Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion > Christianity


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 1st, 2012, 06:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
My opinion is Christianity is under attack in the USA. What is your opinion?





This past Sunday, January 29, Roman Catholic congregations were read letters opposing the Obama administration's demand that all Catholic universities and Catholic-based charities make sure they provide all employees access to health insurance providing artificial contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization services such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. The "morning after" pill is also included.



The clerics' fiery rebukes follow Pope Benedict XVI's January 19 speech in which he warned the Catholic Church of the increasing threats of radical secularism's intrusion into politics and culture. The Holy Father specifically mentioned the U.S. church's need to be afforded conscientious objection to the administration's demand for compliance within one year.



No serious observer can believe that the administration's real goal is to ensure the acceptance or availability of contraception.



Everyone knows that anyone who wants contraceptives has easy access to such measures even if he or she does not have a health plan that provides for them. The local friendly drugstore has aisles stacked to the ceiling with condoms and other "family planning" measures, while clinics such as Planned Parenthood hand out birth control pills and abortions with abandon -- sometimes even to underage girls, as damning videos taken by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have shown.

No, the real issue is not birth control or the provision of it.



The central issue is government intimidation of and control over religious institutions. It is government's overriding of the consciences of Catholics and members of other denominations who oppose abortifacients and sterilization.



The 2013 deadline for Catholic institutions to conform to the health care mandate is the proverbial governmental foot in the door for controlling religious institutions -- actually, for controlling all people of faith who disagree with the administration's stance toward abortion.

For the truth of the matter is that the U.S. government's intrusion into religious organizations, if not halted at this stage, will continue to press even harder for even more sacrifices of conscience. The next step on the part of the government will almost certainly force all religious institutions to provide access to health care insurance that provides coverage of surgical abortions. The administration's demands are only the first salvo in what is bound to be a continuing battle between the federal government and churches if ObamaCare continues its trajectory and is not dismantled.



But there are even worse consequences if the government continues to try to coerce the church against its conscience and doctrines of faith and practice. If the push to force the churches into positions compromising its rules of faith and practice succeeds, and the church capitulates, there is absolutely no church or church institution the government will not seek to control completely.



By insisting that the state override matters of conscience and faith established by the Church, the U.S. federal government will have followed the examples of tyrannous regimes which have sought to seek to establish government power over the Church. It will essentially be requiring what totalitarian regimes everywhere require of the Church -- namely, no separation of Church and state. There will be only the State.






Read more: http://www.americant...l#ixzz1l96kmoc6
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 07:35 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 52,599
It sounds paranoid, conspiratorial, to say the state is attempting to rule churches, however, the evidence, such as the example in the article, supports a steady, incremental intrusion into religious matters by the federal government.



I've no objection to contraception, and really don't understand how anyone could object to it. But I know some individuals do object, and some churches do too. For the government to overrule individual and church objections is a violation of the First Amendment.



Justifying the intrusion on the basis of healthcare is despicable.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 07:40 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
Do you think a church should be forced by the Govt to hire a homosexual if they otherwise qualify for a job?
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 07:50 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Aren't those individual employees (the ones who actually have the right to religious freedom) still free to decline the use of contraception?



Ironic that Catholic leaders are whining about something like this while at the same time they think it's OK to use the state to force non-Catholics to comply with their sharia laws regarding marriage.
skrekk is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 07:52 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Aren't those individual employees (the ones who actually have the right to religious freedom) still free to decline the use of contraception?



Ironic that Catholic leaders are whining about something like this while at the same time they think it's OK to use the state to force non-Catholics to comply with their sharia laws regarding marriage.


The Catholic Church is not in charge of marriage laws in each State. That's funny stuff.
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 07:53 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
knowuryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins View Post
Do you think a church should be forced by the Govt to hire a homosexual if they otherwise qualify for a job?


Yes. As soon as the church becomes an employer then they must adhere to the anti-discrimination laws of the state. That is what this is about. ALL employees no matter who they work for should get equal access to whatever is legally obtainable otherwise as far as healthcare.



