Well, myself, I think it is a very good reason, to not be a catholic at all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So let me get this straight.

The Catholic church can accept tax funds, and can scream to elected officials about policy changes it wants. They claim privileged exemptions to hiring practices, taxes, and to aspects of the law we all have become tiresomely familiar with.

Yet they think that an ad in the NY Times is unfair.

What is wrong with humanity to allow such a disgusting crime organization to survive for so long?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Good thing too, darned Catholics.  Of course the Jewish faith wasnt targeted, that would be anti-semitic. 

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The Catholic Church has every right to claim the federal government is violating their 1st amendment rights in this case.  Obama’s law prohibits the Catholic Churches free exercise of their religion on an issue that has legitimate moral consequences (particularly with respect to the conventional pill and morning after pills).  Keep in mind that both of those substances would in fact abort a live organizim if the egg has been fertilized.  This is a big issue for Catholics of conscience. 

On the other hand, if they can trample the rights of Catholics what makes you think they will be any more respectful of your rights as atheists?  If you allow the feds to get away with this - you will likely be in line for the similar treatment in the future.
The letter by Annie Laurie Gaylor is long on vindictiveness and short on substance.  Why would anyone give her letter creedence?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Waverider, Obama’s law focuses on the individual, not the ‘corporation’ of the Catholic Church.  They aren’t trampling the rights of Catholics everywhere.  Catholics still have the choice to use contraception or not (and, in fact, 98% of them DO use contraception).  The law is telling religious corporations that they can’t decide for themselves how to interfere with their employees’ right to make their own choice in this matter.  As I understand it (and I could be wrong), it’s actually between the insurance companies and the employees at this point.  The Catholic Church can’t decide spiritual or reproductive policy for its employees based on its perceived moral superiority.

I sometimes wonder how a married Christian woman, who doesn’t believe in contraception or abortion, keeps from getting pregnant.  If she practices abstinence, so does her husband, and I don’t see that going over well.  This religious perception of women as baby factories really needs a complete overhaul.

Respect for religious beliefs can be taken much too far, to the detriment of society as a whole.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Waverider,

Conventional birth control pills prevent pregnancy they don’t cause abortions. Look it up.  And just in case you get your information from Rush, a female takes a bc tablet daily not each time she has sex.  Furthermore, it may intrest you that there are a number of other contitions not involving pregnancy prevention for which women take bc tablets.  Some of those conditions are quite painful to the woman and lead to significant lost work days.

The same is true for morning after pills. They prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.  According to the Guttmacher Institute “...both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus…”  As such the ‘live organizim” is prevented from implantation but no pregnancy is aborted.

Lastly, it is important to realize that “Obama’s law” is not religiously discriminatory in that it was not designed to single out Christians in general or Catholics specifically.  It was designed to insure that ALL employers provided adequate health care to their female employees.

Hope you have a pleasant day.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Bill,

I did not mention anything about pregnancy.  My point, and the Catholic Churches, is that once an egg is fertilized it is a living organism.  The pills abort the continued development of that life.  Aborting the natural process in which the egg would implant in the placenta is really no different than aborting it after it implants.

I also did not say the law was discriminatory.  I merely pointed to the Catholic Church’s dispute with the Federal Government.  The issue is that the law violates the 1st amendment by forcing a religious institution to violate its religious convictions pertaining to the sanctity of life.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

JCarr,
In response to paragh 1 - The constitution also provides protection to religious corporations.  Furthermore, the church is not telling their employees that they cannot use contraception.  They can go to the Walmart and buy it on their own for very little cost.  Or they can get it free under the Federal Government’s Title 10 program.

Even though the law will make the insurance company pay for the service, the insurance company will pass those charges on in the form of premium increases.  This will still impact them because companies normally pay a portion of the health care premium for their employees.  Also, many Catholic entities are self insured for their health care plans and the law would force them to pay as the insurer. 

