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.

(Washington Post)   98% of Catholic woman have used contraception at some point. But since they're not using all the time, or may no longer want to use it, it's a "lie"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 256
    More: Asinine, Catholics, Guttmacher Institute, contraceptives, reproductive healths, non-profit organizations, effective methods, House Minority Leader, Catholic bishop  
•       •       •

11144 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2012 at 11:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-20 11:50:56 AM

zorlack7: It's a provable fact, however, that 100% of catholics are morons, so why can't we just discredit them on that, and leave birth control out of it?


challenge accepted - prove that all Catholics are morons.
 
2012-02-20 11:51:12 AM
The problem with your article is that I read it, and though the number is slightly different, it makes the same point.

FTFABut while the study says that 98 percent of "sexually experienced Catholic women" have "ever used a contraceptive method other than natural planning," the data shown in the report does not actually back up that claim. In fact, a supplementary table in the report, on page 8, even appears to undermine that statistic, since it shows that 11 percent of Catholic women currently using no method at all.

When your argument is based on the fact that 89% are using some method of birth control, not 98%, I'm still calling it massive hypocrisy.
 
2012-02-20 11:52:29 AM
I think the bigger question is why, in the 21st century, is use of contraception "controversial"?

It was controversial in the very early part of the 20th century. It isn't now. Not by rational people. By stupid and/or dishonest people, sure. But not by people with any goddam common sense. Which lets out the Catholic leadership, by definition.

So maybe let's just let this "controversy" peter out like all the other manufactured ones. If we ignore the Catholic Church, maybe it'll get back to denying the kid farkers in its midst and leave reasonable people alone.
 
2012-02-20 11:53:42 AM

WinoRhino: Lsherm: Well, no, it's a lie because the only women in the survey were aged 15-44 and had sexual experience. So it's not 98% of Catholic women, or anywhere near it.

My mother was a nun for 10 years. She quit the order and eventually married my father. She told us continuously throughout our upbringing that she and my father were virgins until they got married, and that premarital sex and birth control were wrong. As an adult I found out I was the result of a broken condom or something. My mother let that fact slip out during an argument about abortion, saying "If your father and I believed in abortion you wouldn't be here! You were unplanned because birth control isn't 100% reliable!" So here you had an ex-nun, someone who you'd imagine was fairly Catholic, constantly preaching against birth control then accidentally admitting that sure, they used it. My point is that the study might be bogus because people lie. They wouldn't lie about using birth control, they would lie about NOT using birth control (especially when they would be judged morally for doing so.) My guess is the percentage is higher.


My grandmother was a hardcore Catholic. And could be a real biatch about it, and was super judgmental. Then I found out that my father was born seven months after her wedding.

I also found out that my great grandmother was a kept woman, and was shipped over to America with her five illegitimate children when her lover (or his family) needed to get rid of her. Never did find out exactly why great grandma got shipped out of Germany. She did have enough money to buy a nice house and live comfortably. It's her maiden name we use as our last name.

Yep, definitely come from a good Catholic family.

/dig far enough and deep enough, and every one is dirty
 
2012-02-20 11:53:42 AM

ArkAngel: Lsherm: Well, no, it's a lie because the only women in the survey were aged 15-44 and had sexual experience. So it's not 98% of Catholic women, or anywhere near it.

Actually, the article does a great job of breaking down exactly WHY it's a bogus statistic.

This. It's like a lung disease study who put people who quit ten years ago in the same category as current two-pack-a-day smokers


I hear that a large percentage of Democrats are actually Catholic or Christian, or were at some point in their lives. Given the fact that they have all 'apparently' practiced religion before we can safely bring religion back into the schools despite their current objections......Dont you just love slippery logic slopes?
 
2012-02-20 11:54:47 AM

themeaningoflifeisnot: zorlack7: It's a provable fact, however, that 100% of catholics are morons, so why can't we just discredit them on that, and leave birth control out of it?

JFK is getting a kick . . .


So is MLK, prejudice is not a pack of twelve, its more like a sampler....it comes in all flavors.
 
2012-02-20 11:55:30 AM
The real question should be why in 2012 are we having an argument over birth control like we somehow time traveled back to 1950? What is the next controversy that Conservatives and Catholics are going to tackle, whether or not women should be able to work outside of the home?
 
