@Le Kangourou de Kataroo: There are many religious people who they do represent. People have a right to religion and a right to representation.
You may not like it, but taking away their right to debate and argue would be wrong. They aren't the ones making law, they're just putting the religious argument across. More tolerance is needed.
@Agumen: Maybe it's just me but if they want to hold on to their tax-exempt status, they should refrain from spouting off their opinion regarding political issues, period.
Otherwise, I'm sure this economy would benefit quite well from taxing those mother fuckers like every other business.
@Agumen: They are NOT just putting the religious argument across. They are essentially telling congresspeople that they either vote THEIR way or they will pull all support. They're not speaking in a political vacuum.
@Agumen: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in America. The Stupak amendment was practically written by Catholic Bishops.
I want my right to pick and choose what my tax dollars fund! I'm gonna start sticking notes to my returns saying that I'm totally cool with this funding abortions, but no wars please.
Ha, it's funny that the guy from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops wants "everybody covered and nobody deliberately killed." That statement encompasses both ends of the political spectrum all at once (liberals who want universal coverage, conservatives who are anti-choice), good luck achieving both of those goals simultaneously. Also, I assume by "everybody" he actually means US citizens, I strongly doubt that he wants undocumented workers covered.
@bluetrain84: Or women, really, when their lives are at risk due to pregnancy complications and they cannot depend on insurance to cover the procedure that will save their lives.
@bluetrain84: I'm really pro-choice, but honestly that sentiment is how I think TRUE christians should feel. Everyone should be taken care of and no one deliberately be killed. I can see why anti-choice people would feel this way.
Of course, I also believe this extends to wars and to the death penalty....
@bluetrain84: The Catholic Church actually supports the rights of immigrants, including undocumented workers. The Church supports immigration reform and some Catholic churches that have opened themselves up as safe havens to undocumented immigrants.
@Lymed: That's awesome and I totally support that. But being as we live in a country that theoretically separates Church and State, I don't want the Catholic Church being part of the discussion on healthcare.
@jemandtheholograms: I don't want the Catholic church involved in the discussion on healthcare either. However, they are actually a huge health care provider in this country. There are very large Catholic health systems that run hospitals and I think that is one reason they are getting so much attention talking about reform.
@Lymed: Fair point. They do have a lot of hospitals. I just wish that there was a way to separate the fact that they are providing health care as a religious institution and the religion (which I guess is sort of opposite of the point, but wishful thinking).
@Lymed: Oh, I didn't know that they had an official stand like that, thank you for pointing it out! I was just commenting that those two ideals are generally on opposite sides of the political spectrum rather than being considered together.
When I'm Head Cheese of the World I'm going to abolish religion in government. I don't know how yet but I'll figure it out after I figure out how to become Head Cheese.
When you become head cheese, just create a constitution that says religion can't influence policy. And put it in your constitution that when a policymaker allows religion to influence policy, he is to be F-I-R-E-D.
Perhaps if the Bishops called out all Catholic politicians for any legislation that leads to murder it wouldn't be so bad. But do they call out the politicians who support the death penalty? How about the politicians that prevent changes to policy to reduce wrongful convictions? How about the politicians that support war? How about the politicians that don't provide adequate support for our troops who are facing death? Or don't support adequate medical care to those who return? How about the politicians that allow our veterans to go untreated for brain injury and PTSD so they put their own lives and the lives of their families at risk? How about the politicians that vote in favor of the tobacco industry? How about the politicians that are preventing health reform that would save and improve lives of so many Americans?
@bluebears: True. My teenaged son (I am more of a Unitarian myself) recently converted to Catholicism. After being in the church for about a year, he converted right back out! Good man!
@morninggloria: I find it sad that these incidences overshadow Catholicism's social justice work. Both in the media attention and, I fear, in the actual commitment by the church, bishops and priests. There are some Catholic churches that are safe havens to undocumented immigrants. There are some that stand next to community organizers and unions fighting for the poor.
@Lymed: unfortunately though, it's a top down organization and the upper management (if you will) seems way less interested in social justice then your kind hearted parish priest or kick ass nun (I have a fondness for nuns). So I don't think its surprising that the social justice work gets overshadowed.
@bluebears: But the Catholic Church used to be known as a social justice organization in America. It is the change that saddens me...as a non-Catholic social justice activist.
I was pretty into being Catholic for a long time because I loved that part of the faith was service. I went to a Catholic university and did service work all through college (I also sang in the liturgical choir) and due to my Catholic faith, I joined Americorps after I graduated.
I realized one day, though, that you can believe in serving others and social justice without the icky parts of the Church clinging to you. You can be pro-social justice and also pro-women's rights. You can be a moral person without the institution telling you that your body isn't really yours.
But...Wasserman Schultz was politicizing breast cancer. I mean, obviously the GOP is throwing this out primarily as a hurdle. But I watched that yesterday, and the point was that the council had a great deal of regulatory power over Medicare or the public option or whatever. Stephanopolis read the line in the bill, and the congresswoman said no, it's just a suggestion. She was ignoring the issue.
I don't really know who's technically correct, but this whole affair begs the question: when the government is responsible for more health spending, it will be responsible for budgeting. Maybe that will require hard choices. Maybe in order to pay for one thing that will save or better a large group of people, a minority of others might be shorted for treatment funds. Or maybe in order to save a diminishing margin of people for one disease you would need to spend money on an expensive screening process that could be used more efficiently to save a larger group of people for something else. Health care is utilitarian in that respect.
