Some issues

How is that good? Its against their religious morals. And no need to be so stereotypical of republicans man. Im republican, dislike our enormous military, hate bailouts, support the choice for abortion(although i think it is wrong, i believe people have the right to be wrong-same arguments for legalizing drugs, which i support) etc etc. i try to be as logical about everything as possible, avoiding consulting what im told i SHOULD believe until ive made a decision for myself. I dont disagree with contraception. I disagree with forcing hose who disagree with contraception to suppor it. Separation of church and state was originally central to the US was it not?

Upon a brief reflection, perhaps I'd change the word "republican" to "conservative" or even "religious conservative". Such is the problem with Internet discourse. But to continue, what makes their "religious moral principles" informed, a "good" thing or something even worthy of valuing?

The unfortunate reality is that our poorest people are blessed with the largest number of children. Faith, as stated earlier, condemns contraception based on the preference of creator of the cosmos. Why should that be left alone? What extra powers of insight does the Church have? An informed people would require this of any institution, yet on the matter of faith they see the church as a benign institution.

Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 11:04:09 AM

How is that good? Its against their religious morals. And no need to be so stereotypical of republicans man. Im republican, dislike our enormous military, hate bailouts, support the choice for abortion(although i think it is wrong, i believe people have the right to be wrong-same arguments for legalizing drugs, which i support) etc etc. i try to be as logical about everything as possible, avoiding consulting what im told i SHOULD believe until ive made a decision for myself. I dont disagree with contraception. I disagree with forcing hose who disagree with contraception to suppor it. Separation of church and state was originally central to the US was it not?

Upon a brief reflection, perhaps I'd change the word "republican" to "conservative" or even "religious conservative". Such is the problem with Internet discourse. But to continue, what makes their "religious moral principles" informed, a "good" thing or something even worthy of valuing?

The unfortunate reality is that our poorest people are blessed with the largest number of children. Faith, as stated earlier, condemns contraception based on the preference of creator of the cosmos. Why should that be left alone? What extra powers of insight does the Church have? An informed people would require this of any institution, yet on the matter of faith they see the church as a benign institution.

And its our fault, or the churches fault that many poorer people are too irresponsible to have sex? How? Condoms are significantly cheaper than repeated contraception or abortions. And if they cant afford even condoms, why is it our burden? Point #1

Point #2- if all people have a right to contraceptives and abortions and whatnot, why cant the church, which strongly opposes contraception, have the defended right to avod that mess? Why are equal rights always slanted towards a particular preference? The church ought be left alone as they disagree with contraceptives, is supposed to be separate from the state, and should have every right to not give contraceptives as you have to receive contraceptives. Could the government theoretically require all citizens to stock contraceptives in their homes since we use government roads, on the same principle as forcing private churches to stock contraceptives? Where does it end?

You'd deny support and help to the people who need it most - based solely on the principles of ancient mysticism? The problem I posed earlier was the fact that an informed people would not stand for a blatant disregard for their fellow humans. However you introduce punishing fire and damnation, suddenly it becomes a very real problem to "waste" life. Sex is for procreation in the churches mind, there is no room at the table for conflicting ideologies.

I understand everyone's point about the "government shouldn't force them to do it", I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't force anyone to do anything. I just find it reprehensible that it is used in defense of a morally bankrupt idea that "religious morals" are a thing.

Additionally, the slippery slope can be invoked in every argument - and is not necessary here. The religious institutions and their code of "morals" are no more informed then the governments. Everyone has the ability to purchase contraception and use it as they deem necessary. The government has no right to tell anyone what they can and should do. The church has no right to eternally punish anyone based on absolutely nothing but there own falsifiable opinions.

I'm missing something here I do not see where the church has to give out these products. Can I go knock on the local church and say hey give me some condoms? And if they don't there is some kind of repercussions.

Itis the business side that has to offer it. People seem to lump the two together.  If I work for the archdiocese and have healthcare from them yes they are "paying for my contraception" in on long line of connect the dots.

You'd deny support and help to the people who need it most - based solely on the principles of ancient mysticism? The problem I posed earlier was the fact that an informed people would not stand for a blatant disregard for their fellow humans. However you introduce punishing fire and damnation, suddenly it becomes a very real problem to "waste" life. Sex is for procreation in the churches mind, there is no room at the table for conflicting ideologies.

I understand everyone's point about the "government shouldn't force them to do it", I wholeheartedly agree. The government shouldn't force anyone to do anything. I just find it reprehensible that it is used in defense of a morally bankrupt idea that "religious morals" are a thing.

Additionally, the slippery slope can be invoked in every argument - and is not necessary here. The religious institutions and their code of "morals" are no more informed then the governments. Everyone has the ability to purchase contraception and use it as they deem necessary. The government has no right to tell anyone what they can and should do. The church has no right to eternally punish anyone based on absolutely nothing but there own falsifiable opinions.

The church SHOULD be able to deny support and send people on their way somewhere else, of so desired. And you say those people 'NEED' it most. Sex is not a need, it is a choice, and unsafe sex is a STUPID choice on top of that. A pregnant impoverished mother of 5 deserves no concessions, barring the possibility that she was raped 6 times. I have no urge or obligation to help ignorant people who cannot see the consequences of their actions: in this case, having 6 damn kids they can't pay for.

Then I believe you have nothing meaningful to say about the well-being of conscious creatures. Youve prescribed yourself a life of uncertainty and at the whim of people more powerful then you are. If you cannot see a reason to help your fellow man, and blame their actions on "choices", and don't see a lack of education, means, environment, upbringing and luck as deterministic factors worthy of anyone's attention - then I'm afraid you're either blind to those things or just don't care.

