The last time I discussed religious extremists attempting to impose their will on America, my parents spent the next few days debating (in front of me) whether I was a heretic, a heathen, or just an asshole. I’ll try to be a little bit more delicate this time. Here’s a picture for you:
That geriatric pictured above thinks he knows what is best for you ladies and your lady parts:
Springfield’s Roman Catholic Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell has joined religious leaders everywhere in a fierce reaction to the national healthcare law’s mandate to include free contraceptives and other birth control.
McDonnell will release a letter at local Catholic Masses on Sunday denouncing the mandate as an attack on religious liberties of all faiths.
“The federal government, which claims to be ‘of, by, and for the people,’ has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people – the Catholic population – and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful,” the letter reads, in part.
***“Catholic Bishops in principle are, of course, not opposed to health care in this country … but the government is really crashing though our constitutional protections. Our expectation is that if someone works for us they shouldn’t violate any key moral principals we hold dear,” and the church certainly shouldn’t have to pay for it,” said diocesan spokesman Mark Dupont.
First off, they aren’t being forced to do anything- they could stop taking public money and do whatever they want. Second, if these octogenarian bullshit peddlers spent 1/100th the energy they spend focusing on rubbers and the pill instead worrying about their organization’s global conspiracy of child rape and their gay-bashing, I’d actually maybe give a shit about their consciences and moral principles. But they don’t, so screw ’em.
I guess delicate just isn’t in my nature.
redshirt
Komen brand pink?
Maude
Isn’t the Church tax exempt?
And healthcare for some, but not all is what he seems to be saying.
This is 2012, not 460 AD.
trollhattan
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found.
Can I get an Ay-men!?
schrodinger's cat
I like the hat.
jackmac
Aging single men in red dresses, not your most credible source. (And no offense intended to the cross-dressing community)
satby
You’re on fire today John. And a hearty AMEN!
*edited to add: my family decided 25 years ago that I was a lost soul.
Libby's person
@redshirt: Funny coincidence. I never did like pink…
Tonal Crow
This is correct as to churches themselves, but not as to many church-related institutions (such as Catholic hospitals). Every employer — with certain exemptions detailed here — that provides health insurance must cover employees’ contraceptives.
Ben Cisco
Love it when John gets his mad on.
kindness
No reason to be delicate John. I know they claim their religious liberty is being infringed upon because the US government won’t give them license to deny gay’s rights or let them deny their non-practicing or non-catholic employees the same rights it gives to everyone else.
So the religious dickwads scream ‘I’m being discriminated against because they won’t let me discriminate against others!’ Tell us where Jesus said any of these things.
Tonal Crow
@trollhattan: Good stuff!
DanielX
John, man, it’s unhealthy to hold yourself in that way. Just come right out and say what’s on your mind.
@Maude:
It’s 2012, yes, but the Roman Catholic Church’s upper ranks have always included some of the finest minds of the 5th century.
Mnemosyne
You know, just because contraception would be covered by insurance doesn’t mean that the Catholic people with that insurance would be required to use it. So is he saying that his church members are so weak that they can’t resist the temptation to use contraception if they’re offered the choice?
Frankly, keeping his church members in line is not my problem, and I don’t see why he insists that the government should be his enforcer on this.
wrb
Are cute beanies with puffballs standard issue now or is this guy stylin’?
I thought the ones who got to wear the colored dresses wore hats that looked like shovels.
BGinCHI
No respectable gay man would be caught dead in that outfit.
Is that satin?
Also, good to see the Catholic Church progressing past their views from over a millenium ago. Oh, wait. Never mind.
The Moar You Know
Government money comes with strings attached. A lot of them. You can either play the game or forgo the cash.
I’d like to see the Catholic Church have to adhere to the same set of standards as, oh, let’s say, a defense contractor. They’d be weeping in the streets over the tyranny of it all in a day.
Zifnab
Money is fungible. There’s no way these church groups even know if the women they are paying are just putting it straight into coat hangers and uterus-shaped whisks. Shouldn’t payments just bypass the women entirely and go straight to their husbands?
And what the heck are these religious institutions doing employing women at all? Doesn’t the good book say something about women needing to stay in the kitchen?
Amir Khalid
Goodness. Dolores Umbridge got old.
scav
It’s basically another branding issue too. They think if they slap the “Religioso!” logo on all their enterprises, it’s a Get Out of Obeying Legal Requirements card. it’s Magic!
kdaug
You’re an asshole.
SATSQ.
Tonal Crow
@Amir Khalid:
Yow! Today’s snark is just excellent!
slag
I would love love love love to see the Obama Administration push off of the platform created by this standoff in conjunction with the Komen fiasco to make a serious play for women’s reproductive rights!
But then, I would also love to see a unicorn. How awesome would that be?
cathyx
We all know that all good practicing Catholics don’t use birth control.
Jim Pharo
Note that the use of these things by the faithful is already verboten. All we’re talking about is the $0.00003 they have to pay for the insurance that their people will never need since they are, um, faithful.
