PDA

View Full Version : Catholic church wants to force its religious views on all its non-Catholic employees



SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 01:45 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control

sooner_born_1960
2/7/2012, 02:02 PM
It looks like they just need to replace a bunch of the non-Catholics with Catholics.

KantoSooner
2/7/2012, 02:31 PM
What about the Catholics who use birth control. (a slight majority, last time I checked.)

SoonerAtKU
2/7/2012, 03:53 PM
Then those people are disobedient Catholics and are subject to punishment including excommunication, correct?

sooner_born_1960
2/7/2012, 03:56 PM
The linked article really has nothing to do with that. If the majority of the employees where Catholic, the Church could exclude BC pills from their health insurance coverage. Really, a simple solution.

dwarthog
2/7/2012, 05:06 PM
No doubt they'll receive a waiver from being required to participate in "Obamacare", just like the Unions did.

okie52
2/7/2012, 05:12 PM
No doubt they'll receive a waiver from being required to participate in "Obamacare", just like the Unions did.

A $60,000,000,000 waiver.

47straight
2/7/2012, 05:19 PM
The linked article really has nothing to do with that. If the majority of the employees where Catholic, the Church could exclude BC pills from their health insurance coverage. Really, a simple solution.

They'd also have to discriminate on who they served. So only helping the homeless who were Catholic. Lovely solution!

sooner_born_1960
2/7/2012, 05:20 PM
They'd also have to discriminate on who they served. So only helping the homeless who were Catholic. Lovely solution!
I thought the article was employer provided health insurance.

47straight
2/7/2012, 05:23 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control'

You didn't buy me a Bible. Stop forcing your religious beliefs on me and go buy me a Bible. Hardly any freedom or right is more precious than the right of the press and speech. It is safe and legal. If you don't like the Bible, you don't have to read it. But you must buy it for me. I cannot believe you want to deny me access to the most popular book in existence.

Further, if you don't donate at least $750k to groups that hand out the Bible, you're a bully.

SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 05:23 PM
Don't work there if you don't want to meet their standards. Pretty simple solution. If they can't hire people, then they will be forced to change their ways or close their doors.

You lefties whine about getting religion out of government. Hypocritical for government to meddle in religion.

Last I checked a hospital isn't a church.

I could be wrong though.

47straight
2/7/2012, 05:26 PM
I thought the article was employer provided health insurance.

With stipulations that if you violate your religious beliefs and only serve other people with your own religious beliefs, you don't have to violate your religious beliefs with the insurance plan.

47straight
2/7/2012, 05:27 PM
Last I checked a hospital isn't a church.

I could be wrong though.

Last I checked some churches teach healing the sick, serving the poor, educating people as a required thing. You know, the things that you'd harp on if they didn't do?

badger
2/7/2012, 05:39 PM
This is a very gray area, isn't it? Is the Catholic Church acting as a non-profit that would therefore be allowed to exercise its own opinion on promoting its own causes through its own employees, or is it a private employer, subject to government regulation regarding employee rights and freedoms?

I would fully expect a Catholic priest to be "fired" ("defrocked" is the term, right? I'm not Catholic) if they were found to be leading a life contrary to Catholic principles... even a Catholic church's administrative assistant, janitor or gardener, for that matter. But a Catholic hospital's doctor?

It really depends on what your expectation of a Catholic hospital is compared with a non-Catholic hospital. Do you expect to receive a religious experience and environment in addition to hospital care, or just the same care you would receive at any hospital?

I once had to take someone to the emergency room and the closest hospital was a Catholic one. My expectation at 2 in the morning was straight-up medical care. No prayers, no sermon, no leaflet on the dangers of birth control.

In cases of emergency, I can see others feeling the same way. However, for extended care, I could see people expecting a more religious experience.

Thus... a gray area.

47straight
2/7/2012, 06:03 PM
This is a very gray area, isn't it? Is the Catholic Church acting as a non-profit that would therefore be allowed to exercise its own opinion on promoting its own causes through its own employees, or is it a private employer, subject to government regulation regarding employee rights and freedoms?

I would fully expect a Catholic priest to be "fired" ("defrocked" is the term, right? I'm not Catholic) if they were found to be leading a life contrary to Catholic principles... even a Catholic church's administrative assistant, janitor or gardener, for that matter. But a Catholic hospital's doctor?

It really depends on what your expectation of a Catholic hospital is compared with a non-Catholic hospital. Do you expect to receive a religious experience and environment in addition to hospital care, or just the same care you would receive at any hospital?

I once had to take someone to the emergency room and the closest hospital was a Catholic one. My expectation at 2 in the morning was straight-up medical care. No prayers, no sermon, no leaflet on the dangers of birth control.

