Mufasa and Gambit

This deserves a thread of it’s own. I want you two to step up and produce the language exempting these religious associations from the mandate. Or, admit you’re carrying Obama’s water for him as he dictates, above the longstanding religious conscience of a Church, adherence to some novel right he oh-so-conveniently discovered.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, does Obama’s doctrinal overriding of the Catholic Church, for example, trouble you as much as Santorum simply speaking about sexual attitudes, the health of the family, and the connection to long term prosperity?[/quote]

This REALLY needs to stop…really.

How is the President going to “overide” Church Doctrine exactly?

Are he and Joe going to be at the Pharmacy “forcing” Catholics to buy Birth Control?

Do you think that for ONE INSTANT that he is going to have a Catholic Institution prosecuted that doesn’t sell and/or offer Birth Control?

I think that this is all “Pseudo-Persecution” wrapped in demogoguery.

That’s what I think.

Mufasa[/quote]

I think you are right Muf, once again. [/quote]

Then you’re wrong, also. Share the exempting language, otherwise. You can’t, because there is none? Oh, well, then they’re bound by the force of law to offend their doctrinal beliefs. Waiting on that exempting language. And waiting…and waiting…and waiting…[/quote]

Wow. I don’t recall being “called out” before. I suppose I should thank you. I’ve got a busy day now, so I apologize that I can’t answer in a longer fashion now.

But, since you started the thread, why don’t you take the lead?

[quote]I want you two to step up and produce the language exempting these religious associations from the mandate.[/quote] Go ahead and “produce the language” yourself. We can read it together and you can tell me why you don’t like it.

Have a nice day; I’ll try to check this thread when I get home tonight or tomorrow before work.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Wow. I don’t recall being “called out” before. I suppose I should thank you. I’ve got a busy day now, so I apologize that I can’t answer in a longer fashion now.

But, since you started the thread, why don’t you take the lead?

[quote]I want you two to step up and produce the language exempting these religious associations from the mandate.[/quote] Go ahead and “produce the language” yourself. We can read it together and you can tell me why you don’t like it.

Have a nice day; I’ll try to check this thread when I get home tonight or tomorrow before work.

[/quote]

Really? Really? You couldn’t post a section exempting Religious institutions? You two smug asses want to make light of the fact that Catholic institutions, for example, are wrapped up lawsuits in order to protect their conscience from wannabe Pope-in-Chief Obama’s brand new discovered ‘right?’

Link the exemption…

So Gambit comes in here and asks me to “produce the language.” Why? Nobody–not the WH, not Congress, not the media, not pundits left or right–has claimed there is an exemption for these religious institutions. The public argument has been over SHOULD there be an exemption. That is, nobody but Mufasa and you. So post the section. We don’t need an entire bill. As this has been a hot topic, you should be able to quickly find a news blurb containing this exemption.

Back up your smug little ‘pseudo-persecution’ bull crap, the both of you. Stop slinking around these forums, running off whenever the heat gets turned up. Put up or shut up, for once

When Tim or TC kick me off this site is when I’ll stop posting.

I’m also not going through something that most likely most Bishops or Cardinals haven’t done; which is to go through 2000 plus pages of the PPAA to prove some point to some pissed-off guy on the Internet.

My points were NOT some wording; but the PRACTICAL “enforcement” of something that it appears that many Catholics appear to want; which is the availability of birth control within their insurance Plans.

  1. Should the government make it a requirement, if it goes against the religious tenets of an institution? NO

  2. If it is STILL mandated…THEN what? (AND THESE ARE MY POINTS): It most likely wouldn’t get past lower courts, much less the Supreme Court; and how, exactly would it even be enforced?

a) Would Catholics be fined and jailed for not providing the services? NO
b) Would Parishes and Hospitals be shut down? NO
c) Would the Feds come in and “force” BC pills and devices onto Catholic Pharmacies? NO
d) Would Bishops and Cardinals be jailed for not providing services? NO
e) Would Catholics be harassed by “Birth Control Squads” and forced to follow the dictates of the “Supreme Leader”? NO…NO…NO!

What exactly is supposed to happen?

The absurdity of making this an issue goes on and on and on.

Catholics have been through a lot over the last few years, and survived what appear to be some VERY extreme test of Faith, most of which have been internal.

I’m supposed to believe that an almost non-enforceable “mandate” with something that NO ONE is going to be forced to provide is all of a sudden shaking the very foundations of the Faith?

So…in my opinion, it still amounts to pseudo-persecution and demagoguery on the part of a lot of political hacks in order to score political points against an unpopular President.

The Truly Faithful always have, and always will, survive and move on.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I’m also not going through something that most likely most Bishops or Cardinals haven’t done; which is to go through 2000 plus pages of the PPAA to prove some point to some pissed-off guy on the Internet.[/quote]

Link ONE blurb, out of the news, showing an exemption. There isn’t even a discussion about the existence of an exemption! Nobody, not even the White House says there is! If the damn White House isn’t even saying there’s an exemption, what the heck are you trying to argue? This is absolutely unbelievable. Again, the argument isn’t about the unclear language of an exemption. There isn’t one! The President doesn’t claim there is one…

[quote]My points were NOT some wording; but the PRACTICAL “enforcement” of something that it appears that many Catholics appear to want; which is the availability of birth control within their insurance Plans.

  1. Should the government make it a requirement, if it goes against the religious tenets of an institution? NO[/quote]

But they are…That isn’t in dispute. The argument, for both sides, was ‘should’ it have been done. I mean, what the heck, man?

