U.S. govt religious persecution alive and well!

[neo-x]

Yeah I get your point. I still think your constitution is very fair and I pray you guys never reach that point.

[Jac3510]

The Constitution certainly is fair. It's certain administrations that are not.

My concern here isn't that any of the Little Sisters are going to be burned alive. Nothing close to it. But a very real if not likely danger is that organizations like the Little Sisters will be forbidden by the government from public ministry. Some states have already shut down a range of Christian orphanages. It is literally the case that Christians of a certain type cannot run an orphanage in some states due to their refusal to place children with homosexual couples. They are forced to choose between their faith and their ministry.

There are other things coming down the pipeline, soon, too. The thing to worry about here isn't physical violence. It's the criminalization of public ministry (by which I am not referring simply to proclaiming the gospel but more specifically to charitable work such as caring for the poor or providing services such as education and healthcare).

[EssentialSacrifice]

There are other things coming down the pipeline, soon, too. The thing to worry about here isn't physical violence. It's the criminalization of public ministry (by which I am not referring simply to proclaiming the gospel but more specifically to charitable work such as caring for the poor or providing services such as education and healthcare).

does anyone else find it interesting that the "party" of compassion that currently holds sway in our gov't is also the party that by it's very policies screws the very people they profess to love and help ?

The gov't will not pick up the ball and run with nearly any of the charitable things offered by people and groups like the Little Sisters, and therefore the ones they currently help will be without help after the gov't strains to make it's point against the religious freedoms we (the Little Sister's) hope to enjoy.

We hope to enjoy... I never would have thought, right up to now, that these words may be so seriously uttered. Hope, as compared to what was secure religious freedoms.

[melanie]

ES, I do think it would be much better for employers to be left out of this.
But as I understand it, around 50% of the U.S. already had this mandate in place, it has just been rolled out nationally. It is the way the U.S. as I understand it has run their healthcare, through employers. The government has added mandatory contraception so the insurance companies that mandate all other healthcare are naturally going to the department that deals with it. Because health insurance is offered through employees in the US, this situation arises. Should it be run this way, no I don't think so, but that is how it is.

I absolutely think religious bodies should be exempt. Initially it was just churches that were exempt and understandably the Catholic run schools, hospitals, charities were upset and fought it. As did other religious groups. As they should have. It was amended so that all religious based employers would be exempt. So that their insurance company would play no part in it.
Whilst I think this exemption should have been included across the board in the first place and I believe it is not the best system for healthcare to be run, I don't think that this entire initiative was put in place to 'persecute' christians, catholic or otherwise. I think this is quite a stretch. It's sloppy handling yes, but not a plot to undermine the 'Church'. Now the 'church' may disagree with the policy but it was put in place for the benefit of the people, in particular women. It is a healthcare issue and one that by looking at the polls, majority of Americans agree with, as do a high percentage of Catholics.

ES as far as this online world goes, I think you know me fairly well. I was never trying to assume how Catholics should define their faith. I was looking at it from more the legality side of things. And I am not alone in thinking the way I do. The Catholic position by far and large after the courts ruled a while back that they would be exempt were happy with the decision. The class action law suit was filed by a number of employers and Archdioceses.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... s-mandate/

In his article Archbishop Coakley said 'We’re simply seeking the same exemption for Catholic employers who have religious objections to the unjust requirements of the mandate'.
The original premise of the lawsuit was to grant Catholic employers the same exemption that was already in place for churches. They won. They obtained the exemptions, as they should have.

Majority of Catholic employers and Archdiocese were then happy obviously to gain the exemption and move on.
In doing so demonstrated that they believed that this exemption no longer placed their faith in violation. The fact that I also believe this to be true from an outsiders perspective shouldn't be viewed as so outrageous when it is the held belief by these Catholic employers and Archdiocese. Noting also that majority have already obtained the exemption. So clearly for many Catholics the exemptions do not violate their faith.
Of course the little sisters disagree, I do see where they are coming from but I would have made the same decision as that judge based on the legality of the case.
My question is, if it comes down to them 'knowing' that the exemption still places their employees in a position to obtain the drug, then from a legal, realistic perspective under the mandate already in place, what is the answer?. I don't mean it should never have happened in the first place, because that is not an answer the magistrate could have dealt with.
What does an exemption to the exemption legally, realistically entail?
As it stands their insurer will have no part of it. Once they have the exemption they have wiped their hands clean of any personal involvement the only thing standing in the way is that they still 'know' they can obtain it elsewhere.
Now unfortunately that ship has sailed. The knowledge is there. As far as I see it, the only way from legally making sure that this 'knowledge' doesn't impede on their faith is to make it illegal for their employees to obtain contraception from their insurer or any insurer. As anyone would appreciate you just can't do that.
That is why I agree with the decision made by the court.
It is logically, legally sound.
Now as I stated I don't think any employer should have been in that position in the first place, but you have to deal with it as a 'not what should have been' but the facts that are relevant now, in this circumstance.

