Posted on 02/13/2012 7:12:20 PM PST by neverdem
The American bishops have, with alacrity, rejected President Obama's proposed "accommodation" on the contraception mandate in no uncertain terms. Their response came before the sun had set on the very day of his announcement.
Noting that the "proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions," the Catholic hierarchy virtually guaranteed more political hemorrhaging for the White House.
The bishops indicated that they were not consulted in advance of the President's announcement and had just received information about it "for the first time this morning [Friday]."
"The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services," stated the bishops in their statement released through the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCB).
President Obama's proposal for an "accommodation," not a compromise, claimed to shift the costs of the contraceptive services to the insurance carriers of the religious institutions as if they would provide such services for free for an indefinite period of time.
The proposal is really no accommodation at all since, as the Wall Street Journal opined in a lead editorial ("Immaculate Contraception," February 11-12, 2012), prices will eventually find an equilibrium, i.e., the carriers will eventually price their policy premiums accordingly which, in turn, means their customers, the religious institutions, will still be footing the bill.
"So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are 'free,' including contraception," wrote the Journal. "Thus, a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one -- in other words, behold the soul..."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The Catholic Church has allowed itself to be neutered.
The political clause for non profits was explicitely added to the tax code to do just this.
It is long past time that the Catholic Church, and other churches realize that they cannot remain silent, and though its a huge financial hit, they should pay taxes and speak God’s truth.
Anyone who is Catholic and votes Democratic IMHO doesn’t remotely understand the Cannon of the Church they claim to be part of.
About half the "Catholic" population in these United States seems to be Catholic in the same way that Woody Allen is Jewish or Bill Clinton is Baptist ... that is to say, it is for them merely a cultural identity. It is not a faith or religious practice which in any meaningful way informs their lives or their principles. They are, rather influenced by secular culture, which is aggressively socialist and perverted.
Your strawman is getting kinda old and lame. The right to LIFE, supposedly protected by state governments in this country, means the RIGHT NOT TO BE MURDERED. Equally, the right to property means the right NOT TO BE ROBBED. How difficult is that to comprehend? I guess it’s a bit much for YOU, though.
And, while the second of your notions may be correct, the first is totally wrong. But you knew that before you set fingers to keyboard.
Your strawman is getting kinda old and lame. The right to LIFE, supposedly protected by state governments in this country, means the RIGHT NOT TO BE MURDERED. Equally, the right to property means the right NOT TO BE ROBBED. How difficult is that to comprehend? I guess it’s a bit much for YOU, though.
And, while the second of your notions may be correct, the first is totally wrong. But you knew that before you set fingers to keyboard.
Why do you have a right? Isn’t that a moral decision? Why don’t I have the right to take whatever I want from you, as long as I have the might to pull it off?
Read Blackstone for starters. Come back to me when you grow up. Saying that that “You can’t outlaw sin!” means that you have a favorite one you want to protect. That is fine. But saying that the Law has no basis in morals is silly, and you know that.
Hence your little tantrum.
Our RIGHTS come from our Creator. Governments exist to protect those rights, period. Primarily, we have a right to be left alone by government. With the criminalization of “sin,” THAT Right goes out the window as the drug cops and gun cops willingly, willfully and eagerly trash our Constitution in order to make their “job” easier. And misguided (or not, and if not, what, I wonder?) people avidly support them, with the “if you’ve done nothing wrong” mantra that excuses these outlaws of government and the absolute EVIL they do, in the name of “protecting” us from ourselves. Thanks but no thanks. Leave me alone and I will protect me and mine. Stop using the evil of government to do God’s work.
Your argument is not even internally consistent. You can not argue that the Law can not be used against sin while at the same time stating that a Creator gave you rights. The Creator (God) is not a blank pass to do as you will.
Now, you are at least admitting something. You want to legalize drugs, or are sympathetic to that. You point out all the damage that the drug “war” has done to our old rights (which is correct), and that you want the government to leave you alone so you can pursue you choice of chemical enjoyment in peace. Since the Law can not be used against sin, so be it.
No lets take it one step further. I have a group of like minded, well armed, fellows. We have a nice deal going where we attack towns and churches, and carry off what ever we can steal. In our culture, that is an acceptable way to make a living, and even quite respectable.
Why should that be illegal if, as you say, the law can not legislate sin? See, the local law enforcement has really put a damper on our choice of profession.
Think. Use logic to support your argument. Don't go all emo and start talking about out of control cops. Think. You have taken God and morality out of the picture.
Why, if I have the might, is piracy or going a Viking illegal? You can't argue that “well, that hurts other people”. Morality is out of the picture. Drugs hurt other people, not just the user. So does a lot of things.
In what way(s)?
So does a lot of things.
Which things? Should they be banned as drugs are?
Then why ban plundering?
Self-ping.
Hey, tnlibertarian, take a look at the link in the comment you responded to.
Thanks, tnlibertarian, I will. Is it any good?
I don’t know; I haven’t read it yet.
No, no, if one suffers from the first two delusions, then one can believe that the insurance companies, rather than their rate payers are paying for abortifacients under the “revised” policy (giving “free lunch” the usual broad interpretation it is given in economic discussions) even if one doesn’t suffer from the third.