In cases of emergency, I can see others feeling the same way. However, for extended care, I could see people expecting a more religious experience.

Thus... a gray area.

Considering that those who built the hospital were religiously motivated to build the hospital, I find it peculiar that you would determine that the mission, character, and purpose of the hospital were to be defined only by your expectations.

And before anyone goes on the slippery slope ride of, for example, a hospital that doesn't treat HIV because they hate gay people, why not take a ride on the much more obvious and imminent slippery slope of requiring all doctors and hospitals to perform abortion and euthanasia (in Oregon today, elsewhere tomorrow) on-demand? After all, some people may sincerely and expect it.

But back to your original point - it is interesting that the State has moved so much more into domains such as feeding the poor, healing the sick, and educating people that the Catholic Church (and many other churches and charities) have been doing for hundreds/thousands of years. To the churches, they are doing what they've always been doing. To some of the State, there should be a Separation of Church and Hospital. That's probably a natural outcome with growing calls for food, healthcare, and shelter to be considered rights. If it's a right, then the State should step in. And if it's a right, it must be paid for.

The jump, to me, is the argument that because it's a right, A should pay for/provide it directly for B. The argument isn't even that A must pay for B through taxes.

soonerhubs
2/7/2012, 07:31 PM
I'm hard pressed to see where subsidized birth control is an inalienable right, so I couldn't give two ****s if they take this off of their insurance plans. Every employee at that hospital is free to take the money he/she earns from that place and walk his/her *** over to a Walgreens and make the necessary purchases.

Sounds like a bunch of spoiled candy-asses to me.

OUHOMER
2/7/2012, 08:32 PM
If your told up front, "Our insurnace does not provide birth control" you do not have to accept the job. And if you work there you are free to find a differant job.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2012, 08:45 PM
If your told up front, "Our insurnace does not provide birth control" you do not have to accept the job. And if you work there you are free to find a differant job.

Same argument gets made against minimum wage and health & safety standards. No comment on whether it's a good argument.

AlboSooner
2/7/2012, 10:00 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control

Let's impose your views on the catholic church. Your exclusivity is better than theirs.

SoonerPride
2/7/2012, 10:09 PM
Let's impose your views on the catholic church. Your exclusivity is better than theirs.

Oh no, I don't want to impose anything on any CHURCH.

They're free to believe whatever nonsense about talking snakes and people living inside of whales that suits their fancy.

However, employers who are not churches under law must provide equal access to medical care to their employees. This is already the law of the land in 28 sates. So the big brouhaha has less to do with the government mandating anything to anyone and more to do with the Catholic church looking to pick a fight.

And polls show the majority of their own parishoners think they are wrong.

AlboSooner
2/7/2012, 10:26 PM
Oh no, I don't want to impose anything on any CHURCH.

They're free to believe whatever nonsense about talking snakes and people living inside of whales that suits their fancy.

However, employers who are not churches under law must provide equal access to medical care to their employees. This is already the law of the land in 28 sates. So the big brouhaha has less to do with the government mandating anything to anyone and more to do with the Catholic church looking to pick a fight.

And polls show the majority of their own parishoners think they are wrong.

The very moment you say: they shouldn't do this, or should do this, you have philosophically imposed a view. You have set your rules of behavior. Don't shy away from it. Of course i understand you can't physically impose anything on them.

I agree with you though.

TheHumanAlphabet
2/8/2012, 04:05 AM
This is just part of the plan of O'Bammy to marginalize religion. Either they as employers have to violate their religious beliefs and tenants or they stop being employers to people. Eventually, everyone will need to belly up to the Church of the State as eveyone has "religion" of the Progressives and have to go to the gubment for everything. O'Bammy is a liar through and through. He lied to infringe on our rights and he will continue to lie to push the Progressive agenda.

Does a church who pays a minister, a secretary and maybe a youth minister or second pastor have to provide abortion means if it is against the church's religious beliefs? they are employers...

badger
2/8/2012, 09:41 AM
Considering that those who built the hospital were religiously motivated to build the hospital, I find it peculiar that you would determine that the mission, character, and purpose of the hospital were to be defined only by your expectations.

And before anyone goes on the slippery slope ride of, for example, a hospital that doesn't treat HIV because they hate gay people, why not take a ride on the much more obvious and imminent slippery slope of requiring all doctors and hospitals to perform abortion and euthanasia (in Oregon today, elsewhere tomorrow) on-demand? After all, some people may sincerely and expect it.