In response to paragraph 2 – I know from experience that it is very easy to keep from getting pregnant.  Yes abstinence does need to be a cooperative practice.  If the husband can’t control himself for a week or two he has a problem. 

The baby factory comment doesn’t really have a place in this discussion.
In response to paragraph 3 - The statement is a stretch in the context of the issue. 

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave-

You’re talking about fertilization and conception and birth control pharmaceuticals and living organisms and eggs and placenta and implantation and abortions and abstinence but you are NOT talking about pregnancies?

Biologically speaking when sperm and egg combine (fertilization) you do not have a living organism.  You have a cell that has twice the genetic material as either the sperm or egg.

Your position reminds me of H. L. Mencken’s comment that Catholics are quite comfortable permitting a woman to use mathematics but not physics or chemistry to avoid pregnancy.  Of course, to be fair, you have not mentioned bc methods involving physics.  Are there other examples where the Church eschews physical or chemical solutions for everyday living?

I want to point out that the gov’t can, should and does rightfully offend religious conviction.  When religious practices are abusive or harmful they can be stopped inspite of the first amendment.  I’m not sure if what the Church is doing to it’s corporate employees qualifies but it is arguable.  Go tell the courts that your religion requires you to have multiple spouses or that God wants you to cut off your infant daughters clitorus or harvest unlimited protected animals or import noxious and dangerous pests into the U.S.  There are legal precedents where the federal gov’t can and does interfere with religious practice.

Cordially,
Bill

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Bill,

Again, I make the argument based on fertilization without which pregnancy cannot happen.  The implantation within the placenta merely enables the mother to sustain further development of life that has already begun.  Without the fertilization the egg is purged by the mother’s body.

I agree that the government can step in if religious conviction is abusive to others.  However, it really cannot be proved that the lack of birth control is abusive.  Furthermore, the example you provided is not a correlated moral equivalent.  Multiple wives at worst can be deemed indulgent.  Aborting a living organism is deemed by some to be murder.  Hence the moral conviction the government is violating.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

You really gotta work on the biology.  The fertilized egg implants in the wall of the uterus.  There is no placenta at the time of implantation.

Thanks for your time.
Bill

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave:  What is the moral difference between a Catholic organization helping to pay for insurance coverage for an employee that includes contraception, and simply paying that employee wages with which they will buy contraception?  This is not a moral issue, it is a political one, and you are being duped.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

My Mom recently passed away and was a life long Catholic. When I was a kid, I found birth control pills on her dresser and wondered why she took them since it was a Cardinal Sin to take them. She said the Pope can’t get pregnant. When women can dictate to men whether they should be allowed viagra or prostate medicine, thats the day men should be allowed to make rules for women’s reproductive organs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wavy,

Ellenberg’s point is excellent and pretty much ends the debate.

However, what do you say about the rights of the non-catholic university employee who cannot obtain coverage for contraception because a church they don’t belong to frowns upon it?  Furthermore, wouldn’t it be meaningless for the Catholic church to decline to pay for contraception if Catholics actually agreed with the religious doctrine and were observant?  Fact is, the overwhelming majority of Catholics don’t.  It’s a stupid anachronistic policy promulgated by elderly virgins.  That’s why you only hear two categories of old white men crying:  (1) bishops and (2) republican politicians.  Neither group has any ground to stand on.  Republicans will shag anything that dares to lean over within reach—we’ve seen this over and over again throughout history.  As for bishops, they’ve been using prophylaxis for generations—in the form of pederasty.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’d imagine that FFRF is just as anti-Catholic as Catholics are to the FFRF.    Probably less so.  The FFRF doesn’t have that whole heritage of burning Catholics at the stake.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ellenberg’s point was idiotic, and to see someone claim it is decisive just goes to show how little honesty one can find in political debates.

Yes, it makes a moral difference whether you are free to make your own choice, or your employer is forced to make one for you by the government. Duh. With your wages, you are free to buy porn, a clansman’s robes, and in some jurisdictions, a hooker. Employers should not to be forced by the government to take part in those transactions. Nor, for that matter, should the government force the employee to engage in those transactions.

