A different way of looking at things...

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

Catholics aren't against contraception. 98% of catholic women have used contraception (see earlier posted article as source)

Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.

And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?

Look it's pretty simple:

The Catholic Church establishes their religions dogma. For example, if you lie to a spouse, co-worker, friend, it's considered a sin. Follow me? Ok. The Catholic Church sets that rule, it's their religion afterall. People come and go from it. Yet, ironically, probably 100% of the followers violate that religious dogma on lying.

Catholics understand why the church is against contraception. They may not follow the policy, but they understand it, it has to do with abortion. Those followers can choose to abandon the religion if they choose. But, seemingly, they don't or haven't.

Moreover, you continue to avoid the FACT that this issue also can include abortion services, which most Catholics are against.

he still stands wrote:

Furthermore, since apparently a groups' morality views or opinions allow them to not pay for things, can i stop paying the war portion (44%) of my federal tax bill now?

Once again, I suggest you read about this issue. It has nothing to do with tax money.

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.

Thanks for clarifying the "some" part. That applies to pretty much every classification of folks, doesn't it?

"You have just woken up to the fact that the whole world doesn't revolve around straight, white, Christian men Who never get laid and now you got yo panties in a bunch."

I can see where your anger comes from (we all have issues) but in villifying entire groups, it makes me see you as no different than those you're protesting.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Following that argument, any employer can claim that his membership in the KKK means that he doesn't have to pay his employees for Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah.

Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.

Can play ths game all day.

It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.

It's not a game and your arguments are ridiculous.

First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.

If you don't want to allow your workers time off for Thanksgiving, then don't. I know a number of employers that work on that day.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Following that argument, any employer can claim that his membership in the KKK means that he doesn't have to pay his employees for Martin Luther King Day or Chanukah.

Or that I shouldn't have to allow staff time off on thanksgiving since its a celebration of carnivorous gluttony.

Can play ths game all day.

It's so sad to see some straight, white men suddenly see that their own morality isn't the period at the end of the sentence.

ah, most don't get MLK jr. day off. People are forced to work on thanksgiving as well.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.

I doubt they employ many people but I'm sure their members run a lot of plantations, distilleries and cement mixer companies.

Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.

Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.

Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

You act as though you (as an individual) are equivalent to one of the largest religious institutions in the world. It's rather hysterical.

Hardly.

I don't use all those tax-free donations to defend my child-molesting employees.

I'm quite a few steps above the Catholic Church on the "morality meter" and I have no qualms telling them what to do. It's like like they listen to us when we say "don't f*ck the kids" anyway.

he still stands

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Catholics aren't against contraception. 98% of catholic women have used contraception (see earlier posted article as source)

Catholic BISHOPS are against contraception.

And anyway, who cares what a bunch of pedophiles think?

Look it's pretty simple:

The Catholic Church establishes their religions dogma. For example, if you lie to a spouse, co-worker, friend, it's considered a sin. Follow me? Ok. The Catholic Church sets that rule, it's their religion afterall. People come and go from it. Yet, ironically, probably 100% of the followers violate that religious dogma on lying.

Catholics understand why the church is against contraception. They may not follow the policy, but they understand it, it has to do with abortion. Those followers can choose to abandon the religion if they choose. But, seemingly, they don't or haven't.

i'm sorry, but this is doublespeak if i've ever seen it. who gives a shit what a few Catholic Bishops have to say when even the followers of that religion ignore them? this whole thing is pointless because contraception is cheap for everyone and morally unobjectionable for 98% of the people in this country.

your argument doesn't make the least bit of sense, and if you can't see that you're just being obstinate.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I doubt they employ many people but I'm sure their members run a lot of plantations, distilleries and cement mixer companies.

What does that have to do with anything?

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.

Ok. I agree. This sides more with my point. If they can supply nothing or something, why can't they also choose packages as well? Remember - the employee can always walk away if they don't like the benefits the organization offers.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.

Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.

Well, let's get this straight: You argue that employers are not forced to provide health insurance above, but now you say that they can't cherry pick what offer health care in a particular package, because more people will die. Hmmm. This doesn't seem to add up. Sorry.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

i'm sorry, but this is doublespeak if i've ever seen it. who gives a shit what a few Catholic Bishops have to say when even the followers of that religion ignore them?