But back to your original point - it is interesting that the State has moved so much more into domains such as feeding the poor, healing the sick, and educating people that the Catholic Church (and many other churches and charities) have been doing for hundreds/thousands of years. To the churches, they are doing what they've always been doing. To some of the State, there should be a Separation of Church and Hospital. That's probably a natural outcome with growing calls for food, healthcare, and shelter to be considered rights. If it's a right, then the State should step in. And if it's a right, it must be paid for.

The jump, to me, is the argument that because it's a right, A should pay for/provide it directly for B. The argument isn't even that A must pay for B through taxes.

Ron Paul has made it a main sticking point in his debates this year that it used to be communities and charities that would help those less fortunate, not the government. Is it a matter of there just being too many "less fortunate" for the charities or the communities to care for, or too many people feeling "less fortunate?" Or perhaps, the government just perceives more to be "less fortunate?"

I just don't think the government can handle everyone they classify as "less fortunate" and thus, they should probably stick their noses elsewhere... like creating jobs, not meddling in the jobs that already exist.


Same argument gets made against minimum wage and health & safety standards. No comment on whether it's a good argument.

Welcome to "The Jungle" :)


I'm hard pressed to see where subsidized birth control is an inalienable right, so I couldn't give two ****s if they take this off of their insurance plans. Every employee at that hospital is free to take the money he/she earns from that place and walk his/her *** over to a Walgreens and make the necessary purchases.

Sounds like a bunch of spoiled candy-asses to me.

Birth control is pretty cheap compared to some medicines also, probably because there's so many different types and choices for both men and women. So yeah, it could probably be done away with easily without too much recourse.

From this morning's paper:


Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., last week expressed outrage over the regulation.

"This must not stand," he said.

Lankford said he had met with presidents of several Christian-affiliated universities, adding they expressed grave concern about their freedom to practice their faith and values without government interference.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20120208_16_A10_ULNSbS847762)

I remember my brother applying to work at a religious-affiliated university and being told that only those that were of that particular branch of Christianity were allowed to teach there, so he was not qualified (although they DID consider his denomination Christian, for the record).

If the administration keeps forcing this issue, I could see very, very strict hiring practices for these groups in the future... not just up-front asking if you are Catholic or not, but how strictly you abide by Catholic principles.

dwarthog
2/8/2012, 11:26 AM
Ron Paul has made it a main sticking point in his debates this year that it used to be communities and charities that would help those less fortunate, not the government. Is it a matter of there just being too many "less fortunate" for the charities or the communities to care for, or too many people feeling "less fortunate?" Or perhaps, the government just perceives more to be "less fortunate?"

I just don't think the government can handle everyone they classify as "less fortunate" and thus, they should probably stick their noses elsewhere... like creating jobs, not meddling in the jobs that already exist.



Welcome to "The Jungle" :)



Birth control is pretty cheap compared to some medicines also, probably because there's so many different types and choices for both men and women. So yeah, it could probably be done away with easily without too much recourse.

From this morning's paper:



Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=335&articleid=20120208_16_A10_ULNSbS847762)

I remember my brother applying to work at a religious-affiliated university and being told that only those that were of that particular branch of Christianity were allowed to teach there, so he was not qualified (although they DID consider his denomination Christian, for the record).

If the administration keeps forcing this issue, I could see very, very strict hiring practices for these groups in the future... not just up-front asking if you are Catholic or not, but how strictly you abide by Catholic principles.


I believe the issue to be one of definition. What is less fortunate?

No food? No shelter? No car? No big screen tv? No computer? No iphone?

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 11:35 AM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control

Why should the Catholic Church be forced to pay for something that they have a conscientious objection too. The Church isn't telling those folks that they can't get birth control, they are just saying that they won't pay for it. The gov't is in the wrong here. This is a clear breaking of tradition around conscience objection and probably a violation of seperation of church and state.

47straight
2/8/2012, 11:49 AM
Ron Paul has made it a main sticking point in his debates this year that it used to be communities and charities that would help those less fortunate, not the government. Is it a matter of there just being too many "less fortunate" for the charities or the communities to care for, or too many people feeling "less fortunate?" Or perhaps, the government just perceives more to be "less fortunate?"
I just don't think the government can handle everyone they classify as "less fortunate" and thus, they should probably stick their noses elsewhere... like creating jobs, not meddling in the jobs that already exist.

I think that it's some of both. Even with the greatest and most active charities in the world, some people are bound to slip through the cracks. This is probably particularly true with very difficult problems such as mental health issues. (Granted, the government does a pretty ****-poor job of execution on that.)
However, while local charities are probably in a position to generally gauge needs and deliver help to where it is needed the most, government doesn't have the luxury or seemingly the capacity to have any subtlety or nuance when delivering help. Thus government help ends up being over-inclusive and more wasteful.




