If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Show)   "You've confused the 'war on your religion' with 'not always getting everything you want'"   (thedailyshow.com) divider line 851
    More: Obvious, Dana Perino, Ali Soufan, culture war, Sean Hannity, faiths, ideologues  
•       •       •

7258 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Feb 2012 at 1:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



851 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-14 12:36:00 PM  
Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor
 
2012-02-14 12:50:22 PM  
Might be one of the best segments of the Daily Show this year.
 
2012-02-14 12:50:52 PM  
The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.
 
2012-02-14 12:51:00 PM  

cman: Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor


Sure...

pixti.me
 
2012-02-14 12:57:50 PM  

Bevets: But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products


Yeah, that's a perfect analogy.
 
2012-02-14 01:02:17 PM  
Bevets:

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

Blues_X:

Yeah, that's a perfect analogy.

I thought so too.
 
2012-02-14 01:07:50 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


Nobody's compelling the Catholic church to run businesses, are they? Please show me where the Catholic church is forced to run hospitals and other corporations. This rule does NOT impact the church itself. If the catholic church does not want to run its businesses with the SAME rules as everyone else, they can STFU and stop running businesses.
 
2012-02-14 01:07:55 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church.


The Catholic Church is not forced to participate in anything. Churches are exempt and always have been. If the Church runs a hospital or university, then that is not a church.
 
2012-02-14 01:08:39 PM  
Shorter response: The First Amendment does not grant special rights to religions who want to run businesses.
 
2012-02-14 01:09:16 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


thesketchydetails.net
 
2012-02-14 01:10:14 PM  

James!: cman: Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor

Sure...

pixti.me



I never actually saw the graphic of that before. Do they realize that even section 8 rentals COME WITH THEM?
 
2012-02-14 01:10:36 PM  
It's early, but:

"Our analysis basically shows that Catholics' opinions of Obama are little changed through Sunday," Newport told me. "Our article will show that we can detect little change in Catholic approval so far."

"We don't see much change in church-going Catholics, either," Newport said.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-14 01:11:23 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's early, but:

"Our analysis basically shows that Catholics' opinions of Obama are little changed through Sunday," Newport told me. "Our article will show that we can detect little change in Catholic approval so far."

"We don't see much change in church-going Catholics, either," Newport said.

Link (new window)


Shocking, considering that 98% of Catholics use birth control.
 
2012-02-14 01:13:02 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


Sorry, you lose. They're receiving federal funding, they forfeit they right to separation of Church and State. But that doesn't matter since there's already been a compromise... a compromise that isn't good enough for the Church... so yes, the Church is seeking this conflict.

Also, there are plenty of medical treatments that other religious organizations would oppose on moral grounds, and yet these twerps are the only ones making any noise.
 
2012-02-14 01:13:56 PM  

Bevets: all cafeterias MUST provide pork products.


No one is forcing ANYONE to PURCHASE, RECEIVE OR USE birth control. Let alone on company property.

What I'm saying is, "Get farked".
 
2012-02-14 01:14:15 PM  

cman: Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor


Um...how about no?

Republican policies overwhelmingly support the wealthy and big business - the very people who are shipping US jobs to China and India (because being in the top 1% is NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!1!), leading to unemployment and underemployment at home, pushing the middle and lower classes downward.

YAY CAPITALISM!!
 
2012-02-14 01:15:37 PM  

serpent_sky: James!: cman: Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor

Sure...

pixti.me


I never actually saw the graphic of that before. Do they realize that even section 8 rentals COME WITH THEM?


They probably think you should sell the refrigerator before applying for foodstamps.
 
2012-02-14 01:16:04 PM  

Bevets: Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)


Also, this is more analogous to allowing employees of your cafeteria to eat pork if they want to.
 
2012-02-14 01:16:45 PM  

Bevets: You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


Seriously dude, you and your ilk are acting as if Obama is dumping RU-486 into the water supply.

Try living in the real world once in a while.
 
2012-02-14 01:19:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Bevets: Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

Also, this is more analogous to allowing employees of your cafeteria to eat pork if they want to.


It's like the company you work for contract with another company to provide you with food and forbiding them from serving pork. Except it's medical care and not bacon.
 
2012-02-14 01:19:58 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Bevets: You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.

Seriously dude, you and your ilk are acting as if Obama is dumping RU-486 into the water supply.

Try living in the real world once in a while.


Bevets is the inevitable result of teaching the world's stupidest fundamentalist how to make a spambot.
 
2012-02-14 01:22:55 PM  
"As for your slippery slope - Hitler did not start small. His deliberate annihilation of a religion did not kick off with insurance reform."

Brilliant. Will these "conservative" douchebags ever realize hoe farking stupid they sound?

Given their existence in a bubble/echo chamber, I'm going to say NO, they will remain stupid douchebags.
 
