I’m leaning that way minus the instance of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger. I just don’t completely understand the arguments as I don’t have a science background.[/quote]
I’m sincerely glad to hear this. You might just end up on my ‘atheists to keep around’ list, if my theocratic takeover of the Americas ever gets off the ground!
[/quote]
Please, you are so full of shit. It has to be all your way or no way. I’ve tried numerous times to push the idea that access and knowledge of contraception would decrease abortion rates and most of you ignored it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
How would you make me buy McDonalds? A suggestion that I should, isn’t making. So, how would you?
A closer analogy would be something like making a muslim or orthodox jew buy a McDonalds sausage biscuit, maybe?[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So I’m thinking we may be able to come to some sort of understanding.
Would it be fair to say there is a limit to how far religious freedoms should extend?*
Would you guys be in favour of banning the specific method of circumcision (where the mouth is used) as presented in the article?
*Answering yes to this question does not mean you have to change your position on the Catholic contraception matter.[/quote]
I would like a clarification of the practice, certainly. What I mean is I’d want some sort of proof that it’s a real religious practice and not some weirdo getting freaky with a kid.
I do agree their is a line, for instance, female circumcision is just flat cruel. Where as male circumcision can actually server a practical purpose in terms of hygiene.[/quote]
Practical purpose my balls, learn to wash your dick.
If I can climax from foreskin stimulation alone, I can safely say you’re doing something very similar to female circumcision.
There are doctors who argue that male circumcision is harmfull,
[/quote]
They’re called “quacks.”
[quote]
I for one are against circumcision of children…[/quote]
But you don’t explain why. You say say some doctors say it’s harmful and that you’re just throwing that out there and that you hope to see circumcision abolished wherever possible in your country…but don’t say why.
BTW, some doctors says liberalism is a mental disorder:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
So if I forced you to pay for a child prostitution ring, would you be cool with it as long as you didn’t use it?[/quote]
Except making a church provide coverage for contraception harms no one.[/quote]
The tyranny of the progressive atheist, right here on display.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
How would you make me buy McDonalds? A suggestion that I should, isn’t making. So, how would you?
A closer analogy would be something like making a muslim or orthodox jew buy a McDonalds sausage biscuit, maybe?[/quote]
Same principle, they don’t have to eat the pork.[/quote]
Secondly, I will need further explanation as to how this is different than, say, paying your employees using the currency of a society that offers contraception.
[/quote]
No, you don’t. You don’t need any explanation at all. The fact that we now have to come and explain ourselves to you and Pope Obama, for merely the continuation of a completely peaceful, voluntary, associational arrangement–which fulfills our LONGSTANDING religious obligations–is the most damning evidence of all.
[/quote]
Perhaps poorly worded, but isn’t this the central theological point that you are complaining so much about? You started the thread; I thought you wanted to talk about it. [/quote]
Catholic moral teaching doesn’t permit it. Catholics institutions, if in communion with the Church, can not facilitate, provide, or make arrangements, for contraceptives, sterilization, or abortifacients. These institutions do pay their side of the coverage, make the contract, etc., by the way. And don’t float the provide ‘free’ accounting gimmick. You can disagree till the cows come home, but the moment you move against us, is the moment when you’re dictating our practices for us. Full exemption.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Further, bluntly, it is difficult for me care that an association which purposefully excludes women from the highest forms of leadership is so concerned about the evils (in their opinion) of a women’s health product.
[/quote]
You don’t have to care. You just don’t have to FORCE them to provide it. But this statement above, illustrates why going down this road is so damn dangerous.
I’ve said repeatedly on this forum, the right should never be embarrassed about fighting the cultural war. Don’t unilaterally disarm, at least. The other side is fighting it with a vengeance. They will pass this or that program to aid health, education, or whatever, only to turn around and attach mandates to them to further erode religious liberty, to punish conservative/orthodox thinking and practices, to control your associations, your businesses, your charities, your schools, to influence your children, and so on. Gambit’s statement says it all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit’s statement says it all. [/quote]
It certainly does. It’s all there - radical egalitarianism, contempt for the constitution, contempt for inalienable rights, contempt for the rights of individuals and private institutions, contempt for Catholicism/Christianity, contempt for our cultural norms and mores. But don’t ever suggest that Obama is a “radical” or a “socialist” or anything like that though because that’s crazy wingnut talk. The Church should do what Obama says and who cares anyway because they’re not post-modern and egalitarian enough anyway.
I’m leaning that way minus the instance of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger. I just don’t completely understand the arguments as I don’t have a science background.[/quote]
I’m sincerely glad to hear this. You might just end up on my ‘atheists to keep around’ list, if my theocratic takeover of the Americas ever gets off the ground!
[/quote]
I feel the same way. You are a pretty reasonable guy Raj. I actually feel like you’ve become more reasonable recently. I take back my earlier comments suggesting disingenuousness on your part.
As for your comment, you don’t need but the simplest inkling of understanding of science. Here it is: Is it a human life at conception? Yes or no? Repeat this question for any time between conception and birth and see if you can come up with an answer that is anything other than yes.
