Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 8:31 AM:
The political cartoon, showing the elephant crucified on the 'T' in Santorum's name, is rather offensive. In other countries, with other faiths, that might cause rioting and looting, but I guess Catholics are fair game. I guess publishers can take comfort in knowing that we'll simply 'turn the other cheek'.
Replies (159)
Shapley,
You beat me to the punch. The Missourian is going to get some (pardon the pun)bad press over this for a while. This is very insulting on several levels.
This might be accepted in San Francisco, but it won't play in Peoria, or even Cape Girardeau.
-- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 8:47 AM
It would be my guess they forgot to run that one by the circulation department.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 8:59 AM
I have been a non-religious person for many years, but I agree with Shapley. That is a tasteless and offensive cartoon to not only Catholics but to most other Christians as well I bet.
If it were a cartoon offensive to any other religion or to homosexuals, radical feminists, or any other politically protected group, there would be calls for someone being fired, chastised,and mandatory sensitivity training for all the employees at the Missourian including the custodians.
But being a champion of freedom of speech and of the press I have to be consistent and say expressing disapproval as Shapley did shows true Christian tolerance. That's genuine tolerance radical liberals, all other religions, and other continuously "offended" groups could learn.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:17 AM
Ah, but Spaniard, did they run the cartoons that offended the Muslims and led to death threats against the cartoonist and the papers that published them? I think not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:19 AM
I've not asked them to remove it, nor to apologize, nor called for their heads for running it. I've expressed my observation that it is offensive, and that they likely wouldn't publish a similar cartoon about other faiths...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:21 AM
""Methinks" you are getting a little Glenn Becked."
Always with the references to right-leaning cultural figures, eh?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:28 AM
And why is my avatar of Condoleezza Rice's head on Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Conan' body offensive? The male shirtless body is generally recognized as inoffensive, and placing a female head on the body does not make the breasts any more feminine.
The image was actually made by left-wing protestors who viewed Ms. Rice as a 'war monger', and was meant to offend us on the right. I, however, found it quite flattering of Ms. Rice.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:34 AM
"In this instance, I brought up beck because he sees a conspiracy behind everything."
Did I suggest a conspiracy?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:36 AM
"Whining isn't tolerance. It's whining. And it's distasteful."
Then don't read this thread...
Isn't that what you're suggesting regarding us who find the cartoon offensive? How is your finding my 'whining' distasteful any different than my finding the cartoon to be so? I've commented on the cartoon, just in the manner that you've commented on my post.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:51 AM
"The image was actually made by left-wing protestors who viewed Ms. Rice as a 'war monger', and was meant to offend us on the right."
OK!
Shap that should make it acceptable to Theorist. I have never said so before but I have always thought Theorist's various Avatars to be a little on the 'Presumptuous' side.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:55 AM
Rightwingers have become such whiners.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:29 AM
Some right-wingers, likely tired of being endlessly abused by the old school press for decades, have unfortunately taken pages from the perpetually offended liberal playbook and have acted just as childish as the left. But I don't see it very often on the Missourian threads and I don't see it on this thread. And I'm speaking as a Libertarian.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:03 AM
"People write stuff. Some of it you may find disagreeable and even offensive.
Newsflash: not everyone agrees with you.
Learn how to accept it."
I take it you haven't read your own posts?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:15 AM
When the cartoons are equally offensive to all political, religious, and racial makeups, then we will have a right to tell someone not to be offended. Whoops, you have freedom of speech. Apparently Shapley doesn't.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:20 AM
Crusifixion was a common form of capital punishment in the days of Jesus. I have never understood the importance the Christian faiths have put on the cross. Does it really matter how he was killed? I see this as simply another way of saying, Santorum will kill the republican parties chances of beating Obama and nothing more.
We sure do not need to retaliate in the same way the radical Islamist have over the destruction of a few books. I would also add that I find it a bit disagreeable and even offensive
for people to wear crosses around their necks and on other forms of jewelry.
Hey, but that's just me and my opinion.
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:37 AM
I am not Catholic or even very religious, but I don't care for the cartoon or any depiction of anything or anyone being crucified.
Fortunately I don't much care if someone sees this as whining either.
-- Posted by 356 on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 11:42 AM
Shap you have to remember Spanyard is an atheist. He hates anything to do with God since he became a Democrat.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 1:40 PM
Theorist,
While it is true I don't know your real identity, some nagging voice tells me you are not Condoleezza Rice. Ergo, I do not see what reason you have for being offended by the depiction.
As a Catholic, I can be offended by the anti-Catholic cartoon. Were I not a Catholic, I could express my displeasure, but really would have no reason to be offended, since no offense would have been directed towards me (in much the manner Spaniard sees no offense, not being a Christian).
If Ms. Rice requests that I change the avatar, I will gladly do so, and apologize to her for the offense. Until that time, it shall remain.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 2:08 PM
My eyes are really bad. Until you two brought it up, I had never made the connection to Condoleeza. I just thought it was Shapley's depiction of a shapely hunter. While I once thought it might be overkill, I now think it's funny.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 3:19 PM
According to Shapley, the image was created by left-wing protesters. It is my understanding that the left-wing is tolerant, unbiased, open minded, respects the feelings of all, including those they disagree with, fair to all, and never wrong.
Therefore, the image could not possibly offend anyone.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 8:35 PM
Theorist can't win an argument in any other manner she finds something that offends her... something she has been viewing for months on end. Lame!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 8:53 PM
I was offended because I thought this cartoon was comparing Santorum to Jesus.
-- Posted by donacita on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:02 PM
Or did it mean that Santorum was crucifying Republicans ? It really could be read several ways according to the mindset of the viewer. I don't think a cross is necessarily reserved for Christians however.
Speaking of how the cross is portrayed. I find it especially offensive when displayed during the Christmas season with a baby beneath it. Intentions to the contrary, Christmas is the celebration of Christ's birth.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:17 PM
I am a female, she is a female, I find it offensive..
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 8:06 PM
What has your being a female got to do with the depiction being offensive. It shows her as a strong, no nonsense person of action. I would have thought you would admire that quality, I found it funny(droll), but incisive.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:24 PM
Has anyone ever tried to nail an elephant to anything let alone to a plank? In an upright position yet already!
I can understand that some may find the cartoon offensive. I think its just ludicrous and inmature if not downright silly.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 10:50 PM
Open your history books and see that in the early days of our country folks used political cartoons to make a point. The first point being everyone has an equal right to be offended within the bounds of free speech.