2012-02-14 01:23:58 PM  
What this boils down to is this: Catholics don't like that their employees have choices, and that those choices don't line up with the Church. The employee decides to do something against their teachings, but legal, so the Church is then responsible for it?

I thought that the entire purpose of the Sermon on the Mount was to establish that men were responsible for their own choices, and that if they want to be good Christians, then they have to choose to do so.

Ultimately, the Church wants to take that away from folks. Take away their choices. Good Catholics won't choose these services. As far as I know, the Catholic Church doesn't always hire Catholics in these hospitals, and wants to impose their own thoughts of what is meet and good on folks of other faiths, that they seem to think are good enough to work for them, but not to make their own damn decisions.
 
2012-02-14 01:24:50 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Seriously dude, you and your ilk are acting as if Obama is dumping RU-486 into the water supply.


To be fair, that's what they're told. I think the primary message of CPAC was that if Obama gets a second term he will admit he's a Muslim, abolish the second amendment, and force all Christians to be sterilized.
 
2012-02-14 01:25:32 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


cameroncrazy1984:

Nobody's compelling the Catholic church to run businesses, are they? Please show me where the Catholic church is forced to run hospitals and other corporations. This rule does NOT impact the church itself. If the catholic church does not want to run its businesses with the SAME rules as everyone else, they can STFU and stop running businesses.

These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?
 
2012-02-14 01:28:15 PM  
Holy fark its Bevets
 
2012-02-14 01:28:36 PM  

Bevets: These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


Nobody's doing that. What a pointless comment.
 
2012-02-14 01:28:44 PM  

Bevets: Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.

cameroncrazy1984:

Nobody's compelling the Catholic church to run businesses, are they? Please show me where the Catholic church is forced to run hospitals and other corporations. This rule does NOT impact the church itself. If the catholic church does not want to run its businesses with the SAME rules as everyone else, they can STFU and stop running businesses.

These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


The part where free exercise was being prohibited?

Unless you're like that kid from 6th sense in that only you can see government intrusion where there isn't any.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-02-14 01:29:15 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


That's pretty silly. Religious freedom is not the freedom to impose your religion on other people. People who don't want to use birth control can simply not use it.
 
2012-02-14 01:29:42 PM  

Bevets: What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


The more I think about it, the more right I think you are. We'd also better overturn those bigoted, anti-religion murder laws so they don't interfere with Sharia honor killings, or stoning menstruating women.
 
2012-02-14 01:29:46 PM  

Bevets: These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


Nothing is being prohibited. They'd just have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
 
2012-02-14 01:30:19 PM  

James!: Bevets: These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?

Nothing is being prohibited. They'd just have to follow the same rules as everyone else.


They're being prohibited from not following the rules, I guess.
 
2012-02-14 01:30:26 PM  
Hi Bevets, how's it going?

Sorry, guy, but I can't agree with religious organizations exempting themselves from providing reproductive health care for its employees. Like Jon Stewart pointed out, the Fox News panel was all male and whined about religious persecution. Claiming such is silly and is selfish.

We have a secular government for a reason: We have freedom of religion. If the government takes sides with a religious group, that leaves a lot of other religious groups unsupported. Therefore, the government is applying the law equally to all employers, including religious ones.

My church doesn't believe the Bible is the true word of God literally. Others do. Mine believes in letting women choose. Others want to mandate not letting women choose. See the conflict. Mine, however, doesn't go on national TV networks, whining they're being abused. Doing such is an absurdity.
 
2012-02-14 01:31:04 PM  

Knara: Holy fark its Bevets


Nothing rare about Bevets showing up in a religion-related thread and throwing out badly considered arguments. It happens as sure as the sun rises.

If Fb- showed up, THEN a "holy f*ck" would be warranted.
 
2012-02-14 01:31:13 PM  

Dan the Schman: They're receiving federal funding, they forfeit they right to separation of Church and State.


Funny, some of us might argue that churches of all kinds are receiving Federal (and state... and local...) funding, by virtue of their being tax exempt.

Don't want rules foisted on you? Don't take subsidies, in any form, for your little money-laundering and hate-generating operations.

Oh, and STFU re: any political issue, unless you want your tax-exempt status revoked. Retroactively.
 
2012-02-14 01:31:23 PM  

Bevets: These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


I have no problem with it, and as I said it does not prohibit the free exercise of anyone's religion. A business is simply not a religion and you can't prove that it is.
 
2012-02-14 01:31:24 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


The Catholic church already agreed to these terms in multiple states. Catholic Healthcare Initiatives has already endorsed the compromise. The bishops wanted to test their reach and are quite unhappy about its limits. That's all this is.
 
2012-02-14 01:31:25 PM  

hubiestubert: What this boils down to is this: Catholics don't like that their employees have choices, and that those choices don't line up with the Church. The employee decides to do something against their teachings, but legal, so the Church is then responsible for it?