You’re a fraud. You come here talking about extremists, yet you poo-poo one of the most extreme power grabs because you presume the Supreme Court isn’t as out of their mind as Obama. You save your smugness for those who are facing an unprecedented national encroachment on religious liberties, having nothing to say about the jackass who launched this crap from the white house. Political points against him? You just described exactly why he deserves every barb directed his way. Your own argument depends on the Supreme Court to protect fundamental religious liberties from an idiot. And not, because of Obama’s own initiative.

And still waiting on a link to the exemption.

I asked this in another thread a few weeks ago but I don’t think it was ever answered.

How much extra does insurance cost with contraceptives included as opposed to having them not part of the coverage?

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I asked this in another thread a few weeks ago but I don’t think it was ever answered.

How much extra does insurance cost with contraceptives included as opposed to having them not part of the coverage?[/quote]

What does it matter? That is not the issue.

You figured me out, Sloth.

I AM a fraud and a smug idiot.

The President is a Socialist Anti-Semitic, anti-religion, Kenyan-Born fraud who is taking this Country, and the Church, to it’s very ruin.

And you gave me the challenge to “put-up or shut-up”…

So I’ll shut up.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m a fraud and a smug idiot.

The President is a Socialist Anti-Semitic, anti-religion, Kenyan-Born fraud who is taking this Country, and the Church, to it’s very ruin.

And you gave me the challenge to “put-up or shut-up”…

So I’ll shut up.

Mufasa[/quote]

Yes, you will shut up. You’ll shut up without having admitted there was no exemption for these institutions. And, without directing the same level of smugness for the President, as you did against the institutions who already having to file lawsuits to protect themselves from this President.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Mufasa[/quote]

Yes, you will shut up. [/quote]

YEAH MUFASA!

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Mufasa[/quote]

Yes, you will shut up. [/quote]

YEAH MUFASA![/quote]

Hey, he decided he couldn’t put up, so what was left to him? To keep blabbing away without confronting his smartass attitude towards a group of people who are now forced into court in order to protect themselves from an idiot in the WH? Was he going to turn around and blast Obama over this? Was he going to be smug and dismissive towards him? Don’t hold your breath.

Here’s what I don’t get with this whole blunt amendment thingy.

Your employer can now deny you certain types of medical coverage based on their moral objections correct?

Why is it that the religious opinions of the owners of the corporations trumps the opinions of the employees? Aren’t their religious freedoms being encroached upon?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So Gambit comes in here and asks me to “produce the language.” Why? Nobody–not the WH, not Congress, not the media, not pundits left or right–has claimed there is an exemption for these religious institutions. The public argument has been over SHOULD there be an exemption. That is, nobody but Mufasa and you. So post the section. We don’t need an entire bill. As this has been a hot topic, you should be able to quickly find a news blurb containing this exemption.

Back up your smug little ‘pseudo-persecution’ bull crap, the both of you. Stop slinking around these forums, running off whenever the heat gets turned up. Put up or shut up, for once[/quote]

You are normally civil. For that, I’ll respond a bit. But if you don’t turn off the “froth,” I’m not going to respond. Just a heads up.

Believe it or not, posting something on Sunday evening and then expecting an immediate response is silly at best. I told you I would be back now (it’s 9:00pm here) or tomorrow before work. What more would you like?

In short: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Healthcare+exemptions+for+religious+institutions

A little longer (perhaps 2 minutes of reading):

[i]Obama Birth Control: Religious Groups Exempted From Contraception Rule

(RNS) Facing growing furor from religious groups, President Obama on Friday (Feb. 10) unveiled an “accommodation” in which health insurance companies, rather than religious institutions, will provide employees with contraception coverage.

The revised approach effectively removes all faith-based organizations – not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities – from covering employees’ contraception costs.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which led the charge against the contraception mandate, said on Friday that it would study the revised rule.

“While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

"We hope to work with the administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.
[/i] Obama Birth Control: Religious Groups Exempted From Contraception Rule | HuffPost Religion

That was from Feb. 11th. If something has changed with the bishops “working with” the administration, please post it (without the froth) and I’ll respond (FYI AT BEST it will be Tuesday morning before work. If you haven’t noticed, I’m not around as much as I used to be).

If you want to look through the language of the bill, YOU are obliged to find it and post it. I am not a lawyer, nor are you, so I’m not sure of what you hope to gain from doing so, but I will give it a go if you insist. That said, I have limited time, so it will be a slower conversation. If that is offensive to you… too bad.

You have been very cordial in the past, despite disagreements. If you are too attached to “speak nicely” that’s fine, but this sort of “heat” I can do without. If I’m wrong, show me.

Thanks again for the “call out.”

You all act like children.

CS

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

You are normally civil. For that, I’ll respond a bit. But if you don’t turn off the “froth,” I’m not going to respond. Just a heads up. [/quote]

Then don’t respond. You smug little fools showed up to dismiss what Catholic instituions are facing as 'pseudo-persecution." At least you agreed to those word. Don’t ask for civility without having given it, first.

[quote][i]Obama Birth Control: Religious Groups Exempted From Contraception Rule

(RNS) Facing growing furor from religious groups, President Obama on Friday (Feb. 10) unveiled an “accommodation” in which health insurance companies, rather than religious institutions, will provide employees with contraception coverage.

The revised approach effectively removes all faith-based organizations – not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities – from covering employees’ contraception costs.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which led the charge against the contraception mandate, said on Friday that it would study the revised rule.

“While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

"We hope to work with the administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.
[/i] Obama Birth Control: Religious Groups Exempted From Contraception Rule | HuffPost Religion

That was from Feb. 11th. If something has changed…[/quote]

Yeah, they had a chance to review it…

Catch up with the news before being a smartass.

So the church does not want its employees to get insurance on their own, outside of work?

http://blog.archny.org/?p=2291