I think Spaniard is on to something with the sticks and stones thing. It should be one of those "who cares" things.
kind of telling who cares.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 1:34 AM
"I think Spaniard is on to something with the sticks and stones thing. It should be one of those "who cares" things. kind of telling who cares."
olddone, who started this one. shapley, voyager,donacita,356,inreply ,nolimitsonthought,Thought Criminal, ~~Rick,Have_Wheels_Will_Travel posted their offense
-- Posted by April Foolz on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 3:10 AM
-- Posted by viho on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 3:10 AM
I'm offended that you're offended by those who took offense.
-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 8:18 AM
I'm not offended, I just care for such images in cartoons or in church or on the Pope's staff; always just seemed odd to me.
-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:31 AM
I've had overnight to think about it.
What would you say if it showed America on the cross and Obama and the Democrat Party looking on?
-- Posted by InReply on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:39 AM
Interesting. It seems freedom of expression only applies if YOU are the one not offended.
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 10:05 AM
Can I be offended if I chose not to be?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:49 AM
InReply,
Three guesses and the first two don't count.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:50 AM
The Democrats get offended when they create something derogatory towards a Republican and some Republican uses it in their face right back at them. Example: Shapley Hunter's avatar and Theorist's sudden feigned indignation at something she has been seeing for many months now.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:55 AM
Theorist's sudden feigned indignation at something she has been seeing for many months now.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 11:55 AM
I'm not so sure but what Theorist's indignation meter isn't tweaked a bit high on a regular basis. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 12:28 PM
"...don't get sacrimonious..."
??? Does that mean "don't get sacrificed?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 12:56 PM
Keep your avatar Shap. Rub the intended insult to Condi Rice by the far left into their face and make em like it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 2:55 PM
"...cartoon were turned around ..."
The cartoon as printed doesn't bother me one way or the other. I would feel the same way if it showed a democratic donkey and the President. It certainly is not the calamity that some make it out to be. Nothing to get all sanctimonious about.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 2:57 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 3:01 PM
Oh, I thought she just declared victory and left. Not a bad strategy really.
-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 6:15 PM
Maybe the libs would be better offended if they focussed on Limbaugh calling a liberal law maker a prostitute for her demands concerning sex without consequences. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM
hmmmm...it has vanished....
I wonder why?
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 7:59 AM
They needed the cyberspace to replace it with Shapley's avatar????
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 8:32 AM
Have always been fascinated by Shapley's avatar. The sword pointing straight up held by a figure with the determination and muscle to make it go exactly where intended. The purpose is clear.
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 10:19 AM
Have always been fascinated by Shapley's avatar. The sword pointing straight up held by a figure with the determination and muscle to make it go exactly where intended. The purpose is clear.
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 10:19 AM
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You should send that in to penthouse!
-- Posted by DADES on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 10:41 AM
DADES, why? What do you think I said or implied?
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 10:56 AM
When I do offend, you may believe it is intentional, However, most of the time it is not worth the time or effort.
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 5:56 PM
voyager, you're one up on me. All I have to do is open my mouth and someone gets offended. When I do set out to offend, they don't get it.
-- Posted by InReply on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 9:05 PM
"YET, a generic cross cartoon (I saw no specific religion--symbolic or words) and the "gang" yelps with offense."
Merely pointing out that it is offensive is not 'yelping'. I called for no boycotts (as the Rush-Bashers did over his 'slut' remark, nor even called for a remedy. All I did was point out that it was offensive, and compared the Catholic response to that of others who have take offense at slights against their faith.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 8:24 AM
Theorist,
Since Mr. Santorum is a Catholic, and his Catholic views have been called into question (most recently, his opinion on the contraceptive mandate), the cartoon appeared to be illustrating how, in the cartoonist's view, Mr. Santorum's religious ideology was crucifying the Repulican party.
It's worth noting that, while other Christian religions use the cross as the symbol of their faith, it is primarly the Catholics that use the Corpus Christi as the symbol of theirs. Thus, in my view, the cartoon depiction of the Crucifixion, using the 'T' in Mr. Santorum's name, was a clear snipe at Catholicism. It is worth noting that Catholism has come under fire for its position on the contraceptive issue of late.
Does it matter how I 'feel'? Am I supposed to 'feel better' about its removal? I rather thought this was about opinions, not feelings.
No, I had not fear of it swaying anyone. I merely expressed my opinion about it. As I noted, I did not call for its removal, for an apology, or for any other remediatory action to be taken. I merely pointed out its offense and how the Catholic response to that offense compared to, say, the recent offense over the burning of books in Afghanistan might embolden some to run a cartoon offensive to one group over a similar offense to another.
If, however, the Southeast Missourian received death threats and suffered riots of which I was not aware, I will stand corrected.
You, however, have insisted that I remove my avatar, indicating that you expect some remediation for your perceived offense. Why the difference?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 10:48 AM
And it probably is offensive.
But thankfully, we hold free speach and free thinking to a higher esteem than we do religion.
Plus I tend to think that the majority of real christians are more tolerant than hard-core muslims.
If you really want to compare the two, you have to compare wackos to wakcos. Remember, their are "christian" sects that think it is ok to have sex with children.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:03 AM
"But thankfully, we hold free speach and free thinking to a higher esteem than we do religion."
We do? Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion both made it into the First Amendment, and religion got first mention. Where does it follow that speech is therefore held in higher esteem?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:11 AM
Shap, If the cartoon was truely offensive Mr. Obama would call and console Mr. Santorum as he did when the lady was offended by Limbaugh.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:11 AM
"Now, how does that make you feel?"
Again with the feelings. Why are my 'feelings' so important to you? It doesn't make me 'feel' anything. My sense of touch is not affected by such things.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:15 AM
We do? Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion both made it into the First Amendment, and religion got first mention. Where does it follow that speech is therefore held in higher esteem?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:11 AM
Becasue religion is the right of an individual. Speech is the right of society.
You are still able to criticize and ridicule religion. It takes more than a religious objection to cencor free speech.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:20 AM
Maybe the libs would be better offended if they focussed on Limbaugh calling a liberal law maker a prostitute for her demands concerning sex without consequences. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 7:32 PM
So that makes what Limbaugh said OK?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:21 AM
"Becasue religion is the right of an individual. Speech is the right of society."
That's the strangest things I've ever heard. 'Faith' is individual, but 'religion' is a collective. One belongs to a religion, but one has faith.
It was my understanding that the Bill or Rights protects the rights of individual citizens. Are you saying we only have the right to free speech when we do it as a society? I am totally confused by your post.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:42 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 11:42 AM
Simply that my right to "faith" doesn't trump your right to free speech.
