Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lol. Yeah, without the religious vote, Obama is screwed. It's all over!
23% of Americans are Catholic. I don't think any candidate can lose that many people. The question is how many votes will he lose over this. I grew up Catholic and nobody I knew cared about the church's contraception policies, so I'm not sure it's a make-or-break issue. On the other hand, if people recognize this as the intrusion into religion that it is, it may not be just Catholics that are upset.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

So remember that chart where you took a quiz and many of the people on here got ranked on their political positions?The people who created that have placed the current candidates on it:NOU8D.pngHow sad is that?Whoever made the last update, do you want to put these guys on and show us how well our candidates represent us?
This chart gives a different perspective.http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317presidents_common_space_1D.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
23% of Americans are Catholic. I don't think any candidate can lose that many people. The question is how many votes will he lose over this. I grew up Catholic and nobody I knew cared about the church's contraception policies, so I'm not sure it's a make-or-break issue. On the other hand, if people recognize this as the intrusion into religion that it is, it may not be just Catholics that are upset.
Yes, he had a lot of Catholics vote for him last election. http://www.eurasiareview.com/06022012-anal...er-hhs-mandate/ This goes deeper than just contraceptives, Obama pissed in these peoples faces. He made a lot of promises when trying to gain support for Obama care. There were more than a few Catholics that stood up for him and the administration. He hung these people out to dry big time. He flat out lied in his address at Notre Dame and he has embarrassed those that stuck their necks out for him. I know this doesn't seem like a big deal to you Caine, because the MSM is ignoring it, but Obama is ****ed big time with Catholics, and he is going to take a significant hit with Hispanics too. This move is unbelievably stupid, which will become more apparent as the election gets nearer. I guess his plan is to take over all the Catholic Hospitals and Charities and run them with taxpayer dollars. We'll see how that goes over. The Catholic Church is not going to obey this, they will either shut down or ignore its mandate. This is not a small story, and the media won't be able to protect Obama from this one.David Brooks and Mark Shields even seem to understand there may be a problem here. http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/david-br...elical-problem/
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, he had a lot of Catholics vote for him last election. This goes deeper than just contraceptives, Obama pissed in these peoples faces. He made a lot of promises when trying to gain support for Obama care. There were more than a few Catholics that stood up for him and the administration. He hung these people out to dry big time. He flat out lied in his address at Notre Dame and he has embarrassed those that stuck their necks out for him. I know this doesn't seem like a big deal to you Caine, because the MSM is ignoring it, but Obama is ****ed big time with Catholics, and he is going to take a significant hit with Hispanics too. This move is unbelievably stupid, which will become more apparent as the election gets nearer. I guess his plan is to take over all the Catholic Hospitals and Charities and run them with taxpayer dollars. We'll see how that goes over. The Catholic Church is not going to obey this, they will either shut down or ignore its mandate. This is not a small story, and the media won't be able to protect Obama from this one.David Brooks and Mark Shields even seem to understand there may be a problem here. http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/david-br...elical-problem/
I think it's interesting how much I am hearing about this story "on the street" (by which I mean from friends, relatives, Facebook, etc) vs how much it has been reported in the MSM (not at all). This one has a lot of people riled up, enough to change their vote. The real questions are 1. how big that group is, and 2. will they remain pissed all the way through November. The American electorate has a notoriously short attention span, and if throws them a few bones before then all could be forgotten. But right now, this really is a big mistake for him.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's interesting how much I am hearing about this story "on the street" (by which I mean from friends, relatives, Facebook, etc) vs how much it has been reported in the MSM (not at all). This one has a lot of people riled up, enough to change their vote. The real questions are 1. how big that group is, and 2. will they remain pissed all the way through November. The American electorate has a notoriously short attention span, and if throws them a few bones before then all could be forgotten. But right now, this really is a big mistake for him.
Why would it be a big deal? No one is saying that Catholics have to use contraception. Are Catholics seriously that bigoted against non-Catholics that they would deny them contraception?If you are in a majority Catholic hospital you don't have to follow this rule. Even this is conceding too much. Any hospital that gets federal funding should have to follow reasonable rules, and this is definitely a reasonable rule. Also, it obviously needs to be brought up that the large majority of Catholics disagree with the leadership on contraception, making their outrage even more absurd. The Catholics are wrong on this issue. Period.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So remember that chart where you took a quiz and many of the people on here got ranked on their political positions?The people who created that have placed the current candidates on it:NOU8D.pngHow sad is that?Whoever made the last update, do you want to put these guys on and show us how well our candidates represent us?
