Operation Fluke: Immortalized

[Night Strike]

And yet those personal freedoms are being impeded, with regard to the actual practice of the majority of the Catholic Church within the US. Taking a minority view of what constitutes Catholic practice as representative of Catholicism seems a big part of the problem.

Actually, the First Amendment only governs the actions of the federal government, not individual organizations. If a religious organization does not allow you to speak freely, observe a different religion, peacefully assemble, give access to the press, or fill out government petitions on their property, they do not have to. Only the government has to allow those things. And it doesn't even matter if most individuals of a religious organization use contraceptives. If the religious organization has a tenant of their faith that contraceptives should not be used, the government can't force them to provide it. And the government can't force anybody to provide it for free.

[ViperOverLord]

Yup. Obama's cronies executed this all along.

[oVo]

You found Fox's O'Reilly Factor, but did you even bother reading it?
In his typical editorial form, he implies much and says nothing.

[ViperOverLord]

You found Fox's O'Reilly Factor, but did you even bother reading it?
In his typical editorial form, he implies much and says nothing.

He says a lot, including who is pulling the strings. How about you
bother to read it (or comprehend it) instead of giving me your
lame ideological denials like usual.

BTW,I was having a good laugh a few posts back when you tried to
claim the parties 'mirrored' each other. All you ever do is praise
Dems and make excuses and condemn GOP. Talk about some
serious double talk and lack of awareness.

[Symmetry]

It's worth noting that the vast vast majority of Catholics practicing Catholicism oppose the Church hierarchy's take on paedophilia, just as most practicing Catholics seem generally in favour of contraception. That's worth bearing in mind when people talk about Catholic beliefs being protected. In reality, it's merely about protecting a small group of men, unelected by practitioners of the faith they claim to represent, arguing that they should maintain unpopular practices under the guise of freedom of religion.

In my personal experience it seems to be a weird alliance between evangelical (or maybe simply more conservative) Protestantism, which usually rails against Catholic Church authority, weirdly allying itself with certain elements of the Catholic hierarchy. Meanwhile most Catholics just seem to want the Church to carry on with normal life and not get so entangled in the sex stuff, again.

The state of the Catholic church or any church is irrelevant. We have the right of freedom of religion and the govt. should not be making undue restrictions on it. That's why we made the Bill Of Rights; to limit the power of government and guarantee personal freedoms.

And yet those personal freedoms are being impeded, with regard to the actual practice of the majority of the Catholic Church within the US. Taking a minority view of what constitutes Catholic practice as representative of Catholicism seems a big part of the problem. Presumably you wouldn't justify exemption from laws regarding paedophilia on the same grounds as protecting this same tiny, unelected, unrepresentative minority?

Pedophilia is an abhorrent criminal act (with victims), nor is it even their religious tenant. You should stop letting your biases get in the way of real analysis.

Incorrect, as ever. Much of the issue concerning paedophilia was over church law vs civil law. Perhaps you might want to read my arguments rather than dismiss them out of hand. Not too much to ask, is it?

Also, you meant to say "tenet", not "tenant".

[oVo]

He says a lot, including who is pulling the strings.

No,he doesn't. It's implied and you accept it
because it's what you want to believe.

BTW, I was having a good laugh a few posts back when you tried to
claim the parties 'mirrored' each other. All you ever do is praise
Dems and make excuses and condemn GOP. Talk about some
serious double talk and lack of awareness.

Which part of "both parties are fucked up" did you find confusing? Maybe I can sort it for you. I'm going to venture a guess you are aware those words are located in a different thread.

[Phatscotty]

Fluke gets pwnd on CNN....(wow, she's writing for CNN already?)


And the NY Times....

Linda Greenhouse (“Accidental Heroines,” Opinionator essay, nytimes.com, March 7) misses the point of my commentary in The Wall Street Journal entirely. When I fault Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law School student, for demanding that a Catholic school pay for drugs so that students can have sex without getting pregnant, my point is the payment, not the sex.

