The Catholic Church Vs The Obama Administration

[whell]

It was inevitable. Following the HHS decision earlier this year to mandate employer's health plans must contain coverage for birth control, multiple Catholic organizations are filing lawsuits in Federal Courts across the country. The plaintiffs, including Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and dozens of Catholic hospitals and organizations, have filed a total of 12 lawsuits today against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama administration over the controversial HHS mandate.

Closer to my home, the Michigan Catholic Conference said that the mandate violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities to comply with a federal mandate to include coverage for birth control in the health insurance plans provided to their employees. The conference says it has provided medical insurance coverage to church workers since the 1970s and currently offers insurance at more than 1,100 Catholic institutions employing around 10,000 people.

I know that this will likely bust a blood vessel in some of our forum participants, but here is a quote from a USA Today article today talking about the Catholic Church's potential arguments:

"Catholic University Law professor Robert Destro argues that the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United recognizes that corporations — including faith-based non-profits and for-profit companies run by individuals of faith — are covered under the rights of free religious and political speech.

Obama's mandate, in any form, is "a shell game" because it still links believers who find contraception immoral to insurers who will provide it free, even without direct participation from the religious person or institution, Destro says."

How much might this legal activity and the surrounding debate jeopardize the "Catholic" vote for Obama, which by size is a pretty large, though not monolithic, voting block?

[Zeke]

How much might this legal activity and the surrounding debate jeopardize the "Catholic" vote for Obama, which by size is a pretty large, though not monolithic, voting block?

That depends upon how many of them are single-issue hypocrites. :confused:

[piece-itpete]

I suspect a fair number of them will take umbrage to the idea whether they really care about the issue in question or not. I suspect Obama and his minions have carefully weighed lost votes vs gained at any rate.

Pete

[Dondilion]

The Catholic leadership has lost control over a significant part of its flock. I do not believe the average joe or jane listens or follows much of what comes from the top.

Too many scandals have undermined the authority and integrity of the church.
Plus the crushing demands of modern life, the exposure to the new and the easy access to information have reduced the hold of the once very powerful Papacy.

I believe the displeasure of the church with O will have minimal effect on the election.

[d-ray657]

It sounds to me like the Catholic Church wants to make its own rules for its participation in the secular economy.

This is more about politics than about contraception. The catholic leadership has always been unhappy about having a baby killer in the White House and this provided a convenient opportunity to stir things up.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

It sounds to me like the Catholic Church wants to make its own rules for its participation in the secular economy.

This is more about politics than about contraception. The catholic leadership has always been unhappy about having a baby killer in the White House and this provided a convenient opportunity to stir things up.

Regards,

D-Ray

Painting with an EXTREMELY broad brush there counselor. The Catholic church, and other employers, were offering health insurance on terms of their choice long before Obama and company showed up. The Catholic church was, in fact, minding their own business, and here comes Obama and company telling them that, in order to continue to offer health coverage, you have to do it based on the government's rules.

Was the church "participating in the secular economy" any less before Obamacare? No.

This isn't about politics. Its about contraception to the extent that contraception is the core tenet of the Catholic church that the government is attempting to kick to the curb.

Your comments about a "baby killer" in the White House are inflammatory and specious. The Catholic Church has been by far more aligned with Democrats on social and economic issues than not. if you're suggesting otherwise, then you're grossly uninformed.

[Zeke]

The Catholic leadership has lost control over a significant part of its flock. I do not believe the average joe or jane listens or follows much of what comes from the top.

Which is why -- to paraphrase Pete's argument -- Democratic leadership isn't sweating this: they're likely to GAIN votes, in the long run.

[merrylander]

The Catholic Church has been by far more aligned with Democrats on social and economic issues than not. if you're suggesting otherwise, then you're grossly uninformed.

Until the Ratzinger Bishop's club decided to attack the Religious Women's Group. They are the ones who own the hospitals and who attempt to do Jesus' work. All the Bishops are about is control, control, control. If the hierarchy does not get it together we may well see tha end of the church as we know it.

If they provide contraception "good" catholics will not use it and only "non catholics" in their employ well use it. Since it is also used to alleviate some medical conditions, the church is allowing its dogma to interfere in the life of certain women who may require such treatment, hardly a christian act.

