA national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans.
So, does Americas national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?
I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?
We offer a standard health insurance package, John Yemma, the editor, told me.
That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovahs Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?
The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.
In this case, we should make a good-faith effort to avoid offending Catholic bishops who passionately oppose birth control. Im glad that Obama sought a compromise. But lets remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops sensibilities and womens health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.
Quite into deception and obfuscation, aren't you?They should use the money they receive from taxpayers to pay for the pill. That way they won't have to get their hands dirty.they saw thru it naturally....and the actual entity that picks up the check, since when has that mattered to the gov.?...we all know who that will be in the end...
* FEBRUARY 11, 2012, 1:17 P.M. ET
Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance
Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration's proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn't believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.
Under the new policy, religious employers that don't want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.
The shift is intended to ensure that women working at religious hospitals, schools and charities who want to use contraception can obtain it in the same way as women who work for secular employers. It also means the cost of providing the coverage for those women is likely to be spread across all policyholders by insurers.
The bishops had earlier expressed cautious optimism about the announcement, saying that it was "a first step in the right direction" but that they would have to study it.
In their later statement, they said they still had "serious moral concerns," noting that the proposal didn't contain provisions for religious employers who self-insure, meaning the employer takes on the underlying risk of covering employees' health care.
The bishops also said that the current structure of the proposal meant that if an employee and insurer agreed to add contraception coverage to a health plan, it would still be financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the employer.
"These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection... is unacceptable and must be corrected," the statement said.
more at-
Catholic Bishops Oppose Obama Compromise on Birth-Control Insurance - WSJ.com
btw, is Viagra covered for Catholics?
Plain and simple, it goes against the first amendment.
So all of you who don't seem to give a flying fuck about this one, should just shut up about all the BS you've been peddling about the Patriot Act and the TSA and God knows what else.
It's BS and it's no good for you.............
Yes I have already fired off letters to my congressman, both Senators, and the White House.......
Plain and simple, it goes against the first amendment.
So all of you who don't seem to give a flying fuck about this one, should just shut up about all the BS you've been peddling about the Patriot Act and the TSA and God knows what else.
It's BS and it's no good for you.............
Yes I have already fired off letters to my congressman, both Senators, and the White House.......
Plain and simple, it goes against the first amendment.
So all of you who don't seem to give a flying fuck about this one, should just shut up about all the BS you've been peddling about the Patriot Act and the TSA and God knows what else.
It's BS and it's no good for you.............
Yes I have already fired off letters to my congressman, both Senators, and the White House.......
Please point out where in the first amendment it says that religious owned businesses can ignore the law?
It doesn't. It merely says that Congress can't prevent you from practicing your religion and it can't establish a state religion.
Nothing in this mandate keeps Catholics from believing the silly things they believe.
And when the Church starts expelling members for practicing birth control, then I'll take them seriously on this issue.