Oh! And the government shouldn’t be able to say to the Church that they can’t keep slaves. After all, slave holding is just about required by the Bible and the government has no business imposing it’s crazy values on the, um, faithful.
What a load of hogwash these nuts are peddling! “We can’t keep our employees in line unless the government makes it hard for them! Help!”
Lee
I vote asshole
Constance
Do the colleges and hospitals belong to the church? And if so, are they tax exempt?
Gin & Tonic
@Mnemosyne:
It’s not about keeping church members in line. They want to keep employees in line, whether they are church members or not. They want to be able to not cover the cost of BC pills even for non-believing members of, say, the groundskeeping or housekeeping departments of Catholic hospitals.
JGabriel
@redshirt:
The Bishop’s vestments? I’d guess they’re a little darker than Komen pink. More of a Pantone(tm) Magenta really.
.
pete
Oooh, I do like it when Cole gets a good night’s sleep and wakes up refreshed.
Onkel Fritze
Good for you, screw ’em
dave
What boggles my mind is that RIGHT THIS SECOND, Catholic Hospital employees are using their employment benefits (i.e. paychecks) to “violate key moral principals [the church] hold[s] dear.”
Statistically speaking 99.5% of their employees (including their Catholic employees) CURRENTLY use a form of birth control prohibited by the Church. They do so by purchasing that birth control using money they received from the Church.
Thus, according to the Church’s own logic, it is currently financing 100% of the (church-prohibited) birth control utilized by its employees. In addition, based on this same logic , it is a virtual certainty that the Church has financed countless abortions as well.
If the Church has such a problem with this, it needs to stop paying its employees altogether.
slag
@wrb: To my mind, that outfit screams: When you look at me, don’t think of a vagina.
Maude
@Amir Khalid:
I’ll airmail your internets right away. You win.
Violet
@Tonal Crow:
A lot of organizations and companies can claim to be “church-related institutions”. Like, for example, if they are housed in a building next to a church. Or people who work there or go there are church attendees. Either you’re a church or you’re not. If you’re not, then why should you get an exemption?
Ruckus
I guess delicate just isn’t in my nature.
And it really shouldn’t be in any of our natures right now. It is not in those who want to subject the rest of us to their religious beliefs, their greed or their total lack of empathy.
cathyx
Every single Catholic I know who goes to church every Sunday, who considers themselves devout, uses birth control. Every single one.
tBoy
@schrodinger’s cat: my thoughts exactly.
Maude
@cathyx:
Stop going through people’s medicine cabinets. They won’t invite you over anymore.
You have a valid point and it needs to be said.
Watusie
I spent two weeks in a Catholic hospital. I had a hamburger for lunch on both Fridays. So much for “if someone works for us they shouldn’t violate any key moral principals we hold dear”.
Stooleo
So I guess this means that the Christan Scientists will be able to deny all heath care to their employees ’cause they don’t believe in modern medicine.
cathyx
@Maude: All one has to do is see how many children they have. That says it all.
rlrr
@cathyx:
I went to a Catholic university, none of my Catholic classmates has more than 3 kids…
Solikemybeth
So I’m guessing they’ll be raising a stink about covering Viagra for single men too, right. After all what would an unmarried man need an erection for?
Ruckus
@BGinCHI:
Is that satin?
Probably silk. Last(and only thankfully) time I was near enough to a cardinal they were silk. More expensive you know.
geg6
Hey hey, Timmy A!
How many boys have you and your cronies raped today?
MikeBoyScout
That’s one awful lot of fail in 50 words or less .. in principle .. not meaning to crash anybody here .. I mean I’ve got key morale principles and I have not ever been held dear by my Catholic high school principal .. and he damn well never paid for a condom …
rlrr
@Watusie:
I went to a Catholic university, I always had a hamburger for lunch on Fridays during Lent (the only time I had burgers for lunch).
rlrr
@rlrr:
And one could get birth control pills at the campus dispensary…
eemom
The other day TBogg noted that Doughtwat has been married three years and only has one kid. Hmmmm….
rlrr
@eemom:
Maybe he’s not the father…
Pongo
What’s with the ‘either/or’ stuff? It’s perfectly acceptable to be a heathen, heretic AND an asshole.
slag
@eemom: Come on now; let’s not be hasty in our judgment. Maybe his wife’s just not that into him.
geg6
@eemom:
I doubt that’s because he or she uses birth control. More likely she’d kill herself if she had to go through sleeping with that little prick (pun intended) ever again.
Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey
Sex without consequences (read: pregnancy) is far more grievous a sin than abortion.
Tonal Crow
@Violet: That’s too facile. There are some organizations (like Catholic hospitals) that have a substantial relationship to the Catholic church, but also serve the general public and employ non-Catholics. What rule should apply to them? Why? What if the teatards passed a law requiring employers who provide health insurance to also cover gun-safety classes that include target practice, and, say, the (hypothetical) Church of Peace’s hospital (which serves the general public and employs non-CoP members) objected?