If the administration keeps forcing this issue, I could see very, very strict hiring practices for these groups in the future... not just up-front asking if you are Catholic or not, but how strictly you abide by Catholic principles.

I don't think so, but even assuming a change in hiring practices this is only half of the equation. The administration's rules require that you also only SERVE your own faith. It's simply not the case that these are only going to start feeding the poor of their own faith, because that in itself would violate their faith.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 11:49 AM
Why should the Catholic Church be forced to pay for something that they have a conscientious objection too. The Church isn't telling those folks that they can't get birth control, they are just saying that they won't pay for it. The gov't is in the wrong here. This is a clear breaking of tradition around conscience objection and probably a violation of seperation of church and state.

Because a hospital isn't a church.

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 11:53 AM
SURE!
You think that this is a good solution?
(Either Catholics are forced to provide something that is against their religious teachings - or, that Catholic institutions should fire all non-Catholics?)

DUH!
Early on Obama was quoted in a meeting as saying that the Catholic Church was the biggest obstacle to achieving "his agenda"!
Seems that he has now gone on the attack against Christians.

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 11:55 AM
Don't work there if you don't want to meet their standards. Pretty simple solution. If they can't hire people, then they will be forced to change their ways or close their doors.

You lefties whine about getting religion out of government. Hypocritical for government to meddle in religion.

Exactly!
The Left wants "freedom from religion"!
This is what the HHS ruling is about.

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 12:00 PM
If your told up front, "Our insurnace does not provide birth control" you do not have to accept the job. And if you work there you are free to find a differant job.

This is the scenario that the HHS wants to avoid!
They MUST provide services in their insurance; and do these procedures in their hospitals!
Thus, forcing Catholic to provide what violates their conscience.

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 12:01 PM
PREGNANCY IS NOT A DISEASE!

badger
2/8/2012, 12:16 PM
PREGNANCY IS NOT A DISEASE!

Pregnancy discriminates against women. Maybe we should sue God over that... or those that benefit from Acts of God... like... say... the Catholic Church :P

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 12:18 PM
SURE!
You think that this is a good solution?
(Either Catholics are forced to provide something that is against their religious teachings - or, that Catholic institutions should fire all non-Catholics?)

DUH!
Early on Obama was quoted in a meeting as saying that the Catholic Church was the biggest obstacle to achieving "his agenda"!
Seems that he has now gone on the attack against Christians.

OK Chicken Little.

Sure.

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 12:36 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control

Your mistake is in your very first sentence. There are no non-religious tentacles of the Catholic church. Everything they do is tied into their beliefs. Churches, schools.. Everything.

They are not forcing their beliefs on their employees... They do not demand them to stop taking birth control or take communion or risk being fired, for example.

In the end, the Catholics will not budge. If forced, they will close their hospitals and schools and that would be a terrible tragedy because they do a lot of good in the inner cities.

I think our "constitutuional scholar" of a president should probably brush up on the constitution.. If he does, it shouldn't take long to get to that pesky freedom of religion part and what the federal government can and, more importantly, cannot do.

badger
2/8/2012, 12:38 PM
Perhaps it's time that we just go full-on socialist/communist/marxist or whatever everyone thinks Obama is... and get state control of all hospitals. Don't compensate their owners, just be Venezuela and take those valuable suckers over!!!!

:( it would be a sad day if that were to actually happen.

Sooner98
2/8/2012, 12:39 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control

I'm wondering how not paying for someone's birth control, is equal to imposing religious views and telling them they can't have access to it. As someone else said, they are more than welcome to have access to it, just out of their own wallets. Care to explain?

achiro
2/8/2012, 12:42 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control
Wow, I wondered how the dims were trying to frame this argument. It's dumber than I thought it would be.

Because a hospital isn't a church.
You're point?

TitoMorelli
2/8/2012, 12:43 PM
Should the government even be able to force businesses to provide health care coverage to their employees? Isn't that the bigger, more fundamental question?

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 12:48 PM
I'm wondering how not paying for someone's birth control, is equal to imposing religious views and telling them they can't have access to it. As someone else said, they are more than welcome to have access to it, just out of their own wallets. Care to explain?

Sure...


For millions of low- and middle-income women seeking to manage the competing demands of family, job, and health care, contraceptive coverage will bring considerable relief, either because they will not lose something they already have, or they will gain coverage for an expense that can run over $600.00 per year and which is unique to them as women.