2012-02-20 11:55:31 AM

randomjsa: it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you can force religious institutions to cover contraception when it's against the teachings of their religion.


I am going to start a company and then sue the government because the government does not allow me to hire children to work, when my religion requires me to hire only children. That's just not right for the government to violate my religious principles.
 
2012-02-20 11:55:32 AM

davideggy: 0% of Catholic women have ever used birth control. If they used birth control, they are not a true Catholic.


LOL... then their are very, very few Catholics in this country.

I'd guess.... ten.
 
2012-02-20 11:56:28 AM

dosboot: The media keeps trumpeting the lie that this is just about birth control. I is also about forcing a church/religious institutions to finance abortions. The media also trumpets that it is just the Catholics who are against this plan. The Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists, and Muslims have all objected to it.

All of them? The organizations themselves, based on their official press releases? Or are you basing this on this guy you know who's an Orthodox Baptist Muslim (depending on what you're arguing at the time)?


Next up, Obama mandates that the federal government must inspect and confiscate unhealthy brown bagged lunches in schools. Eat government issued "chicken" nuggets, slave.


Does the fact that you have to make things up to support your argument in any way make you re-think your position?
 
2012-02-20 11:57:05 AM

Starry Heavens: The scientific nitpick -- that it's not 98% of all Catholic women, but just Catholic "women aged 15-44 who have ever had sex" -- is just odd. Sure, the percentage is higher because it excludes 15-year-old virgins, but that doesn't seem terribly important for a public policy debate. That's like yelling at someone who says "16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age" because they didn't specify 16-year-old drivers and less than 30% of 16-year-olds have a license. Having a driver's license and having sex go without saying in those statistics (in non-scientific contexts).

The only reasonable complaint I can think of is that the study asked people who are currently Catholic what they have done at any point in their lives, so they might have used birth control before converting to Catholicism. This article, however, does not address that.

This is really just... odd.


This is an incredibly good post and point. Well said.
 
2012-02-20 11:57:13 AM

chuckufarlie: challenge accepted - prove that all Catholics are morons.


1) they believe in an invisible sky wizard
2) they believe in the infallibility of the head kiddy raper.
3) they are taught not to be assholes, but somehow comepletly forget that consistently

I could go on, but there comes a time when beating a dead horse becomes as tiresome and listening to a pedo talk in latin.
 
2012-02-20 11:57:20 AM

debug: The rule covers all contraception for women. I'm asking why men's contraceptives aren't covered by insurance also.



There's really no such thing as "mens contraceptive," because they can't get pregnant. But condoms, as a barrier contraceptive to prevent women from becoming pregnant, are also covered by this rule.

"All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity."
 
2012-02-20 11:58:34 AM

Lsherm: Well, no, it's a lie because the only women in the survey were aged 15-44 and had sexual experience


I'm most interested in the stats on contraceptive use among women of child-bearing age, aka roughly 15-44. After that, menopause looms large and I'd expect contraceptive use to drop sharply for reasons other than "I am against it morally"
 
2012-02-20 11:59:24 AM
If I do a survey about people using their seat belts, and only include "people who ride in cars", it's not scientifically flawed. I'm measuring the correct population. In fact, if I were to ask a completely random set of people "do you wear your seat belt", and 20% of my respondents don't ever ride in cars, my results will not be scientifically valid.

If I do a survey of people's satisfaction with their heart surgeon, and I don't select "people who have had heart surgery" as my research population, I'm going to get pretty stupid results.

So if I want to know what percent of Catholic women have used birth control, I am going to be asking sexually active Catholic females. To be even more useful, the survey should probably primarily evaluate women who are 1) sexually active, and 2) who are not actively trying to become pregnant. Because it's pretty stupid to do a birth control prevalence study on a population that is by definition avoiding birth control.

The appropriate population for the study would be sexually active Catholic women who are not seeking to become pregnant. If the celibate males who make Catholic policy are correct, the majority of these women will not use artificial birth control. If they're not, then they aren't speaking for the needs of Catholic women, and really need to STFU.
 
2012-02-20 12:01:32 PM

Lando Lincoln: randomjsa: it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you can force religious institutions to cover contraception when it's against the teachings of their religion.

