Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[bripat9643]

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

Not in this country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

Not in this country.

Why not? I thought the 1st amendment protected the free exercise of their religion.

What better exercise of the Islamic religion is there than to establish Sharia law?

 

[saveliberty]

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

Not in this country.

Why not? I thought the 1st amendment protected the free exercise of their religion.

What better exercise of the Islamic religion is there than to establish Sharia law?

I already answered your questions. Your response actually contains a key.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

No answer?

Anyone?

Imposing a set of laws like that runs counter to state constutional law, so no it would require at least state constitutional law changes. Congress and the President imposed the healthcare changes, so that is a different subject entirely.

Now wait a minute. You say Muslims could not pass and enforce laws contrary to secular state and federal law??

So I guess if a federal law existed requiring birth control to be covered in employer health insurance,

Catholics could not simply put in place something that was contrary to that law...

 

[saveliberty]

No answer?

Anyone?

Imposing a set of laws like that runs counter to state constutional law, so no it would require at least state constitutional law changes. Congress and the President imposed the healthcare changes, so that is a different subject entirely.

Now wait a minute. You say Muslims could not pass and enforce laws contrary to secular state and federal law??

So I guess if a federal law existed requiring birth control to be covered in employer health insurance,

Catholics could not simply put in place something that was contrary to that law...

No you idiot, we said constutional not a law. There in lies your demise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not in this country.

Why not? I thought the 1st amendment protected the free exercise of their religion.

What better exercise of the Islamic religion is there than to establish Sharia law?

I already answered your questions. Your response actually contains a key.

You've acknowledged that the free exercise of religion in this country is not constitutionally protected when it violates state and/or federal law.

That's exactly what the Catholics want to do, violate federal law.

 

[clevergirl]

Two women have won lawsuits on this very same issue.
They won because their insurance company and employer covered other elective drugs.

Could you cite the legal cases you are referring to? Are they Religious Freedom cases?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Imposing a set of laws like that runs counter to state constutional law, so no it would require at least state constitutional law changes. Congress and the President imposed the healthcare changes, so that is a different subject entirely.

Now wait a minute. You say Muslims could not pass and enforce laws contrary to secular state and federal law??

So I guess if a federal law existed requiring birth control to be covered in employer health insurance,

Catholics could not simply put in place something that was contrary to that law...

No you idiot, we said constutional not a law. There in lies your demise.

The constitution IS a set of laws first of all. Second of all, unless the birth control mandate is challenged and found unconstitutional it is the law of the land. It's not the right nor the power of the Catholic law to deem a law it doesn't like as being unconstitutional.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Why not? I thought the 1st amendment protected the free exercise of their religion.

What better exercise of the Islamic religion is there than to establish Sharia law?

I already answered your questions. Your response actually contains a key.

You've acknowledged that the free exercise of religion in this country is not constitutionally protected when it violates state and/or federal law.

That's exactly what the Catholics want to do, violate federal law.

Should we pass laws that force an established religion to change or go against their beliefs?

 

[bripat9643]

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

Not in this country.

Why not? I thought the 1st amendment protected the free exercise of their religion.

What better exercise of the Islamic religion is there than to establish Sharia law?

***************

The First Amendment doesn't allow you to violate anyone's other Constitutional rights, and that is what Sharia law does.

Of course, you already knew that. Even you aren't that stupid.

 

[clevergirl]

Now wait a minute. You say Muslims could not pass and enforce laws contrary to secular state and federal law??

So I guess if a federal law existed requiring birth control to be covered in employer health insurance,

Catholics could not simply put in place something that was contrary to that law...

No you idiot, we said constutional not a law. There in lies your demise.

The constitution IS a set of laws first of all. Second of all, unless the birth control mandate is challenged and found unconstitutional it is the law of the land. It's not the right nor the power of the Catholic law to deem a law it doesn't like as being unconstitutional.

