Congratulations, but you realize this was a completely pointless, presumptive tangent that managed to prove nothing and change no one's mind about anything. At the very least, I hope you feel better now.
Absolutely stellar piece on this last night by the Daily Show. <div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:408200" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues---sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-fest">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div> tl;dr = Spoiler I've been kicking this back and forth in my head from a practical standpoint, and I keep coming back to the conclusion that the Church and State seemingly cannot avoid this kind of conflict of interest. Rhad's earlier points about how religious institutions should be required to seek exemption seem a lot more salient now than I first considered them.
its not a tangent. rashmon, glynch, and I just explained the theory behind the church's position. twy77's long winded post was about carving out positions in the law for religious institutions to not have to go against their teachings. do you think the catholic church has sound reasoning to deny this coverage based on what we've told you?
So, the Republican rump wants you to believe these guys speak for all Catholics: Bishops cannot speak ex cathedra, but I guess they can speak el stupido.
i appreciate the high school education. i went to a little catholic middle school in kashmere gardens however the kids were mostly middle class. still it wasn't a challenge for me and held me back in the beginning of high school. the kids from the wealthier middle schools were far ahead. but that's more a function of the school i went to. and me at the time
when you combine the weird teachings with my family dynamics. I had parents very old and old fashoined, born in the thirties. they didn't talk about sex, they were good parents. however when you're left to the guilt laden teachings of the church it was a terrible combo. i had older siblings but they were so old they were more like parents at the time so i didn't talk to them about sex either. but i'm good now, you just have to wake up at some point and realize what has happened to define you as a person.
Where are the women? House Democrats Walk Out Of One-Sided Hearing On Contraception, Calling It An 'Autocratic Regime' WASHINGTON -- Three Democrats walked out of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on religious liberty and the birth control rule on Thursday to protest Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) refusal to allow a progressive woman to testify in favor of the Obama administration's contraception rule. The morning panel at the hearing consisted exclusively of men from conservative religious organizations. "What I want to know is, where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. "I look at this panel, and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?" More here...
Good interview with a historian of the "sexual counterrevolution", Nancy L. Cohen. Excerpt relevant to this thread: I agree withe the bolded bit (note that I think Obama scored a victory regarding the catholics, so I disagree with the "retreating" line). I wrote this earlier: Says it all, I think - but it can backfire, as Cohen points out. Moving on: Totally agree with Cohen. Obama's wishy-washy stance on this is maddening. And the democrat's fear of being labeled "progressive" drives me away from them because I can't stand with a bunch of folks who don't know what they stand for.
the true irony is that when jfk ran for president a lot of people held it against him that he was catholic. now the wingers are catholics, i thought the protestants didn't like them.
Senate turns back Blunt amendment 51-48. Lone GOP crossover, Sen Snow. Any woman who votes republican at this point is a moron.
Very much so. First off, they had more than a year to comply with the rule. Second, the college involved was likely exempt from the rule anyway. Sounds like they just wanted to cut costs, and this was a convenient excuse.
Catholics are only wingers on abortion, contraception and gay rights. And the protestants still don't like them. Except on St. Patrick's day.
Complying with rule would violate their conscience and is not an option for them. They employ and serve non-Catholics so they are not exempt. This was not a cost cutting move. They were fighting mandate because they want to continue offering health insurance that doesn't violate their conscience.
As a religious employer, they aren't required to comply with the rule for another year. They could have continued to provide their current insurance for another year at a minimum without any penalty - so the decision to kill it now was completely unnecessary. Who knows how the rule might change by the time they have to comply with it. For all they know, all of Obamacare will be overturned next month. Their decision to do this now is either stupid or political or was designed to cut costs. Beyond that, I don't know how the rule itself is designed, but according to the article: The change will affect 200 out of the school's 2,500 students, although with its overwhelmingly Catholic student body—the university has been called "The Most Catholic University in the World"—the Franciscan University would likely fall into the category of exempt employers. They might not ever have to comply with the rule even if it stands.