I’m not sure where the line should be drawn.
gelfling545
@wrb: Actually there is a variety of stylish headwear available in the upper ranks.
harlana
what IS it with these costumes? i realize this was impressive stuff hundreds of years ago, but really?
Brian R.
@Watusie:
First of all, meatless Fridays were meant for Catholics. There was never a proscription against serving meat to others.
Second of all, other than during Lent, Catholics haven’t been bound by meatless Fridays since Vatican II. So unless your hospital stay involved time travel to the 1950s, this isn’t evidence of their hypocrisy.
gelfling545
@Constance: They are generally not for profits corporations in their own right, sometimes (more formerly that currently) connected to a particular religious order.
Cowbelle
They know that their Catholic faithful use birth control. They just don’t want to have to pretend they don’t know when they give it out.
Violet
@Tonal Crow:
If you serve the general public and employ non-Catholics, then you are not a Catholic church. Even if the Church is involved in what you do, you are not The Church. So you are not exempt.
It’s the “substantial relationship” part that is the problem. Either they are the Church or they are not. If they are, then their primary mission should be church activities and issues, not being a hospital.
harlana
@Solikemybeth: has anyone noticed that the See-al-iss commercials seem to promise some sort of hallucinogenic experience? i mean, you go from a little frisky business in the grocery store to being in a hot air balloon or an amusement park and then twin bathtubs in the glorious outdoors. it’s creepy.
Trinity
Thank you! No one is forcing these groups to take government funds!! I am so fucking sick of their “boo-hoo”ing. Sweet Tebow.
And for the record John, I find your lack of delicacy among your best features!
How about a Tunch action-shot before I head out to happy hour?
JoyfulA
@MikeBoyScout: and you never violated your high school pricipal, either, did you?
slag
@Lee: I don’t.
We give John a lot of shit on a fairly regular basis (ok maybe that’s just me), and he puts up with our (or my) shit and still comes back here for more. Why? I don’t know. That’s why I choose door number 4: sucker.
Seriously, though, I think there’s another dude (who Cole’s parents claim to admire) who also specialized in turning the other cheek like that. I don’t remember his name, but I would also probably pick door number 4 to describe him as well. So, in that sense, Cole’s at least in respectable company whether or not his folks recognize that.
Honestly, I question Cole’s parents’ judgment. The world could use a few more suckers like John Cole.
The Bobs
“Our expectation is that if someone works for us they shouldn’t violate any key moral principals we hold dear,”
Those principles being that women(sluts)should not be having sex, but altar boys are another matter, as they don’t need birth control.
Quaker in a Basement
Aw, give the guy a break. Because of his job, he has to wear that hat.
MariedeGournay
@trollhattan: @trollhattan: The funny part of that is the scene right afterwards has a Anglican boasting about the Protestant freedom of conscience to use birth control and fuck whenever they like. Weird how our Protestants ended up becoming like the ‘Whore of Babylon’ over sex. World historical irony, gotta love it.
schrodinger's cat
@wrb: They will make a great toy for Tunch!
Soonergrunt
@Amir Khalid: Hahahahahahahahahaha!
eagain
I’m proud to say that I am
1. a heretic
2. a heathen
3. an asshole (depends on who you ask)
But most importantly, ex-catholic. Fuck ratzinger. Oh, I’m sorry, Pope Chester (the Molester) 1.
Maybe its time we followed the Irish and closed our embassy at the vatican.
Dr.BDH
@Tonal Crow:
But Tonal Crow’s hypothetical answers the question: there’s no Church of Peace hospital (the Prince of Peace probably wishes there were) and even if there were, it wouldn’t care about covering the cost of target practice. It’s very hard to find anything else that’s like limiting reproductive rights in any discussion of health care funding. I’ve never heard of one that I find convincing.
scav
@The Bobs:
Oddly enough, that’s exactly how we feel about the laws of the land, o! yet pink behatted one living in this country. Or are you above such mere temporal concerns and mores and limits and drive at 75 down side streets as well?
gorillagogo
Whenever I have questions about contraceptives or sex in general, I turn to old men who’ve taken a vow of celibacy.
Tonal Crow
@Violet:
What if the church’s creed requires it to provide hospital services to the general public? What if it can do so by hiring only church members? What if it can’t?
schrodinger's cat
@Amir Khalid Or Hyacinth Bucket of Keeping up Appearances.
Emma
@Amir Khalid: You may have your Internets as soon as I get my replacement keyboard. Diet Pepsi spew turns out to be highly corrosive.
geg6
@Violet:
It’s even more ridiculous here in Pittsburgh. UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers) has bought the one and only Catholic hospital here, UPMC Mercy. So we have a corporation owned by a public university which owns a former Catholic hospital which is still staffed with lots of nuns and brothers and priests.
And the asshole bishop in Pittsburgh is screaming about how he should not have to subsidize safe sexy time for the employees there. The fucking church doesn’t even own the fucking place any more and he has all the bubbas in their babushkas freaking out over the sluts and whores who work in the best burn unit in the region.