BTW I am well aware of how the church operates, having lived in a priest ridden province and being married to a former member of the church.

[icenine]

We are talking about birth control Whell...something that is so mainstream in American society since the 1960s that it is a mundane topic for most people. And there are many uses of birth control for other medical issues, such as acne. You are falling for the trap Whell....keep worrying about birth control and the economy ceases to be the number one issue of the election.....a slam dunk for the Donkeys. Hmmm maybe the Dems are secretly bankrolling the lawsuits lol.....

[noonereal]

This is such a needless, nothing distraction, what the GOP does best.

[piece-itpete]

Except Obama did it.

Pete

[d-ray657]

You're avoiding the fact, Whell, that the PPACA changed the rules for all employers, not just the Catholic employers. Now the Catholic church is seeking special treatment that other employers don't get. To me, that creates more of an establishment clause problem than it does a free exercise problem.

Perhaps I am painting with too broad a brush regarding the Catholic Hierarchy. I am not a student of the national political positions of the church. I do know that the leadership in the Kansas City area wants that baby-killer out of office. It has gone so far as suggesting that a vote for for Obama would put one's immortal soul in jeopardy.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

We are talking about birth control Whell...something that is so mainstream in American society since the 1960s that it is a mundane topic for most people. And there are many uses of birth control for other medical issues, such as acne. You are falling for the trap Whell....keep worrying about birth control and the economy ceases to be the number one issue of the election.....a slam dunk for the Donkeys. Hmmm maybe the Dems are secretly bankrolling the lawsuits lol.....

I'm Catholic, sir. Please tell me what "trap" I'm falling for?

[whell]

You're avoiding the fact, Whell, that the PPACA changed the rules for all employers, not just the Catholic employers.

You're avoiding the fact that when the gov't decides to involve itself in the private sector, it can get itself tangled up in the rights of private citizens. PPACA is correctly the target of constitutional challenges. This is just one more.

Also, the government has "exempted" many employers and institutions from the ENTIRELY of PPACA compliance. The church wanted an exemption on this one, single thread of PPACA. Now you're suggesting the church is in the wrong for wanting to "dictate' terms of compliance? Really?

[d-ray657]

I see the commercial dealings of large institutions as well within the scope of governmental authority. I have more of a problem when those institutions seek to assert control over the private lives of employees or other citizens.

And Hey, Gee Whiz. I made a concession and you didn't even quote it.:p

Regards,

D-Ray

[icenine]

I'm Catholic, sir. Please tell me what "trap" I'm falling for?

The "trap" of the election becoming more about social issues than the economy...which means my guy maybe gets re-elected. If issues such as birth control are coming to the fore it must only mean one thing...the economy is not the end all of the 2012 election, which is a plus for Obama.
You think women are going to support the GOP if there is a war on birth control? I am being sort of sarcastic about the use of the word trap but the Catholic church suing the Obama administration over birth control may gain him support. Not all women are Catholic but a great deal of women rely on birth control. It is more than a Catholic issue.

[piece-itpete]

Once again it was our Fearless Leader that pulled this one. Perhaps he's worried about the economy? He should be.

But why is it so important for the Catholic church to knuckle under? All must bow before our mighty masters - or other citizens?

Btw, this isn't a war on birth control, it's a war on religious freedom. Nobody is telling anybody they can't use birth control. [EDIT: 'cept the Catholic church ;)]

Pete

[merrylander]

Once again it was our Fearless Leader that pulled this one. Perhaps he's worried about the economy? He should be.

But why is it so important for the Catholic church to knuckle under? All must bow before our mighty masters - or other citizens?

Btw, this isn't a war on birth control, it's a war on religious freedom. Nobody is telling anybody they can't use birth control. [EDIT: 'cept the Catholic church ;)]

Pete

Guys wake up ans smell the roses, the middle ages passed quit some time ago. No one is asking them to "knickle under" just to operate secularly just like everyone else. I don't hear crys of outrage from any of the other churches. Some of which favour polygamy but that is a no-no here so they don't do it. What is so bloody special about the Church of Rome?

[whell]

I see the commercial dealings of large institutions as well within the scope of governmental authority. I have more of a problem when those institutions seek to assert control over the private lives of employees or other citizens.