I can worship as I please, but I simply can't demand you to stop speaking becasue it contridicts my faith.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 12:46 PM
"-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 12:46 PM"
Which still makes no sense. By the same token, you can speak all you want, but you can't succesffuly demand that I stop worshipping because it contradicts what you are saying.
Again, there is nothing that puts one right in higher 'esteem' than the other.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 1:53 PM
And that still doesn't explain how one is 'individual' and another 'societal' in nature.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 1:54 PM
Shape,
Because of the number of people impacted.
Religion, or Faith, is reallys something that impacts only the individual person.
Speech on the other hand is mass communication.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 3:40 PM
Really? So if you banned the Catholic Church, it would only affect me?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:00 PM
If religion has such a small impact, I wonder why the authors of the Constitution put it first in Bill of Rights...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:29 PM
If religion has such a small impact, I wonder why the authors of the Constitution put it first in Bill of Rights...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:29 PM
Who is saying its small?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:38 PM
Really? So if you banned the Catholic Church, it would only affect me?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:00 PM
Who is banning anything? How does that equate to what we are discussing?
I am not sure what your point is.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM
My point is, I don't see how you can claim that we hold freedom of speech in 'higher esteem' than freedom of religion. There is no evidence, anywhere, to support that except in the free speech of anti-religious individuals.
"Who is saying its small?"
You are, when you say "Religion, or Faith, is reallys something that impacts only the individual person... Speech on the other hand is mass communication."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:46 PM
If you want to get down to specifics, the first admendment really talks about how government can't take a role in supporting a religion. Individual religious liberty is obviously implied, but not really articulated.
However, the rest of the admendment is more specific about discussing the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. I guess you could argue that peasfully assemble also refers to religion.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:54 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's all about what Congress can't do. Your argument doesn't hold up.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 4:57 PM
"or prohibiting the free expression thereof".
Now, you might want to claim that the word 'prohibit' puts it in less esteem than 'abridge', but I don't think that'll wash.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 5:01 PM
The first admendment is about prohibiting governmental interference. While we have had many who think it means limiting the powers of religious groups, in plain English, it does not.
-- Posted by InReply on Mon, Mar 5, 2012, at 7:01 PM
Shapley, You must be making some sense. So far you ain't "ignorant".
Lumbr, Just kidding!!
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:58 AM
Theorist,
Nothing in the First Amendment mentions a 'separation of Church and State'. It is about what Congress can and can't do. It imposes no limit on what the President can believe about religion, since the President can't pass laws sans Congress.
We've seen with the current President that he is not averse to getting Congress to pass a law that gives him the power to tear down that separation and override the conscience of the Church in paying for contraceptive services. I hardly see how Mr. Santorum can be more dangerous than that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 8:11 AM
Theorist,
I expect that, if we elect a President who is of a certain faith, that President shall act in accordance with the tenets of that faith, within the confines of the law. The President can't override the Congress, and the Congress can't impose religion, so I'm not sure what it is of which you are afraid.
What, specifically, has Mr. Santorum asked the Church to be involved in?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 8:37 AM
What Mr. Santorum has said is this: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country."
As I see it, he is saying simply that we do not have to check our religion at the door. In a nation where the people are free to petition for redress of grivances, the idea that the religious need not apply is contrary to the very founding principles of this nation. The idea that Catholic Church, for example, have to accept and fund contraceptives and abortions contrary to their beliefs is absurd. Religion does not stop at the Church door.
As I see it, this is where we are as a nation: People can peaceably assemble to petition for all forms of financial assistance for their immoral acts, but the religious are expected to keep their views confined behind the steeple. I don't accept that view.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 8:46 AM
"In his most forceful defense yet of the Obama administration's use of lethal force against U.S. citizens linked to terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Constitution does not protect U.S. suspects plotting to kill other Americans."
Nor has Mr. Santorum questioned the Constitution. What he has questioned is the interpretation of the Constitution that says it 'creates a wall of separation between Church and State'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 9:08 AM
Where is anyone asking another to live their faith, except for those who are demanding that the faithful subsidize their reckless sexual abandon?
Are you suggesting that we've never had a religious President before? Are you saying the 'wall' of separation is a one-way thing?
I really don't see where you are going with this line of thinking. No one is trying to force religion on anyone here. What Mr. Santorum is stating that the views of the religious are just as valid in the eyes of the law as the views of the non-religious, and that their vote and their opinion counts for no less merely because it stems from a religious viewpoint.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 9:43 AM
I understand it, but I don't understand what you mean by it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:36 AM
We've had presidents who believe that States' rights are a thing of the past. We've had a president who believed the Constitution gave us rights and, when the people don't exercise them properly, the government has to rescind those rights. We've had presidents who believe it is the government's role to take money from one group of citizens and give it to others. We've had presidents who have sent the army to quash peaceable assemblies of citizens petitioning for redress.
But, somehow, when a Presidential candidate questions the separation of Church and State, he is considered unfit for office. There are worse things to fear from a candidate than his religious views.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:56 AM
I don't understand, please bring us out of the darkness into the light of your knowledge and wisdom, you know you want to.
-- Posted by 356 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:56 AM
Ah! Time for the obligatory Hitler reference.
I'm surprised the topic made it this long without one.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:43 PM
Nor was Hitler's final solution so much a result of his religious views as it was his view that Jewish financier's were responsible for the World's troubles. I would classify it as more of a racial than a religious act.
To be sure, Hitler distanced himself from his Catholic upbringing early in life, refusing the sacraments after reaching adulthood. He is often cited as being 'Christian', but was not a member of any particular Christian religion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:51 PM
Rick...if the President of the United States didn't believe in separation of Church and State, I do believe it would affect us all!
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:48 PM
Hmmm!
Wonder if Theorist gets that idea from Obama's share the wealth ideology.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 1:38 PM
-- Posted by ~~Rick on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 12:53 PM
So why are you here and not among your people?
-- Posted by 356 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 1:38 PM
"Rick...if the President of the United States didn't believe in separation of Church and State, I do believe it would affect us all!"
How so? Presidents believe in a variety of things, right and wrong. How are you affected by his 'beliefs'? It is his actions that matter, and even those are limited.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 2:28 PM
The main problem Hitler had with the Jews was their hand on things financial and on their supposed physical imperfections. Even though he was short, swarthy, and imperfect, his ideal was the blue-eyed blond. He felt as badly toward blacks as he did Jews but there were fewer of them in Europe so they did not receive so much of his wrath. Remember Jesse Owens?
