The joining of church & state that so many fear is already in place, Now go ahead & shoot the messenger, like that will help you.

Okay.

The one point I take away from all the comments, Jared, is that those arguing in favor of government intrusion into religious practices and beliefs are uniformly demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of both Catholicism and the interpretation of the statute at issue. I believe it was the Archbishop of New York who publicly stated that the incredibly narrow interpretation of the ministerial exception by this Marxist regime would disqualify Jesus Christ. He is right.

I appreciate you trying to defend tafoer's comment, Jared. I would have thought that in the subsequent comment exchange, he would have clarified his comment if I had misunderstood.

I think you are wrong. I think I am right. Tafoer was pot stirring. I know it. You know it. Everyone else here knows he is deliberatley trying to mislead. Jared--you of almost all folks on this forum appreciate, I know, accurate information.

EA, re: "Forcing hospitals to do something..." I think he means offer insurance not in line with their beliefs. If the hospitals cannot offer their own insurance that coincides with their morals, then they will not offer insurance at all. Intended or not, this may shut down organizations.

When someone is left with nothing to add but personal attacks, then I must assume they have lost the argument!!!

tafoer, I used to work in your county, and I know sometimes folks are a little slow on the uptake over there and the republicans over there LOVE to go off half-cocked! So, I ask that you bear with me while I respond to your completely accurate but horribly misleading answer to my question. You really don't want to viewed as someone who would deliberately mislead folks on an issue would you?

Folks--what he said is true. Those items he mentioned will be covered without a co-pay. He forgot mamograms and other well woman services, but I'm not surprised.

No hospital, doctor, clinic, or any other kind of medical facility will be required to offer a service they do not normally offer. Period. If that hospital does not offer mamograms now, they will not be required to then. If the pharmacy doesn't offer the Plan B pill now, they will not be required to then.

tafoer, since it is clear that you really do not know what you are talking about, please refrain from commenting on something that you really don't have the information on. Talking points from biased news souces are not enough to sustain a discussion.

The proposed “preventive services” mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires all health plans in the United States to cover without co-pay all FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling, which include abortifacients and sterilization.

Please explain this comment: "Forcing a religious run hospital to do something against their beliefs does cross the line."

Exactly what is any religious run hospital going to be forced to do?

Tafoer.
Your comment is myopic itself. You never mention the fact that Church namely the Archdiocese threatens Catholic politicians with communion and possible banishment. I don’t hear you on that one. How can you call or consider anyone myopic when those who you criticized are Catholic themselves??

Jared.

You can’t have it both ways. The Catholic Church denying Catholic leaders in Congress communion because of Abortion, death penalty etc., but yet you are angry over this? Those leaders who are catholic we elected are chosen by the PEOPLE of these United States not some Papist, not some Clergy, and not some doomsday seeking Preachers.

I have to agree with Mike and Edith Ann here. Tax exemption needs to be lost based on a lot of things. Stories like this, Rome’s being a country, and the increase in mega churches seeking Christian Dominonism (American Fascists) .
I also have a weird feeling that the Alex Jones of the VicAD will appear while screaming “Vindication”.

Mr. Williams

My point is valid in this case. Forcing a religious run hospital to do something against their beliefs does cross the line. Some peoples views are just a little myopic.

tafoer, you'd have a legitimate aregument if the Affordable Healthcare Act mandated that folks use birth control or mandated that they not. As it is, birth control is a voluntary decision. The healthcare act doesn't change that choice at all.

If Catholics don't want to use birth control, no one is going to make them. There is not going to be a sudden influx of Catholics purchasing birth control. They are already doing that.

Mike, you are right about the tax exempt status for churches. Clearly as we have seen, first with James Dobson and the Religious Right, and more recently with John Benefiel and his ilk and the not one, not two, but three presidential candidates claiming to be called by God to run, churches and religion can be very political!

Jared

Your statement: "It is telling Catholic institutions that they are not Catholic is a bit of a stretch...In fact several articles I read were warning churches to get more in touch with with their beliefs to avoid meeting compliance. Anyway that's how I interpreted it.

" MANHATTAN, January 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A federal agency has told a New York Catholic college that it has distanced itself too far from the authority and teaching of the Catholic Church to merit government recognition as a sectarian institution -

On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Manhattan College could not prevent faculty from unionizing on the basis that it is a religious institution. Despite acknowledging that the college is recognized as Catholic by the New York Archdiocese, the NLRB wrote that it reviewed college statements and course content, and found “that the purpose of the College is secular and not the ‘propagation of a religious faith’.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/feds...

I think it's a classification that all religious schools have to meet, I don't think the administration purposely wrote up the distinction to go after the Catholic church. Let the New York Archdiocese make its case but ALL religious institutions have to meet a criteria to maintain their tax exempt status or any other requirement where they just can't take the word of a bias hierarchy.

I think that churches have been walking a fine line when it comes to their tax exempt status. If they want to get into politics, they need to do like everyone else, give up their tax exempt status and register as a lobbyist.

Anyway;that's just my opinion.

Have a good evening

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Should ObamaCare supersede this? I think not!!!

It is a matter all all entities having the same requirements here. You may interpret that to be that the Catholics are being told they are not Catholic, but that is not the intent.

If birth control, sterilization and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies were not a part of this package (and they are a small part of a much bigger package) I suspect you would have no problem with it otherwise.