And Hey, Gee Whiz. I made a concession and you didn't even quote it.:p

Regards,

D-Ray

I didn't quote it 'cuz I didn't want to draw too much attention to it for you. ;)
But I appreciate it. :)

To the extent defined by law, and to the extent that the extension of such governmental authority is within the bounds of the constitution, I agree.

To suggest that offering employees the option of electing health coverage through their employer is tantamount to "asserting control over the private lives of employees" is really a stretch IMHO.

[d-ray657]

I didn't quote it 'cuz I didn't want to draw too much attention to it for you. ;)
But I appreciate it. :)

To the extent defined by law, and to the extent that the extension of such governmental authority is within the bounds of the constitution, I agree.

To suggest that offering employees the option of electing health coverage through their employer is tantamount to "asserting control over the private lives of employees" is really a stretch IMHO.

C'mon, do you think that there are any aspects of the employment relationship in which the employers are not asserting economic control over their employees. "Well you can have the medical coverage under the terms we see fit, which means that we aren't going to pay for whoopie protection, or hormonal therapy for that matter, or you can go spend a grand or so a month on it."

OMG, we want employers to pay for people having sex!!:eek: All of those employees are sluts. Every one of them. (I'm not suggesting that that is you position, Whell. I just saw this bust of a bald fat guy and I couldn't help myself.)

Regards,

D-Ray

[bobabode]

I advocate the rhythm method! When you see ol' white folks dance it's a foregone conclusion that nobodys gettin' laid tonite.
All kidding aside, what's the fuss? If you want to play in the secular world you play by secular rules, founders original intent.:p

[whell]

Guys wake up ans smell the roses, the middle ages passed quitw some time ago. No one is asking them to "knickle under" just to operate secularly just like everyone else. I don't hear crys of outrage fro any of the other churches. Some of which favour polygamy but that is a no-no here so they don't do it. What is so bloody special about the Church of Rome?

Roses are OK, but I'd prefer to wake up and smell the coffee.

If the government recognizes exceptions elsewhere in the law - i.e, exemptions from certain civil rights legislation based on bona fide occupational qualifications (a woman can legally be discriminated against as a model for men's underwear, for example) why is it so preposterous to grant the church an exemption from this narrow thread of PPACA? Seems like its Obama and HHS that is making the issue bigger than it needs to be.

[whell]

C'mon, do you think that there are any aspects of the employment relationship in which the employers are not asserting economic control over their employees. "Well you can have the medical coverage under the terms we see fit, which means that we aren't going to pay for whoopie protection, or hormonal therapy for that matter, or you can go spend a grand or so a month on it."


Regards,

D-Ray

I can see by your post that the concept of employment at will is truly dead and buried! :p

The moment that employers REQUIRE employees to enroll in health insurance, I'll concede your argument.

[d-ray657]

I can see by your post that the concept of employment at will is truly dead and buried! :p

The moment that employers REQUIRE employees to enroll in health insurance, I'll concede your argument.

I have had plenty of experience with at will employment, with the exceptions. The reality is that the employment world is much different than the agrarian days when the at will rule was developed. But that's a subject for another thread.

The point of my post is that employees do not have as much choice as you suggest - at least not economically feasible choices.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Roses are OK, but I'd prefer to wake up and smell the coffee.




If I woke to the smell of roses instead of coffee I'd figure I had finnaly bit the big one.

Hope I don't smell roses in the morning for a long long time. :o

[whell]

The point of my post is that employees do not have as much choice as you suggest - at least not economically feasible choices.

Regards,

D-Ray

Maybe as a matter of opinion, but not as a matter of law. Employer benefits are still an opt-in for employees, not a requirement.

[d-ray657]

Maybe as a matter of opinion, but not as a matter of law. Employer benefits are still an opt-in for employees, not a requirement.

I thought we were talking politics. :p

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Since everyone ducked this I'll run it up the flagpole again.

If they provide contraception "good" catholics will not use it and only "non catholics" in their employ well use it. Since it is also used to alleviate some medical conditions, the church is allowing its dogma to interfere in the life of certain women who may require such treatment, hardly a christian act.