-- Posted by InReply on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 4:55 PM
I guess maybe this is what happens when you have a President that doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State?
"Cardinal Dolan: White House Lectured My USCCB Staff On How to Interpret Catholic Teaching!"
"At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops' conference and the White House staff,
our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom--that is,
revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption--are all off the
table. They were informed that they are. So much for "working out the wrinkles." Instead, they
advised the bishops' conference that we should listen to the "enlightened" voices of
accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in
America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand
Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has
nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 5:00 PM
Shapley, that is disgusting. Did they do the same for all other denominations and religions?
-- Posted by InReply on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:24 PM
To finish my thought. Maybe it is time for religious groups to call on the ACLU.
-- Posted by InReply on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:25 PM
How so? Presidents believe in a variety of things, right and wrong. How are you affected by his 'beliefs'? It is his actions that matter, and even those are limited.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 2:28 PM
I think we know or can easily find out what our present president's beliefs are and see that they are affecting his actions which in turn affects all of us.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 11:30 PM
Theorist,
The 'shake up' in the Mass is merely a change in the text that is designed to conform more correctly with the original Latin text. It has nothing to do with the Dogma of the Church.
What Mr. Obama has done is to lecture the USCCB staff on their need to listen to the more 'reasonable' voices within the Church, in essence ordering them to comply with his view of Catholic dogma. That is what the separation of Church and State is supposed to prevent, not to prevent men of religion conviction holding onto those convictions when elected to high office.
I am reminded of King Edward I and his takeover of Scotland. When Scotland itself was divided over the succession of their King, he set himself up as arbiter of the 'true heir to the throne', and then selected from the contenders the one most in allegiance to his own interests, with no regard to the authenticity of the claim. So, methinks, is Mr. Obama trying to do with the Church. He has stated his contempt for those who 'cling to their religion', and I believe he has chosen this 'wedge issue' to try to put him in position to weaken the authority of the Church, and of religious freedom in general.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:24 AM
While reading the Cardinals entire letter I noticed he used the phrase "religious freedom" 17 times. For a Cardinal to be obsessed with religious freedom is probably not unusual, but in this case, it is not even an issue of "religious freedom." Were anyone trying to make use of contraceptives mandatory, I could see it as that kind of an issue, but it is not. Methinks the Cardinal doth protest a bit too much.
There may also be something lost in the interpretation of events if the Cardinal claims that the "government" was trying to teach his people about Catholicism. Stating that the "White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching" is blatantly, an opinion, and if the "White House' participants were to be interviewed, they might have a different interpretation of what was said and meant.
Also claiming that what President "Obama has done is to lecture the USCCB staff.." is somewhat questionable. There is nothing in the Cardinal's letter that quotes the President.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:23 AM
Since Theorist brought it up and Rick wondered about it.... what makes you so sure we don't already have a Muslim in the White House. Mind you before someone gets their panties in a wad, I did not say we did... just wondering.
Fact is he did practice the Muslim Faith and they do not take lightly one of their own leaving, sometiomes means death to the disbeliever. How did they let this one go so easily? I have heard him descibe himself the beauty of his time in the Muslim religion.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:38 AM
Theorist,
I am sure SH will give a better answer, but it is a woods and a forest thing. They did not change any article of faith, just are using different words. You already said you were no expert on the matter, so why would you keep insisting there has been a change in anything but the descriptive words?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:43 AM
-- Posted by ~~Rick on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 11:59 PM
Then you should go live there full time.
-- Posted by 356 on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 9:48 AM
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - Barack Obama -
When the Mass was changed from Latin to English in the 1960s, the English Translation was a bit 'lenient'. This is only in the American Mass, since other languages adhered to the original context.
The changes might appear a bit minor to most non-Catholics - for example "et *** spirito tuo" was translated as "And also with you" instead of "And with your Spirit". It is harldy Earth-shaking stuff to non-Catholics, and the translation was approved at the time. The revisions are being made to bring universiality back to the Mass, so that the text recited in the United States more fully matches that used in every other Catholic Church in the world.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:14 AM
Commonsensematters,
You are correct that I did say 'Mr. Obama' in my response to Theorist, instead of 'The White House Staff', as Cardinal Dolan says. I did not make that claim in the original post, and it was my error when typing on the fly.
However, you are not correct in claiming this is not a matter of religious freedom. The Catholic Church, for example, not only prohibits one from performing or receiving an abortion, but causing or aiding the performance of one. Thus, it is every bit as sinful to pay for an abortion as it is to provide one or recieve one. The same is true of contraception. It would be wrong for me to provide my child, or yours, with a condom or a birth control pill. That the law would mandate that it be done is a violation of the matter of the religious freedom. Pretending that the insurance companies are providing 'free of charge', rather than the provider of the insurance policy, is a sham.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:20 AM
Rick,
The President didn't change the law. This is part of the 'We have to pass it to see what's in it' stuff.
The law included an exemption, but left it to the Department of Health and Human Services to define who is exempt. The HHS, with Mr. Obama's blessing, has defined 'religious' so narrowly that Jesus himself would not have qualified for an exemption.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:22 AM
He was classifying those who 'cling to their guns or their religion' in the same group with those who hold racist views. I find that an expression of contempt.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:31 AM
Besides, I don't know where you got your definition. According to Merriam-Webster 'contempt' is defined thus:
"1a : the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain
b : lack of respect or reverence for something."
I would say his remarks definitely fit under 'b'.
Any other misinterpretations on your part?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:34 AM
I provided the quote. I was not aware that 'bing' was an authority on the meaning of words.
So many people use the term 'out of context' out of context. They do not attempt to put the quote 'in context' they merely think that, by saying it is 'out of context', it is not valid.
The quote provided was sufficient to answer your query, particularly since it is the quote in which he actuals refers to those who 'cling to their religion', as though adhering to faith is 'clinging', as opposed (I suppose) to those who can discard theirs when it doesn't suit their purpose.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:54 AM
Speaking of offensive cartoons, I see a doozy in today's line-up.
The cartoon asks the question: Which would conservatives rather pay for? The alternatives offered are 1) the pill, or 2) future welfare recipients.
That would seem to indicate that we conservatives should be jumping on the 'pill' bandwagon as a sort of genocide against the poor.
"The poor you shall always have among you..." Unless we can eradicate them in the womb, eh?
Well, sorry, but this conservative isn't buying the idea that those are the only two options.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 12:13 PM
"I find that an expression of contempt."