Sounds about right. Obama has been an absolute disaster for liberals since he has basically governed as an authoritarian conservative. Not only do Neocons get to push the country even further towards fascism, but they get to blame Democrats as an added bonus. No wonder they are throwing the election to Obama.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would it be a big deal? No one is saying that Catholics have to use contraception. Are Catholics seriously that bigoted against non-Catholics that they would deny them contraception?If you are in a majority Catholic hospital you don't have to follow this rule. Even this is conceding too much. Any hospital that gets federal funding should have to follow reasonable rules, and this is definitely a reasonable rule. Also, it obviously needs to be brought up that the large majority of Catholics disagree with the leadership on contraception, making their outrage even more absurd. The Catholics are wrong on this issue. Period.
It's not a question of whether the Catholic beliefs in contraception are right or wrong; the question is whether we have freedom of religion in this country. At a time when the religious are already feeling persecuted, giving such a blatant signal that religious freedom means nothing to them is a very bad political move.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds about right. Obama has been an absolute disaster for liberals since he has basically governed as an authoritarian conservative. Not only do Neocons get to push the country even further towards fascism, but they get to blame Democrats as an added bonus. No wonder they are throwing the election to Obama.
At this point throwing it may be their best strategy. That would certainly explain the party's support for Romney. 4 more years of Obama could kill the Democratic party for a long time, and, as you point out, for all the wrong reasons.
Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point throwing it may be their best strategy. That would certainly explain the party's support for Romney. 4 more years of Obama could kill the Democratic party for a long time, and, as you point out, for all the wrong reasons.
forgive me for maybe not parsing this correctly, but my response is: if normal people gave a fuck about the way we've been edging toward fascism, bush wouldn't have gotten a second term, and obama would be universally reviled right now. alas, partisan bickering is too large a distraction for the average person.
Link to post
Share on other sites
forgive me for maybe not parsing this correctly, but my response is: if normal people gave a fuck about the way we've been edging toward fascism, bush wouldn't have gotten a second term, and obama would be universally reviled right now. alas, partisan bickering is too large a distraction for the average person.
I think you're final statement there is key: I think a lot of the "pick our team" charade is to distract everyone from the sad truth that both are just teaming up and robbing us blind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would it be a big deal? No one is saying that Catholics have to use contraception. Are Catholics seriously that bigoted against non-Catholics that they would deny them contraception?If you are in a majority Catholic hospital you don't have to follow this rule. Even this is conceding too much. Any hospital that gets federal funding should have to follow reasonable rules, and this is definitely a reasonable rule. Also, it obviously needs to be brought up that the large majority of Catholics disagree with the leadership on contraception, making their outrage even more absurd. The Catholics are wrong on this issue. Period.
The only really exemption given is for Churches themselves. Hospitals aren't exempt, nor does it matter if you get federal funding or not the mandate still applies. Even Catholic Hospitals that get Federal Funding get it because they are so efficient at using the funds. They aren't dependent on them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would it be a big deal? No one is saying that Catholics have to use contraception. Are Catholics seriously that bigoted against non-Catholics that they would deny them contraception?
The Catholics are objecting to the government requiring them to pay for (not just allow) other people's contraception. The government is coercing the Catholics; the Catholics are not coercing their employees. If you refuse to buy me doughnuts, and I say, "SilentSnow is denying me doughnuts," do you think that is fair?Buy me doughnuts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholics are objecting to the government requiring them to pay for (not just allow) other people's contraception. The government is coercing the Catholics; the Catholics are not coercing their employees. If you refuse to buy me doughnuts, and I say, "SilentSnow is denying me doughnuts," do you think that is fair?
The employee is paying for their health care as part of their compensation package. The Catholics unquestionably would be coercing their employees by denying them something that most sane people would find desirable or even essential. Of course it is crazy in this unstable economy that people should be forced to rely on their employer for health coverage. The obvious solution is to have a government run single payer solution. But since the Catholics voted for this crazy solution then having to allow something(contraception) that the huge majority of their own members use is one of the consequences of that support. To turn this into some issue of religious freedom is completely absurd. The only thing interesting about the situation is how far down the path of insanity the Catholic leadership will go in denying the obvious.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholics unquestionably would be coercing their employees by denying them something that most sane people would find desirable or even essential.
