Ok I want to discuss some issues that have either been slightly brushed aside or MAJORLY brushed aside. I'll put up two.
1. The catholic Church giving out contraceptives.
2. What happened with the embassitor in Bengazi.
Please discuss, and don't give somebody negative karma for what they believe in! :)
I haven't heard about either of these issues would someone please enlighten me.
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 11, 2013, 11:43:24 PM
I haven't heard about either of these issues would someone please enlighten me.
Exactly. Overlooked.
Anyway, #1 is the problem that the government forced the catholic church to give out free contraceptives. Contraceptives are against its religion.
#2 The attack on Bengazi was when the ambassador was attacked by a mob of people, in a base in Bengazi set up by America. During this attack a base practically 1 mile away was called for back-up while they watched this whole ordeal take place. They asked the president for clearance and he said no. Please remember that he was watching the whole thing to. Countless times back-up is called but denied. A group of 3-5 troopers were fed up and went to help the ambassitor. They all died. Obama told America that he said he would find the people who were responsible. Claiming he had no idea this happened. FOX NEWS did a report on this attack, and uncovered the coverup. Obama said he would face trial soon after the election. Which was in December.
How did the government force the Catholic Church to give out free contraception
Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on May 12, 2013, 12:36:20 AM
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 11, 2013, 11:43:24 PM
I haven't heard about either of these issues would someone please enlighten me.
Exactly. Overlooked.
Anyway, #1 is the problem that the government forced the catholic church to give out free contraceptives. Contraceptives are against its religion.
#2 The attack on Bengazi was when the ambassador was attacked by a mob of people, in a base in Bengazi set up by America. During this attack a base practically 1 mile away was called for back-up while they watched this whole ordeal take place. They asked the president for clearance and he said no. Please remember that he was watching the whole thing to. Countless times back-up is called but denied. A group of 3-5 troopers were fed up and went to help the ambassitor. They all died. Obama told America that he said he would find the people who were responsible. Claiming he had no idea this happened. FOX NEWS did a report on this attack, and uncovered the coverup. Obama said he would face trial soon after the election. Which was in December.
Now that I have been enlightened, I researched what I could find on the subjects.
1) According to what I found, the government did NOT force the Catholic Church to give out contraceptives, but it did require foundations supported by the Catholic Church such as hospitals and schools to offer contraceptives as an option for unwanted pregnancy thanks to a cleverly written exception.
2) Now with Benghazi, I had heard about it. It just slipped my mind. That does seem to me to be a cover-up. While several of the explanations given for why back-up could not come are believable, the several rejected inquiries about extra security prior to the attacks do concern me.
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 02:45:01 AM
1) According to what I found, the government did NOT force the Catholic Church to give out contraceptives, but it did require foundations supported by the Catholic Church such as hospitals and schools to offer contraceptives as an option for unwanted pregnancy thanks to a cleverly written exception.
That is about the same as forcing CC out of charity business, isn't it?
The fact that governemn forces any private organization to follow GOVERNMENTS poliies reeks of an infringement on democracy. If someone was going to a catholic-supporting/supported hospital, they shouldnt WANT contraceptives. They should go to an abortion clinic or some other such facility and leave catholic facilities well alone with their religious views and practices.
Now from what I have learned as a Christian is that not everyone that goes to a Christian facility (whether it be private school, church or a hospital) is a Christian. Some of the doctors and nurses at a hospital might not have the same opinion on abortion as the rest of the leadership there. I hate the idea of this.
Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
The fact that governemn forces any private organization to follow GOVERNMENTS poliies reeks of an infringement on democracy. If someone was going to a catholic-supporting/supported hospital, they shouldnt WANT contraceptives. They should go to an abortion clinic or some other such facility and leave catholic facilities well alone with their religious views and practices.
Yes but some of these "private organizations" have no problem accepting government benefits.