As I said elsewhere, I will not continue this semi-off-topic line of thought any further here, but would be happy to do so in a related thread if you or anyone else sees it fit.[/quote]
That is what the whole controversy is about in the first place, the definition of when it becomes a human varies depending on how you look at it.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. Start a thread if you want to continue.
Catholic moral teaching doesn’t permit it. Catholics institutions, if in communion with the Church, can not facilitate, provide, or make arrangements, for contraceptives, sterilization, or abortifacients. These institutions do pay their side of the coverage, make the contract, etc., by the way. And don’t float the provide ‘free’ accounting gimmick. You can disagree till the cows come home, but the moment you move against us, is the moment when you’re dictating our practices for us. Full exemption.
[/quote]
But they do that now. My wife works for a catholic high school, and is also the accompanist for evening mass at our church. My daughter is on the pill to regulate her periods and to reduce acne outbreaks. My wife’s salary from her church jobs helps to pay for that prescription.
So the church pays my wife, and my wife uses that money to buy contraceptives. How is this morally or ethically different from the church paying an insurance company and the insurance company using that money to pay for the same prescription? The church is not buying contraceptives in either case. The church is providing a benefit to an employee and the employee is choosing to use the benefit as she sees fit.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So I’m thinking we may be able to come to some sort of understanding.
Would it be fair to say there is a limit to how far religious freedoms should extend?*
Would you guys be in favour of banning the specific method of circumcision (where the mouth is used) as presented in the article?
*Answering yes to this question does not mean you have to change your position on the Catholic contraception matter.[/quote]
I would like a clarification of the practice, certainly. What I mean is I’d want some sort of proof that it’s a real religious practice and not some weirdo getting freaky with a kid.
I do agree their is a line, for instance, female circumcision is just flat cruel. Where as male circumcision can actually server a practical purpose in terms of hygiene.[/quote]
There are doctors who argue that male circumcision is harmfull, just throwing that out there. I for one are against circumcision of children and hope to see( in my country atleast ) that circumcision are only legal for adults, except when it is medical reasons to circumcise a child( it happen for instance that the foreskin are thight on boys and this can be problematic for them, in those cases a medical circumcision can be needed, but as far as I know they try to cut as little as possible, so it isnt necesary the same type of circumcision that jewish and muslim men go trough ).
[/quote]
There are doctors who advocate drinking your own urine. I don’t care about that. Millions of men are circumcised everyday, it really is no big deal. Putting a mouth on it is a little creepy though.
Catholic moral teaching doesn’t permit it. Catholics institutions, if in communion with the Church, can not facilitate, provide, or make arrangements, for contraceptives, sterilization, or abortifacients. These institutions do pay their side of the coverage, make the contract, etc., by the way. And don’t float the provide ‘free’ accounting gimmick. You can disagree till the cows come home, but the moment you move against us, is the moment when you’re dictating our practices for us. Full exemption.
[/quote]
But they do that now. My wife works for a catholic high school, and is also the accompanist for evening mass at our church. My daughter is on the pill to regulate her periods and to reduce acne outbreaks. My wife’s salary from her church jobs helps to pay for that prescription.
So the church pays my wife, and my wife uses that money to buy contraceptives. How is this morally or ethically different from the church paying an insurance company and the insurance company using that money to pay for the same prescription? The church is not buying contraceptives in either case. The church is providing a benefit to an employee and the employee is choosing to use the benefit as she sees fit.[/quote]
And theoretically they could pay your wife in coconuts, and she could trade them for contraceptives. Theoretically. Insurance, the institution has to secure and fund the contract which provides the service. In principle, you might as well make each institution run an abortion clinic. As long as use of the clinic by it’s members and employees was optional, it wouldn’t be treading upon their free exercise of religion…
Furthermore, many if not most of these institutions are self-insured.
Even if you still can’t see the difference, that’s not our problem. The 1st amendment has protected our free exercise (not simply worship), until Pope Obama realized that all along it meant something different.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hrmm… So where does the church stand on the use of birth control pills to alleviate acne and regulate periods?[/quote]
The acne would have to be severe, but it would be allowed… The drugs would be allowed if medically necessary, but they still won’t pay for them. I know this from experience.
People underestimate the detrimental health effects of wildly irregular periods. There is a hematological danger with erratic menstrual cycles.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I think Sloth’s avatar is creepy. What the hell is going on there anyway?[/quote]
Saturn devouring his Son. It’s my statement about modern Western morality, demographics, and saddling infants born today with debt they have no hope of repaying.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
So if I forced you to pay for a child prostitution ring, would you be cool with it as long as you didn’t use it?[/quote]
Except making a church provide coverage for contraception harms no one.[/quote]
Ahh, that’s a slippery slope… BC can cause lots of health issues, harm can and is done by them. So that’s not a valid point.
It’s not a matter of liking it, it’s a matter of forcing an institution, or citizen for that matter, to pay for something it stands against.
BC is not medically necessary. Neither is a boob job, but one is covered the other is not.
If your teeth turn black, but still work, you get to pay for the dentist.
If something isn’t medically necessary and your institution is against it, then why should it have to pay it’s money for it?
No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.[/quote]
That is absurd - an institution now faces a penalty for adhering to its beliefs (no pork), whether the kids eat it or not. Of course it is a kind of persecution. Be serious.