Again, it's not a question of whether Catholics are right or wrong; the question is whether we believe in the First Amendment rights of religious freedom. Outlawing specific forms of religion seems about as far away from the intent of this country's creation as you can get. The main reason many of the first white settlers came to America was the right to have or not have any crazy religious belief you want.
The obvious solution is to have a government run single payer solution.
Do you see why this solution makes this specific problem (the question of religious freedom) worse?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, it's not a question of whether Catholics are right or wrong; the question is whether we believe in the First Amendment rights of religious freedom. Outlawing specific forms of religion seems about as far away from the intent of this country's creation as you can get. The main reason many of the first white settlers came to America was the right to have or not have any crazy religious belief you want.Do you see why this solution makes this specific problem (the question of religious freedom) worse?
It is a question of whether they are right or wrong, and they are wrong. Your religious rights end where others' begin. Catholics' rights end when they try to coerce non-Catholics to not use contraceptives. If they feel that strongly about this absurd issue that was essentially decided by their own members decades ago then they can feel free to turn down all federal funding. I don't see why. You're going to have to explain it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Planned Parenthood gets 30% of its funding from the government, but they "don't use any of that money for abortions", so its not a problem.Catholic hospitals get a tiny percentage of their funding from the government, and they are expected to change their entire statement of faith to appease the pro-abortion nazis.1 in 6 people treated in a hospital in America are treated in a Catholic hospital.The only government funding they get is for treating the poor. Leave it to the left to deprive the needy of healthcare in order to protect their right to kill babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Planned Parenthood gets 30% of its funding from the government, but they "don't use any of that money for abortions", so its not a problem.Catholic hospitals get a tiny percentage of their funding from the government, and they are expected to change their entire statement of faith to appease the pro-abortion nazis.1 in 6 people treated in a hospital in America are treated in a Catholic hospital.The only government funding they get is for treating the poor. Leave it to the left to deprive the needy of healthcare in order to protect their right to kill babies.
First of all, majority Catholic hospitals don't have to follow this rule as far as I am aware. If it's such a tiny percentage I'm sure they'd be happy to give it up in favor of their absurd religious principle that the huge majority of Catholics don't believe in(this fact can't be stated enough). Catholics should never even mention the word Nazi given their historical support for them. I think it is far more Nazi-like to deny contraceptives to the poor than to give them the option to use them. No one is talking about killing babies. I really shouldn't bother to respond to any of your posts, but this did only take about 60 seconds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a question of whether they are right or wrong, and they are wrong. Your religious rights end where others' begin. Catholics' rights end when they try to coerce non-Catholics to not use contraceptives. If they feel that strongly about this absurd issue that was essentially decided by their own members decades ago then they can feel free to turn down all federal funding.
So you don't believe in religious freedom? They are no "coercing" anyone, they are just saying they won't pay for it. If you don't give money to the Republican Party, are you coercing Republicans to not have the political beliefs they have?
I don't see why. You're going to have to explain it.
Because now you've got the exact same problem, except multiplied to the national level, and you add in abortion issues, religious hospitals, the effectiveness (or not) of prayer, etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, majority Catholic hospitals don't have to follow this rule as far as I am aware.
Camel's nose under the tent.
If it's such a tiny percentage I'm sure they'd be happy to give it up in favor of their absurd religious principle that the huge majority of Catholics don't believe in(this fact can't be stated enough).
I understand why atheist have such a hard time realizing that religions don't change their tenants to suit the current fads. That's kind of what makes them a religion....
Catholics should never even mention the word Nazi given their historical support for them.
Why not? Evolutionist do.
I think it is far more Nazi-like to deny contraceptives to the poor than to give them the option to use them.
If only it was possible to have a hospital that cured sick people, instead of being forced to handle social issues outside of its mandate...
No one is talking about killing babies.
You guys wanted to shut down a breast cancer research funding business because they wanted to reduce funding to an organization that has its primary purpose to kill babies, you guys can't stop talking about abortions.
I really shouldn't bother to respond to any of your posts, but this did only take about 60 seconds.
If you only spent more than a minute you might have stopped yourself from being so wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you don't believe in religious freedom? They are no "coercing" anyone, they are just saying they won't pay for it. If you don't give money to the Republican Party, are you coercing Republicans to not have the political beliefs they have?Because now you've got the exact same problem, except multiplied to the national level, and you add in abortion issues, religious hospitals, the effectiveness (or not) of prayer, etc.