My sister, niece, and brother-in-law walked out of church last week in the middle of the homily their pastor gave on this.
Culture of Truth
@slag: This is an Obama Administration policy he’s talking about.
Culture of Truth
Cole, you’re missing the key point:
every sperm is saaaaaaaaacred
West of the Cascades
@Solikemybeth: Altar Boys?
geg6
@Tonal Crow:
Then they can choose not to use their health insurance to buy birth control.
WTF is your problem here? Seriously?
ETA: And this?
Is not even the case in this particular case. I grew up Catholic, know my catechism, and said the Apostle’s Creed thousands of times. In none of them is there a claim that a central tenet of the Catholic religion is to provide hospital services. Not a one.
catclub
@cathyx: I guess you do not know any Catholics in their 70’s or 80’s.
or maybe you do, and know they are being _extra_ careful contraceptionwise ;)
MarkJ
Hmmm . . . how much have they paid out to cover up and settle that child rape factory they’ve been running the globe over? It seems that spending a few bucks on birth control for consenting adults would be a relatively minor infraction of “key moral principles” compared to that. But then I’m not a member of the Catholic clergy so my moral compass may be off.
Tonal Crow
@Dr.BDH:
Huh? You’re just assuming away the hypothetical rather than distinguishing it from the Catholic hospital case. Unless you object on philosophical grounds to the use of hypotheticals, I don’t see what your point is.
cathyx
@gorillagogo: Haha. So true.
cathyx
@catclub: How many kids did they have when they were young enough to have them?
Lee
@slag:
Sorry I should have added /snark
But I thought it was obvious :)
g
I’m missing the part where the government is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.
If the insurance policy provides the benefit, it doesn’t mean that the patient actually has to use contraception, if she (or he) doesn’t believe in using it.
Or does the good monsignor acknowledge that his parishoners are disobeying his teachings?
slag
@Culture of Truth: Yes it is. That’s what makes it so perfect.
Have you ever studied Aikido, by chance? I tend more toward pugilism, myself. But if this Administration is good at anything, it is good at turning its attacker’s momentum back on the attacker. I would love to see them do that here.
Not just stand up for themselves and their policies but turn attacks on those policies back on their attackers. Just as what happened with Komen (and will hopefully continue to happen).
MikeBoyScout
@64 JoyfulA: Most certainly not.
cathyx
@g: My insurance provides a smoking cessation program. But I don’t smoke. Do I still have to go through it?
Constance
@gelfling545:
Damn. I guess I can’t get morally outraged about the church getting an exemption.
Tonal Crow
@geg6:
In which of the cases can the church-associated hospital refuse (under the ACA) to cover contraception? In which of the cases (if any) should it be able to refuse to do so?
Seriously, this question is more difficult than many here are making out. Which is why I raised the “Church of Peace” hypothetical.
Svensker
@Ruckus:
Not to be a fabric pedant but silk is a fibre, satin is a fabric. Satin can be made from silk, rayon, nylon and other fine flossy fibres. The most expensive satin is made from silk — you don’t see it much these days.
wrb
@schrodinger’s cat:
If you put your toes in that hat and wiggled the puffball any cat would go insane.
Or if you value your toes you could attach a string to the puffball from underneath.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey:
Yup.
This has ALWAYS been about sex, not about abortion. It’s about punishing and controlling the sluts. We can’t let them have agency, or next thing you know, they’ll be telling us to fuck off when we make other assholish suggestions about them.
That funny hat would look GREAT rolling around in a wicker basket.
Villago Delenda Est
@g:
They can never concede that, because the illusion that they still have control over the flock is what keeps them in business.
So they need to have the state enforce their fucked up dogma on everyone, in their flock or not.
ShadeTail
@Tonal Crow:
Who cares? Either they obey the laws of the land, or they don’t get to run their hospital-or-whatever. If that contradicts their private religious codes, that’s their problem.
The Spy Who Loved Me
@Watusie:
The fish thing went away with Vatican II. Now it’s just during Lent and still up to the discretion of the Bishop of the diocese.
slag
@MarkJ:
Why do you think the Church has always been at odds with science and technology? They hate compasses too.
Martin
@Tonal Crow:
When they choose to stop being an employer and go back to being a religious organization. They are choosing to be an employer. Can they declare a religious exemption to labor laws? To workplace safety rules? Can they say, ‘scripture requires that our employees huff dioxin before their shift’?
Religious organizations get an exemption because the individuals affiliated with them participate voluntarily. Employers do not get an exemption because the relationship between an employer and an employee is completely different than that between a priest and a parishioner. Participation in the labor force is viewed differently.
I would think that we could run straight back to Griswold and declare that an employer has ZERO say on whether an employee can or cannot use birth control, because the employer has ZERO ability to enforce whether an employee can or cannot use birth control. Once you lose your ability to enforce that which you demand, then you lose your ability to influence that which you demand.