The Catholic Church most certainly DOES have the power to reject a law that is in conflict with the law of the land as granted them- namely the 1st amendment!

 

[saveliberty]

Now wait a minute. You say Muslims could not pass and enforce laws contrary to secular state and federal law??

So I guess if a federal law existed requiring birth control to be covered in employer health insurance,

Catholics could not simply put in place something that was contrary to that law...

No you idiot, we said constutional not a law. There in lies your demise.

The constitution IS a set of laws first of all. Second of all, unless the birth control mandate is challenged and found unconstitutional it is the law of the land. It's not the right nor the power of the Catholic law to deem a law it doesn't like as being unconstitutional.

No it isn't, a law can be changed by the legislature without a voter referendum. A Constitution is a governmental framework and when combined with the Amedndments, a series of protections FROM government. Nothing has ever been found unconstitutional without a law being broken first. It is part of the process.

 

[saveliberty]

Why not? I thought the 1st amendment protected the free exercise of their religion.

What better exercise of the Islamic religion is there than to establish Sharia law?

I already answered your questions. Your response actually contains a key.

You've acknowledged that the free exercise of religion in this country is not constitutionally protected when it violates state and/or federal law.

That's exactly what the Catholics want to do, violate federal law.

Sharia law cannot be approved by a subdidivision of a state, because of constitutional provisions found in that state's constitution. We don't know if the church is constitutionally protected until a review by the Supreme Court takes place. Did you actually take a civics class?

 

[CausingPAIN]

Seems they need to clean up their own backyard and let contraceptives prevent abortions.

 

[CausingPAIN]

I already answered your questions. Your response actually contains a key.

You've acknowledged that the free exercise of religion in this country is not constitutionally protected when it violates state and/or federal law.

That's exactly what the Catholics want to do, violate federal law.

Should we pass laws that force an established religion to change or go against their beliefs?

Well Commander agent Orange Oillie spot. I’m glad you asked this question.
“Should we pass laws that force an established religion to change or go against their beliefs?”

Should we keep passing new laws that force an individual, to go along with others imaginary friend that like did that 40 days & 40 nights festival of the liquid genocidal mass killing, with countless babies in their mother’s womb too BTW. And handpicked a few devotees to pollute the new world order with his wonderful teaching of, racist, bigotry, hate of woman, killing of millions in his name, and the heavenly ones twisted torture and killing of the weak humans of this planet for his own pleasures, to show us of his magical love touching ways. And for extra credit lets his priest run free raping young boys? To teach us family values.. Hmm.. I don’t know about this Commander Oillie? This maybe a hard sell here? But keep up your intake of that agent orange. It doing you wonders in thinking clearly.

 

[usmcstinger]

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

The real issues is Government telling the Catholic Church to provide a certain type of insurance which violates their religious beliefs. Next, he will be telling Jews and Followers of Islam that they must buy pork.

What law states that Insurance Companies must cover Abortions or Contraceptives?

I want Government out of my life and my religion.

Obama is not a Socialist? Give me a break!

 

[boilermaker55]

This has nothing to do with the war, or the pedophiles in any church. It has to do with basic first amendment rights. But you are too stupid to understand that. Either that or your hatred for the church blinds you.

And no I am not catholic.....

Let the church preach to their congregations and impose their believes on their followers.
They need to keep their ideology and beliefs out of the law making insitutions.
If they choose to still press their issues on lawmakers they should loose their tax exempt status immediately.

 

[boilermaker55]

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

The real issues is Government telling the Catholic Church to provide a certain type of insurance which violates their religious beliefs. Next, he will be telling Jews and Followers of Islam that they must buy pork.

What law states that Insurance Companies must cover Abortions or Contraceptives?

I want Government out of my life and my religion.

Obama is not a Socialist? Give me a break!

The law concerning the church and their private institutions was resolved. However, if they employee those from out of their faith they cannot dictate to them what to purchase with their money.