There is no such thing as religious freedom, just freedom. Adding "religion" to it is an irrational form of special pleading. Freedom also does not exist in the abstract. Freedom is the balancing of various rights and responsibilities. They are coercing them because workers in the US today are heavily punished if they can't get health care from their employer. It is far more reasonable that the Catholic church should give non-Catholics an option that the large majority of Catholics choose to use than that these people should have to pay much higher prices due to discrimination.If they had a national health care system then it would be itemized to a certain degree so that people that didn't use certain services would not have to pay for them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Catholics unquestionably would be coercing their employees by denying them something that most sane people would find desirable or even essential.
I question it.
Of course it is crazy in this unstable economy that people should be forced to rely on their employer for health coverage. The obvious solution is to have a government run single payer solution.
The pill costs about a dollar a day. It makes no sense to build a bureaucracy around spreading the risk of ovulation. The obvious solution is for the people who want contraceptives to go buy them with money and anyone who disagrees with this transaction for whatever reason can go **** themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as religious freedom, just freedom. Adding "religion" to it is an irrational form of special pleading. Freedom also does not exist in the abstract. Freedom is the balancing of various rights and responsibilities.
Why is it wrong to say that freedoms can be broken into categories? Freedom of self-defense, freedom of speech, freedom of religion... those are all subcategories of freedom. Religion happens to be one that is called out in the Constitution.
They are coercing them because workers in the US today are heavily punished if they can't get health care from their employer. It is far more reasonable that the Catholic church should give non-Catholics an option that the large majority of Catholics choose to use than that these people should have to pay much higher prices due to discrimination.
You don't get to make up meanings for words to be whatever is convenient for your current argument. What you are describing is in no way "coercion"; it is "not providing a benefit that some other health plans provide". The fact that the government has destroyed the health care market to make us dependent on employers doesn't change that simple fact.
If they had a national health care system then it would be itemized to a certain degree so that people that didn't use certain services would not have to pay for them.
If we had a national health care system we wouldn't get care at all, we'd just suffer on waiting lists. And you would definitely be forcing people to pay for things that they find extremely morally objectionable. If you think that "making people pay for things they find repulsive" is "freedom", then I don't think you have the slightest clue what freedom is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I question it.The pill costs about a dollar a day. It makes no sense to build a bureaucracy around spreading the risk of ovulation. The obvious solution is for the people who want contraceptives to go buy them with money and anyone who disagrees with this transaction for whatever reason can go **** themselves.
Then don't use it. You don't have the right to make that decision for other people though. I would have to see the costs of them getting additional coverage from somewhere else before agreeing with this. It does seem like a fairly small issue though. Still, on the other hand, we are hardly talking about some sacred religious issue here. When the majority of a religion's adherents don't agree with a belief that pretty much destroys any "religious values" argument. To me it seems like this is a power struggle where the religious right is choosing an irrational position to test how much power they still have to manipulate people and get out the voting base.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.Why is it wrong to say that freedoms can be broken into categories? Freedom of self-defense, freedom of speech, freedom of religion... those are all subcategories of freedom. Religion happens to be one that is called out in the Constitution.2.You don't get to make up meanings for words to be whatever is convenient for your current argument. What you are describing is in no way "coercion"; it is "not providing a benefit that some other health plans provide". The fact that the government has destroyed the health care market to make us dependent on employers doesn't change that simple fact.3.If we had a national health care system we wouldn't get care at all, we'd just suffer on waiting lists. And you would definitely be forcing people to pay for things that they find extremely morally objectionable. If you think that "making people pay for things they find repulsive" is "freedom", then I don't think you have the slightest clue what freedom is.
1.You can break it into categories if you want, but each of those phrases is meaningless. What does matter is where you draw the balancing line in each case between each person's rights/responsibilities. Also, religious freedom is especially meaningless since there is no such thing as religion. Any rational definition of religion would include the beliefs of every person on earth, thus making it a meaningless term. Historically the word "religion" has been used to legally discriminate against less politically powerful belief systems. 2.I don't agree with this. Imposing costs on other people(which they clearly are doing) is coercion. Period. We can discuss whether those costs are justified or not. 3. :club: This argument would work better if the rest of the civilized world didn't have NHSs that provided similar levels of care with far cheaper costs. I don't know if you noticed, but virtually every person on the planet pays for things they find morally objectionable. It's called taxes. There are ways to minimize this though. With your definition of freedom complete anarchy would be the only solution, which I think the vast majority of people would agree is worse than the "pay for stuff you don't like" problem. If you disagree, there is always libertarian island. I doubt the tiny minority who choose this option would be missed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...