|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on May 28, 2012 6:43:57 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 28, 2012 8:43:59 GMT -5
The expected NY Times entry into the discussion, on the editorial page, not on the news page, including the reference to contraceptives while ignoring abortion-inducing pills. Also, for those who are preaching what "the pill" does, it does not ensure prevention of ovulation 100% so it is also aborfacient. And, yes, my definition of a human being is at fertilization where the DNA of the person is firmly established.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 28, 2012 9:04:53 GMT -5
The expected NY Times entry into the discussion, on the editorial page, not on the news page, including the reference to contraceptives while ignoring abortion-inducing pills. Also, for those who are preaching what "the pill" does, it does not ensure prevention of ovulation 100% so it is also aborfacient. And, yes, my definition of a human being is at fertilization where the DNA of the person is firmly established. My definition of cake is a bowl of well-mixed flower, sugar, and eggs.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 28, 2012 10:05:56 GMT -5
The expected NY Times entry into the discussion, on the editorial page, not on the news page, including the reference to contraceptives while ignoring abortion-inducing pills. Also, for those who are preaching what "the pill" does, it does not ensure prevention of ovulation 100% so it is also aborfacient. And, yes, my definition of a human being is at fertilization where the DNA of the person is firmly established. My definition of cake is a bowl of well-mixed flower, sugar, and eggs. Baked goods. Human life. Same thing.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 28, 2012 13:16:32 GMT -5
I realize NYTimes has a bias on the issue, but that is not a well-argued editorial. It doesn't just disagree with the bishops, it dismisses any notion that their arguments could have even some merit. The last line struck me as petty: "The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone." I'm inclined to the view (maybe idiosyncratic, but common in my social circle) that the NYTimes doesn't get religion. That last line, imo, reflects that blindspot.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 28, 2012 13:53:20 GMT -5
If the lawsuit is successful I just see it sadly as another step towards irrelevance for modern Catholicism.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 28, 2012 18:29:58 GMT -5
If the lawsuit is successful I just see it sadly as another step towards irrelevance for modern Catholicism. So you think it is okay for the federal government to force a religious school or hospital to do something that is against their consciouses?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 28, 2012 18:41:59 GMT -5
I'm inclined to the view (maybe idiosyncratic, but common in my social circle) that the NYTimes doesn't get religion. That last line, imo, reflects that blindspot. Anti-Catholicism is an acceptable bias at the Times and has been for a while. I'm reminded of the line from then-retiring public editor Daniel Okrent when he wrote that his newspaper treats four groups "as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide: devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, and Texans." But he also notes a continuing flaw in the Times mindset, then and now: "Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning." www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on May 28, 2012 19:18:27 GMT -5
Ed -- It is well established in this country that people and organizations can be forced to do things that violate their religious beliefs. I think it was Scalia's opinion in Smith that established that law, neutrally applied, can violate someone's religion without implicating the first amendment. Just imagine the implications of any person or organization being able to opt out of any law on religious grounds.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 29, 2012 8:26:27 GMT -5
Ed -- It is well established in this country that people and organizations can be forced to do things that violate their religious beliefs. I think it was Scalia's opinion in Smith that established that law, neutrally applied, can violate someone's religion without implicating the first amendment. Just imagine the implications of any person or organization being able to opt out of any law on religious grounds. I wasn't seeking a legal opinion but a personal opinion. I asked quickplay if he personally thought it okay for the federal government to force someone to violate their conscience. Let me be more specific. Does he (or you) personally believe the federal government should have the right to force me (or a Catholic institution) to fund what I consider to be the taking of an innocent human life?
