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

[Avatar4321]

All the Church has to do in order to avoid going against its principles here is divest itself of all non-religious business interests. The regulations fully exempt the Church itself, just not its Church-owned schools and hospitals. Problem solved.

In other words, the Church just needs to leave people ignorant and let them die.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, I wish these bishops had shown a much concern when priests were molesting children.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

All the Church has to do in order to avoid going against its principles here is divest itself of all non-religious business interests. The regulations fully exempt the Church itself, just not its Church-owned schools and hospitals. Problem solved.

In other words, the Church just needs to leave people ignorant and let them die.

That's all the Churches do is make people ignorant.

But if they want to get into money making ventures, then they need to fairly compensate those they employ.

 

[California Girl]

All the Church has to do in order to avoid going against its principles here is divest itself of all non-religious business interests. The regulations fully exempt the Church itself, just not its Church-owned schools and hospitals. Problem solved.

They are not 'business interests' they are a religious duty. Stop trying to interfere with the free practice of our religion. Easy solution... allow insurance companies to offer policies that do not include the provision of 'services' that breach our religious doctrine. If employees want coverage that includes those services, they can work elsewhere. Problem solved.

 

[California Girl]

All the Church has to do in order to avoid going against its principles here is divest itself of all non-religious business interests. The regulations fully exempt the Church itself, just not its Church-owned schools and hospitals. Problem solved.

In other words, the Church just needs to leave people ignorant and let them die.

That's all the Churches do is make people ignorant.

But if they want to get into money making ventures, then they need to fairly compensate those they employ.

Our 'money making' ventures cost the Church billions of dollars every year. You liberals are such ******* control freaks.

 

[JoeB131]

In other words, the Church just needs to leave people ignorant and let them die.

That's all the Churches do is make people ignorant.

But if they want to get into money making ventures, then they need to fairly compensate those they employ.

Our 'money making' ventures cost the Church billions of dollars every year. You liberals are such ******* control freaks.

So you are telling me the Catholic Church is the only organization not making a killing in the medical industry, which is the only real part of our economy that is growing?

Really? Really?

Come on, get real. If they weren't making money, they'd have gotten out of it years ago.

When did they stop molesting altar boys? When it started costing them money.

 

[California Girl]

That's all the Churches do is make people ignorant.

But if they want to get into money making ventures, then they need to fairly compensate those they employ.

Our 'money making' ventures cost the Church billions of dollars every year. You liberals are such ******* control freaks.

So you are telling me the Catholic Church is the only organization not making a killing in the medical industry, which is the only real part of our economy that is growing?

Really? Really?

Come on, get real. If they weren't making money, they'd have gotten out of it years ago.

When did they stop molesting altar boys? When it started costing them money.

The finances of the Catholic Health Association of the United States of America are available online for anyone who cares to view those documents.

It's not 'making money'. Idiot.

 

[JoeB131]

Ooookay, if you want to call the trick accounting they use to try to claim they aren't making money, you can do that.

And Al Capone was just a businessman.

 

[Dragon]

All the Church has to do in order to avoid going against its principles here is divest itself of all non-religious business interests. The regulations fully exempt the Church itself, just not its Church-owned schools and hospitals. Problem solved.

In other words, the Church just needs to leave people ignorant and let them die.

Well, we all have to make choices, don't we? If the Church feels it must engage in non-religious activities as a fulfillment of its commitment to God, fine, but it must do so in the understanding that such activities do NOT have First Amendment protection (unless it's a newspaper or something) and must comply with the law..

 

[Jroc]

Again, I wish these bishops had shown a much concern when priests were molesting children.

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

 

[Jroc]

More from Dolan

Letter from Archbishop Timothy Dolan to President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President:

I write with a growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage. This past spring the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, a decision strongly opposed by the Catholic Bishops of the United States and many others.

Now the Justice Department has shifted from not defending DOMA-which is problem enough, given the duty of the executive branch to enforce even laws it disfavors-to actively attacking DOMA‟s constitutionality. My predecessor, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, and I have expressed to you in the past our strong disappointment about the direction your Administration has been moving regarding DOMA. Unfortunately the only response to date has been the intensification of efforts to undermine DOMA and the institution of marriage.

The Justice Department's move, in addition to other troubling federal decisions occurring recently, prompts me yet again to register my grave concerns. The content of this letter reflects the strong sentiment expressed at a recent meeting by more than thirty of my brother Bishops who serve on the Administrative Committee of our episcopal conference. I know they are joined by hundreds of additional Catholic bishops throughout our nation. My observations are offered in the spirit of respectful, but frank dialogue.

The Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by you and your Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. We cannot be silent, however, when federal steps harmful to marriage, the laws defending it, and religious freedom continue apace. Attached you will find an analysis prepared by my staff detailing the various executive activities of late that warrant our increasing apprehension.

Mr. President, your Administration's actions against DOMA and the values it stands for contrast sharply with your excellent Mother's Day and Father's Day proclamations issued earlier this year, which are also referenced in the attached analysis. In these perceptive and heartening statements, you correctly emphasize the critical role played by both a mom and a dad in a child's life, and you rightly call upon society to do all it can to uphold both mothers and fathers.

I know that you treasure the importance that you and the First Lady, separately and as a couple, share in the lives of your children. The Mother's Day and Father's Day proclamations display a welcome conviction on your part that neither a mom nor a dad is expendable. I believe therefore that you would agree that every child has the right to be loved by both a mother and a father.

goes to the core of what the Catholic Bishops of the United States, and the millions of citizens who stand with us on this issue, want for all children and for the common good of society.