Heh...the vast, vast majority of sexually active Catholics use birth control. A tiny number of celibate men are opposed to this.

Who's waging war on whom?
 
2012-02-14 01:31:36 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.


So do you think the Catholic Church should be able to determine what their employees do with their salary?

/you can't use our salary on cable tv because cable tv airs anti-catholic programs x, y, and z.
//you can't use our salary at store x because they are anti-catholic
///etc. etc.
 
2012-02-14 01:32:22 PM  

qorkfiend: James!: Bevets: These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?

Nothing is being prohibited. They'd just have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

They're being prohibited from not following the rules, I guess.


They don't what equal rights they want special rights. Isn't that what they're always accusing gay people of doing?
 
2012-02-14 01:32:24 PM  
Just so we're all on the same page here.

--

28 states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage of the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices; 17 of these states also require coverage of related outpatient services.

20 states allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the mandate.
8 states have no such provision that permits refusal by some employers or insurers.
4 states include a "limited" refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so.
7 states include a "broader" refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse, but not hospitals.
8 states include an "expansive" refusal clause that allows religious organizations, including at least some hospitals, to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with moral or religious objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states exempt insurers in addition to employers.)
14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not cover contraceptives.
4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate.

Link (new window, .pdf)

These policies have been around in 28 states for awhile, and 8 of those have no exemptions.
 
2012-02-14 01:32:36 PM  

Bevets: What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


Please point me to the part of the bible that states "Thou shalt not allow people to acquire inexpensive medical treatment at no cost to yourself, for it displeases me".

Actually, I'm paraphrasing, but that might actually be in there, what with the whole "kill everyone, destroy the livestock, burn the homes to the ground, and salt the earth" solution to "a few people in town don't worship the right god".
 
2012-02-14 01:34:29 PM  
Glad to see bevets shiatting all over this thread early on.
 
2012-02-14 01:34:32 PM  

cman: Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor [blank]


FTFY
 
2012-02-14 01:35:13 PM  

Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.


You might have an argument if you are talking about an actual church.

You do not have an argument talking about a Catholic healthcare system. Catholic teachings should not be allowed to interfere with evidence based healthcare. And the evidence is that women's access to birth control contributes significantly to education, future earnings, and physical health. Jebus doesn't get to decide on the healthcare access for hundreds if not thousands of employees.
 
2012-02-14 01:35:57 PM  

AirForceVet: We have a secular government


Bevets will never accept that.
 
2012-02-14 01:36:18 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: cman: Same could be said about the Republican war on the poor [blank]

FTFY


Thanks to Obama, the U.S. is currently engaged in 109 wars.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-14 01:37:06 PM  

Bevets: These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


Probably the part where you equate a business with a religion. As you just said, these are not churches we are talking about, they're businesses. And the question of whether government can regulate businesses was settled a few hundred years ago.
 
2012-02-14 01:37:19 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Lionel Mandrake: Seriously dude, you and your ilk are acting as if Obama is dumping RU-486 into the water supply.

To be fair, that's what they're told. I think the primary message of CPAC was that if Obama gets a second term he will admit he's a Muslim, abolish the second amendment, and force all Christians to be sterilized.


Is that bad? Should I not support that?
 
2012-02-14 01:38:31 PM  

Bevets: Bevets: The Catholic Church is not stopping ANYONE from purchasing contraception. The Catholic Church should not be compelled to participate in an act (through funding) they find morally abhorrent.

Suppose the issue was government mandating employers provide all employees cafeteria services (everyone needs to eat). But, not only that, the government has decided that all cafeterias MUST provide pork products. Most people would have no problem with this mandate. But suppose your corporation is PETA (or a mosque) -- Why should the government tell you that YOUR cafeteria MUST provide pork? (When people who want to buy pork are FREE to buy pork anywhere else (from people who are NOT vegetarians) AND you are feeding them (which is the purpose of a cafeteria).)

This was settled church doctrine long before the United States even existed. The Catholic Church did not seek this conflict -- this conflict was imposed on the church. The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion -- that liberty has been seriously undermined here.

You can't always get what you want -- appears to be a one way street between Obamacare and the first amendment.

cameroncrazy1984:

Nobody's compelling the Catholic church to run businesses, are they? Please show me where the Catholic church is forced to run hospitals and other corporations. This rule does NOT impact the church itself. If the catholic church does not want to run its businesses with the SAME rules as everyone else, they can STFU and stop running businesses.

These businesses were running LONG before the law was passed. What part of 'shall not prohibit the free exercise' do you have trouble with?


1) No one is forcing the Catholic church to pay for shiat.

2) "Freedom of religion" should not allow employers to have a say on decisions that should be between patients and their doctors.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. Should any business run by a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to deny blood transfusions to employees in their health coverage?
 
Displayed 50 of 851 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report