I don't see anything of the sort. To clarify the statement from 2008, if you look at the entire context, what President Obama said at that time is not surprising nor untrue. Obviously there are people in small towns that feel betrayed by everyone and then latch on to things they know and have not forsaken them. If these are guns and religion, why is that an issue or shocking? And if they are disinclined to trust people not like them, it should come as no surprise to anyone. What he said was...
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the (cracks in the) Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 1:27 PM
As a good friend of mine said "people CHOOSE" to be offeneded!!
-- Posted by agape on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 1:44 PM
As I've said, if he sees clinging to religion as a response to bitterness, then he is showing a lack of respect for the basic tenets of their faith. He is making it rather clear that, had prior administrations succeeded in regenerating (whatever that means) their communities, they would cast aside their guns, their religion, and their antipathy and (I suppose) proclaimed that 'We have no king but Caesar!'.
In any case, it is clear has neither respect nor reverence for those things to which they 'cling'.
"Your opinion that perhaps that could have been what he meant, is not valid as a source."
Nor is your requriment that the word I chose to use must comply with your unsourced definition for it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 1:53 PM
"...but this conservative isn't buying the idea that those are the only two options."
Neither is this liberal. But the cartoon is back to apples and oranges. Placing artificial contraception under the umbrella of a woman's basic health care package is simply a reasonable and rational policy. It has nothing to do whatsoever with welfare. It is ultimately less costly for insurance providers and insurance suppliers.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:06 PM
...and more costly to the whole of society, unless you only count cost in dollars.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:07 PM
If insurance providers and insurance suppliers really thought it would be less costly, they would not be forced by mandate to provide it.
But, if the insurance is provided by a religious group which is opposed to birth control as a matter of principle, then the monetary cost is not the issue. Forcing them to sell their souls should not be the goal of government.
We are beginning to see who it is that worships at the altar of the almighty dollar, methinks, and it ain't conservatives...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:17 PM
Bing! is a Search Engine. I didn't say he said the word 'contempt', I said he stated his contempt.
"'State' (v): to express the particulars of especially in words : report; broadly : to express in words"
One does not have to say "I have contempt for 'x'" to state their contempt for 'x'. But, you should know that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:52 PM
As usual, Theorist bogs the discussion down in pedantic details, in order to confuse the broader nature of the discussion...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 2:53 PM
"...they would not be forced by mandate to provide it."
Again, it is the insurance company that is including contraception as part of basic coverage, not the church. And as money is not the problem, participants in the program are the ones deciding whether or not to use it. In theory then, no Catholics would avail themselves of that service. Therefore, QED, there is no problem then.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 3:20 PM
The religious institution chooses the insurance provider it wishes it use, and the package it wishes to offer. In some cases, the insurance company is the religious institution, since some larger institutions are self-insured.
Now, for a religious institution to provide a package is tantamount to providing the service. It matters not whether Catholics recieve the services in question or not.
You are making the same mistake as the Obama White House has done, you are attempting to dictate to the Catholic Church how it should view its culpabilities and responsibilities, and yet you can not see the hypocricy in that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 3:36 PM
You are saying, in essence, "this is the way we interpret the morality of the issue, and if that is not consistent with your dogma, then your dogma is wrong".
You see no religious freedom issue, but then it's not your religion, is it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 3:47 PM
Again,
Are you saying Bing! Dictionary is the primary source for the definition of words? Merriam-Webster has been in the business quite a bit longer, and has been recognized as a bit of an authority.
I notice, also, that you only used a brief part of your defintion in your earlier 'up against the wall' post. Being rather selective, eh? As I've said, his statement meets the standard definition.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:07 PM
And you're still ignoring the issue, which is that the White House is telling the Catholic Bishops how they need to interpret their own dogma.
I assume that is your non-existent 'wall of separation' against which you think you have me pinned.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:09 PM
Rick,
You're welcome, though I'm not sure for what. :)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:25 PM
"For a Cardinal to be obsessed with religious freedom is probably not unusual..."
For anyone to be 'obsessed' with freedom should not be unusual. I, for one, am thankful that our founding fathers were so obsessed.
On the other hand, for people to be so obsessed with birth control strikes me as odd. And to be obsessed with the idea that a free people should be forced to pay for yours is more so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:29 PM
Ah, yes. You're welcome, again!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:29 PM
"Again, it is the insurance company that is including contraception as part of basic coverage, not the church. And as money is not the problem, participants in the program are the ones deciding whether or not to use it. In theory then, no Catholics would avail themselves of that service. Therefore, QED, there is no problem then."
We have to assume the insurance companies will increase the premiums to cover the additional cost of providing the services. Unlike smoking, where they can increase the premiums of smokers to cover the increased risk caused by their choices, the insurance companies cannot single out birth control users to pay the increased costs of providing the service, ergo the premiums will be increased on every client of the insurance company. Thus, those who do not use birth control, and even those religiously opposed to it, will shoulder the costs of providing it to those who want it. Thus, it is a matter of religious freedom, whether you like it or not.
In the current system, those religiously opposed to paying for them could 'opt out' by purchasing a policy from a provider or plan package that does not provide such coverage. Since this mandate removes that option, the right of religious freedom has been compromised.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:38 PM
for people to be so obsessed with birth control strikes me as odd.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:29 PM
I find it odd that the person who apparently has the most to say on the subject of birth control posted this comment.
-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:44 PM
But he accuses others of being obsessed by the subject.
-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 4:52 PM
I am obsessed with the freedom the mandate seeks to strip away.
Those obsessed with birth control are the ones who are saying 'shut up and write the checque'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:00 PM
I am obsessed with the freedom the mandate seeks to strip away.
Those obsessed with birth control are the ones who are saying 'shut up and write the checque'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:00 PM
I am obsessed with the freedom the mandate seeks to strip away.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:00 PM
Yes, it strips away the church's freedom to dictate what prescriptions and procedures are medically permissible and places the freedom in the hands of the individual and their healthcare professional.
I guess it depends on who's freedom you treasure more. The church's freedom to impose dogma or the individuals freedom to make their own choice.
-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:30 PM
I guess it depends on who's freedom you treasure more. The church's freedom to impose dogma or the individuals freedom to make their own choice.
-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 5:30 PM
Dades,
The church is footing the bill for the insurance. Forcing them by government edict violates their right to freedom of religion and freedom of choice.
Nobody is restricting the individuals right to make a choice, all they have to do is reach in their pocket and pay for their birth control. And if that is not satisfactory, they are free to give their notice and take their talents elsewhere.
