Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/02/21 17:52:36
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Easy E wrote:An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Wow like that has nothing to do with anything other than a cheap attack.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/02/21 18:14:06
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Easy E wrote:An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Wow like that has nothing to do with anything other than a cheap attack.
Eh, its not necessarily an attack. Its not a lie to state that megachurches largely depend on the personality of their founders, generally the current pastor, to achieve and maintain their "mega" status. This may, or may not be, bad.
It is, however, wrong to state that most megachurches claim that they are non-denominational. They do tend to be evangelical, if not in name, then in practice. That's how they get so big. Well, that, and the food court; Willow Creek has some damn fine food.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 18:15:32
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/21 18:15:07
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Manchu wrote:
Who do you stand to win? People who will already vote for you no matter what. Who do you stand to lose? Not just Catholic democrats but also and more importantly the idealistic young people who elected you to begin with.
I'm willing to bet that most of the idealistic young people who got Obama elected (read: campaign staff, partisans, liberals, etc.) are not, by and large, hugely concerned with the Catholic position on birth control.
Hell, I know self-professed Catholics that don't care about the Catholic position on birth control.
Someone once said that Roman Catholicism is actually two religions. You have the religion that the clergy preaches, and the religion that the people actually believe and practice.
I think only the most devout American Roman Catholics follow the Vatican's doctrine regarding contraception. It's just hopelessly contrary to how modern people live their lives, and therefore is inevitably going to be discarded by many. I'm not even sure the church's stance is even rooted in morality. My mother -- who loves the church and attends and gives regularly -- has said for years that money drives most of their decisions. It's a surprising opinion coming from her, but if you heard her argument, I think you'd agree it's a compelling one.
Looking at it from that perspective, I wonder how much of the Vatican's view on the matter has to do with keeping a steady flow of new Catholics coming into the church. I mean, if Catholic couples start having 1.9 children...that really doesn't help grow the religion, does it?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/21 18:16:06
gorgon wrote:
Looking at it from that perspective, I wonder how much of the Vatican's view on the matter has to do with keeping a steady flow of new Catholics coming into the church. I mean, if Catholic couples start having 1.9 children...that really doesn't help grow the religion, does it?
The Catholic Church is nothing if not hesitant to change.
It (Rome) is, however, starting to realize that if it wants to stay relevant it has to keep up with modern society. Its one thing to promulgate from a pulpit when you're speaking only to you specific congregation, but if you're doing the same from the seat of the Pontiff it gets tricky.
To make colorful and potentially humorous remarks: lots of Catholics in the US consider the Emperor to be a backwards step vis a vis JP2.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/21 18:23:00
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
gorgon wrote:I think only the most devout American Roman Catholics follow the Vatican's doctrine regarding contraception.
Replace "devout" with "rigid." No puns intended.
My mother -- who loves the church and attends and gives regularly -- has said for years that money drives most of their decisions.
She may love the Church but she doesn't seem to know much about how parishes or dioceses actually run.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:To make colorful and potentially humorous remarks: lots of Catholics in the US consider the Emperor to be a backwards step vis a vis JP2.
Just right of Palpatine might be a better description, as long as you're not actually talking about Ratzinger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I understand the argument that you're making, but I just don't see this particular issue being compelling en masse. Certainly not more so than the furor over the individual mandate.
It's part of a package deal. "What do you get with Obama? A plan to strip of freedom and/of conscience that doesn't even rehabilitate the economy."
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/02/21 18:26:55
dogma wrote:To make colorful and potentially humorous remarks: lots of Catholics in the US consider the Emperor to be a backwards step vis a vis JP2.
It seems a good parable, but I'm not quite sure how Jurassic Park 2 fits in. Is it representing Dominionism in a ecstatic state unleashed on non-traditionalists? I think that is what the T-Rex was supposed to mean anyway.
Manchu wrote:No puns intended.
Not even a little bit?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 18:28:41
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/02/21 18:31:27
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Where does the authority come from that allows a president to mandate that employers or insurance companies provide a good or service, and at what price?
Perhaps it's in the same paragraph that gives a woman the right to an abortion?