The church can freely discriminate on who they want as clergy, for instance, The Catholic Church won't allow women to be priests, but they can't discriminate against a woman in employment in one of their businesses like a university or charity. If said organization is providing healthcare to it's employees, then how on earth can they dictate to someone who does not adhere to the dogma of that church what kind of healthcare they can get as long as it is a legally prescribed treatment?
knowuryder is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:22 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Up in the hills hidin' out
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowuryder View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins' timestamp='1328114436' post='380089

Do you think a church should be forced by the Govt to hire a homosexual if they otherwise qualify for a job?


Yes. As soon as the church becomes an employer then they must adhere to the anti-discrimination laws of the state. That is what this is about. ALL employees no matter who they work for should get equal access to whatever is legally obtainable otherwise as far as healthcare.



The church can freely discriminate on who they want as clergy, for instance, The Catholic Church won't allow women to be priests, but they can't discriminate against a woman in employment in one of their businesses like a university or charity. If said organization is providing healthcare to it's employees, then how on earth can they dictate to someone who does not adhere to the dogma of that church what kind of healthcare they can get as long as it is a legally prescribed treatment?


So the Govt can force a church to hire someone they don't want to that lives against their beliefs. Nice. And you see nothing wrong with that.
Tony Perkins is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:37 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Should an employee of the Jehovah Witnesses not receive insurance coverage for blood transfusions?



Should an employee of the Scientologists not receive insurance coverage for mental health treatment?



Or should the individual who holds certain religious values simply exercise their freedom of religion and decide for themselves whether to utilize certain treatment options their insurance plan covers?
skrekk is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:49 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 52,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Perkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowuryder' timestamp='1328115223' post='380094

[quote name='Tony Perkins' timestamp='1328114436' post='380089']

Do you think a church should be forced by the Govt to hire a homosexual if they otherwise qualify for a job?


Yes. As soon as the church becomes an employer then they must adhere to the anti-discrimination laws of the state. That is what this is about. ALL employees no matter who they work for should get equal access to whatever is legally obtainable otherwise as far as healthcare.



The church can freely discriminate on who they want as clergy, for instance, The Catholic Church won't allow women to be priests, but they can't discriminate against a woman in employment in one of their businesses like a university or charity. If said organization is providing healthcare to it's employees, then how on earth can they dictate to someone who does not adhere to the dogma of that church what kind of healthcare they can get as long as it is a legally prescribed treatment?


So the Govt can force a church to hire someone they don't want to that lives against their beliefs. Nice. And you see nothing wrong with that.

[/quote]



Funny how people can be naked and think they are wearing clothes.



No, hell no, a religious organization should NOT be required to hire people or provide services that contradict the tenets of their particular spiritual belief.



Some attests and agnostics see Jefferson's "wall of separation only as keeping religion out of government. It does work that way. But Jefferson's greater concern was keeping government out of religion.



Demanding that secular standards must be imposed on a spiritual organization is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. But then, it goes to show that some atheists and agnostics are as blind as the evangelicals they despise, and are as willing as the wild-eyed evangelicals to use government to prop up their religion.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 1st, 2012, 08:51 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Some attests and agnostics see Jefferson's "wall of separation only as keeping religion out of government. It does work that way. But Jefferson's greater concern was keeping government out of religion.


That must be why he said "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."



He also said "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Unfortunately, ImagineThat doesn't share the sentiment.
skrekk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Religion > Christianity

Tags
church, ruling, state



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whatever Happened To Seperation Of Church And State skews13 Current Events 39 December 2nd, 2012 07:26 PM
Church state legal separation hillhopper Opinion Polls 88 August 2nd, 2009 02:21 PM
Church, State, Constitution hillhopper Opinion Polls 42 July 26th, 2009 04:01 PM
religion church and state.... musica Religion 11 May 13th, 2007 05:40 PM
Separation of Church and State???? Jon Religion 17 January 9th, 2006 08:05 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.