I am going to start a company and then sue the government because the government does not allow me to hire children to work, when my religion requires me to hire only children. That's just not right for the government to violate my religious principles.


You apparently misunderstand how this whole religion thing works.

The government does have a right to determine whether you're a sincere believer, which clearly you would not be.
 
2012-02-20 12:02:05 PM

UnrepentantApostate: Hormonal birth control is not an abortifacent.


Yeah, I know, but for the sake of a very simple argument I'm keeping it to the "sperm: don't go that way" methods. I'm not personally worried about the tiny probabilities of birth control methods causing a failure to implant, as I'm quite familiar that fertilized eggs fail to implant all on their own at an extremely high rate already.

But no matter what one believes on that, a barrier method is in no way, shape, or form, doing anything to prevent fertilized embryos from implanting. I will likely never see how that is a violation of the "golden rule."

I recall the Vatican statement about using a condom to prevent HIV transmission is a greater good than the sin of using a condom to prevent pregnancy. But why is preventing pregnancy a sin? "Because the rules..." no. Why is preventing pregnancy a sin? You can be quite fruitful and multiply (ahem, an old-testament decree) and still PLAN IT OUT.

Trust me... three little FactoryConnections and counting attest to that fact.

Mike Chewbacca: I was being snarky.


Sorry... my bad reading is at fault. I'm not new here!
 
2012-02-20 12:02:24 PM
Vee-dee-va-dee-voo-deeeeee
 
2012-02-20 12:03:19 PM
That's nice. The fact is that most Catholic women who've ever had sex have used contraception to manage their child bearing or lack thereof. Also, from TFA: The data also shows that there are few differences between women of different religions in terms of contraceptive use; there was not much difference back in 1973 but the gaps have narrowed even further today.

Dear GOP,
Just STFU and go back to trying to suppress your hatred of women, you farking assholes.
 
2012-02-20 12:03:30 PM
Okay, I think all forms of contraception should be covered and all of that stuff, but I don't know why a statistic like this, true or not, is relevent. The view of a church doesn't change just because the followers disagree. If 98% of all catholics supported birth control (I know that's not what these stats are saying), that won't change what these bishops are trying to do. Their job is to interpret the bible's teachings and tell others what they think needs to be done to please God. They're doing that. No amount of dissenting opinion held by the followers of their religion is going to change that. This is how new sects are formed, but the originals stay the same.
 
2012-02-20 12:03:56 PM
Let's see... Who should I listen to when it comes to women's reproductive health issues?

Women and medical professionals or a bunch of celibate old priests?

Women and medical professionals or a panel of male conservative Republicans?

That's a tough on, right there...
 
2012-02-20 12:04:25 PM

dahmers love zombie: If I do a survey about people using their seat belts, and only include "people who ride in cars", it's not scientifically flawed. I'm measuring the correct population. In fact, if I were to ask a completely random set of people "do you wear your seat belt", and 20% of my respondents don't ever ride in cars, my results will not be scientifically valid.

If I do a survey of people's satisfaction with their heart surgeon, and I don't select "people who have had heart surgery" as my research population, I'm going to get pretty stupid results.

So if I want to know what percent of Catholic women have used birth control, I am going to be asking sexually active Catholic females. To be even more useful, the survey should probably primarily evaluate women who are 1) sexually active, and 2) who are not actively trying to become pregnant. Because it's pretty stupid to do a birth control prevalence study on a population that is by definition avoiding birth control.

The appropriate population for the study would be sexually active Catholic women who are not seeking to become pregnant. If the celibate males who make Catholic policy are correct, the majority of these women will not use artificial birth control. If they're not, then they aren't speaking for the needs of Catholic women, and really need to STFU.


Bingo.

And people whining that the study doesn't include women over 44 is just as ridiculous. Once menopause hits, most women stop using contraception* because they don't have to worry about getting pregnant. I'm trying to respond to our friends on the right without using the word "duh" but they're making it almost impossible.

* And the ones who continue do so for other reasons, not to prevent pregnancy.
 
2012-02-20 12:04:26 PM

Fubini: The government does have a right to determine whether you're a sincere believer, which clearly you would not be.