What is so complicated about all of this.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 6:56 PM
Nobody is restricting the individuals right to make a choice, all they have to do is reach in their pocket and pay for their birth control.
What is so complicated about all of this.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 6:56 PM
Easy to say when you have deep pockets.
Do Catholics refuse to shop at Walmart because their pharmacy sells birth control?
-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 7:52 PM
Easy to say when you have deep pockets.
Do Catholics refuse to shop at Walmart because their pharmacy sells birth control?
-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 7:52 PM
Dades,
I hardly think the cost is a backbreaker. Do not know what the cost is, but whatever it is does not justify government forcing it down any religion's throat against deep rooted beliefs.
Please explain what an individuals choice to, or not to shop at Walmart has to do with this.
Do you seriously believe forcing anyone to pay for any product or service is a function of government?
God help us if that is a prevailing thought process in this country.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM
"Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you. First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
I think one point over looked is that old adage of give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:06 PM
My definition comes from Bing.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:41 AM
Bing is an opinion, not a fact. Try using a real dictionary. Do you also cite Wikipedia as authority?
-- Posted by InReply on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:24 PM
Sorry, I'm late to the discussion today, so the misconceptions tend to jump out at me.
Another one I have a problem with is any one who tries to excuse Obama as being more in the know than anyone else. He is simply a politico who is fed the information his party wants him to know or which will fuel is side of any issue. He isn't interested in changing his mind if he happens to be wrong.
-- Posted by InReply on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 10:30 PM
InReply, It has been my perception of history that presidents enjoy a lot of cover up in defense of their short comings, outright deceptions and failures concerning the oath of office. In some cases history does not reveal the whole story for 50 years or so.
The standards of outrage have been eroded to the point that we accept more and more as normal behavior the betrayal of the country's interest by polititions.
I was reminded of the Teapot Dome scandle and the scorn it brought to the Harding administration. Somethng like that wouldn't even be reported of the present administration.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 11:11 PM
"Yes, it strips away the church's freedom to dictate what prescriptions and procedures are medically permissible and places the freedom in the hands of the individual and their healthcare professional."
As has already been pointed out to you, insurance does not dictate what proceedures are permissible, they dictate only for what they pay. That is typically spelled out in the insurance agreement.
It's the same old misunderstanding - too many people don't know the difference between health coverage and health care. One is a financial package, the other a health service.
"Do Catholics refuse to shop at Walmart because their pharmacy sells birth control?"
Some may. Are you, too, trying to dictate to Catholics how to interpret their dogma?
__________
Bing! identifies itself as a 'decision engine' rather than a search engine, because it tries to make decisions for you about which websites you are searching. Some people don't like deciding for themselves...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 8:24 AM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Mar 7, 2012, at 8:44 PM
Wheels said: "Please explain what an individuals choice to, or not to shop at Walmart has to do with this."
People have made the argument that churches shouldn't have to provide birth control because that is, in effect, subsidizing sin. But by that same logic is Walmart not profiting from sin by selling birth control? Not only selling birth control, but selling it at everyday low prices made possible by subsidies from the millions of dollars in sales from other departments within Walmart. So how is shopping at Walmart any different than providing insurance that includes birth control?
____________________
Wheels said: "Do you seriously believe forcing anyone to pay for any product or service is a function of government?"
NO! I absolutely, 100% do not believe that should be a function of the government. But I also don't believe that healthcare should be a privilege reserved only for the wealthy. So I hold two opposing tenets on the subject.
However, if you are going to make exceptions for the Catholic Church, will you also make exceptions for other faiths? As a member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am well versed in the healing and medicinal properties of rum. As a devout Pastafarian I believe that rum should be covered by my insurance premiums.
____________________
Some may. Are you, too, trying to dictate to Catholics how to interpret their dogma?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 8:24 AM
No, not trying to dictate their dogma, merely pointing out that some seem to be trying to interpret their own dogma to maximize political gain rather than conform to the tenet.
-- Posted by DADES on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 10:49 AM
"Not only selling birth control, but selling it at everyday low prices made possible by subsidies from the millions of dollars in sales from other departments within Walmart."
There's no proof that Walmart subsidizes their pharmaceuticals though profits on other products.
"No, not trying to dictate their dogma, merely pointing out that some seem to be trying to interpret their own dogma to maximize political gain rather than conform to the tenet."
The Catholic Church has always refused to provide birth control and abortion services, based on religious grounds. While some few facilities may provide insurance that pays for those services, the official position of the Church has been that it is against Church teaching to do so. This is not a new request. Instead, this administration has decided to redefine the religious exemption so narrowly that Jesus himself would not qualify as religious (because Jesus served people who were not of his faith).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:08 AM
"No, not trying to dictate their dogma, merely pointing out that some seem to be trying to interpret their own dogma to maximize political gain rather than conform to the tenet."
How so? The Catholic Church is not in the business of politics, but have been in the business of health care provision for longer than the United States government has been in any business.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:20 AM
"However, if you are going to make exceptions for the Catholic Church, will you also make exceptions for other faiths? As a member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am well versed in the healing and medicinal properties of rum. As a devout Pastafarian I believe that rum should be covered by my insurance premiums."
How, exactly, do you think those two compare? There is nothing in the mandate that prohibits you from buying insurance that covers tots of rum for medicinal purposes.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:25 AM
Dades,
The Walmart shopping and the government edict are entirely two different issues. I do not think it is possible for a Catholic or any other Person no matter their faith to be able to restrict their doing business with people they believe to be sinners. We are all sinners, in my opinion, and no one is required to buy from Walmart, but the government is trying to force Religious Establishments to furnish services to employees that violates their core beliefs. This is not right.
Regarding the governments right to force any purchase of goods or services of any kind... it appears we agree. But you mention "also don't believe that healthcare should be a privilege reserved only for the wealthy."
First I would say that if health insurance is a mandated purchase, it is like being a "little bit pregnant". It will never stop at the litle bit part. And how do you see healthcare as the privilege of the wealthy? Have you been to an emergency room in recent years? Healthcare is definely being given to the poor daily, and I do mean "given".
So far as rights given to us in our Constitution regarding religion. I believe it does and should give equal protection to any religion. To repeat myself... the government does not have the egitimate authority to force anyone to purchase anything, inside or outside of a religious organization.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 3:11 PM
InReply...Bing Dictionary is a free online dictionary, translator, and language learning tool built into one easy to use and fast interface.