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/20/obama-adminstration-does-right-thing-on-contraceptive-coverage

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 12:49 PM
Should the government even be able to force businesses to provide health care coverage to their employees? Isn't that the bigger, more fundamental question?

Yes.

....and that question has been answered.

We will see if the Supreme Court agrees with the answer that Congress gave.

badger
2/8/2012, 12:50 PM
Should the government even be able to force businesses to provide health care coverage to their employees? Isn't that the bigger, more fundamental question?

Wait a sec... haven't they always, or at least for a very long time, forced employers to provide a means to health care if they have more than X number of employees?

I'm not saying they pay for it, but they need to provide a means to have health care if they have a certain number of employees... they need to say "This is how you enroll, this is the company we work with (ie UnitedHealthcare), this is what your monthly deduction is from your paycheck if you enroll, this is how much extra it costs if you want to include your kids or your spouse... and this giant number right here? That's if you've smoked once in the past five years."

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 12:58 PM
Wait a sec... haven't they always, or at least for a very long time, forced employers to provide a means to health care if they have more than X number of employees?

I'm not saying they pay for it, but they need to provide a means to have health care if they have a certain number of employees... they need to say "This is how you enroll, this is the company we work with (ie UnitedHealthcare), this is what your monthly deduction is from your paycheck if you enroll, this is how much extra it costs if you want to include your kids or your spouse... and this giant number right here? That's if you've smoked once in the past five years."

No, they have not.

Your employer can choose not to offer insurance.

That changed with the Affordable Care Act going into effect 2014.


Effective by January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will impose a $2000 per employee tax penalty on employers with over 50 employees who do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers. (In 2008, over 95% of employers with at least 50 employees offered health insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#Employer-sponsored

Sooner98
2/8/2012, 01:08 PM
For millions of low- and middle-income women seeking to manage the competing demands of family, job, and health care, contraceptive coverage will bring considerable relief, either because they will not lose something they already have, or they will gain coverage for an expense that can run over $600.00 per year and which is unique to them as women.

Not paying for something is not the same as denying access to it. Besides, if these employees don't like it, they are more than welcome to find another employer who is willing to pay for it.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 01:27 PM
Because a hospital isn't a church.

Why do you keep talking about hospitals? We're talking about anybody in the employment of the Church. The Church doesn't just hire folks to work in hospitals and there's really no difference whether they are working in a hospital or Church or other facility. The main point is that the gov't is forcing the Church to pay for something that it has a moral objection to.

While I may not agree completely with the Church's teaching on birth control, I do not believe that it should be forced to pay for something that it has a well established moral objection to. Next thing, the gov't will be telling them to provide free abortions.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 01:55 PM
I took this quote from the 9th circuit's ruling in the gay thread. Seems to apply here, no?


And in the case of Prop. 8, the court focused on the fact that Prop. 8 eliminated a right by [government fiat]. At some level, most of us know in our gut that allowing such tyranny of the majority would lead to some very ugly outcomes,

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 01:59 PM
I took this quote from the 9th circuit's ruling in the gay thread. Seems to apply here, no?

No.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 02:26 PM
Does not appear to be gaining the traction the GOP thinks...

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i84/SoonerPride1/polling.jpg

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 02:44 PM
No.

By the graph you just posted I'd say it applies perfectly. Conscientious objectors were allowed to opt out of the draft in Vietnam, but the Church is not allowed to opt out of provisions that it has conscientious objections to. Tyranny of the majority.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 02:47 PM
By the graph you just posted I'd say it applies perfectly. Conscientious objectors were allowed to opt out of the draft in Vietnam, but the Church is not allowed to opt out of provisions that it has conscientious objections to. Tyranny of the majority.

What do you define as a church?

A hospital or a school is not a "CHURCH."

If you are so cavalier with what constitutes a church, which is exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act which are deemed so onerous, then I declare myself a "church" and get tax-exempt status for life.

Welcome to the First Church of SoonerPride. All heathens welcome (except for texans).

Remember, these "church" hospitals are awash is FEDERAL funds that they gladly soak in. Next time a "church" gets millions in federal dollars, let me know.


In America, as of 1999, 13% of all hospitals were religious (totaling 18% of all hospital beds); that's 604 out of 4,573 hospitals. [6] Despite the presence of organized religion in America, the Church has managed to scrape together only a few hospitals. Of these 604 hospitals, many are a product of mergers with public, non-sectarian hospitals. Not all of these 604 hospitals are Catholic; many are Baptist, Methodist, Shriner (Masonic), Jewish, etc.