That's total bullshiat. Who the fark are they do tell me that my beliefs are not sincere? When Dagon comes down from his lava mountain to lay judgment on them, they'll farking rue the day that they told me my beliefs were not sincere.
 
2012-02-20 12:04:39 PM
Nearly a $G per year on Ortho-Tri Lo; get this shiat fixed and fixed right now
 
2012-02-20 12:04:51 PM
I just wish they would've come out half as hard agains child rape. Guess they need all these children to be born so they can continue the 40lbs of rape.
 
2012-02-20 12:04:56 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I think the bigger question is why, in the 21st century, is use of contraception "controversial"?


Religion.
 
2012-02-20 12:05:26 PM

BigBooper: /dig far enough and deep enough, and every one is dirty


CSB: Henry VIII is a second cousin of mine, and Oliver Cromwell is a first cousin, numerous times removed of course. Edward Whalley is an uncle. Nothing says "dirt" quite like a regicide.
 
2012-02-20 12:06:11 PM

dahmers love zombie: If I do a survey about people using their seat belts, and only include "people who ride in cars", it's not scientifically flawed. I'm measuring the correct population. In fact, if I were to ask a completely random set of people "do you wear your seat belt", and 20% of my respondents don't ever ride in cars, my results will not be scientifically valid.

If I do a survey of people's satisfaction with their heart surgeon, and I don't select "people who have had heart surgery" as my research population, I'm going to get pretty stupid results.

So if I want to know what percent of Catholic women have used birth control, I am going to be asking sexually active Catholic females. To be even more useful, the survey should probably primarily evaluate women who are 1) sexually active, and 2) who are not actively trying to become pregnant. Because it's pretty stupid to do a birth control prevalence study on a population that is by definition avoiding birth control.

The appropriate population for the study would be sexually active Catholic women who are not seeking to become pregnant. If the celibate males who make Catholic policy are correct, the majority of these women will not use artificial birth control. If they're not, then they aren't speaking for the needs of Catholic women, and really need to STFU.


I agree _almost_ 100%. The tiny quibble I have with your point is that unmarried Catholic women who are choosing to abstain from vaginal sex to avoid pregnancy might be included in the denominator. It's a relatively small percentage, and the main point is still valid that the vast majority of Catholic women clearly support the use of contraceptives for themselves at least.
 
2012-02-20 12:06:16 PM
Father Riley's a fairy
But it don't bother Mary
Catholic girls
At the CYO
Catholic girls
Do you know how they go?
 
2012-02-20 12:06:49 PM

Nabb1: iheartscotch: Huh? What did you guys think natural family planning was? They do a bunch of tests and determine what days in a woman's cycle is most likely to result in a pregnancy. The couple then decides what they do on those days. The church views it as technically not contriception; but it accomplishes the same thing. The thing is; it doesn't always work.

There's a word for the category of people that employ that method: They're called "parents."

That method is really good for getting pregnant. Avoiding it - not so much. But, if you are trying to conceive, give it a go.


I hear that more and more; people on that method getting pregnant. At first; I figured it was statistical anommaly; but I think it is because it doesn't allow for any change in the woman's body, hormones, ect. I agree that the method is flawed; but I also wonder if some of that is due to the catholic doctors that perform the tests. I wonder if they are trying to get the young ladies who may use that method pregnant. That's why I and any lady friends I may get freaky with use condomms, and the pill.

/ it wouldn't surprise me if it really was a conspiracy
// *adjusts tinfoil hat*
 
2012-02-20 12:09:02 PM
i149.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-20 12:10:12 PM

Crewmannumber6: Lando Lincoln: We all know Catholic girls are total sluts. That's just a fact.

Disagrees
[i1136.photobucket.com image 150x150]


Frank Zappa on the other hand....
 
2012-02-20 12:10:22 PM
TFA and the general discussion is baffling. It's as if people have never heard of surveys and statistics before.
 
2012-02-20 12:11:24 PM
I don't see why anyone who isn't using birth control should have a say in the matter to begin with. I don't agree with a lot of the prescription medication that's being given out these days, but I'm not forced into using any of it myself so it's not something I feel compelled to lobby against. No one's asking you to use birth control, that's an individual choice. A reasonable person would find it just as insulting to insist someone get an abortion or use birth control just as it would be to demand they do not.
 