Nutella
You’re right with your second point but the first one is incorrect. They can’t “stop taking public money and do whatever they want” because these rules apply to all employers, not just to the ones who take public money.
That nasty old man in the pink dress and pink hat has to comply with US employment law. I’ll agree that he can continue to wear a very silly outfit as long as he obeys the law.
joes527
@Brian R.: I didn’t realize that the whole meatless Friday thing was regional until I lived in West Africa. Since more days than not were meatless anyway, they give up alcohol on Fridays in lent.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
John O
It sure is a good thing there aren’t any Catholics using BC. Think how upset the Church would get if there were.
Violet
@Tonal Crow:
Part of Utah getting to become a state in the US was making sure polygamy was banned. It took time and included various skirmishes and so forth, but eventually the LDS church banned polygamy and Utah got to be a state.
Churches can figure out a way to comply with the law of the land. They can run the hospital following the law or not run the hospital.
Tonal Crow
@ShadeTail:
That’s a consistent approach, but it does shrink the scope of religious liberty. It would mean that the hypothetical Church of Peace (see above) would have to cover the (currently hypothetical) gun-safety-course-with-target-practice.
Cheap Jim
Actually, Bishop Whatsiface couldn’t be an octogenarian. The Church has a mandatory retirement age of 75 for bishops and archbishops. Helps get the new blood in, I imagine.
scav
@Tonal Crow: Well, there’s nothing more peaceful than badly handled firearms, now is there? Seriously, I don’t see why the free market means companies don’t have to obey any regulations nor do I see why the religious don’t have to obey any regulations they don’t want to. The latter are certainly the ones writing their doctrine, so it’s even more egregious to my not so humble opinion. See Vatican II above, because there’s probably a lot more about food restrictions in the so-called Holy Text than about birth control.
Paris
As a Catholic,
a) Nobody is forcing me to use contraception.
b) even if I do, that’s what penance is for. (I never go because I don’t have a guilty conscience. )
I really do not see how the new mandates interferes with anybody’s religious beliefs.
honus
I was raised in a catholic family. Both sides, old world Catholics, where the older ladies attend 7:30 mass every day, not just Sunday. (I served 7:30 mass five days a week for two years, in addition to my regular Sunday turn, but that’s irrelevant) I have four sisters. All of them attend mass regularly, and have for their entire lives. All of them use or used birth control.
My mother didn’t (which is why I have four sisters) but she always wanted to and complained about the church changing things but not that. Also, contraceptives pretty much did not exist during most of her fecund lifetime.
This idea that catholics don’t use birth control is a joke. I defy anyone to find a significant number of practicing catholic women who do not use birth control. In the past, I think many catholics abstained from using birth control because it was too much trouble, and less fun, and not from any staunch moral commitment.
Also, I believe that the ban on birth control was not stict catholic doctrine until about 1988. The Pope did not speak from the Chair of Peter to ban birth control until about then.
Redshift
@Tonal Crow:
And seriously, the question is not as difficult as you are making it out to be. This is a question of law and regulation, not absolute logic. It isn’t actually necessary to determine the regulations to the degree that treatment of any hypothetical organization you can think up, no matter how unlikely, is already defined.
Even the Roberts Supreme Court managed to outline without much trouble a couple of weeks ago who was a “religious employee” for purposes of exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
grandpa john
@dave: the ban on birth control is purely church concocted crap, nowhere in the bible can there be a specific verse saying that God is against birth control, once again catholic hierarchy as they have many times are sinning themselves by posturing their voices as the will of God when it is their own power hungry dictates that they impose .
where in the bible can be found that God intends the church elite to dress them selves in fancy robes and attire meant to suggest power and authority.
Where is the bible is it proscribed that one must confess his sins to God through a priestly arbiter.
les
@Tonal Crow:
Then they’ve got a creed problem. You can dick dance around with all kinds of hypotheticals if you want, but if a church wants to provide a commercial service, they’re subject to regulation. If their religion prevents them from playing by the rules, they shouldn’t play.
geg6
@Tonal Crow:
None. If they don’t want to deal with it, they should stop providing health insurance or, even better, get out of the hospital business, period. But the idea that anyone, especially an accessory to a worldwide child rape conspiracy, is being oppressed by having their health insurance offer bc is ridiculous. About as ridiculous as the idea that I find any and all funding from tax dollars going to any religiously affiliated organization to be a violation of my rights and principles.
ShadeTail
@Tonal Crow:
Again, so what? Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, the only thing that wouldn’t “shrink the scope of religious liberty” would be an outright theocracy, in which the religion makes the law as it sees fit. Except, even that wouldn’t do the trick because of the minority religions that aren’t in charge. Allowing a church to violate the law in the name of its tenets shrinks the scope of *everyone else’s* religious liberty. The only way to be fair is to have a non-religious standard of law and hold everybody to it. And if that standard violates a religion’s private tenets, that’s their problem, not ours.
les
@Tonal Crow:
None
None
Where does the constitution provide that religions have a right to run hospitals?