It's not double speak. I gave you an example of a situation in which arguably 100% of Catholics violate their own teachings - via lying. You keep focusing on birth control (despite the fact that this issue is much, much broader than just birth control). I don't know if the 98% stat is right or not, but I'd argue that stat would be closer to 100% with lying. So, if you lie, you can't be Catholic? Further, you can't support the Catholic church or it's teachings?

No one is stopping anyone from using contraception.... it's freaking cheap - by your own admission.

They lying example provides an example on this. The Catholic Church has a right to enforce their own teachings in a private manner, regardless of who agrees. Just because you don't agree, or dislike Catholics or their teachings, doesn't make it ok for you to support the government forcing them to do something they don't want to do. This is broader than even the Catholic Church. Much, much broader. This is government invading private enterprise. No one who's against big government would ever support this.

he still stands wrote:

this whole thing is pointless because contraception is cheap for everyone ...

Agreed. Contraception is cheap. So, why are people demanding the church pay for it when they morally object? Just go out and buy it.

he still stands wrote:

your argument doesn't make the least bit of sense, and if you can't see that you're just being obstinate.

My argument does make sense, you just don't like my argument. I'm not being obstinate because I don't agree with you. That's childish.

Monster Rain

None of your examples include the most important aspect of this debate--religious freedom. If the government starts forcing religous organizations to do things that go against the rules of the religion then they are violating the Constitution by infringing upon religious freedom.

Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.

And for the record, the government IS forcing employers to provide health coverage. That's one of the problems here. They wanted to force churches to provide health care for their workers and prevent them from excluding things like birth control. It was something that was doomed to fail from the start because it was guaranteed to bring on lawsuits from religious groups based on the Constitution had Obama not backtracked and said he would exclude religious groups from that aspect of it.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The absurd and dangerous argument of people having to pay for things they don't support isn't one you can win.

I'm morally against people having more than one child and yet I as an employer have to pay for the family health coverage of all my employees even if they have 3 kids. Or 8. And their pre-natal care.

I'm very against Christianity and yet I have to pay for my staff's federally-recognized religious holidays.

I sure didnt hear straight white men complaining that they were forced to pay for prostate exams or erectile disfunction treatments.

Or tennis elbow. I have to provide coverage for that and I think tennis is the lamest sport in the world. Honestly... They wear white... AFTER LABOUR DAY!!

If you provide health insurance or health care, you should have to provide all available health care, not just what you personally cherry pick as things you "morally support." if you don't like it... Don't provide health care. Nobody is forcing you to do that.

The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Sorry.

Prince Of Dorkness

Monster Rain wrote:

None of your examples include the most important aspect of this debate--religious freedom.

And when someone's superstitions are considered more important than my health care... that is a problem.

Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.

You're dreaming in technicolor. First.. I don't know where you get that most men taking Cialis are married. That's just silly. So is the erectile dysfunction... yes, it could be a symptom of a greater disease but giving you a boner pill won't cure that. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh whining that "He's having SO much sex that..."

Prince Of Dorkness

And again, everyone has to pay for things they don't want to pay for.

Refund me for the war and refund me for the school lunch program and Refund me for the Gardening, Housekeeping, Golf, Children's and Christian networks on my cable bill that I'm forced to pay for when I'd rather gouge my eyes out... then we'll talk.

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

And again, everyone has to pay for things they don't want to pay for.

Refund me for the war and refund me for the school lunch program and Refund me for the Gardening, Housekeeping, Golf, Children's and Christian networks on my cable bill that I'm forced to pay for when I'd rather gouge my eyes out... then we'll talk.

Don't buy cable.

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

First, I didn't know the KKK was such a big employer. ha ha.

I doubt they employ many people but I'm sure their members run a lot of plantations, distilleries and cement mixer companies.

Employers are not forced to provide health insurance. I have worked for people who don't.