Perhaps you should check it out before stating your opinion...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 4:27 AM
I prefer to use dictionaries that are based on deeper knowledge of the language, not a speed-driven shortcut. I find Bing to be fine for skimming the surface.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 4:05 PM
Just an interesting point.
The catholic church does not support emergency birth control pills. However, all catholic hospitals are required to provide it.
Also,
Does anybody know how massachusetts handles this?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 5:04 PM
lumbrgfktr, the latest thing I could find was this PDF attached to an Aug. 2011 article.
"The Massachusetts mandate dates to 2002, when Republican Governor Jane Swift signed a bill requiring health insurers to cover contraception, in the same way they cover other prescription drugs. (Unlike the new federal law, it did not require insurers to provide contraception for free.)
The law passed over the objections of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the Catholic Action League. Similar to the current federal law, there was an exemption for churches and church-controlled organizations, such as church-run elementary schools. The exemption does not apply to religiously-affiliated hospitals or universities that are separate from the church."
"While the Massachusetts and federal laws are similar, there are some differences.
One major difference is that states have no power to mandate benefits for companies that are self-insured. So self-insured hospitals and universities in Massachusetts can get around the contraception mandate today, but will not be able to avoid the federal mandate, Turnbull said.
The Sisters of Providence Health System in Western Massachusetts, which is self-insured, does not offer health plans with contraception. Yvonne Boudreau, senior vice president of mission for the health system, said the organization is exempt from the Massachusetts rule because it is a public/private church plan. It is investigating whether it will still be exempt under Obama's requirement.
Raymond Delisle, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Worcester, said there is also a difference in the wording of the state and federal religious exemptions. The diocese has relied on Massachusetts' religious exemption to avoid offering contraceptives in its health plans, both for church employees and for those involved in other activities like social work, education, and health care. Under Obama's requirement, which specifies that religiously exempt organizations must promote religion and primarily serve and employ people of the same faith, the diocese will no longer qualify for a religious exemption for employees involved in the outside activities.
Both Massachusetts senators - Democrat John Kerry, who is Catholic, and Republican Scott Brown -- have said Obama's policy should be changed to include a clause allowing a broader conscience exemption for religious organizations."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 8:10 AM
"...require insurers to provide contraception for free."
Where does this come from over and over again. Obviously it's not "free," it's charged for as part of the basic service and package, just like, physicals, health checkups, etc. Nothing says you or anyone has to use each and every service offered.
I understand the objection with regard to religious belief, but nothing is encroaching on beliefs and no one is trying to change any religious doctrine. I would think that the church might want to study the question of why almost all (at least most, at some time or another) Catholic women disregard the church's beliefs on artificial contraception. Just my opinion, but it might be a better use of their time and effort.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 8:45 AM
Where does it come from? It comes from Mr. Obama's own words:
"The White House explained that under the revised policy, women will still have "free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works." Nonetheless, the policy "also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage." Instead, "her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 8:55 AM
"I would think that the church might want to study the question of why almost all (at least most, at some time or another) Catholic women disregard the church's beliefs on artificial contraception."
And now Commonsensematters weighs in on how the Church should operate. So much, again, for that 'wall of separation'. I see lots of non-Catholics telling the Catholic Church what it might want to do, and how it ought to interpret its dogma.
Perhaps it might want to study why most people lie, despite the long-standing commandment against it. It could start that study in Washington, where lying has apparently been elevated to an art form...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM
What makes massachusetts the official authority over religious belief ?
-- Posted by ~~Rick on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 7:00 AM
It doesn't.
Beause I do not care for Obama. I am getting more interested in Romney, but I want to know if he is just another FOS politician.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:09 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 8:10 AM
Good stuff.
Thanks.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:11 AM
You're welcome.
The article does state that 8 of the 28 states that have mandates do not have the exclusion. It will be interesting to see how it is dealt with in those states, but it'll take research for which I haven't time right now.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:14 AM
"...required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge."
That means only that there is no extra payment required by the woman that requests the service. The charge is already included in the basic premium. I am sure that both insurance companies and those individuals covered understand this, and am equally sure that you understand that insurors will not be walking around passing out "free" contraceptives to people not covered by one of their policies.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:31 AM
There's no proof that Walmart subsidizes their pharmaceuticals though profits on other products.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:08 AM
There is also no proof that insurance premiums paid by the church won't be used to purchase birth control for non-church members.
Walmart is a business that provides a plethora of goods and services including birth control. Insurance providers also cover a vast array of prescriptions and services including, but not limited to, birth control. Simply because your policy says you have access to a benefit does not mean that you must make use of it. Conversely, even if you remove the wording from the contract, it doesn't mean the provider won't use your premiums to purchase said benefit for other customers.
_________________
How so? The Catholic Church is not in the business of politics, but have been in the business of health care provision for longer than the United States government has been in any business.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:20 AM
According to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives. While the church may "have been in the business of health care provision for longer than the United States government has been in any business", it appears that many of it's own members don't view it as an authority on the topic despite its tenure.
______________________
There is nothing in the mandate that prohibits you from buying insurance that covers tots of rum for medicinal purposes.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 11:25 AM
I think you misspelled "casks".
_________________________
And how do you see healthcare as the privilege of the wealthy? Have you been to an emergency room in recent years?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 8, 2012, at 3:11 PM
Yes, I have. And I've been over our healthcare situation before. Our per capita healthcare costs more than any two other countries combined yet we are only on par with Cuba when it comes to life expectancy. We are paying Ferrari prices and getting a Ford Focus.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:36 AM
"That means only that there is no extra payment required by the woman that requests the service."
In the context in which that was used, he is saying that it will come 'free of charge' to the religious employer that has the objection.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:44 AM
The curious thing is how far we've slid as a nation. In the beginning of the health care coverage debate, the argument was that insurance companies should not be able to 'dictate' what services a person receives (they never did, they merely 'dicated' those services for which they would provide payment). Now, it seems, we have the government 'dictating' those services for which they'll pay, and we're arguing over whether some handful will be generously exempted for the dictator's thumb.
Apparenlty, we're perfectly happy with dicators, even though we sometimes grumble about the dicates themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:48 AM
Yes, I have. And I've been over our healthcare situation before. Our per capita healthcare costs more than any two other countries combined yet we are only on par with Cuba when it comes to life expectancy. We are paying Ferrari prices and getting a Ford Focus.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:36 AM
Life expectancies include many factors, not just healthcare.
A lower life expectancy probably has more to do with nearly 70% of our country being overweight.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:52 AM
"According to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives."