Redshift
@Tonal Crow:
Shrink it from what? Please point to an existing state of affairs where non-church religious institutions are exempt from government regulations? If it were actually unconstitutional or an infringement on religious liberty, I would imagine that the Catholic Church would have taken one of the twenty-eight states that currently require it to court by now. Since they haven’t, I suspect that their current squealing is just bluster.
Yes, it would. Your attempt to construct an analogous example that liberals will switch sides for fails to be compelling because while we may be gleeful that the bishops who have advocated so many hateful things in recent years are getting smacked down, that’s not the reason we agree with the regulation, so removing that part of the scenario doesn’t actually change it.
les
@Tonal Crow:
No, actually, no it doesn’t. The right to participate in commerce without obeying the law is not within the scope of “religious liberty.”
Yoki
Aw, hell, John. While spreading the news about the Komen atrocity, I made the mistake of linking to your irreligious rant, and I think I pissed some people off. I laid down with you, you atheist dog, and I got your fleas . . . as if I didn’t have enough of my own.
rikryah
stay out of my body.
slag
I’m with Ed Kilgore on this:
I really hope the political guys can bring themselves to get aggressive over lady issues. In a good way, for a change.
R-Jud
@Yoki:
That’s hot.
BDeevDad
There’s a State Senator in Virginia who has a great solution to the gender equity issue vis a vis abortions and ultrasounds. Basically, any dudes who want a little blue pill, will now need to get a rectal exam and stress test. I wonder how many Virginia politicians this will affect.
Someguy
There’s no federal funding hook. It’s an employer rule. If you’re going to employ people you either need to provide them with insurance that meets federal standards (which includes contraceptives and hopefully soon abortion) or you have to pay a fairly hefty fine and the individuals (per the mandate) have to join a federal insurance exchange where they can get those services, the idea of the fine is it covers a good chunk of the cost that uncle sam has to pick up.
Second
@Tonal Crow:
That’s the point. Nobody is making them run hospitals or universities, operate homeless shelters, run daycares, soup kitchens, litigate for immigrants and Section 8 tenants or any of that other shit they get involved in. That’s not religious shit, that’s just shit they wanna do. They can say their creed requires them to do that but they also think their creed requires Teh Gay Hate and the oppression of women, and from time to time the skewering of Muslims on the crusaders’ sword. They also seem to have some funny ideas about what the faith says about the English crown, French princes and Italian politics, stuff I don’t remember the delegates of the Invisible Man ever talking about. The point being these are all just tools for them to exercise influence in an arena they have no business being in. The government can do all that stuff just fine, and they should get their religious asses out of that and the sooner we shift responsibility for that stuff to the federal government, the better off we’ll all be and we can get their grubby little hands off all those areas of public policy. There is no place for religion in public life; religion is a private matter of conscience.
Now let’s talk about lifting their tax exempt status for their institutional sex discrimination…
aimai
@Tonal Crow:
Every employer takes public money on some level: they take public services (police, fire, roads) and especially public institutions like Hospitals which serve medicare and medicaid patients. There are zero employers out there who can and should be exempt from laws relating to how they treat employees otherwise you would have the Catholic Church insisting on its god given right to employ child prostitutes, say.
There is zero moral difference between the Catholic Church’s “rhythm” method and mechanical contraception, anyway. Both aim at preventing the union of egg and sperm while allowing the sex act to take place. I realize that the church has spent decades honing its various logical points to razor tipped spikes but this is, in fact, the case. Why doesn’t the church just add a lecture on the rhythm method and Catholic Dogma to each and every birth control scrip that its employees receive? Oh, that’s right, because it would be an excercise in futility instead of authoritarian repression.
aimai
Rawk Chawk
What did they decide?
All three? :D
Odie Hugh Manatee
To John’s Parents:
It’s all your fault. Your son is just being honest, one of many things of true value that you both managed to instill in him. Granted, his honesty can be brutal at times but then again the topics that he is brutally honest about are very serious ones that have consequences for many Americans.
Kudos on doing a good job with that kid of yours, he’s a good man with a big heart.
Respectfully yours…
FlipYrWhig
@Martin:
Exactly. I’m tired of this Schrodinger’s Cat bullshit where they get to be religious and secular at the same time and at neither time and whipsaw back and forth for greatest advantage. No, you have to be one thing. If a mosque ran a trash company, would their employees sift through your garbage, pick out the wine bottles, and refuse to take them to the dump, because of “conscience”? It’s not a church, it’s a company.
grandpa john
@Violet: Weell they could sell of just a small part of their vast empire of holdings, property, etc and use that to pay for the insurance, where did they get the money to settle all the lawsuits against the pedophile priest, who by the way they not only allowed to violate moral principles but actually defended them and supported them
Chuck Butcher
@Tonal Crow:
No, it does not. Nobody is forced to use the covered items. The Church decided to engage in commerce, not the other way around – the government did not force the Church into business.