[EssentialSacrifice]

ES as far as this online world goes, I think you know me fairly well. I was never trying to assume how Catholics should define their faith.

You know I know this, not another word needs said...

be back with response to the rest later ...

[edwardmurphy]

Majority of Catholic employers and Archdiocese were then happy obviously to gain the exemption and move on. In doing so demonstrated that they believed that this exemption no longer placed their faith in violation. The fact that I also believe this to be true from an outsiders perspective shouldn't be viewed as so outrageous when it is the held belief by these Catholic employers and Archdiocese. Noting also that majority have already obtained the exemption. So clearly for many Catholics the exemptions do not violate their faith.

Of course the little sisters disagree, I do see where they are coming from but I would have made the same decision as that judge based on the legality of the case.

My question is, if it comes down to them 'knowing' that the exemption still places their employees in a position to obtain the drug, then from a legal, realistic perspective under the mandate already in place, what is the answer?. I don't mean it should never have happened in the first place, because that is not an answer the magistrate could have dealt with.

What does an exemption to the exemption legally, realistically entail?

As it stands their insurer will have no part of it. Once they have the exemption they have wiped their hands clean of any personal involvement the only thing standing in the way is that they still 'know' they can obtain it elsewhere.

Now unfortunately that ship has sailed. The knowledge is there. As far as I see it, the only way from legally making sure that this 'knowledge' doesn't impede on their faith is to make it illegal for their employees to obtain contraception from their insurer or any insurer. As anyone would appreciate you just can't do that.

That is why I agree with the decision made by the court.
It is logically, legally sound.

Now as I stated I don't think any employer should have been in that position in the first place, but you have to deal with it as a 'not what should have been' but the facts that are relevant now, in this circumstance.

Well said. This is pretty much what I was thinking, but you did a better job of putting it into words than I could have.

You were also a good deal more diplomatic than I could have managed. I'm getting tired of the persecution claim, particularly when it's tied to things like other groups finally getting access to the rights that straight Christians have enjoyed more or less continuously since Constantine's conversion. There are lots of groups that don't get everything they want, but it seems to me that conservative Christians are screaming the loudest and for the least cause.

[Kurieuo]

Ed, please stop persecuting all us Christians here!
Err, maybe that's something I should joke about.

[edwardmurphy]

Ed, please stop persecuting all us Christians here!
Err, maybe that's something I should joke about.

Sorry, can't do it. I was sent here by a gigantic, terrifying, ultra-secret, completely real, atheist cabal to infiltrate your forum and keep you distracted. While you're busy worrying about me my conspirators are making their move. I can't go into details about our dastardly plan, but you'll know it when you see it.

Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[FlawedIntellect]

I'm getting tired of the persecution claim, particularly when it's tied to things like other groups finally getting access to the rights that straight Christians have enjoyed more or less continuously since Constantine's conversion. There are lots of groups that don't get everything they want, but it seems to me that conservative Christians are screaming the loudest and for the least cause.

Funny you say that, because the SJW movement, with its Radical Feminism, its Pro-LGBTQAlphabetSoup, and its blatant Racism against white people, tends to put its ears in its fingers and whine and complain about the "cis hetero white male patriarchy" all the dang time, crying "racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, rape culture", and a bunch of other bunk claims.
Funny thing is, even atheists are sick of this nonsense. Especially the ones who hold to a more egalitarian viewpoint. They're not necessarily anti-LGBTQAlphabetSoup, but they still understand that it's wrong for these people to forcibly shut down small businesses of people who disagree with their views, and that it's wrong for these people to force their ideas on others.

I admit, sometimes Christians tend to exaggerate in crying persecution, though that doesn't mean that persecution doesn't happen. Also, just because a few Christians have a persecution complex doesn't mean that there aren't blatant unconstitutional anti-religious pushes.