That study gets thrown around a lot by advocates of birth control, ignoring the fact that the Guttmacher Institute (named for the past president of Planned Parenthood) is in the birth control business, and therefore is not an unbiased source on the issue.
Nor does it matter, since the Catholic Church is not a democracy. 'For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God' says the Bible, but that does not mean we should not take a stand against sin.
"There is also no proof that insurance premiums paid by the church won't be used to purchase birth control for non-church members."
They won't if the Church is self-insured, which is how many Churches get around the state mandates. The federal mandate also covers self-insured institutions.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:55 AM
"A lower life expectancy probably has more to do with nearly 70% of our country being overweight."
America's life expectancy is also affected by the fact that we include babies who die in the early stages of life. They are not included in the statistics of some nations.
Beside, Cuba's Health Care system was always touted as a model system by those 'on the left', who used to report how Americans were traveling through Mexico to recieve Cuban health care.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM
Our per capita healthcare costs more than any two other countries combined yet we are only on par with Cuba when it comes to life expectancy. We are paying Ferrari prices and getting a Ford Focus. -- Posted by DADES on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:36 AM
The car analogy is more appropriate than you realize. When it comes to life expectancy, how many Cubans:
own cars?
own airplanes?
own boats?
own motorcycles?
go hunting?
climb mountains?
live in multi-story homes?
have electricity?
All of those things kill people. Auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, falling down stairs, electrocution. In a perfect liberal world we would not be allowed to do anything above and ride on "free" public transportation and sit around our 2 room house 7 days a week. I'll take my American life expectancy any day over a Cuban low-quality life.
And if your ulitmate goal is "life expectacy" why aren't you living in Cuba or Japan? Maybe, just maybe, quality of life is more important to you than length of life?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:27 AM
A lower life expectancy probably has more to do with nearly 70% of our country being overweight.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:52 AM
From what I have gathered and read it is mostly a lack of PMCS on our part. People fear a miner ailment will require costly treatment so people often leave ailments untreated and hope they go away. Sometimes they do. Other times however miner ailments become major health issues which are much more costly to treat. This, I believe, is what drives up our costs and reduces life expectancy.
________________
That study gets thrown around a lot by advocates of birth control, ignoring the fact that the Guttmacher Institute (named for the past president of Planned Parenthood) is in the birth control business, and therefore is not an unbiased source on the issue.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 9:55 AM
According to their website, "The Institute's overarching goal is to ensure the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health for all people worldwide." Therefore I supposed, if you wish to be pedantic, it is technically correct to say they are in the birth control business.
As for bias, Politifact claimed that statement was mostly true if you trust them. As with any statistic, its outcome is only as good as its input.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:38 AM
The only thing Politifact can confirm is that the Guttmacher Institute released the study.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:44 AM
From what I have gathered and read it is mostly a lack of PMCS on our part. People fear a miner ailment will require costly treatment so people often leave ailments untreated and hope they go away. Sometimes they do. Other times however miner ailments become major health issues which are much more costly to treat. This, I believe, is what drives up our costs and reduces life expectancy.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:38 AM
No. That is simply not true.
It is true that some people avoid going to the doctor, but not for the reasons you mention.
People don't get colonoscopy becasue they are fearful of being diagnosed with cancer. they don't get them becasue they don't enjoy having a rod shoved up there ***.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 2:22 PM
Anyone who feels Cuba has a better deal than the USA are free to move to Cuba .
-- Posted by ~~Rick on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 12:50 PM
They do have cuban cigars.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 2:23 PM
"They do have cuban cigars."
You can get those on a cruise, or in Mexico. You just have to be sure to smoke them all before you reach the border upon your return.
Really, it's about time we ended the embargo. We trade with every other Communist nation on the planet. I think the continuing embargo is just sour grapes over that Bay of Pigs thing. I suppose, once Mr. Castro finally breathes his last, we may lift it. Methinks it's outlived its usefullness, I don't even smoke cigars...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 3:00 PM
People don't get colonoscopy becasue they are fearful of being diagnosed with cancer. they don't get them becasue they don't enjoy having a rod shoved up there ***.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 2:22 PM
The last time I had one of those fun little exams I was at a clinic built by doctors expressly for colonoscopy and related tests. They even had valet parking and treated everyone like royalty. I ended up with an infection that cost we three more doctor visits and a round of meds that didn't work followed by a round that did. Needless to say, when I got their fancy, printed invitation and friendly reminder that it was time for another visit, I tossed the thing.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 7:51 PM
"A lower life expectancy probably has more to do with nearly 70% of our country being overweight."
America's life expectancy is also affected by the fact that we include babies who die in the early stages of life. They are not included in the statistics of some nations.
Beside, Cuba's Health Care system was always touted as a model system by those 'on the left', who used to report how Americans were traveling through Mexico to recieve Cuban health care.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 10:03 AM
Could it be that Cuba practices better hygiene in their hospitals? I just finished an article that cited one in seven hospital visits ends up either in death or with another illness both of which were brought on by something contacted in the hospital. Not exactly a recommendation for American health care system. The article is in this month's AARP bulletin.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 8:09 PM
Does per capita cost include the illegals in the emergency rooms?
As for Cuba, the best thing for the people of Cuba would be to open markets that would entice Cuba to allow American tourism investment. The result would give the Cuban people a new perspective of freedom possible at home instead of only in America. Once the populace realizes somethings more advanced than rice cookers are in reach, oppression may be challenged.
Of course the way we are headed, we could be a new Cuba in a few years.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 10, 2012, at 12:09 AM
The last time I had one of those fun little exams I was at a clinic built by doctors expressly for colonoscopy and related tests. They even had valet parking and treated everyone like royalty. I ended up with an infection that cost we three more doctor visits and a round of meds that didn't work followed by a round that did. Needless to say, when I got their fancy, printed invitation and friendly reminder that it was time for another visit, I tossed the thing.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 7:51 PM
In Reply,
Sorry to hear of your bad experience.
I would encourage you however to look for another doctor and get the test done. I have never experienced a problem myself. My wife had a niece who refused to do the tests and ended up with colon cancer and died at age 63 this past summer. I would think yours was a rather isolated case. I have not heard of it before but sure it does happen to some degree. You wouldn't be the only one.
At least think about it. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 10, 2012, at 12:36 AM
Menu
The political cartoon, showing the elephant crucified on the 'T' in Santorum's name, is rather offensive. In other countries, with other faiths, that might cause rioting and looting, but I guess Catholics are fair game. I guess publishers can take comfort in knowing that we'll simply 'turn the other cheek'.
Replies (159)