I should have extended a special invitation to you to come hear a talk on the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 last night. It was excellent, and we have a local person involved with a national non-partisan effort to clear up misconceptions and misformation. You would have liked it, I'm sure. You could have asked questions.

Sometimes we don't get our way. Do you have any idea how many damned fish sticks and tuna sandwiches this Presbyterian kid had to eat in PUBLIC school because the Catholic kids couldn't eat meat on Fridays, year round?

Kyle, and your religious rights later on?

EA, the administration is not simply providing a trash can here. It is telling Catholic institutions that they are not Catholic (and any other non-profit). They are saying "St. Mary Catholic Hospital, St. Josemaria's Catholic School, St. Monica's Shelter for Battered Women" are not Catholic and now must comply with the State's mandate. My reference to Rome and DC was strictly literary to show that DC thinks they have competency to judge what is a Catholic institution and hence my reference to arrogance. It would seem the Catholic Church would know who is Catholic better than the State don't ya think?

Jared, It is not a matter of IF this proceeds, it is going to proceed. It is the law, and all components will be in place by August, 2012.

Did you know that this is also what is going to require that well woman stuff is exempt from co-pays, mamograms and such? Or that women will not have to pay extra for maternity coverage as some do now? Or that women will not need a referral from their primary physician to go to their OB/GYN?

But I do understand that you don't want the church to pay extra for birth control coverage. It's the same prinicple as those folks in Victoria who have to pay for a recycling cart and are opposed to recycling and won't ever use theirs.

I guess I just don't understand why you call this arrogance. Your statement: "Our administration has replaced Rome as the center for Catholicism apparently." is pretty arrogant in that it makes it look like you think we should all do things the Catholic way. We're not all Catholic.

A victory for common sense.

vet43, Good afternoon. From what I understand, this HHS proposal would mandate Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for those things I listed which are also against Church teaching. Even if nobody actually elects the procedure, the organization still pays for the coverage.

Jerad, How is it you feel that your religious beliefs are being tread on if an adult individual elects to undergo a medical procedure of their own free choice? If an individual elects to not have the procedure done because of a moral conflict how is it mandated?

Jared
OK,then this is ruling is for ALL non profits and has nothing to do with "POTUS/Sebelius receiving the most votes at the last papal conclave. " It does include the catholic church as well as other religions and those that fit into the nonprofit category. This is just an extension of the first amendment's"commerce clause" of article I section 8 clause 3 which will will also be determined by the Supreme Court. There's legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue. I think it will be an interesting case. In the past, the courts have given a lot of leniency to fit the government's interpretation of the " general welfare clause. "

I don't know anything about the Reporter or the Register but I'm sure the outcome of the court cases will be discussed by all sides of the spectrum for years to come.

Mike,

Yes, this mandated health coverage to include contraception, sterilization, and abortion is what I am talking about. If it proceeds, I am sure we will hear much more of it, as Observer mentions, it is something reader of the Reporter and readers of the Register are united on.

Jared

You didn't really say, so I'm going to assume your post is about the recent decision by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius not to expand the religion exception for the requirement for Health Insurance plans to cover sterilization and contraception-including abortion causing drugs-free of charge.

The secretary has said that those concerns were" giving very careful consideration" but she had to strike a balance between respect and religious freedom and increasing access to important preventative services. For most employer, this rule take affect on August 1 of 2012 but a one year delay was given to nonprofit employers who do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans due to their religious beliefs. These employers will be required to inform employees that contraceptive services are available at sites such as a community health centers, public clinics and hospitals with income- base support.

If this is what you're a blog is about, Belmont Abbey College and Colorado Christian University filed a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department.... The outcome of the court's decision will be the determining factor.

When the National Catholic Reporter -- an endless font of left-wing thought and foolishness and an ardent supporter of ObaMao -- runs a very negative article on the issue entitled "J'Accuse", it seems safe to assume that this intrusion of government into religion is the straw that broke the camel's back. If the First Amendment to the Constitution is to have any meaning at all, this cannot stand.

EA,

"Well, I am a bit confused, Jared--

When 33 states in our nation tried to pass, or passed, the sonogram bills, I did not hear you speaking against that intrusion."

Exactly, that is because the right to life needs to be protected by the government. That is exactly one of its few mandates. Why should a government defend its citizens if life is not worth protection? What other right means anything if a person is not allowed to be born?

"I think what I am seeing and hearing from you is that the intrusion is okay if it aligns with your Catholic beliefs. But if it doesn't, then it is intrusive."

I can never expect, nor do I desire, the State to come out and proclaim "The Trinity is true." This would be outside their competence. However, mandating that Catholic insitutions buy something they consider intrinsically evil to use does seem a bit intrusive.

"I'm not really trying to be snarky here, but you do know there are other religions besides Catholicism, don't you?

I'm really needed some further explanation, if you will, please."

Of course, and all these are also feeling the pinch with this mandate. What this would mean is that the State can tell any religion what it will believe.

Well, I am a bit confused, Jared--

When 33 states in our nation tried to pass, or passed, the sonogram bills, I did not hear you speaking against that intrusion.

I think what I am seeing and hearing from you is that the intrusion is okay if it aligns with your Catholic beliefs. But if it doesn't, then it is intrusive.

I'm not really trying to be snarky here, but you do know there are other religions besides Catholicism, don't you?

I'm really needed some further explanation, if you will, please.