What, you didn't hear about prayer being banned from schools? Even at the flagpole? Even in the cafeteria? You haven't heard about lawsuits being filed over this? Why is it that Muslim students are being permitted to carry knives into schools for religious purposes, yet Christians are told not to pray in school? (Yes, this actually happens. >_>) You can't discriminate against one religion and give special privileges to another. It's unconstitutional. If someone's offended by me praying, that's their problem. The constitution doesn't give anyone the "right to not be offended." It does, however, give people the right to "freedom of speech". To say that "freedom of speech doesn't protect being offensive" is ultimately to say that "freedom of speech doesn't protect freedom of speech" or "freedom of speech doesn't really mean freedom of speech." Offense can only be taken, not given, and that's what people don't understand. If an idea is bad and faulty, show it with reason, and not with emotion. Racism isn't wrong because it's racism. Racism is wrong because it devalues a fellow human being.

What's with the "other groups finally getting rights that straight Christians have enjoyed" nonsense? Marriage has historically been recognized universally by all cultures for socio-economic purposes, derived from understanding inherent natural truths. There are males, there are females, it takes a male and a female to reproduce, and people die. There's also a commonly held belief that people own property. So, this creates a question: Given that people own property, what happens to their property when they die? Who takes ownership over it? Marriage was an answer to this question. A man and a woman produce children, and the children inherit the property of their fathers. Marriage has always been about that. And with the inheritance of the previous generation's property, also comes the inheritance of the previous generation's responsibility.

Of course, things are vastly different these days, but the underlying principle still holds up. Family is still legally regarded as having rights to inherit property of a deceased relative, and even if the children don't grow up to work in the same occupation as their parents, they still inherit personal responsibility for their actions.

The only time marriage has ever been regarded differently is within the last handful of centuries, with a shift in how the marriage relationship comes about, and then after that, a shift in focus to where it's more about one's personal feelings rather than collaboration for each-others' best interests and for the best interests of the next generation.

Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

[RickD]

FI wrote:
Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

So, are you saying we should wait until the kids are grown and out of the house, and then get a divorce?

[FlawedIntellect]

FI wrote:
Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

So, are you saying we should wait until the kids are grown and out of the house, and then get a divorce?

No. Marriage is still a commitment, and divorcing after the kids have left the house is still a bad idea. After all, their kids, when they've become adults, are probably going to have kids of their own. And grandparents still participate in the process of raising children. So even after the kids have grown up, there's still grandkids to look after. The grandkids need to see that marriages can still last, from not just their parents, but from their grandparents as well. Same reason still applies.

[RickD]

FI wrote:
Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

So, are you saying we should wait until the kids are grown and out of the house, and then get a divorce?

No. Marriage is still a commitment, and divorcing after the kids have left the house is still a bad idea. After all, their kids, when they've become adults, are probably going to have kids of their own. And grandparents still participate in the process of raising children. So even after the kids have grown up, there's still grandkids to look after. The grandkids need to see that marriages can still last, from not just their parents, but from their grandparents as well. Same reason still applies.

But on the flip side, if the two parents get divorced, and then remarry, that effectively doubles the number of grandparents on that side of the family. Which in turn means more people to love the grandchildren. More love is good isn't it?

[FlawedIntellect]

FI wrote:
Why do marriages keep failing these days? Because people don't have their priorities lined up correctly. While yes, love is important in a marriage, and is a necessary part of it, love is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is raising a stable next generation. And that seems to have been entirely forgotten.

So, are you saying we should wait until the kids are grown and out of the house, and then get a divorce?

No. Marriage is still a commitment, and divorcing after the kids have left the house is still a bad idea. After all, their kids, when they've become adults, are probably going to have kids of their own. And grandparents still participate in the process of raising children. So even after the kids have grown up, there's still grandkids to look after. The grandkids need to see that marriages can still last, from not just their parents, but from their grandparents as well. Same reason still applies.

But on the flip side, if the two parents get divorced, and then remarry, that effectively doubles the number of grandparents on that side of the family. Which in turn means more people to love the grandchildren. More love is good isn't it?

What? That's not how it works! Are you joking?

[RickD]

You caught me!

[RickD]

With all this negative talk, I have a positive story to share. Last weekend I attended a 75th anniversary party. The happy couple was seated up front and the husband shared a very touching story about enduring love.

The man had been in and out of a coma for several months, and his wife had stayed by his bedside every single day. As she sat by him, he whispered, eyes full of tears, "You know what? You have been with me all through the bad times. When I got fired, you were there to support me. When my business failed, you were there. When I got shot, you were by my side. When we lost the house, you stayed right here. When my health started failing, you were still by my side. You know what?"

"What dear?" she asked gently, smiling as her heart began to fill with warmth.

”I think you're bad luck."