Nobody cares about Ms. Fluke’s sex life, but I do care about my alma mater’s religious freedom. Georgetown has the right not to cover contraception in its student health plans if that violates its religious beliefs. (It does cover oral contraceptives for medical conditions, as Ms. Fluke concedes.)

Americans who want contraception are free to get it, but forcing religious institutions to provide it through mandated insurance coverage is a diminishing of freedom.

[BigBallinStalin]

>oral contraceptives

Women can get pregnant orally?

[ViperOverLord]

I missed phase one. And why does everyone keep pronouncing her name Fluck when it is clearly Fluke. I can see how she got her name btw.

[Phatscotty]

I missed phase one. And why does everyone keep pronouncing her name Fluck when it is clearly Fluke. I can see how she got her name btw.

Phase one was identifying her as a plant and tracing the origins of the operation. Phase 2 involves numerous articles by the NY Times, 24-7 media play on MSNBC and 23-7 on CNN, plugs from the top including Hillary Clinton at a women's conference, Martin Bashir even spent the entire hour shouting about the war on women, and other various tentacles etc etc

[thegreekdog]

I can't help but feel that if conservative commentators had taken the high road and referred to the Affordable Care Act as an unconstitutional requirement for businesses and individuals to buy shit, instead of taking the low road and referring to it as a violation of freedom of religion (even though that has been put to bed by the president a month ago), we wouldn't be in this situation.

I'm not often right... but I am now. I would love it if Phatscotty and VOL dropped this. Honestly guys, it just makes you look like tools of the conservative talk show mafia (and now tools of the liberal talk show mafia).

[Symmetry]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

[AndyDufresne]

I can't help but feel that if conservative commentators had taken the high road and referred to the Affordable Care Act as an unconstitutional requirement for businesses and individuals to buy shit, instead of taking the low road and referring to it as a violation of freedom of religion (even though that has been put to bed by the president a month ago), we wouldn't be in this situation.

I'm not often right... but I am now. I would love it if Phatscotty and VOL dropped this. Honestly guys, it just makes you look like tools of the conservative talk show mafia (and now tools of the liberal talk show mafia).

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

[Symmetry]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

The women's rights issue has been around for a long time, it's not a new thing. Nor is it necessarily a Liberal thing, though I think You're right that that liberals have owned it in the recent debate. I kind of see it as conservatives seeking to own religious beliefs against a fictional "atheist-liberal" lobby, which just doesn't pan out.

[thegreekdog]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

The women's rights issue has been around for a long time, it's not a new thing. Nor is it necessarily a Liberal thing, though I think You're right that that liberals have owned it in the recent debate. I kind of see it as conservatives seeking to own religious beliefs against a fictional "atheist-liberal" lobby, which just doesn't pan out.

I don't mean the womens' rights issue overall. I meant the womens' rights issue being brought up when no one is violating or considering violating womens' rights. This woman is a prime example. She is complaining that a Catholic university which provides four health insurance plans has one health insurance plan that does not cover contraceptives. There is no womens' rights violations going on. It's a manufactured issue, similar to the conservatives manufacturing their "religious freedom" issue.

[natty dread]

no one is violating or considering violating womens' rights.

From what I see, women's rights are constantly being violated in the US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... 27301.html

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/07 ... abortions/

[thegreekdog]

no one is violating or considering violating womens' rights.

From what I see, women's rights are constantly being violated in the US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 ... 27301.html

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/07 ... abortions/

Other than your use of the word "constantly," I stand corrected.

[Night Strike]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

You're missing an entire facet to your argument: religious organizations, schools, etc. that are forced to pay for contraceptives. The churches themselves may be exempt from the requirements, but the other organizations aren't, even if they also follow the same religious tenants. That's still a violation of religious freedom.

[thegreekdog]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

You're missing an entire facet to your argument: religious organizations, schools, etc. that are forced to pay for contraceptives. The churches themselves may be exempt from the requirements, but the other organizations aren't, even if they also follow the same religious tenants. That's still a violation of religious freedom.