Do you propose that since I (laughably) belong to The Church of Libertarianism and the word of my Prophet Paul is that building codes are an anathema that my construction company is free to be exempted? Do you propose that since the Civil Rights Act is an anathema that I get to exclude those n***ers from employment? Are you simply arguing that since the outfit has been around for awhile that it should be exempt and my Mormon (er oops) Libertarian church can’t be? There is a good reason the Catholics can’t put together their own police force and fire up the Inquisition again since they should be exempt?
Sure, the examples are ridiculous, but what did you offer?
Elizabelle
US Catholic Bishops.
Creating more lapsed Catholics, every day.
Someguy
And unfortunately Scalian Supreme Court just exempted churches from Equal Opportunity in Employment laws but maybe there is more than one way to skin a Cat[holic] on this birth control issue. This just highlights how important it is to hold your nose and vote D no matter what – crushing a woman’s right to choose is just the first thing on the religious right wing’s agenda. It goes a lot deeper than that and frankly given the popes’ (in 1940, and the current one’s) ties to the nazis, I am not shocked that they are finding common ground with the Republicans.
Tonal Crow
@ShadeTail:
Huh? Where did I say that laws that shrink religious liberty are per se unjustified? Hint: I didn’t. The question is what exemptions (if any) should religiously-associated entities have to generally-applicable laws.
No shit sherlock. BTW, how many times have I noted my support for the ACLU here?
Not necessarily. For example, that members of the Native American Church can use peyote in exemption to the crazy drug laws does not infringe anyone else’s religious liberty.
Absolutely we should have secular laws. And I’d go further and say that we should do our best to avoid enacting laws that have significant underlying religious justifications.
That’s the question.
That’s one answer.
burnt
@honus:
Actually, Pope Paul VI settled this back in 1968 with Humanae Vitae and while birth control is a minor part of the document the then Pope proscribed most forms of birth control. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which form of birth control passed papal muster.
What can I say? I attended Catholic schools for 12 years which means 45 minutes to 1 hour of religion classes 5 days a week from August to May. It made me the atheist I am today.
Mr. Cole, who sprinkled meth on your Wheaties this morning? Keep up the good rants!
RedKitten
You know, if altar boys could get pregnant, I bet Timmy McD up there would be singing a different tune…
Tonal Crow
@Chuck Butcher: I am not arguing any of those examples. I am attempting to determine when (if ever) a religiously-associated institution (as in a hospital run by a church that considers providing hospital services as an important part of its mission) should be granted an exemption from generally-applicable law. “Never” seems the consensus opinion here. I am not quite sure I agree, though I am finding it difficult to articulate a principle to decide what should be exempted and what not.
Omnes Omnibus
@Martin: Griswold has always been the enemy for a certain strain of ‘winger.
les
@Tonal Crow:
And when you come up with a basis for some other answer, this conversation will be a lot less pointless and tedious.
Someguy
@Tonal Crow:
How ’bout this: “If you engage in secular activities such as employment, or accept payments from a government source then you are not exempt from any generally applicable rule.” I would include tax exemptions – which are tax expenditures, really – in determining what constitutes payment from a government source. At the same time I would overturn the recent Hosanna Tabor decision and apply non-discrimination laws across the board in church hiring; employment is a secular activity after all.
If they hire an employee or take the money, they gotta play by the rules just like everybody else. That means providing birth control, abortions, etc., not discriminating in employment, etc., and I wouldn’t make exceptions for the hiring of ministers. If a lesbian atheist can preach and has better counseling credentials better than a kid lovin’ irishman, than the lesbian atheist gets the job. Exempting them from equal compliance with the laws is simply the government favoring of religion and that breaches the wall of separation between church and state.
les
@Someguy:
I must say, young sir or madam, I like the cut of your jib.
Martini?
Cat Lady
A Catholic doctor named John Rock developed the pill to satisfy the church’s demand that there be no abortifacient, by developing a pill that stops ovulation. That apparently gave women too much autonomy, so the word of one bitter old fart named Pope Paul overrode the lives and consciences of millions of women. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
Bubblegum Tate
“Our expectation is that if someone works for us they shouldn’t violate any key moral principals we hold dear.”
That’s exactly what the U.S. government should say to the Catholic Church.
ShadeTail
@Tonal Crow:
OK, dickhead, I didn’t get condescending and sneering with you, so I would thank you not to do so with me. Except too late for that, you already did. So, sauce for the goose:
Oh please, you argued that evenly enforced secular law would lead to that consequence as if I should consider that a bad thing. It’s a bit late to distance yourself from the clear implications of your own argument.
And I’ve already given you your answer twice: never (that’s three). In case this never sunk through for you, once you get an answer, you can stop asking.
Are you under the impression that I give even one dry fuck about keeping track of what you personally support? I’m not dealing with your personal life, I’m dealing with the argument you’re presenting to me. Also, if you already understand this point, then stop asking to have it explained to you.