2012-02-20 12:13:02 PM
adiabat: ArkAngel: This. It's like a lung disease study who put people who quit ten years ago in the same category as current two-pack-a-day smokers

Up until the 1990s if someone ever smoked a cigarette - as long as their death wasn't by an accident - they were counted in the 'caused by smoking' number.


Yes, and since about 2000 they're counted if they've ever seen somebody smoking a cigarette.
 
2012-02-20 12:14:29 PM

ajt167: If 98% of all catholics supported birth control (I know that's not what these stats are saying), that won't change what these bishops are trying to do.


The bishops have an audience with the federal government because they "speak for Catholics," specifically they provide a unified voice on matters that affect the many millions in the Catholic, voting public. When you can show clearly that the bishops' views are directly contradicted by the views of the Catholic, voting public, it is imperative that congress stop paying attention to them as representatives of "us." At that point, they're just a special-interest group trying to bend public policy to match their religious law.

The bishops often speak out for/against quite reasonable social-justice issues, and at that most Catholics end up agreeing with them. However, on this point, it is foolhardy to apply the Catholic bishops' argument broadly to the folks in the pews, because we in general don't agree.
 
2012-02-20 12:15:25 PM
Catholic Church, you feel that? That little feeling that you can't breathe in deep enough? That lump in your throat? That feeling like you need to run, but you have no idea where to? Congratulations; you've just taken on a force even bigger then the Gay Lobby. You've irked Hedonism Amalgamated, of which the Gay Lobby is but a minority sub-set. Your archaic preoccupation with how much sex everybody else is having is about to bite you in the ass, as it well should. You've taken on the only entity more sadistic, more hypocritical and more sanctimonious than yourselves: the Federal government. May your imaginary god have mercy on your imaginary souls. Personally, I would have used your own rationalization to forbid insurance coverage of circumcisions, as they are largely religious in nature. However, with the luxury of being a relative nobody, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy you make yourselves even more irrelevant than you already are.

That panicky feeling- it's the same feeling all your victims felt as you were persecuting them, based on your perverse worship of your imaginary friend.
 
2012-02-20 12:16:08 PM

dictyboy: adiabat: ArkAngel: This. It's like a lung disease study who put people who quit ten years ago in the same category as current two-pack-a-day smokers

Up until the 1990s if someone ever smoked a cigarette - as long as their death wasn't by an accident - they were counted in the 'caused by smoking' number.

Yes, and since about 2000 they're counted if they've ever seen somebody smoking a cigarette.


Well seeing as how second hand smoke is actually bad for non-smokers...
 
2012-02-20 12:16:26 PM
What's not mentioned is the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control way back in the mid 60s said birth control pills are consistent with Catholic beliefs and teachings. Pope Paul VI disagreed and now we have this mess.
 
2012-02-20 12:17:45 PM

Fubini: Lando Lincoln: randomjsa: it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you can force religious institutions to cover contraception when it's against the teachings of their religion.

I am going to start a company and then sue the government because the government does not allow me to hire children to work, when my religion requires me to hire only children. That's just not right for the government to violate my religious principles.

You apparently misunderstand how this whole religion thing works.

The government does have a right to determine whether you're a sincere believer, which clearly you would not be.


I wonder what the people who agree with the Catholic Churches stand on this would say if a company owned by Jehovah Witnesses decided that they would allow their insurance carrier to pay for procedures that required blood transfusions or organ transplants for any employee because those things are strictly forbidden in their religion. Or a company owned by Scientoligist wouldn't allow their carrier to pay for any mental illness medications for any employee. These Catholic Bishops better be very careful here because if they get their way they will be setting a very farked up precedent.
 
2012-02-20 12:17:57 PM
It's too bad that Farkers absolutely hate Catholics. The birth control issue aside, you'd think Catholics never did a good thing for anyone.
 
2012-02-20 12:18:57 PM
The full NSFG survey (table 5) shows that 86.8 percent of women ages 15-44 have had vaginal intercourse.
=============================================================

You seriously telling me that 13% of all women are still virgins at age 45?

Wow.
 
2012-02-20 12:18:59 PM

Crewmannumber6: Lando Lincoln: We all know Catholic girls are total sluts. That's just a fact.