Hmm... I can't think of any Catholic schools or hospitals that aren't run by the Catholic Church. Is there something specific you're thinking about here?

[Baron Von PWN]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

You're missing an entire facet to your argument: religious organizations, schools, etc. that are forced to pay for contraceptives. The churches themselves may be exempt from the requirements, but the other organizations aren't, even if they also follow the same religious tenants. That's still a violation of religious freedom.

Hmm... I can't think of any Catholic schools or hospitals that aren't run by the Catholic Church. Is there something specific you're thinking about here?

he means that if you a catholic ran an insurance company freedom of religion would be violated as you would have to provide contraceptives.

[thegreekdog]

From the other side, I don't like seeing this as an issue for liberals to vent anti-Catholic stuff, when clearly it's not an issue most Catholics consider to be about religious freedom. I'll still disagree on other grounds, but making this into an issue that it ain't is just needless polarisation.

The UK still has a strong strain of anti-Catholocism, not so much in practice, but certainly in the way we look at our history. It took me a fair bit of reflection and dialogue with actual Catholics to realise that for a long while I'd been an atheist while still holding strong religious prejudices against Catholicism. I was, if you like, a Protestant- Atheist.

Liberals aren't being anti-Catholic. Here's my timeline:

(1) Affordable Care Act passed
(2) Conservatives not it's unconstitutional due to forcing people to purchase something
(3) Most people don't care; it's not a sexy issue
(4) Catholic Church realizes it has to pay for contraceptives as part of this plan and criticizes.
(5) President Obama provides an exception for the Catholic Church employers.
(6) Conservatives, most of whom are not Catholic and are not sympathetic to the Catholic Church, take up this cause of violation of freedom of religion even though the issue is a non-issue.
(7) Liberals, taking advantage of the situation, bring up the womens' rights issue in response to (6), which is also a non-issue because women can still get contraceptives except from the Catholic Church (and, I might add, the other 200 or so entities that the president exempted from the Affordable Care Act).

Related aside - I've found that the predigiouses found in the UK against Catholics are similar in the U.S., although maybe not as bad.

You're missing an entire facet to your argument: religious organizations, schools, etc. that are forced to pay for contraceptives. The churches themselves may be exempt from the requirements, but the other organizations aren't, even if they also follow the same religious tenants. That's still a violation of religious freedom.

Hmm... I can't think of any Catholic schools or hospitals that aren't run by the Catholic Church. Is there something specific you're thinking about here?

he means that if you a catholic ran an insurance company freedom of religion would be violated as you would have to provide contraceptives.

I don't think that's what he means, but that's interesting. I wonder how that would jive.

[Night Strike]

Does the Catholic Church outright run all of these organizations? Or do the organizations just align themselves with the Church and their teachings? Either way, the administration only exempts the churches themselves and not the other organizations they may be involved in. These organizations are already established as non-profit, religious entities through 501(c)(3) filings, so why is the government interfering with the way the organizations are run? That's a blatant violation of the first amendment, and it's a violation of the "separation of church and state" that liberals always attack conservatives for. Yet it's ok for the government to violate it but not for religious individuals to affect the government. Hypocrisy 101 from the left.

[GreecePwns]

So, in essence, an insurance company can avoid a requirement to cover contraceptives as long as its executives said that covering them went against their religious beliefs? Is that why we can take out of BVP's post?

[Night Strike]

So, in essence, an insurance company can avoid a requirement to cover contraceptives as long as its executives said that covering them went against their religious beliefs? Is that why we can take out of BVP's post?

The government shouldn't be in the practice of mandating any requirements. That's what the free market is for.

But the US already has mechanisms in place that formally recognize non-profit, religious organizations. The government cannot then come in and dictate the religious tenants that those organizations follow. If the organization doesn't believe in contraceptives, then the government cannot force their provision. The whole reason they're classified as non-profit, religious organizations is so the government can't interfere with their beliefs. Yet that is exactly what the government is unconstitutionally doing.