I just have a different belief system from you/ no judgement needed. I could say youre idealistic and enabling, allowing these people to perform these actions with only the mildest of repercussions on themselves. However thats just a negative twist on your actual intentions and beliefs, and we both know it to not be true. No need for harsh words, even in a civilized manner.

Let me begin this by saying I am not Catholic, and I do NOT agree with everything the Catholic Church believes or does. However, I am religious, and my denomination does oppose Pre-marital sex and abortion.

I see why the Catholic Church would get upset that their affiliated businesses are being required to offer something that they do not believe is right. Whether or not, their religious morals are the truth is not the point. In the United States of America, there is a freedom of religion and a separation of church and state. How far that separation extends is what is being decided in this case.  Does that mean the church has to bend its denominal constitution? Obviously it does not extend to taxes being paid to the state, but the church does not have to take any government money or grants offered to them. Once the church decides to cross that line allowing the government to pay for their project, that is the point where the government can now extend its authority.  Why did the US originally separate from Britain? Taxation without representation! Britain was taking the colonies' dollars and not allowing the colonies to provide input in how the money was used.  Now, the Catholic Church is taking the government's money and trying to tell the government that they have no right to tell them what to do with it.

I appreciate MrsN's statement. I am Seventh Day Adventist an institution that has (sadly) been a bit adversarial towards Catholics. My church's official statement is that scripture allows and even encourages (anyone ever read the biblical book Song of Solomon😳) sex for recreational and non-reproductive purposes. Of course the important caveat is that my church only encourages recreational contraception for heterosexual married couples, (whether I fully agree with this caveat is another issue). I agree that if the Catholic Church accepts government funding it is necessarily obligated to agree to distribute these funds in accordance with the funds' designated purpose. I work at an Adventist church school and we have to ignore all kinds of government funding in order to maintain our autonomy. This means some kids can't afford to go to there (though the church steps in to help poorer kids), it means my paycheck is smaller, it means I buy a lot of my own supplies, but all that pales in comparison to being able to teach kids about Christ and to teach without the standardized tests and red tape that my peers down at the public school must endure constantly. Separation of church and state isn't manditory but I am glad the option is available. And we never will pass out condemns as part of our sex Ed classes but I'm glad we have the choice 👍.

I appreciate MrsN's statement. I am Seventh Day Adventist an institution that has (sadly) been a bit adversarial towards Catholics. My church's official statement is that scripture allows and even encourages (anyone ever read the biblical book Song of Solomon😳) sex for recreational and non-reproductive purposes. Of course the important caveat is that my church only encourages recreational contraception for heterosexual married couples, (whether I fully agree with this caveat is another issue). I agree that if the Catholic Church accepts government funding it is necessarily obligated to agree to distribute these funds in accordance with the funds' designated purpose. I work at an Adventist church school and we have to ignore all kinds of government funding in order to maintain our autonomy. This means some kids can't afford to go to there (though the church steps in to help poorer kids), it means my paycheck is smaller, it means I buy a lot of my own supplies, but all that pales in comparison to being able to teach kids about Christ and to teach without the standardized tests and red tape that my peers down at the public school must endure constantly. Separation of church and state isn't manditory but I am glad the option is available. And we never will pass out condemns as part of our sex Ed classes but I'm glad we have the choice 👍.

Exactly!

Now, the Catholic Church is taking the government's money and trying to tell the government that they have no right to tell them what to do with it.

I agree that if the Catholic Church accepts government funding it is necessarily obligated to agree to distribute these funds in accordance with the funds' designated purpose.

Really? If I give you $100 I get a right to approve your whole budget? O.o

Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 02:14:10 PM

Now, the Catholic Church is taking the government's money and trying to tell the government that they have no right to tell them what to do with it.

Quote from: Langku on May 12, 2013, 03:18:16 PM

I agree that if the Catholic Church accepts government funding it is necessarily obligated to agree to distribute these funds in accordance with the funds' designated purpose.

Really? If I give you $100 I get a right to approve your whole budget? O.o

How is that there whole budget? It's one part


Sure if you want to give me a $100 a month I will keep wheat bread in my cupboard

Quote from: Piotr on May 12, 2013, 04:22:25 PM

Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 02:14:10 PM

Now, the Catholic Church is taking the government's money and trying to tell the government that they have no right to tell them what to do with it.

Quote from: Langku on May 12, 2013, 03:18:16 PM

I agree that if the Catholic Church accepts government funding it is necessarily obligated to agree to distribute these funds in accordance with the funds' designated purpose.

Really? If I give you $100 I get a right to approve your whole budget? O.o

How is that there whole budget? It's one part

The government should have a say in what their money gets spent on.  If you gave me $100 for MTG cards, you would expect it to be spent on MTG cards or at the minimum card sleeves or a Playmat or even a 20 sided life die.  Even if you gave me $100 for a birthday present, in essence you are giving me the money to buy my birthday present.  The money you gave me is already designated for something.

As ive said before, both sides are wrong. There is no win in this argument, the church is greedy and the government is pushy and demanding. Im disappointed im both sides.

As ive said before, both sides are wrong. There is no win in this argument, the church is greedy and the government is pushy and demanding. Im disappointed im both sides.

Not trying to beat a dead horse with you. But if its pushy for the government to force the church to give its employees contraceptions. Why is in not push of the church not to give them?