Despite the religious label, these so-called religious hospitals are more public than public hospitals. Religious hospitals get 36% of all their revenue from Medicare; public hospitals get only 27%. In addition to that 36% of public funding, they get 12% of their funding from Medicaid. Of the remaining 44% of funding, 31% comes from county appropriations, 30% comes from investments, and only 5% comes from charitable contributions (not necessarily religious). The percentage of Church funding for Church-run hospitals comes to a grand total of 0.0015 percent. [7]

The claim that the religious build hospitals gives the illusion that the religious are more charitable than the secular, non-religious. With hospitals, at least, that isn't the case. Every hospital writes off a certain percentage of medical revenue as charitable care. The religious hospitals aren't the least charitable of hospitals, but they're close to it. For-profit hospitals provided, on average, only 0.8% of their gross patient revenue as charity care; religious hospitals came in with 1.9%. On the other hand, the secular non-profit hospitals had 2% and the godless secular public hospitals provided 5.1%. [8]

http://atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 02:58 PM
What does it matter whether it is a school or church or hospital. The Catholic Church runs it and hires the people. The Catholic Church has specific moral objections to birth control. The Catholic Church does not want to pay for birth control. The Catholic Church is not saying that people in its employ cannot go out and pay for birth control on their own.

The argument you provide is a non-sequitor. What we are talking about here is being forced to pay for something to which you have a conscientious objection.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 03:07 PM
Which is tantamount to discrimination.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 03:10 PM
What discrimination? The Church having the right to exercise it's own beliefs?

What's happening here is not the Church enforcing it's views on others. It's the gov't enforcing its beliefs on the Church.

Ike
2/8/2012, 03:11 PM
What does it matter whether it is a school or church or hospital. The Catholic Church runs it and hires the people. The Catholic Church has specific moral objections to birth control. The Catholic Church does not want to pay for birth control. The Catholic Church is not saying that people in its employ cannot go out and pay for birth control on their own.


Although, they probably would fire people who went out and paid for birth control on their own if they ever found out about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1949131#.TzLWh8iwUbU
http://www.care2.com/causes/teacher-fired-from-catholic-school-for-using-artificial-insemination.html

badger
2/8/2012, 03:19 PM
Although, they probably would fire people who went out and paid for birth control on their own if they ever found out about it.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1949131#.TzLWh8iwUbU
http://www.care2.com/causes/teacher-fired-from-catholic-school-for-using-artificial-insemination.html

Don't ask, don't tell ;)

okie52
2/8/2012, 03:27 PM
Does the Catholic church view someone that has a vasectomy as continually living in sin? I know Catholic hospitals won't do tubals. Is it a firing offense?

TitoMorelli
2/8/2012, 03:37 PM
So in essence it's OK if the current administration (and a Congress that in essence no longer exists, since so many of the culprits responsible for the ObamaCare fiasco have been drummed out) mandates health coverage and gives out general exemptions to its hand-picked toadies, but not OK if it should choose to exempt from only the most controversial portions of the legislation those with serious convictions against them.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 03:59 PM
So in essence it's OK if the current administration (and a Congress that in essence no longer exists, since so many of the culprits responsible for the ObamaCare fiasco have been drummed out) mandates health coverage and gives out general exemptions to its hand-picked toadies, but not OK if it should choose to exempt from only the most controversial portions of the legislation those with serious convictions against them.

As long as these hospitals receive millions of dollars in federal funds, then yes it is perfectly acceptable for the federal government to insist on non-discrimination for their employees.

TitoMorelli
2/8/2012, 04:10 PM
In other words if the hospitals now choose to turn away any patient for whose care the cost would be provided by the government, then they should be able to do as they wish?

achiro
2/8/2012, 04:16 PM
As long as these hospitals receive millions of dollars in federal funds, then yes it is perfectly acceptable for the federal government to insist on non-discrimination for their employees.
You do understand that " receiving", "getting", and "earning" are not the same thing. Saying a hospital is receiving federal funds because they treat Medicare and Medicaid patients is very misleading. It becomes more and more apparent with every one of your posts in this thread that you have no idea what you are talking about. I will say this about you though, you are an absolute pro at regurgitating crap info from the liberal websites.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 04:19 PM
As long as these hospitals receive millions of dollars in federal funds, then yes it is perfectly acceptable for the federal government to insist on non-discrimination for their employees.

Has the federal gov't tied the acceptance of these funds to the provisions in the law? If that's the case then I've got no problem. He who has the gold makes the rules. And the Church then has a way to opt out of it by selling the hospitals. To my knowledge they are not tying any funding to this provision.

Again, you're making a distinction between the church and other Catholic organizations like hospitals and schools. The gov't is making no such distinction. People the Church hires to work in its churches are subject to the same provisions.