Actually, the question of criminalizing sin was raised in one of the Orthodox Christian blogs I read in a post entitled “Should St. Mary of Egypt Have Done Jail Time?”, which noted that one of the most self-consciously Christian societies in the history of the world, the Roman Empire in the period after Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople (or “New Rome” as he called it) did not have laws forbidding prostitution. What are now referred to as “victimless crimes” were considered a matter for the Church rather than the state, for penance rather than imprisonment, fines, or mutilation (the East Romans usually blinded for offenses for which the penalty in the rest of the world was execution).
I have often dryly noted that more of us will be confined in Hades between now and the Last Judgement and/or find ourselves on the left-hand with the “goats” at the Last Judgement for unrepented pride, envy and sloth than for the more exotic expressions of lust. Shall we have laws against envy? Pride? Sloth? Wrath when it does not lead to assault or murder? How about scoffing? Idolatry? Looking lustfully at women?
I was raised Luthern. I attend no church, nor have I for years,
However, I would find appropriate clothes to put on & stand in front of any congregation & tell them I will support their right to their own religious beliefs.
Barry the Kenyan Imposter is waaaaay out of bounds on this.
He is after the 2nd Amendment if he gets another term, & with the current Congress authorizing DRONES in the entire continental USA, spying on all of us, the 4th Amendment is in dire condition, also. That makes it unwarranted search or where we are at all times.
As you SHOULD know, RIGHTS only come into play in our dealings with other people. When you live out in the wild, all by yourself, it doesn’t matter WHAT you do to and by yourself. When you move into society, your rights need definition and protection. Our God-given rights include the right to life and the absolute right to protect and defend that life from the depradations of your happy group of marauders; the right to eat and drink AS WE WILL, including mood-altering substances; the right and DUTY to resist any and all who would interfere with ANY of these rights.
Now it may well be true that we should not exercise one or more of these rights, but THAT DECISION is between the individual and his God, NOT between him and government. Not in any way, shape or form.
The blood trail will lead a long way through the trackless wood (metaphorically), which will be fine, as long as the outcome is, new President in 2013.
In what way(s)?
So does a lot of things.
Which things? Should they be banned as drugs are?
Then why ban plundering?
Because plundering hurts the plundered. Now will you answer my questions?
I doubt you’ll get a response, as s/he cannot overcome the internal inconsistencies of his/her “argument” without the rampaging marauders.
However, if you are implying that the Eastern Empire didn't have laws against sin, or get involved in what the State viewed as the moral issues of the day, I would point out the Iconoclast controversy, the expulsion of the heterodox (Arrians, Nestorians, etc), and if you want to wander to a more secular topic, usury and inheritance laws. The Eastern Empire used government forces to push dissenters out of churches and lands, and force able deposed and installed bishops.
They had few laws dealing with prostitution, but still the state looked after and dealt with “sin”.
Dcwusmc and JSNTN have stated that they don't believe that the law should have anything to do with what they term “sin”. In reality, both have stated that it means illegal drugs. Which is a different thing than saying “No laws against sin”. My point is that a moral code of some sort is the basis for all law. As David said, at times in Christendom things like drugs and prostitution, while still viewed as bad, were not heavily regulated by the State.
Now saying that you want some drugs (marijuana,etc) legalized is much different from saying you want the law to not deal with a moral code of any kind. You can make the arguement that the current drug war is failing and leading to the same abuses of power that Prohibition created. Which is true. You can even take the track that the drug code is not based much in science but only on feeling, which in cases is also true. But that is vastly different from saying the law can not deal with any sort of moral code.
That is what laws do. Why do we have a law against theft of property inside the society? Well, because it isn't right to take what isn't yours. If I formed Red's Merry Band of Maurders and went a Viking, the State in general and Dcwusmc in particular would obviously take offense to me doing that. For good reason. It is wrong, and few would argue that it isn't.
Now, can law enforce all of morality? Well, no. Going back to Blackstone, the Law is to set the outer bounds of what is acceptable. As David said, using Christian traditional Orthodox assumptions, it would be rather foolish to have laws against things like pride, envy, sloth etc. The Church traditionally handled some of those, or they were handled in part by the State, or as now with the case of Envy encouraged by the State. Having all of the seven sins turned into offenses is not my point. My point is that the law in a given State always has at its basis a moral code. We can discuss which things should and should not be included in it, but the fact that law has a basis in morals goes to the definition of what law is.
I had a kid who was baked up to his eyeballs open a valve and burn a few of his coworkers. I had another at a different plant drive a fork truck into an acid tank and hurt himself, another coworker, and several on the hazmat team who had to clean up.
In both cases, the law was I couldn't have them take a pee test randomly. In fact, the first we knew the kid had a issue, and were prevented by the ADA from acting on that knowledge, as it would be a violation of his rights.
That doesn't count the lives of family members of addicts who get dragged down with them. Or those friends who get assaulted when the addict needs his fix and can't find the money.
Now, that does happen with alcohol to. It happens with over the counter meds, and all kinds of thing. If you want to have a discussion about legalizing drugs, and the cost/benefits of such, fine.
But that isn't what you stated. You said that the law should not deal with morals. If so, then people being hurt or hurting themselves is of no concern to the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.