That is also wrong, although it originates with government(as they should not hand out these benefits to begin with. Its a power grab) but ends with the organizations accepting the $$. Noones right in this debate :/
I am utterly confused here. Topic 1, the Christian church is giving out contraception? That's a good thing isn't it? How does this usurp democracy? You "voted" for these people. And conversely you didn't vote for anyone in the Christian church. I am missing the point, is government coercing these institutions into doing something that no reasonable person could say is bad, but then the opposite is fine? Christians/Catholic/Any church is allowed to coerce their members with the fear of divine judgement from the creator of the universe, based on absolutely no proof or democratic process?
Honest question, am I misreading this situation?
Edit: I love how people who are republicans love Jesus so much, and they hate when the government gets involved in the Church. But when they bail out corporations (referred to as Job Creators), enforce immigration (referred to as illegals) and want a gigantic military (referred to as freedom fighters) it's all good then. Did the government get involved when catholic priests were raping children? Did a single member of the clergy get charged with obstruction of justice? If self-deception were an Olympic sport, this is how our most gifted athletes would appear when they were in peak condition.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 12, 2013, 10:18:57 AM
I am utterly confused here. Topic 1, the Christian church is giving out contraception? That's a good thing isn't it?
No DC, it would be like me forcing you to publicly sign iMtG Law, while I'm fully aware of the fact that you are an anarchist. It's not a good thing at all.
I mean, they are forcing Church to give out contraception against their very beliefs.
Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
The fact that governemn forces any private organization to follow GOVERNMENTS poliies reeks of an infringement on democracy.
I will just point out a simple technicality: democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Another words, democracy is tyranny of majority over minority.
It infringes on decency, not democracy ;)
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?
Quote from: Piotr on May 12, 2013, 10:59:20 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on May 12, 2013, 10:18:57 AM
I am utterly confused here. Topic 1, the Christian church is giving out contraception? That's a good thing isn't it?
No DC, it would be like me forcing you to publicly sign iMtG Law, while I'm fully aware of the fact that you are an anarchist. It's not a good thing at all.
Perhaps. But if you stand by the reasons for requiring someone to do so, then it should be consistent. If I do or do not accept falls upon me wanting to get into a social contract. The answer is "no", but that is neither here nor there.
The larger point I was making is the inconsistency in logic. It seems dishonest not to mention that being anti-contraception is strictly a religious agenda. You're allowed to have your beliefs, I personally wish they were more informed, but nonetheless are very much influenced by desires to see those things instituted. I think an actual moral Christian would infact be outraged by the existence of government at all - not the things they do specifically to certain "sacred" institutions.
Edit: this is the metaphorical "you" and not anyone in particular.
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.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 12, 2013, 11:25:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Dudecore on May 12, 2013, 11:43:47 AM
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 👍.
Quote from: Langku on May 12, 2013, 03:18:16 PM
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!
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 02:14:10 PMNow, 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 PMI 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: Piotr on May 12, 2013, 04:22:25 PM
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 02:14:10 PMNow, 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 PMI 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: Rass on May 12, 2013, 04:24:44 PM
Quote from: Piotr on May 12, 2013, 04:22:25 PM
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 02:14:10 PMNow, 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 PMI 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.
Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 04:51:19 PM
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?
Quote from: Rass on May 12, 2013, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 04:51:19 PM
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?
What? Im not quite understanding the last sentence
Sorry if I'm not explaining it well. I was just meaning that isn't it pushy of the church to not want to give there employees the option to use contraceptions.
Uhhhh..? No. No sir. Not even close. Do you understand what being pushy is? The catholic church is not PUSHing their beliefs on anyone. Their defending their policies/morals. The employees can get their contraception elsewhere, just not from an institution that disagrees with the idea. The government is trying to PUSH the church into supplying what they do not support. Gosh that made my head hurt
So saying we don't believe in in or it doesn't meet our moral values so we will no supply it isn't pushing their values on there employees
Quote from: Rass on May 12, 2013, 05:54:00 PM
So saying we don't believe in in or it doesn't meet our moral values so we will no supply it isn't pushing their values on there employees
No, refusing to supply is not the same as forcing values. Otherwise me having opinions of any kind would be considered 'forcing my values.' Just because they as an organization have an opinion does not mean all their employees must share it- theyre simply having said employees use a different means of receiving contraception, rather than supplying it themselves against their own moral codes. Just because i dont like golf doesnt mean im FORCING MY VALUES ON YOU, for example. Enormous difference, idk why youre failing to understand.
Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 12, 2013, 05:54:00 PM
So saying we don't believe in in or it doesn't meet our moral values so we will no supply it isn't pushing their values on there employees
No, refusing to supply is not the same as forcing values. Otherwise me having opinions of any kind would be considered 'forcing my values.' Just because they as an organization have an opinion does not mean all their employees must share it- theyre simply having said employees use a different means of receiving contraception, rather than supplying it themselves against their own moral codes. Just because i dont like golf doesnt mean im FORCING MY VALUES ON YOU, for example. Enormous difference, idk why youre failing to understand.
Just because the comic book store I like does not sell Shadow Era cards does not mean the comic book store is pushing their values onto me. It just means I have to purchase my Shadow Era cards somewhere else. This is the same thing. Just because a Catholic hospital does not provide contraception does not mean they are pushing their values onto their patients. It just means the patients have to get contraceptives somewhere else.
Quote from: MrsNosihctuh on May 12, 2013, 06:21:47 PM
Quote from: MisterJH on May 12, 2013, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: Rass on May 12, 2013, 05:54:00 PM
So saying we don't believe in in or it doesn't meet our moral values so we will no supply it isn't pushing their values on there employees
No, refusing to supply is not the same as forcing values. Otherwise me having opinions of any kind would be considered 'forcing my values.' Just because they as an organization have an opinion does not mean all their employees must share it- theyre simply having said employees use a different means of receiving contraception, rather than supplying it themselves against their own moral codes. Just because i dont like golf doesnt mean im FORCING MY VALUES ON YOU, for example. Enormous difference, idk why youre failing to understand.
Just because the comic book store I like does not sell Shadow Era cards does not mean the comic book store is pushing their values onto me. It just means I have to purchase my Shadow Era cards somewhere else. This is the same thing. Just because a Catholic hospital does not provide contraception does not mean they are pushing their values onto their patients. It just means the patients have to get contraceptives somewhere else.
Thank you
Another example. Assume you LOVE baseball, its the best sport in the world- to you. 'If i say no, i like lacrosse more' am i forcing my belief on you? No, im saying i have a different belef. That is all.
Yes, In practice Catholic Church cannot force me not to buy contraceptives because they do not have monopoly on selling contraceptives.
I guess we are arguing two different sides. I read where the Catholic Church did not want to supply birth control pills to there employees thru there insurance. All other company's I know of offer this to there employees if they offer insurance. That is where aim saying they are trying to push there values.
Wow, so it's Obamacare stuff?
Quote from: Rass on May 12, 2013, 06:47:08 PM
I guess we are arguing two different sides. I read where the Catholic Church did not want to supply birth control pills to there employees thru there insurance. All other company's I know of offer this to there employees if they offer insurance. That is where aim saying they are trying to push there values.
Freedom of religion is offered and practices in the US. The catholic church can choose to provide insurance, BUT they do not provide contraceptives due to the fact that it is against their religion. Now, when the government FORCES the catholic church to provide contraceptives, this now goes against their freedom of religion.
And the problem with this is, why were they forced to give it out in the first place. I mean who had the bright idea to do this to the catholic church. What corrupted, idiot decided one day, "**** freedom of religion, let's make them do something that they believe will bring hell upon them" because keep in mind, they believe that is true.
Now I am a christain, baptist. And we don't agree with some of the things the catholic church says, but I will standby my fellow religion when their rights are infringed upon.
The religion believes you should be allowed to. However it does not believe that being without a knife will condemn you to hell, does it? If it does, correct me, but if not youre comparing apples to oranges
Recent events have led to downvotes among us. Remember, don't like someone's beliefs, then don't downvote them for it.
Why not?
Because piotr, it would be morally wrong. I'm friends with democrats, and I don't agree at all with their actions. But I don't shun those democratic friends because of it.
If people are going to take this forum as a personal attack and downvote because they cant valdly argue a point without getting pissy, .politics. and religion should not be allowed. Of course this is my opinion, i just think its petty to downvote because you have 2 sides of an issue.