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 04:34 PM
People the Church hires to work in its churches are subject to the same provisions.

FALSE


the healthcare law, does not apply to churches and church-run organizations. Other religiously affiliated institutions, such as Catholic hospitals, charities and universities, have one year to phase in the new mandate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-white-house-will-work-with-religious-groups-on-birth-control-rule--20120207,0,7022180.story

47straight
2/8/2012, 04:40 PM
What discrimination? The Church having the right to exercise it's own beliefs?

What's happening here is not the Church enforcing it's views on others. It's the gov't enforcing its beliefs on the Church.

It's Soonerpride wanting to force his beliefs on the Church. All the while accusing the Church of the same.

What's that called where you accuse others of what you do yourself?

47straight
2/8/2012, 04:41 PM
What do you define as a church?

A hospital or a school is not a "CHURCH."

If you are so cavalier with what constitutes a church, which is exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act which are deemed so onerous, then I declare myself a "church" and get tax-exempt status for life.

Welcome to the First Church of SoonerPride. All heathens welcome (except for texans).

Remember, these "church" hospitals are awash is FEDERAL funds that they gladly soak in. Next time a "church" gets millions in federal dollars, let me know.



http://atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals

I guess you don't want poor and old people to be able to go to the hospital they want.

47straight
2/8/2012, 04:43 PM
As long as these hospitals receive millions of dollars in federal funds, then yes it is perfectly acceptable for the federal government to insist on non-discrimination for their employees.


So you're okay with discriminating against poor or old people who want to use their insurance money to go to the hospital of their church?

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 04:44 PM
What's that called where you accuse others of what you do yourself?

Christianity?

;)

Bourbon St Sooner
2/8/2012, 05:14 PM
Christianity?

;)

So you're fine with your own hypocrisy, just not others. Hey, at least you admit it.



Just heard this song by Mike Snow on Pandora. Never heard the dude before. Pretty good stuff.

Sooner5030
2/8/2012, 08:24 PM
ODG, I do not want to read all the replies on this thread....but is this really about religious based orgs not wanting to cover birth control pills in their health insurance plan?

If so.....there is no hope for our society. Are we really bitching about someone's rights being violated because their employer wont provide a health care plan that pays for birth control?

And we wonder why all of our systems are broke. Ritalin, prozac, viagra, birth control and 200 other new meds being paid under the same model that was used to cover catastrophic events that were out of a reasonable person's expense.

get routine and preventive care out of the risk pool please.

/did not read the link or all of the replies

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 08:30 PM
Your mistake is in your very first sentence. There are no non-religious tentacles of the Catholic church. Everything they do is tied into their beliefs. Churches, schools.. Everything.

They are not forcing their beliefs on their employees... They do not demand them to stop taking birth control or take communion or risk being fired, for example.

In the end, the Catholics will not budge. If forced, they will close their hospitals and schools and that would be a terrible tragedy because they do a lot of good in the inner cities.

I think our "constitutuional scholar" of a president should probably brush up on the constitution.. If he does, it shouldn't take long to get to that pesky freedom of religion part and what the federal government can and, more importantly, cannot do.

If you take the Left's reasoning farther along, Catholic Schools will be required to teach the Muslim faith!
(That's what Obama probably wants.)

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 08:35 PM
Does not appear to be gaining the traction the GOP thinks...

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i84/SoonerPride1/polling.jpg

Nice statistics.
But, the votes don't change the Catholic Church's teachings.
Just proves that many, many Catholics will go to He11 also!
:dispirited:

soonercruiser
2/8/2012, 08:40 PM
Does the Catholic church view someone that has a vasectomy as continually living in sin? I know Catholic hospitals won't do tubals. Is it a firing offense?

Not a firing offense, as long as you keep putting cash in the collection basket!
That IS what has gotten the Church in trouble.....being afraid of the effects on the collection basket, or their tax-exempt status......kept it from openly teaching against contraception for two generations.
Started with the conferences at Notre Dame, funded by the Rockafellers.
What have been the "friuts" of contraception and abortion?

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 08:47 PM
What have been the "friuts" of contraception and abortion?

Some economists and criminalogists argue that it lowered the crime rate in the late 1980s and 1990s...


We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime

There are many scholarly articles and debates on this subject, here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

OU_Sooners75
2/8/2012, 09:30 PM
It is outrageous to me that the Catholic church is demanding the right to tell its non-Catholic employees at hospitals and other non-religious tentacles of their vast operation that they can't have access to birth control because THEY think they know what's best for them.

Talk about imposing your religious views on others.