Best
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
2012/02/21 18:33:00
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Manchu wrote:You can't effectively bully Republicans like that. Conservatives have never accepted the argument that contraception/abortion is an issue of women's rights.
It's not that he was trying to get Conservatives to accept the idea that contraception is a "women's rights" issue, it's that the electorate sees contraception/abortion as an issue of women's health, and was playing on that perception.
Manchu wrote:As I said, it's not Catholics he has to worry about.
I disagree. About 50% of Catholics voted for President Obama and the Church has generally (apart from the abortion coverage issue) been supportive of socialized health care. President Obama has a lot to lose in the Catholic vote.
That doesn't mean that Catholics won't support him because of this.
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/02/21 18:33:37
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
The Vatican has nothing to do with the national politics of the United States -- at least after appointing the bishops. Ratzinger's teaching on health care and economy has fallen on deaf ears among conservative Catholics in the US since Caritas in Veritate.
As for the bishops themselves, they did not merely oppose the abortion provision, no matter what they currently say. There was a huge clash between the bishops and the nuns over this issue and it wasn't because the nuns wanted to perform abortions in their hospitals.
Yes, just like other conservatives opposed to health care reform, the bishops lined up to say "we support health care reform -- just not this approach."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:07:28
Melissia wrote:He gave some while not giving everything.
I don't know that he gave up anything. To me, it seems he wants to implement the same plan worded slightly differently.
In that case you'd agree that he didn't cave at all, right?
sebster wrote:Unless, of course, you like pretending that you're oppressed.
This is a common complaint by Christian commenters in regards to ministries, in my experience...
sebster wrote:Huh?
Have we actually seen someone claim that the answer to gender imbalance is for women to stop being women? Black people should just stop being black?
Well, that's certainly a thing.
Yes, sourclam's statment is probably the stupidest thing that I've seen said on this forum in the past six months.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:22:23
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/02/21 19:23:03
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Nope! I was responding to your response to me, not accusing you of any sort of inconsistency.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/02/21 19:26:39
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
The yes, I would say that the lack of meaningful compromise is a sign that he hasn't "caved." Silly man has just stepped in it. Now he had to pretend that he wanted to.
Grakmar wrote:He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Fortunately, we have things like actual political rights -- most especially those guaranteed under the First Amendment -- to rebuff such tyrannical decrees.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:37:10
Grakmar wrote:I still think he caved. He allowed an organization to continue to discriminate against women because of some antiquated belief system.
Are health insurers required to provide free birth control to men?
That depends on medical need.
Keep in mind that birth control pills don't JUST do birth control, they also stabilize hormones and make the woman's life much more stable by reducing or eliminating the hormone extremes of the menstrual cycle.
Thus for some women it is actually a medical necessity for them to have birth control pills so that they can be productive members of society.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:44:32
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/02/21 19:46:14
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Grakmar wrote:He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Fortunately, we have things like actual political rights -- most especially those guaranteed under the First Amendment -- to rebuff such tyrannical decrees.
We all accept that there are laws that impinge on religious freedom. Look no further than the FLDS to see an example. They believe that marrying (and having sex with) very young women is God's will. But, that doesn't mean that we have to repeal all the laws about age of consent. They're perfectly free to believe in that, but they just can't act on it.
The constitutional issue is that laws can't be made for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. Obama wasn't creating a law for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. He was just saying "All employers must provide this service." The fact that some Christian groups believe this is immoral is perfectly fine, but they should still have to provide that service.
Grakmar wrote:
He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Yes, except that nearly EVERY "real" Christian sect follows the doctrine that they will follow the law of the land, unless it goes specifically against what the Holy Bible says. So far, I fail to see what ground the various religious organizations have to stand on in this issue... As a Christian I am saying that. As far as I am aware, the law would require these employers to OFFER the coverage; Nothing in the law (that I've seen or seen covered) says "If contraceptives are offered in your healthcare plan, you MUST take them, or else" To me, it's saying that as an employer you need to follow the laws of the land, offer whatever insane coverage is required, and if the employees dont want it, then they dont HAVE to take everything.