Disagrees
[i1136.photobucket.com image 150x150]


Disagrees
www.mp3-2000.net
 
2012-02-20 12:20:59 PM
themeaningoflifeisnot

It's too bad that Farkers absolutely hate Catholics. The birth control issue aside, you'd think Catholics never did a good thing for anyone.

I don't hate them, but I'm still a little pissed about the Galileo Affair.

/and what happened to Limbo?
 
2012-02-20 12:21:26 PM

factoryconnection: ... So, here's a question, Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, et al: how is a prohibition on barrier contraception a compassionate law? How is the use of a condom a sin, which is to say how does it do unto another as I would not have done unto me?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ABORTION. I'm not talking about abortifacients, because the entering assumption of "others" is a huge debate. But barrier protection... no fetuses involved. Vasectomies and tubal ligations... no fetuses involved. How do these break the "golden rule?"


I agree, and I think it is exactly this reasoning that is responsible for the noncompliance of Catholics with these contraception rules. Abortion is a totally different situation, and a lot more Catholics are truly opposed to abortion than are opposed to contraception.
 
2012-02-20 12:22:16 PM

SuperTramp: themeaningoflifeisnot

It's too bad that Farkers absolutely hate Catholics. The birth control issue aside, you'd think Catholics never did a good thing for anyone.

I don't hate them, but I'm still a little pissed about the Galileo Affair.

/and what happened to Limbo?


Someone had to push that slacker Galileo. He wasn't making any progress the easy way.
 
2012-02-20 12:23:50 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: It's too bad that Farkers absolutely hate Catholics. The birth control issue aside, you'd think Catholics never did a good thing for anyone.


I don't hate Catholics. None of the Catholics I know are up in arms about the Catholic church providing co-pays for birth control.

The people that run the Catholic church, on the other hand, can suck my balls.
 
2012-02-20 12:25:47 PM

adiabat: ArkAngel: This. It's like a lung disease study who put people who quit ten years ago in the same category as current two-pack-a-day smokers

Up until the 1990s if someone ever smoked a cigarette - as long as their death wasn't by an accident - they were counted in the 'caused by smoking' number.


ArkAngel's point is an analogy to a hypothetical badly-run study. You've taken it as factual, and claimed that all studies during an entire era were poorly done.

Citation needed. There were a lot of studies performed by a lot of people, each with varying protocols.
 
2012-02-20 12:26:56 PM

ongbok: Fubini: Lando Lincoln: randomjsa: it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you can force religious institutions to cover contraception when it's against the teachings of their religion.

I am going to start a company and then sue the government because the government does not allow me to hire children to work, when my religion requires me to hire only children. That's just not right for the government to violate my religious principles.

You apparently misunderstand how this whole religion thing works.

The government does have a right to determine whether you're a sincere believer, which clearly you would not be.

I wonder what the people who agree with the Catholic Churches stand on this would say if a company owned by Jehovah Witnesses decided that they would allow their insurance carrier to pay for procedures that required blood transfusions or organ transplants for any employee because those things are strictly forbidden in their religion. Or a company owned by Scientoligist wouldn't allow their carrier to pay for any mental illness medications for any employee. These Catholic Bishops better be very careful here because if they get their way they will be setting a very farked up precedent.


Good point.
 
2012-02-20 12:31:40 PM

Fubini: ongbok: Fubini: Lando Lincoln: randomjsa: it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you can force religious institutions to cover contraception when it's against the teachings of their religion.

I am going to start a company and then sue the government because the government does not allow me to hire children to work, when my religion requires me to hire only children. That's just not right for the government to violate my religious principles.

You apparently misunderstand how this whole religion thing works.

The government does have a right to determine whether you're a sincere believer, which clearly you would not be.

I wonder what the people who agree with the Catholic Churches stand on this would say if a company owned by Jehovah Witnesses decided that they would allow their insurance carrier to pay for procedures that required blood transfusions or organ transplants for any employee because those things are strictly forbidden in their religion. Or a company owned by Scientoligist wouldn't allow their carrier to pay for any mental illness medications for any employee. These Catholic Bishops better be very careful here because if they get their way they will be setting a very farked up precedent.

Good point.


Every time I bring that point up to a Catholic whining about their First Amendment "rights", they dodge the issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report