Philip Francis Queeg: The individual liberty of those who's moral and ethical beliefs would dictate that they not pay for the death penalty or wars.

no, I am concerned for their beliefs. That's why I oppose the death penalty and wars of adventure. Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible. As said earlier, there is no way to reach compromise in these regards since they are paid for through tax dollars and are pretty much all or none propositions. You can't make a convicted killer mostly dead.

Philip Francis Queeg: You seem deeply, deeply concerned about individual liberty of those who's moral and ethical beliefs would dictate that they not pay for contraception. Does your heartfelt and sincere concern not also extend to those compelled not to pay for the other issues?

Oh look what backfired on you?

kingoomieiii: Theaetetus: You're begging the question. Before the government ever has to...

I should tell you right now that SkinnyHead has more trouble with "burden of proof" than a common farm animal.

Difficult concepts like that weren't part of the curriculum for his GED in Law.

skullkrusher: Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible.

But people don't deem birth control immoral.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: The individual liberty of those who's moral and ethical beliefs would dictate that they not pay for the death penalty or wars.

no, I am concerned for their beliefs. That's why I oppose the death penalty and wars of adventure. Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible. As said earlier, there is no way to reach compromise in these regards since they are paid for through tax dollars and are pretty much all or none propositions. You can't make a convicted killer mostly dead.

Philip Francis Queeg: You seem deeply, deeply concerned about individual liberty of those who's moral and ethical beliefs would dictate that they not pay for contraception. Does your heartfelt and sincere concern not also extend to those compelled not to pay for the other issues?

Oh look what backfired on you?

Sure you could compromise. It actually would be very easy. Pay for the death penalty and wars from a voluntary check box on your income tax return. If you don't check the box, your taxes are reduced by the per capita cost of those items.

Why do you insist on making individuals pay for these items which are morally as repugnant to them as contraceptives are to others? I'm sure you will in the future fight for this reasonable compromise in the name of the individual liberty to live your religious beliefs.

HotWingConspiracy: Their businesses might. And they take money from a government that executes people and starts wars. Why is this not offensive to them? It's almost like they support it.

Deus vult.

There's a point to be made that once the businesses (or individuals) pay their taxes, it isn't their money any more, and it isn't ever "money for war and death". It's all the government's money. THEN the government spends it (or rather, the government really spends money then pays its bills with the tax money, but you get the point).

A closer comparison to not wanting to pay for war would be not wanting to pay the insurance company because they cover contraception for anyone. If you don't like the service you've contracted for (government or insurance), or you don't like the decisions they're making (regardless of immediate impact on you), your options are to suck it up, or take your business/citizenship elsewhere.

The religious right shouldn't have to pay for insurance for a company that provides services against their beliefs, they can either get a new insurance company, deal with it, or go without insurance all together. If they don't like the decisions the government makes, they can move to another country, deal with it, or declare themselves independents and see how that goes.

Though the louder they get on political issues and legislature, the more we need to be examining their tax-exempt status. "Yes, Your Holiness Pope-sir, you are welcome to tell the American Catholics anything you want regarding a specific peice of legislature. However, the moment you enter the political punditry arena, I will begin to tax your institution, very likely the richest one on Earth. Your call. Ante in or fold, biatch."

Philip Francis Queeg: Sure you could compromise. It actually would be very easy. Pay for the death penalty and wars from a voluntary check box on your income tax return. If you don't check the box, your taxes are reduced by the per capita cost of those items.

Alternatively, you could privatize the death penalty and the military.

kingoomieiii: lennavan: skullkrusher: Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible.

But people don't deem birth control immoral.

Well, SOME people do, but they're pretty stupid.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that number is under 5%. It's like 98% of women have or will use birth control in their lives.

WalkingCarpet: Did I just fall into another dimension where it's 1650 and the internet exists or something?

I cannot believe we are even having this argument in this day and age.

This is not an argument. Conservatives want this to be the "Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand" of Obama's re-election campaign. They were looking for an issue, any issue to rally the religious folk around so that they can take the focus off of the fact that poor people are getting f00ked.

This issue will go nowhere, and just like the Ground Zero mosque no one will give a shait in another 3 months.

Corvus: SkinnyHead: The Catholic Church believes that Obama's policy forces Catholics to violate their faith.

How? No one is forced to use birth control or even buy it.

Are you questioning the sincerity of their beliefs?!?!

I like this argument. It can be applied to anything ("I believe I'm innocent of the crime. You can't question the sincerity of my beliefs, and you have to show how convicting me furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so!") and if you're really stupid, you may even be taken in for a short time.

lennavan: skullkrusher: Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible.

But people don't deem birth control immoral.

huh? Obviously some people do object to it on religious grounds or we wouldn't be having this discussion

lennavan: kingoomieiii: lennavan: skullkrusher: Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible.

