We Did Not Ask for This Fight, But We Will Not Run From It’

[California Girl]

His 'mandate' (which, frankly, I believe is unConstitutional anyway).... inhibits Catholics from the 'free exercise thereof' of our faith. That is a First Amendment issue.

The part of the ACA in question isn't unconstitutional. The individual mandate may be, but that's another question.

Regarding the First Amendment, though, actual words are important here, and the First Amendment does not contain language protecting the "free exercise of [someone's] faith." It contains language protecting the free exercise of religion, and that is a more limited range of behavior.

Once again, I ask you to apply a little logic here. Is there any area of life that the Church does not have instructions for you? Does the Church not have teachings regarding military service, conduct in business, ways to treat employees or to behave as an employee, duties of husband to wife, wife to husband, parents to children and children to parents, citizens to the government and vice-versa? And are not ALL of these a requirement of your faith? And so if we take the First Amendment to mean that anything that is a requirement of faith is protected, does it not follow that EVERYTHING is protected by the First Amendment, so that when a religious teaching contradicts any law whatsoever, that law is null and void with respect to believers in that religion?

Would you not agree that this would be an absurd interpretation?

Your opinion is meaningless - it's an opinion.... mine is likewise.... we'll take it to court and see what they say.

Certainly the courts are the final arbiter, but that doesn't make your opinion or mine meaningless. It just means that if the court disagrees with either of us, its view prevails.

I think one might reasonably raise the question that was raised earlier, regarding state laws that require coverage of contraception in employer-provided health insurance, which the Church has so far complied with sans whimper. And yet, thanks to the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment applies to state law, too. Why is the issue only being raised now?

Being a Catholic certainly does impact on one's life. One is required to live one's faith... which I kind of do... most of the time. But God does not demand perfection, only that I try to do the right thing. For me, as an individual, that includes donating my money and my time for those who need help. That is something I do as a matter of course... not just at Christmas... but all year.

This issue is raised now because Obama lied to Cardinal Dolan back when he needed support for his healthcare debacle. He promised the Church that they would not be required to go against their doctrine... he broke that promise. That's why it's an issue now. As Cardinal Dolan said.... 'we didn't ask for this fight, but we are not going to run from it'. If Obama wants to challenge the Church, bring it on. We've fought and won against far tougher opponents. We're still standing... they aren't.

 

[Dragon]

This issue is raised now because Obama lied to Cardinal Dolan back when he needed support for his healthcare debacle. He promised the Church that they would not be required to go against their doctrine... he broke that promise.

Do you have access to that conversation and the exact words that Obama used in making the alleged promise? I would be interested in seeing that.

If he promised Dolan that the Church would "not be required to go against their doctrine" -- those exact words -- then yes, he broke his promise. But if he promised that the Church would "not be required to provide coverage for contraception," then he did not. Because THE CHURCH is not so required -- only schools and hospitals that the Church OWNS.

However, apparently the Church is claiming that THAT goes against their doctrine, too, which is why the exact words of Obama's promise are important.

 

[JoeB131]

And I wish you would have any concern for liberty.

Or any kindness towards others.

You can't have true freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion.

If the Bishops are against birth control, there's nothing making them use it. (Not that they swing that way to start with.)

They just can't impose their silly, superstitious, backwards views on other people. Even the ones who work for them.

It seems miserable atheist wackjobs like you have no problem being free of religion. The problem with you hateful people is you'd like religion to be eliminated, that’s not going to happen, the more people like you push the more religious people are going to come out and vote ...Keep pushing

Guy, your argument was over on this discussion the minute Limbaugh called that poor girl a slut.

Even the Bishops are going to slink back into their holes on this one. Obama played you brilliantly.

 

[JoeB131]

If the Government mandate's a religious insurer against their church ideology. Government is then prohibiting their free exercise.
That is against the 1st amendment.

Horseshit.

If that were the case, the Branch Davidians could molest kids and the Rasterfarians could smoke weed to their heart's content. A Church's idealogy does not exempt it from obeying the law.

 

[Stash]

If we are to have any type of a national health care policy, it will be necessary to define what qualifies as health care or health care insurance. This means it will be necessary to decide what must be covered.

We cannot require the coverage of very expensive procedures, even if we would like to.

*Required* drugs and procedures should be based on medical need since what we are allegedly dealing with is health care. You can point to claims of social improvement thanks to birth control because of reduced unwanted pregnancy, but birth control is not normally medically necessary. On what basis should birth control coverage be mandatory?

Don’t just tell me that the church has to following the rules like everybody else, this is like when the parent says, “Because I said so”. Don’t just tell me, “Because I said so”. *WHY* must birth control coverage trump freedom of religion? Remember birth control won’t be denied to people, they may have to go somewhere else to get it.

I do realize that sometimes there can be medical reasons for birth control and that’s a different issue. There can be other benefits to birth control pills, and there can be other medicines that interfere in fertilization as a side effect. Okay, so it’s complicated, but in the vast majority of cases, birth control is elective. Why should all insurance companies be required to cover it?