Under a private system, squawking over rationing won't due any good because you're nobody's boss. Public officials are (in thoery) our minions, though. The Democrats' jumpy reaction to the reports this week makes me worry that in the future lawmakers will quixotically pursue 100% treatment under the threat of interest groups. If we have to make Medicare cuts and reduce fee-for-service and the like in order for this thing to work on a cost basis, we're in deep shit.
It's time for everyone to stand up, including myself. I'm trying to draft a letter I can send to all the members of the Senate, imploring them to consider carefully the implications of killing health care reform. I don't expect the Republicans to listen, but at least I will have had my say.
I believe the Catholic Church made a definitive choice years ago to go out of their way to alienate young members of the faith. They're holding up heath care legislation over abortion rights, they're protesting D.C.'s gay marriage proposal, and, lest we forget, they tried to cover up a nearly-century-long scandal of pedophile and homosexual priests through dishonest means. Bullying victims, shifting problem priests from one parish to another, and then denying the scandal from the highest offices.
What they don't seem to get is that *nobody* is really pro-abortion, but they're pro-abortion *RIGHTS*, which is a much different thing indeed. This story from the Boston Globe should be mandatory reading for anybody who wants to place a vote on curbing abortion rights.
"Don't ask me to make everybody live by it because they are not members of the church," Cuomo said. "If that were the operative rule, how could you get any Catholic politician in office? And would that be better for the Catholic church?"
Exactly. The Catholic church is great at the holier-than-thou stuff, but all they ever end up doing is shooting themselves in the foot. They have a lot of nerve whining about abortion funding, while their church is having to fight off lawsuit after lawsuit because their celibate male priests can't keep their hands of young boys.
@NefariousNewt: Remember history. Weren't many folks afraid that President JFK was going to take his orders from the Pope. Shit like this makes what was once thought of as an irrational fear as quite legit. Well, this and Judge Scallia, who probably does make all of his decisions based on Catholic doctrine.
Bishop Tobin needs to go back to ministering his flock and staying out of politics. If he's so worried about his parishioners getting abortions, then perhaps he should spend his time inveighing from the pulpit, instead of wasting time in the halls of Congress.
Yea, how can a religious organization that has tax exempt status act as a PAC with social agenda?
All the while the issues holding up healthcare all relate to women.
Separate of what now?
I have a feeling that if we lifted the tax exempt status from all religious institutions in this country we might very well be able to pay for this damn bill from the revenue.
11/24/09
I did not elect them. I am not Catholic. I am not represented by them. If the media just STOPS paying attention to them, maybe they'll go away.
11/24/09
You may not like it, but taking away their right to debate and argue would be wrong. They aren't the ones making law, they're just putting the religious argument across. More tolerance is needed.
11/24/09
Otherwise, I'm sure this economy would benefit quite well from taxing those mother fuckers like every other business.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
And then when they accept my tax filing, thus proving there IS a secret programme? Sweet confirmation, baby. And they won't even realize they did it.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Of course, I also believe this extends to wars and to the death penalty....
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
When you become head cheese, just create a constitution that says religion can't influence policy. And put it in your constitution that when a policymaker allows religion to influence policy, he is to be F-I-R-E-D.
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I was pretty into being Catholic for a long time because I loved that part of the faith was service. I went to a Catholic university and did service work all through college (I also sang in the liturgical choir) and due to my Catholic faith, I joined Americorps after I graduated.
I realized one day, though, that you can believe in serving others and social justice without the icky parts of the Church clinging to you. You can be pro-social justice and also pro-women's rights. You can be a moral person without the institution telling you that your body isn't really yours.
11/23/09
I don't really know who's technically correct, but this whole affair begs the question: when the government is responsible for more health spending, it will be responsible for budgeting. Maybe that will require hard choices. Maybe in order to pay for one thing that will save or better a large group of people, a minority of others might be shorted for treatment funds. Or maybe in order to save a diminishing margin of people for one disease you would need to spend money on an expensive screening process that could be used more efficiently to save a larger group of people for something else. Health care is utilitarian in that respect.
Under a private system, squawking over rationing won't due any good because you're nobody's boss. Public officials are (in thoery) our minions, though. The Democrats' jumpy reaction to the reports this week makes me worry that in the future lawmakers will quixotically pursue 100% treatment under the threat of interest groups. If we have to make Medicare cuts and reduce fee-for-service and the like in order for this thing to work on a cost basis, we're in deep shit.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
What they don't seem to get is that *nobody* is really pro-abortion, but they're pro-abortion *RIGHTS*, which is a much different thing indeed. This story from the Boston Globe should be mandatory reading for anybody who wants to place a vote on curbing abortion rights.
[www.boston.com]
11/23/09
Exactly. The Catholic church is great at the holier-than-thou stuff, but all they ever end up doing is shooting themselves in the foot. They have a lot of nerve whining about abortion funding, while their church is having to fight off lawsuit after lawsuit because their celibate male priests can't keep their hands of young boys.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
All the while the issues holding up healthcare all relate to women.
Separate of what now?
I have a feeling that if we lifted the tax exempt status from all religious institutions in this country we might very well be able to pay for this damn bill from the revenue.
11/23/09
Obviously, He would demand proof of citizenship, co-pay, and proof of insurance (or entire bill paid in cash) at time of all miracle workings.