For example, if my employer offered full benefits for casts and surgeries to repair a broken arm, nothing in that plan says that I MUST use surgery and casts, should my religion prohibit me from utilizing any medicine other than God (there are some sects out there that believe something like this). It's kinda the same thing to me in regards to BC pills/other methods of control.
2012/02/21 19:51:41
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Grakmar wrote:I still think he caved. He allowed an organization to continue to discriminate against women because of some antiquated belief system.
Are health insurers required to provide free birth control to men?
That depends on medical need.
You haven't answered the question: Are health insurers required to provide free birth control to men?
This is a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.
Melissia wrote:Keep in mind that birth control pills don't JUST do birth control, they also stabilize hormones and make the woman's life much more stable by reducing or eliminating the hormone extremes of the menstrual cycle.
You're right, there are acceptable secondary uses for birth control pills. However: 1) those secondary uses can be obtained by non-birth control methods; and 2) secondary medical uses of birth control pills does not overcome the objection to other methods of birth control.
No one seriously argues that we should legalize heroin because THC can be effective at relieving pain. And even if THC is effective at relieving pain, that doesn't mean that marijuana should be legalized, especially given that synthetic THC is available as a more concentrated drug.
Grakmar wrote:The constitutional issue is that laws can't be made for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. Obama wasn't creating a law for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. He was just saying "All employers must provide this service." The fact that some Christian groups believe this is immoral is perfectly fine, but they should still have to provide that service.
What if all employers were prevented from giving employees a break at sunset? Would the fact that Muslims couldn't adhere to their religious views be a problem, or is this a neutral law?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:55:20
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/02/21 19:53:17
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Easy E wrote:An intersting fact I learned, related to "mega-churches". Most use the tag non-denominational. On the face, you might think this means they do not profess to a specific faith, and that is brodaly true, but most lean towards an evangelical style.
What it also means is that there is no "outside" office or organization to place a check on the church. The church and its teachings/doctrines are just an extension of whatever the Pastor wants to believe at any particular time.
Is it relevant to the discussion here? Maybe, maybe not. I just thought it was interesting.
Wow like that has nothing to do with anything other than a cheap attack.
Not meant to be an attack. Just something I learned that was interesting. How is it an attack?
Also, Manchu, I'm not sure people will see it as an attack on 1st amendment rights, instead some people might see it as the President trying to ensure fair access to Contraceptives no matter who the employer is. The question is, how many will see it one way; and will enough people see it one way or the other to impact the election?
On the face of it, going after a relatively small religous group that's leadership all ready doesn't like you in order to appeal to your broader base of support seems like a good tactical choice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:59:21
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2012/02/21 19:57:01
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Yes I did. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it isn't a proper answer.
Not everything is black and white, least of all medicine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:57:37
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/02/21 19:57:23
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
biccat wrote:
You're right, there are acceptable secondary uses for birth control pills. However:
1) those secondary uses can be obtained by non-birth control methods; and
What are they?
For example, how does one manage female hormonal issues without birth control?
biccat wrote:
2) secondary medical uses of birth control pills does not overcome the objection to other methods of birth control.
But they do overcome the categorical objection.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/21 19:58:20
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/21 20:00:55
Subject: I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right
Grakmar wrote:The constitutional issue is that laws can't be made for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. Obama wasn't creating a law for the express purpose of limiting religious freedom. He was just saying "All employers must provide this service." The fact that some Christian groups believe this is immoral is perfectly fine, but they should still have to provide that service.
What if all employers were prevented from giving employees a break at sunset? Would the fact that Muslims couldn't adhere to their religious views be a problem, or is this a neutral law?
It depends on why that law was created. I can't think of a legitimate reason for it (other than to specifically limit Muslims' religious practices), so that clearly is in violation of the 1st amendment.
Melissia wrote:He gave some while not giving everything.
I don't know that he gave up anything. To me, it seems he wants to implement the same plan worded slightly differently.
In that case you'd agree that he didn't cave at all, right?
I still think he caved. He allowed an organization to continue to discriminate against women because of some antiquated belief system.
He should have held his ground and loudly declared that religious freedom is perfectly fine, but you have to follow the laws of the land.
Sorry but the US Constitution trumps "the laws of the land."
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