Sorry but trying to get around the issue of employers cherry picking which procedures they approve of and which ones they don't is going to lead to a lot of dead people. When your employer decides they won't cover heart surgery because you should't have eaten so many hot dogs, you'll understand why.

Health care is NO place for "morality" to come into play.

Don't work for that employer

Prince Of Dorkness

peacefrompaul wrote:

*


Don't buy cable.

I don't anymore.

I now get all my TV a la carte off iTunes.

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

*


Don't buy cable.

I don't anymore.

I now get all my TV a la carte off iTunes.

Good call

Prince Of Dorkness

peacefrompaul wrote:

Don't work for that employer

I work for myself, now.

But thanks.

It's good advice. If your employer has health insurance and your religion gets all upset at birth control... don't buy the work's health insurance, nobody is forcing you. Buy your own personal coverage and make sure it doesn't include birth control of any kind.

Problem solved.

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Don't work for that employer

I work for myself, now.

But thanks.

It's good advice. If your employer has health insurance and your religion gets all upset at birth control... don't buy the work's health insurance, nobody is forcing you. Buy your own personal coverage and make sure it doesn't include birth control of any kind.

Problem solved.

Absolutely

Monster Rain

If someone disagrees with a particular religion, there is nothing forcing that person to work for that religion or attend a school run by that religion. If that woman wants her school's student health insurance to cover birth control, she shouldn't have attended a school that she knew was run by Catholics. She got to choose where she applied, nobody forced her to apply there. She knew what she was getting into when she enrolled. I could've attended Boston College but I didn't even bother applying there once I learned that it was a religious school because I knew there was a strong possibility that there would be some rules there that I might not want to follow that other schools didn't have. I didn't attend the school and then whine about their beliefs and ask them to change to accommodate me.

Again, you're missing the point with the other issue. I never said that most people taking Cialis are married. I said the target demographic of the drug company tends to be married. The companies target middle-aged men and the ads tend to show them with their wives. There is nothing about Cialis that contradicts the church's teachings. Cialis doesn't do anything to prevent conception and it is not inherently sinful in nature in the church's eyes. If anything, it aids in conception because it helps guys perform when they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

You may think religion is a superstition, but the laws of this country grant people the right to practice their religion without interference from the government. Forcing a religion that believes contraception is a sin to pay for contraception could not be a clearer violation of that right.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

None of your examples include the most important aspect of this debate--religious freedom.

And when someone's superstitions are considered more important than my health care... that is a problem.

Prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, etc. are not only NOT religious issues, they are health issues. A prostate exam can detect cancer or other issues. Erectile dysfunction could simply be just that or it could be a symptom of a more serious problem. Also, treating that is not a religious issue for the church because there is nothing that says someone taking Cialis has to be single. In fact, the target demographic for those types of pills is one that tends to be married already.

You're dreaming in technicolor. First.. I don't know where you get that most men taking Cialis are married. That's just silly. So is the erectile dysfunction... yes, it could be a symptom of a greater disease but giving you a boner pill won't cure that. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh whining that "He's having SO much sex that..."

EdsonNascimento

Reading this thread is an education in how folks read only what they want to read. Inlet is making a clear argument why BOTH sides should be against the theory at work here.

And,then we have folks missing words like TARGET to get their point across (for example).

If everyone laid down their arms and focused on the REAL issue being discussed, we'd all be a lot better off.

I think the main point is - gov't stay out of it. If you want contraception, buy it. If you want health care coverage that covers particular items, find it. Regardless, it helps ALL sides when gov't is out of this sort of stuff.

This really isn't a religion issue. This really isn't even a health care issue. It's a matter of gov't mandating further things that is not only unnecessary, but designed to make political points for the sole objective of maintaining power. This is the sort of thing, that I think everyone on this thread detests. So, instead of fighting each other, let's get out the truth of what is going on here.

It seems like some folks don't want the gov't telling them how to live, but it's ok to tell other folks. If they stop telling everyone how to live (e.g. stop mandating AGAINST gay marriage, stop forcing folks to cover contraception, etc), and focused on safety and public good like they are supposed to, we'd all be better off.

When the hell did we fall of the rail, where we can't see we're fighting the same thing?