Depending on circumstances, native tribes are essentially foreign nations, so this isn’t as clear-cut as you make it. Putting that aside, there is a non-sectarian Peyote Church that has been denied in court the right to this practice. So this *is* an unequal religious infringement on others.
Not anymore it isn’t, because we know the answer.
It’s the only answer. Anything else is inherently unfair.
Emma
@Tonal Crow: It’s not that difficult, actually. You want public funds, you have to accept the legal/administrative strings attached. If you’re so morally outraged by the law of the land that you don’t want to have to enforce it, don’t ask for public funds. Get rich hardcore Catholics to prop you up.
EDIT: After reading more comments I realize that this actually has nothing to do with getting public funds. Then… get out of business altogether.
mothra
NPR kept talking about “the Catholic vote” and birth control the other day, without ever mentioning that American Catholics apparently completely ignore the Pope’s directions on birth control..
Tonal Crow
@les:
If you find it pointless and tedious, don’t engage in it.
The application of the ACA rule to Catholic hospitals raises a conflict where they have to choose between (1) providing services to the general public by employing non-Catholics, which then means they must cover employee contraceptives or (2) providing services only to Catholics by Catholics to avoid covering contraceptives.
I regard BOTH coverage of employees’ contraception AND the services of Catholic hospitals to the general community as good things, hence my concern.
BTW, my concern has nothing whatsoever to do with what I think of the Catholic church’s position on contraception (I strongly oppose it) or what religion I practice (none — strong atheist here, with no Catholic background).
les
@Tonal Crow:
So the sum total of your “argument” is that this “conflict”–the observance of commercial law in the provision of commercial services–may prevent the Cathols from running hospitals? And, I have to presume (since your concern doesn’t get engaged any other way) no other person or entity will be willing to run hospitals and obey the law?
Your concern is noted.
kwAwk
So what did they decide?
Tonal Crow
@les: Certainly I hope that other providers will be willing to take over any Catholic hospitals that are unwilling to accept the ACA rule. Does it concern you that that might not always happen?
les
@Tonal Crow:
No. There’s a need, there’s a market with a shitload of insurance, tax and charitable money ready to pay for it. There’s no evidence that Catholics have any corner on the efficient, effective operation of hospitals. In fact, most of the employees, administrators and medical professionals aren’t Catholic as is. There’s no legal basis and no logical reason to prefer religion as a provider of secular services, especially to the extent of exempting them from employment law. It’s bad policy and bad practice. And so far neither you nor anyone else has advanced any basis for such preference beyond vague concern.
Gwiwer
The only thing that bothers me when people talk about religion on the internet is that many people seem to favor the view that all religions are pretty much identical. When bloggers and commenters use the word “religion”, 9 times out of 10 what they are saying really only applies to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It’s sort of a Western cultural bias, I suppose, that so many people unintentionally associate only the Abrahamic religions with the word religion. This is mildly frustrating to me because, as a Taoist with mild Buddhist leanings, my religious beliefs are effectively the exact polar opposite of most of the things people criticize about “religion”. I’m sure many Hindus, pagans of various sorts, believers in traditional Native American religions, followers of other Asian religious traditions, and anyone else who follows a religion or philosophy outside of the Abrahamic umbrella feel the same way.
The Abrahamic religions may contain the majority of the world’s faithful, but there are many religions out there that have very different views and beliefs, and it can get a little annoying always feeling lumped into this conception of what religion is that actually has no connection whatsoever to religion as you know it, understand it, believe it, and practice it.
Mind you, every religion, including Taoism and Buddhism, are open to criticism. That’s not just my personal opinion, the Buddha said so. He taught that one should not trust anything that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny even if it was the Buddha himself who taught it. So, I’m all for religious criticism. In fact, I enjoy the topic quite a bit. I just wish people would stop talking in generic terms as if all religions could be lumped under one little neat umbrella.
Ruckus
@Svensker:
I learn something every day. Thanks
And the closeness to the cardinal was about 2 feet and as I just learned this I will go on record as saying he was wearing satin. I’m pretty sure it was made out of silk but it was all shinny and smooth.
Tonal Crow
@les: I am not so sure that the hospital business is that attractive. In some areas (e.g., Southern California), hospital closures have led to shortages:
Also this from 2007
I hope that the invisible hand of the market takes care of the problem, but I don’t have as much faith in it as you do.
John Cole
@kwAwk:
They decided there was no reason to limit themselves and that heretic, heathen, and asshole were not mutually exclusive.
dollared
@John Cole: As an angry Visigoth, I find it hard to argue with your parents’ logic.
dollared
@burnt: Yup, my three youngest siblings (of the 7) have talked about forming a musical group “The Rhythm Babies.”
SRW1
That dude in the funny dress obviously doesn’t trust his flock very much. Wonder why that is.
sherparick
@trollhattan: A quick link to the original is appropriate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
One more reason to become an Episcopalian.
BobE
I don’t believe anyone asked the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptive services, only that they allow people to purchase them.