But people don't deem birth control immoral.

Well, SOME people do, but they're pretty stupid.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that number is under 5%. It's like 98% of women have or will use birth control in their lives.

I fail to see how the belief something is immoral prevents its use. There's plenty of hypocrisy in the world. There's probably even people who legitimately think it's wrong but still do it and feel bad about it. Beyond them, the only moral abortion is my abortion, etc.

skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: Their businesses might. And they take money from a government that executes people and starts wars. Why is this not offensive to them? It's almost like they support it.

which "businesses"? Non-profit hospitals? Nope. Colleges? nu-uh.

It's almost like they support of war except when the last leader of the Church came out and denounced it, the current leader of the church denounced it, Catholic leaders in the States organized protests against it. Bill Donohue, Catholic League President, gadfly, pedophile apologist and cockknocker extraordinaire, he apparently likes war but the Church leaders themselves? No. Your true colors. They show.

They still accept federal funds. Why would they partner with an entity so against what they believe?

Philip Francis Queeg: Sure you could compromise. It actually would be very easy. Pay for the death penalty and wars from a voluntary check box on your income tax return. If you don't check the box, your taxes are reduced by the per capita cost of those items.

Why do you insist on making individuals pay for these items which are morally as repugnant to them as contraceptives are to others? I'm sure you will in the future fight for this reasonable compromise in the name of the individual liberty to live your religious beliefs.

first of all, they're not *my* religious beliefs. I am quite fond of contraception and the effective use of it combined with some personal responsibility is why I have only 1 child so far and he was intentional.

Secondly, you just suggested we make taxes optional as it pertains to at least a few things. I wholeheartedly agree. Get it done. People would be free to support what they want.

This isn't just pissing off female voters. Lots of male voters are not too happy with the idea that they are going to have to wear condoms every time they want non-procreative sex with their wives or girlfriends.

Corvus: Yeah and that religion is "Complain about everything Obama does even though their are laws that are exactly the same and no one cared about them before".

ah now we get to the heart of it. You are sad that someone disagreed with Obama. I understand. Oftentimes people disagree with him for disagreements sake. This isn't such a scenario, however. The law was definitely changing and that is what people are protesting. To say that it is "exactly the same" is either a lie or indicative of ignorance of the situation.

Corvus: Most people biatching about this are not even Catholics. In fact most Catholics support the plans caring birth control. (which you will respond "I know one who doesn't because you think 1 person speaks for the majority")

ahh, tyranny of the majority as an argument. That takes me back. Do you use the same argument in same sex marriage threads?
It doesn't matter if "most Catholics support the plans caring [sic] birth control". If the people who are required to foot the bill don't support footing the bill, that's the issue.

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible.

But people don't deem birth control immoral.

huh? Obviously some people do object to it on religious grounds or we wouldn't be having this discussion

I agree with you it doesn't make sense but there it is. The population widely supports birth control, a few old white dudes representing The Catholic Church do not and here we are, apparently discussing national policy driven by a few old white dudes representing a single religion.

HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: Their businesses might. And they take money from a government that executes people and starts wars. Why is this not offensive to them? It's almost like they support it.

which "businesses"? Non-profit hospitals? Nope. Colleges? nu-uh.

It's almost like they support of war except when the last leader of the Church came out and denounced it, the current leader of the church denounced it, Catholic leaders in the States organized protests against it. Bill Donohue, Catholic League President, gadfly, pedophile apologist and cockknocker extraordinaire, he apparently likes war but the Church leaders themselves? No. Your true colors. They show.

They still accept federal funds. Why would they partner with an entity so against what they believe?

Probably because the Church doesn't find providing health services and education against their teaching. Dude, you just have to ask for a straw. I'll give you one. No need to so rudely grasp for them.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Sure you could compromise. It actually would be very easy. Pay for the death penalty and wars from a voluntary check box on your income tax return. If you don't check the box, your taxes are reduced by the per capita cost of those items.

Why do you insist on making individuals pay for these items which are morally as repugnant to them as contraceptives are to others? I'm sure you will in the future fight for this reasonable compromise in the name of the individual liberty to live your religious beliefs.

first of all, they're not *my* religious beliefs. I am quite fond of contraception and the effective use of it combined with some personal responsibility is why I have only 1 child so far and he was intentional.

Secondly, you just suggested we make taxes optional as it pertains to at least a few things. I wholeheartedly agree. Get it done. People would be free to support what they want.

It would be fascinating to see where the country's spending priorities are, when it comes to the government.

doczoidberg: This whole thing is farking ridiculous....
Obama has actually managed to make contraception an issue in politics.

I am starting to hate this country.