Let the employees who want it exercise their freedom by buying it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

As for the original article denouncing Catholicism, the NYT was not quite so open to all points of view when it came to a parallel ad about Islam.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/times-nixes-anti-islam-ad-runs-anti-catholic-ad/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Bill,

You are right concerning my error.  But the point still stands.  Implantation is not necessary for the beginning of life and you haven’t countered.

Ellenberg,

It is a political issue because it is a moral issue.  If there wasn’t a moral implication it wouldn’t be a problem.  I think buybuydandavis is on point concerning you moral difference argument. 

xxcenturyboy,

If a people of faith hold that the termination of a fertilized egg is a wrongful termination of life, the government is barred from forcing them to support that practice under the constitution.  It has nothing to do with someone telling a woman what to do with her reproductive organs.  She can do what she wants.  She just can’t expect someone with moral aversion to the practice to pay for it.

Mike78,

When I went to work for my company, I understood what would be covered under insurance and what wouldn’t.  My insurance did not cover some things that I would like it to.  But I choose to work there anyway.  This is no different.  If non Catholics don’t like the benefit package they don’t have to work there.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Buy and Buy and Wavy don’t understand the Catholic church’s objection.  It’s not that they’re being forced to do something they don’t want to—it’s that they are being forced to do something AGAINST THEIR RELIGION.  That’s why Ellenberg’s point is decisive.  Nobody’s fooling anybody with this crap.  If Catholics believed this was a moral issue, none of them would use contraception, and the Church would by only crying over theoretical spilled milk.  Fact is not even Catholics agree with this argument, leaving old white virgins complaining that they don’t get to deprive women of pills.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mike,

BuyBuy and Wave also seem to be ignoring the fact that this is an effort to make the church-run organizations abide by the same policies as everyone else who receives federal funding.

It is too easy to wave the religious flag and cry “exempt” for any and all policies that you simply don’t wish to abide by.  I’d insist that the religious groups come up with a legitimate reason for exemption, beyond “it’s against my religious beliefs.”  That’s too convenient.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider,

I have an issue with your comment about a woman being able to go buy contraceptives for ‘cheap’ at Walmart or for free.  The pill is a complicated issue, because there are many many different kinds with different hormonal levels.  It can be very difficult to find one that works for that woman, because some can make her more moody, or have other nasty side effects, so it takes awhile to find the right kind that works for her.  And sometimes the right kind isn’t covered by any insurance, nor is cheap at Walmart.  Also, MANY women have to start taking birth control in highschool to regulate their cycles and not die of pain every month.  And sometimes this type of birth control pill is very expensive and cannot be covered by insurance, nor accessible at Planned Parenthood.  This is not all about contraception.

Men can have intercourse whenever they want and never face the fear/consequence of becoming pregnant.  Women face this every time. They should, out of respect for their humanity, be free to obtain the protection and medical assistance without the financial burden put on them to get help, because it is such a part of their daily lives.  The idea that every woman can afford the birth control pill/method that helps them and their hormones is just not true.  It is complicated and women should be free to get this assistance, no matter who they work for, nor what insurance they have.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Mike 78,

That is merely your opinion.  Just because there are adherents to the moral tenants of the faith that don’t obey does not make the moral tenants invalid.

JCarr,

Some churches do accept money from the government. Grants often have stipulations as to how you are required to use the money.  And the church must abide by those stipulations. However, we must remember that the money is provided so the church can help meet the needs of society that the government is not equipped to handle. And the churches provide an amazing level of social programs that benefit society. 

There are many religious organizations that do not take a penny from the government who will also be forced to comply.

Kitkat,

Point taken.  However we must remember that just because someone wants to have sex it is not logical to force others, against their will, to support that activity with monetary assistance.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I just want to point out, that the article being harangued by the author of the article linked at the top here is not saying what the government should do about it. It’s saying that the moderate Catholics should, if they disagree with the more despicable things that the church does, leave the church.