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on May 29, 2012 8:53:38 GMT -5
Yes, in my personal opinion, the federal government should have this right. To give you another example, I'll note that many, many Americans (including Catholics) have paid taxes to support wars they believed to be unjust and immoral, and that took innocent human life. Here too, I think the state should have the right to compel this support.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on May 29, 2012 8:55:18 GMT -5
Ed -- It is well established in this country that people and organizations can be forced to do things that violate their religious beliefs. I think it was Scalia's opinion in Smith that established that law, neutrally applied, can violate someone's religion without implicating the first amendment. Just imagine the implications of any person or organization being able to opt out of any law on religious grounds. I wasn't seeking a legal opinion but a personal opinion. I asked quickplay if he personally thought it okay for the federal government to force someone to violate their conscience. Let me be more specific. Does he (or you) personally believe the federal government should have the right to force me (or a Catholic institution) to fund what I consider to be the taking of an innocent human life? It's a good question, but I don't think it's that black and white. You see it as a taking of human life, but I don't see early abortions (or especially contraception) that way. The federal governent often forces people to violate their consciences. There are many things I vehemently disagree with, often to the point of violating my conscience. To you, this is one of those situations where it rises to a certain level that it does not rise to for me. But I completely understand where you're coming from. I think it's a matter of picking and choosing what rises to the level of you feeling the need to really fight it, which is a personal choice. But we have so many different people with different opinions and consciences that it becomes difficult to have general rules. To follow up with a different example using government forcing private companies, look at the Civil Rights Act in the 60's, which forced private companies to violate their consciences by serving black people. I'm not comparing the morality of those companies with the morality of this situation at all, I believe they're completely unrelated. Just that the concept of the government doing this kind of thing isn't inherently wrong or unique.
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on May 29, 2012 9:24:13 GMT -5
Yes, in my personal opinion, the federal government should have this right. To give you another example, I'll note that many, many Americans (including Catholics) have paid taxes to support wars they believed to be unjust and immoral, and that took innocent human life. Here too, I think the state should have the right to compel this support. Intersting. I hadn't thought about it that way. What about the draft? The federal government can compel conscription into the military and put your finger on the trigger, not just use your tax money to support a war. Not sure what I think about that. Very murky waters.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 29, 2012 10:39:17 GMT -5
Yes, in my personal opinion, the federal government should have this right. To give you another example, I'll note that many, many Americans (including Catholics) have paid taxes to support wars they believed to be unjust and immoral, and that took innocent human life. Here too, I think the state should have the right to compel this support. Intersting. I hadn't thought about it that way. What about the draft? The federal government can compel conscription into the military and put your finger on the trigger, not just use your tax money to support a war. Not sure what I think about that. Very murky waters. Federal government gives you an out: conscientious objection.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 29, 2012 12:01:16 GMT -5
People pay direct taxes under threat of seizure of property or imprisonment. I dont see how that means they are making a moral choice regarding what those funds go to. They pay because they are forced to. The money may "support" the war, but they are not supporting it when they pay.
Just because the government DOES do this doesnt mean it is RIGHT for them to do.
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on May 30, 2012 10:00:33 GMT -5
Intersting. I hadn't thought about it that way. What about the draft? The federal government can compel conscription into the military and put your finger on the trigger, not just use your tax money to support a war. Not sure what I think about that. Very murky waters. Federal government gives you an out: conscientious objection. So, how is the HHS exemption of religious organizations unlike the selective service conscientious objector? It seems that the definition of what constitutes a religious organization in PPACA is too narrow for those opposed to it, so should organizations be able to petition for the exemption if they are around the edges like individuals with selective service? I believe the definition in PPACA requires that it has as its purpose the inculcation of religious values, primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets, primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets, and is an IRS nonprofit. There is no blanket selective service exemption for Quakers (for example) and you can't register as a conscientious objector. The burden of proof is on the objector and has to be granted by the govt after a written statement and an interview after you get drafted.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Jun 6, 2012 10:54:45 GMT -5
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Sept 24, 2012 18:08:07 GMT -5
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 491
|
Post by blueeagle on Sept 24, 2012 22:09:17 GMT -5
Some of the comments against Obama's invitation to the Al Smith dinner are truly astounding. I can't say that I am surprised given the audience. A holier than thou attitude coupled with a fire and brimstone mindset will result in extreme insights.
It saddens me when Catholics identify themselves as "us" as opposed to "we."
Obama as anti-christ? Whoa! Someone has been inhaling too much of the frankincense.
Good for Dolan.
|
|