Y'know, I don't really think it's your fault if you're walking down the street and someone tackles you. In the same vein, Obama really didn't do anything here. The GOP\right-wing lunatics were the ones who started the screaming, are continuing the screaming, and haven't quite grasped that the rest of us want them to STFU.

skullkrusher: Secondly, you just suggested we make taxes optional as it pertains to at least a few things. I wholeheartedly agree. Get it done.

That's all well and good as a dismissive response but the reality is these followers of Christ are not trying to get out of paying for killing people they are just trying to get out of paying for birth control.

lennavan: I agree with you it doesn't make sense but there it is. The population widely supports birth control, a few old white dudes representing The Catholic Church do not and here we are, apparently discussing national policy driven by a few old white dudes representing a single religion.

yeah, good thing we have the Constitution to protect the minority from the will of the majority eh?

DeaH: This isn't just pissing off female voters. Lots of male voters are not too happy with the idea that they are going to have to wear condoms every time they want non-procreative sex with their wives or girlfriends.

Catholic bishops oppose condoms, too. Granted, they usually aren't covered by health insurance, and aren't usually as expensive as female birth control, but if the bishops had their way condoms would be illegal, too. Because according to them, every single sex act is supposed to be "open to procreation".

Corvus: You are saying NO states mandate BC coverage for HC providers (including religious ones)? You really want to go with that?

remember last time you tried to pretend I said something I didn't. Has your shame subsided enough that you're emboldened enough to do the same now?

Here is a list of state by state requirements. Woowee, there are an awful lot that require birth control coverage under employer provided plans. (new window)

skullkrusher: lennavan: I agree with you it doesn't make sense but there it is. The population widely supports birth control, a few old white dudes representing The Catholic Church do not and here we are, apparently discussing national policy driven by a few old white dudes representing a single religion.

yeah, good thing we have the Constitution to protect the minority from the will of the majority eh?

Whoa there fella, hold those goalposts in place a second. You're the one who brought up morals and what people think. Now you're switching it to a Constitutional argument? We can go that route but I assume that means you're dropping this line of argumentation entirely:

skullkrusher: Forcing moral decisions and support for acts that people deem immoral should be limited as much as possible.

We agree people don't deem it immoral, it's not a moral issue, now you think it's a Constitutional issue. This is what your post meant, right? Or should we finish up talking about the morality part and then move on?

HighOnCraic:
Actually, the bishops were pretty outspoken against the GOP on issues lik welfare reform, minimum wage laws, and the death penalty.

USCCB, Illinois Bishops Laud State's Death Penalty Repeal

Bishops Urge Illinois Governor to Sign Bill Ending Death Penalty

New Hampshire Catholics Work for Death Penalty Repeal

Montana Catholics work for Death Penalty Repeal

USCCB Congratulates New Mexico on Repeal of the Death Penalty

Colo. Catholic Conference works to repeal the Death Penalty

Missouri Catholics support Death Penalty moratorium

Link (new window)

The bishops were major supporters of the New Deal as well.

I never said that they never try to influence public policy in other areas, too. And I guess it's debatable whether what they've done in those areas matches what they've done on birth control, gays, and abortion. But I think it's fair to say that their focus in making political statements has been on the sex-based issues far more often, especially abortion, and especially in the last few years. When was the last time we had a giant media uproar lasting weeks over the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty, for example? TWICE now in the last few years the bishops have gone all out to derail the progress of healthcare reform over sexual "morality" issues.

The Catholic Church in the U.S. used to be far less radically conservative than it is now. They've taken a hard right turn, and are intentionally trying to block the goal of expanding access to healthcare under the guise of sexual morality.

Corvus: skullkrusher: lennavan: I agree with you it doesn't make sense but there it is. The population widely supports birth control, a few old white dudes representing The Catholic Church do not and here we are, apparently discussing national policy driven by a few old white dudes representing a single religion.

yeah, good thing we have the Constitution to protect the minority from the will of the majority eh?

You mean like a small group of religious nuts forcing people not to be able to get birth control as part of their healthcare plan?

Like that you mean?

hahahahahahhahaahahhahahahahahaha. I love the twisted language and "logic" necessary to make your "point".

lennavan: Whoa there fella, hold those goalposts in place a second. You're the one who brought up morals and what people think. Now you're switching it to a Constitutional argument? We can go that route but I assume that means you're dropping this line of argumentation entirely:

that's what this is all about isn't it? The constitutional protection of your right to freely exercise your religion. That's what the "moral opposition" is about. You don't have a right not to have your moral compromised but you do if those morals are the result of your religious beliefs. Goalposts remain firmly planted. It's your failure of an argument that's flowing in the breeze

lennavan: We agree people don't deem it immoral, it's not a moral issue, now you think it's a Constitutional issue. This is what your post meant, right? Or should we finish up talking about the morality part and then move on?

it took you a while before you started to pretend you didn't understand the discussion. Congrats.