That is why it is particularly upsetting, Mr. President, when your Administration, through the various court documents, pronouncements and policies identified in the attached analysis, attributes to those who support DOMA a motivation rooted in prejudice and bias. It is especially wrong and unfair to equate opposition to redefining marriage with either intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination, as your Administration insists on doing

Abp. Dolan Writes Strongly Worded Letter to President Obama Defending Marriage - U.s. - Catholic Online

 

[California Girl]

All the Church has to do in order to avoid going against its principles here is divest itself of all non-religious business interests. The regulations fully exempt the Church itself, just not its Church-owned schools and hospitals. Problem solved.

In other words, the Church just needs to leave people ignorant and let them die.

Well, we all have to make choices, don't we? If the Church feels it must engage in non-religious activities as a fulfillment of its commitment to God, fine, but it must do so in the understanding that such activities do NOT have First Amendment protection (unless it's a newspaper or something) and must comply with the law..

Let's just be clear here.... these are religious duties to us.... whether they are or not to you is immaterial. They are to the Church.... every one of the Church's programs comes directly from the New Testament. Helping the poor... check. Helping the sick.... check.... teaching children... check.

Those duties are religious - to us. You do not have the right to tell us what is or is not a religious duty. Sorry about that, but that's the way the Founders wanted it. You don't like that... fine, fight to change the Constitution... since you show no respect for it anyway.

 

[del]

he's got sand.

 

[Dragon]

Let's just be clear here.... these are religious duties to us.... whether they are or not to you is immaterial.

Whether they are religious duties to you is also immaterial. The First Amendment does not protect "any activities which are considered to be religious duties." It protects RELIGION -- that and nothing else. Neither a school nor a hospital qualifies.

 

[California Girl]

Let's just be clear here.... these are religious duties to us.... whether they are or not to you is immaterial.

Whether they are religious duties to you is also immaterial. The First Amendment does not protect "any activities which are considered to be religious duties." It protects RELIGION -- that and nothing else. Neither a school nor a hospital qualifies.

Thank you for making my point. It is our religion. It is a fundamental part of our faith... whether you recognize that or not. And that is in the Constitution....'the free exercise thereof'.

 

[Dragon]

Let's just be clear here.... these are religious duties to us.... whether they are or not to you is immaterial.

Whether they are religious duties to you is also immaterial. The First Amendment does not protect "any activities which are considered to be religious duties." It protects RELIGION -- that and nothing else. Neither a school nor a hospital qualifies.

Thank you for making my point. It is our religion. It is a fundamental part of our faith... whether you recognize that or not. And that is in the Constitution....'the free exercise thereof'.

I'm not making your point. I realize that it is a REQUIREMENT of your religion; the First Amendment does protect your right to BELIEVE that -- and to teach others that. But it does not mean that you are exempt from the law in carrying out the requirements of your religion, nor does it make such activities religious (in the meaning of the 1A) merely because your religion requires them.

Religions may require many different things; in fact, there is probably no human activity that is not required by some religion somewhere. if we apply the logic you are advocating here, we end up with every area of life being "religious" and protected by the First Amendment, and no laws could then apply to anything.

If the language of the amendment is to mean anything, it cannot mean everything. We must draw the line somewhere, and the logical place to draw it is that it protects worship services and religious teachings, and that's all.

 

[peach174]

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.

 

[California Girl]

Whether they are religious duties to you is also immaterial. The First Amendment does not protect "any activities which are considered to be religious duties." It protects RELIGION -- that and nothing else. Neither a school nor a hospital qualifies.

Thank you for making my point. It is our religion. It is a fundamental part of our faith... whether you recognize that or not. And that is in the Constitution....'the free exercise thereof'.

I'm not making your point. I realize that it is a REQUIREMENT of your religion; the First Amendment does protect your right to BELIEVE that -- and to teach others that. But it does not mean that you are exempt from the law in carrying out the requirements of your religion, nor does it make such activities religious (in the meaning of the 1A) merely because your religion requires them.

Religions may require many different things; in fact, there is probably no human activity that is not required by some religion somewhere. if we apply the logic you are advocating here, we end up with every area of life being "religious" and protected by the First Amendment, and no laws could then apply to anything.

If the language of the amendment is to mean anything, it cannot mean everything. We must draw the line somewhere, and the logical place to draw it is that it protects worship services and religious teachings, and that's all.

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.

Your opinion is meaningless - it's an opinion.... mine is likewise.... we'll take it to court and see what they say. The Church isn't going to back down, we're not gonna close our hospitals and inflict suffering on the poor just so your President can have his selfish way. **** the liberals and their Nanny State.

As the Cardinal said... we didn't pick this fight, but we will not run away from it. You want to take our religious liberty - you will do it the hard way. And you will lose in November for it.

 

[Dragon]

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?

 

[Trajan]

Let's just be clear here.... these are religious duties to us.... whether they are or not to you is immaterial.

Whether they are religious duties to you is also immaterial. The First Amendment does not protect "any activities which are considered to be religious duties." It protects RELIGION -- that and nothing else. Neither a school nor a hospital qualifies.

so, after 230 years, all of sudden obama waves a wand in the form of obamacare and..............taaaaa daaaaaaaaa ...anyway, lets get down to cases.

so whats religion? exactly in the context you deny it above AND where in YOU think it would be immutable or free from government interference/stricture or simply put, please provide some more examples of what religion 'isn't' and what it 'is'..in practical terms....