Personally, I think that the church should not have the right to deny birth control coverage and allow Viagra and other fertility treatments. You have to remember also that the Catholic Church is also against Condoms and Masturbation. They don’t actually give a hoot about life or morality, they only care about the Dogma. In their minds life began in a woman’s womb when she was conceived and in a man’s testes every time a new sperm is produced, which is frankly, ridiculous. Practical application, I expect that very little of the cost of insurance goes into birth control, and if this becomes enough of an issue insurance that does Not cover birth control may become more expensive. Kind of like health food is more expensive than junk food. So as far as cost goes, all the catholic church needs to do is inquire about how much of the periodic cost covers birth control and simply subtract that from the amount they help cover the cost of and take if out of the employees wages, allowing them to decide if necessary if they want to opt out of birth control coverage. Moral and Practical problem solved, imo.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I would like to go back to Wave Rider’s original comments.  Use of the “conventional birth control and the morning after pill” do have legitimate moral consequences:  they help prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  If the Catholic Church was really interested in preventing/reducing either of these they would change their stance on birth control.  If they were serious about helping prevent poverty they would change their stance on birth control.  No, this is about the control of women and the poor. 

Secondly, I love how you characterize those with your point of view as “Catholics of conscience”, as if others, Catholics or not, who disagree have no conscience.  It’s a very insidious name game.

Thirdly, this issue has nothing to do with trampling the rights of Catholics.  It is about equal protection for women under the law.  No one is telling Catholics they cannot believe or practice as they see fit—as it pertains to them personally.  This coverage is a legitimate First amendment protection.  However, the Catholics in question are operating a public institution, receiving Federal money and employing non-Catholics.  Therefore they are required to follow the law, which in this case means providing birth control through its health plan.  The US government has determined that this is a matter of health and therefore a requirement for all healthcare providers.  If this is too much for the Church to do, they should cease operation of the business.  Like it or not, in our system employers provide health care insurance to employees.  Employers do not have to agree personally with those services provided.  If I, as an employer, have a problem with Viagra because I think that erectile assistance through chemistry is unnatural and therefore immoral should I have the right to deny coverage to my employees?  Of course not; I don’t get a line item veto where someone else’s health care coverage is concerned. 

Lastly, the compromise worked out to have insurance companies pay for this service has been good enough for the Church in New York State for the past decade.  Where was the religious repression cry during all this time?  Personally, I am rather disappointed with the President on this compromise.  I think the law is correct and these institutions should be required to comply in full.  No compromise or exception; there is no need.  The waste of time and resources spent trying to appease a small group on the wrong side of the law is what is unconscionable.  It only goes to show the outsize influence some groups have in our political system.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Lewis claims the ad is wrong to claim that to be part of the Catholic Church is abetting it in attempts to legally ban contraceptive rights.  He says the Church merely asks that it not be forced to do things against its beliefs.  But if the Catholic really believes contraception is immoral and evil, then clearly they must hope one day to get it banned.  Its at the back of their minds at least.  The papacy is very clear that it should be made illegal.  Lewis argues that the ad is wrong to accuse the Church of creating acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, overpopulation, social evils and deaths.  He points out it feeds people and makes hospitals.  This really amounts to saying that the Church should mislead gullible women by telling them birth control is a sin as long as it feeds the unwanted kids that will result.  A Church that harms people so that it can then do them good is hardly a good thing!  Nobody should even be nominally in a religion that teaches seriously evil doctrine.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

its time to grow up babies and admit that there is no Santa Claus! sorry if you feel a need to cling onto this myth so you can still get your Xmas presents but guess what—somebody has to be the kid to tell you the Truth! and also please stop killing people because they don’t believe in your delusions! and stop enticing starving people into shelters to get food and clothing if they agree to accept your sick fantasies! sick! welcome to the 21st century close minded fools!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.