Hooray for the feds for telling them to shove it.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146512784/new-republic-you-already-pay-for-birth-control

I personally see nothing wrong with it.

It is like me owning a business and telling my employees this is the insurance that is available to you....like it or not, it is what you get when you sign up for it.

The people that work at a place are not forced to work there. They are free to go elsewhere to work...and in the medical industry, it is not hard to find another job!

sappstuf
2/8/2012, 09:52 PM
Some economists and criminalogists argue that it lowered the crime rate in the late 1980s and 1990s...



There are many scholarly articles and debates on this subject, here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

Now you are a supporter of Eugenics?

Awesome.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Galton_class_eugenics.svg

SoonerPride
2/8/2012, 10:05 PM
Now you are a supporter of Eugenics?

Awesome.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Galton_class_eugenics.svg

Eugenics?

Hardly. This isn't about the gene pool, but studies suggesting that crime rates dropped due to a decrease in unwanted children due in large part to legalized abortion.

I can't tell whether you were being facetious or daft.

sappstuf
2/9/2012, 12:09 AM
Eugenics?

Hardly. This isn't about the gene pool, but studies suggesting that crime rates dropped due to a decrease in unwanted children due in large part to legalized abortion.

I can't tell whether you were being facetious or daft.

Did the studies suggest how many senators, CEOs, or otherwise successful people were not born? If not, then it seems that weeding out the undesirables was the focus of the study.

TitoMorelli
2/9/2012, 09:16 AM
Interesting read...


The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate


When the administration affirmed last month that church-affiliated employers must buy health insurance that covers birth control, the outcry was instant. Critics complained that certain institutions should be exempt as a matter of religious freedom. Although the ruling was meant to be final, presidential advisers said this week that the administration might look for a compromise.

Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for "insurance" that covers contraceptives?

I put "insurance" in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.

Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn't add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn't charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You'd have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you'd end up spending more.

How did we get to this point? It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employer-provided group insurance.

If your employer pays you $100 less in salary and buys $100 of group insurance for you, you don't pay taxes on that amount. Hence, the more insurance costs and covers, the less in taxes you seem to pay. (Even that savings is an illusion: The government still needs money and raises overall tax rates to make up the difference.)

...I have "access" to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier. Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford pills or condoms.

...Remember, we're supposed to be worrying about skyrocketing health-care expenses. Doubling the number of wellness visits and free pills sounds great, but who's going to pay for it? There is a liberal dream that by mandating coverage the government can make something free.

Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums. If your employer is paying for your health insurance, he could be paying you more in salary instead. Or, he could be lowering prices and selling his product to you and all consumers more cheaply. Someone is paying. Not even HHS tries to claim that these "recommended preventive services" will lower overall costs.....


more-- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577210730406555906.html

Sooner_Bob
2/9/2012, 09:43 AM
Last I checked a hospital isn't a church.

I could be wrong though.

It's not, but the secular viewpoint of compartmentalizing religion goes completely against a Christian's viewpoint . . .

Besides, if the hospital is funded by a Catholic group any expecting them to go against their own teachings isn't too sharp.

SoonerPride
2/9/2012, 09:45 AM
Last I checked a hospital isn't a church.

I could be wrong though.

It's not, but the secular viewpoint of compartmentalizing religion goes completely against a Christian's viewpoint . . .

Besides, if the hospital is funded by a Catholic group any expecting them to go against their own teachings isn't too sharp.

They already do in 28 states.

Sooner_Bob
2/9/2012, 09:45 AM
If you take the Left's reasoning farther along, Catholic Schools will be required to teach the Muslim faith!
(That's what Obama probably wants.)

Islam will continue to get a pass as long as it remains the minority faith . . .

Sooner_Bob
2/9/2012, 09:46 AM
They already do in 28 states.

And when one suddenly chooses to follow what they teach it's a problem?

SoonerPride
2/9/2012, 09:49 AM
They already do in 28 states.

And when one suddenly chooses to follow what they teach it's a problem?

Nah, it's just trumped up controversy

That's all.

SoonerPride
2/9/2012, 09:54 AM
If you take the Left's reasoning farther along, Catholic Schools will be required to teach the Muslim faith!
(That's what Obama probably wants.)

Islam will continue to get a pass as long as it remains the minority faith . . .

And when it's the majority faith I predict Christians will be first in line banning prayer in school and screaming about separation of church and state. :p

Sooner_Bob
2/9/2012, 09:57 AM
And when it's the majority faith I predict Christians will be first in line banning prayer in school and screaming about separation of church and state. :p

Yep . . . well, everyone except the secular Christians.

You really think a bunch of Christian kids are going to set foot in an Islamic school?