Not all women are wealthy enough to cover this cost AND the cost of the health insurance.

[piece-itpete]

Interesting thing about the Catholic church - one is not required to join it, and one is not required to work for it.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Interesting thing about the Catholic church - one is not required to join it, and one is not required to work for it.

Pete

And women don't have to work for employers that pay women less than men; and minorities don't have to work for employers that permit an atmosphere of racial harassment; and we don't have to eat at restaurants that serve tainted food; and we don't need to breathe the air that factories pollute; and we don't have to shop at businesses who engage in price fixing. Shoot, if they have a good enough excuse, nobody should have to follow by the rules that apply to employers.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Interesting that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...'

Pete

[BlueStreak]

This says it all.................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWWAC5ZMKeM

".......I can simply slip a con-dom on my John Thomas......"

[mezz]

This has now blown up because Archbishop Timothy Dolan had meetings with Obama a year ago and in those meetings was personally assured by Obama that the provision to require catholic universities and charities to provide free (covered) birth control would "go away". Then he went and announced recently that the provisions would indeed be enforced but the institutions in question would have a year to comply (this was Obama's supposed bone throw to the church on this). So now Archbishop Dolan (who is slated to soon become a Cardinal) is claiming that Obama told him a bald faced lie.

At last count 41 catholic institutions have filed lawsuits.

Sleaziest president ever.

[BlueStreak]

Interesting that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...'

Pete

I agree. The government should be ever vigilant to prohibit the intertwining of church and state.:)

[BlueStreak]

This has now blown up because Archbishop Timothy Dolan had meetings with Obama a year ago and in those meetings was personally assured by Obama that the provision to require catholic universities and charities to provide free (covered) birth control would "go away". Then he went and announced recently that the provisions would indeed be enforced but the institutions in question would have a year to comply (this was Obama's supposed bone throw to the church on this). So now Archbishop Dolan (who is slated to soon become a Cardinal) is claiming that Obama told him a bald faced lie.

At last count 41 catholic institutions have filed lawsuits.

Sleaziest president ever.

I would have lied to the silly pointy hat man too. Actually, no I wouldn't have. I would have been honest to a fault----I would have told him straight up, that the opinion of a fairytale salesman means nothing to me.

[merrylander]

Interesting thing about the Catholic church - one is not required to join it, and one is not required to work for it.

Pete

Or once in are not required to stay, and given their behaviour precisely why my wife said goodbye.:p

Between the nuns and child molestation she had more than enough.

[merrylander]

This has now blown up because Archbishop Timothy Dolan had meetings with Obama a year ago and in those meetings was personally assured by Obama that the provision to require catholic universities and charities to provide free (covered) birth control would "go away". Then he went and announced recently that the provisions would indeed be enforced but the institutions in question would have a year to comply (this was Obama's supposed bone throw to the church on this). So now Archbishop Dolan (who is slated to soon become a Cardinal) is claiming that Obama told him a bald faced lie.

At last count 41 catholic institutions have filed lawsuits.

Sleaziest president ever.

Even if Dolan told me that it was raining outside (and it is) I would still have to look for myself. Hey if the Vatican wants to blow a fortune on silly lawsuits how come tthey can't pay up to all those guys who were molested as children? It is not as if they do not have enough in the vault.

[icenine]

Are not some of these Catholic instituitons taking federal funding?

[mezz]

Even if Dolan told me that it was raining outside (and it is) I would still have to look for myself.


Not sure of the basis for that, but you've indeed described the way much of the country feels about Obama (and they have pretty good reason for doing so).

[mezz]

Are not some of these Catholic instituitons taking federal funding?

They've also been providing a lot of free health care forever.

[d-ray657]

They've also been providing a lot of free health care forever.

But if they use federal money to do it, is it really charity work? Public clinics and secular organizations have provided a lot of free or low cost medical care for years as well - Organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Not sure of the basis for that, but you've indeed described the way much of the country feels about Obama (and they have pretty good reason for doing so).

The basis is how these bishops and archbishops kept moving predatory priests from parish to parish instead of handing them over to the police as they should. These are the people who are going to preach morality to us? I think not.:rolleyes:

They only have all those "principles" when it suits them. Have not changed much since Alexander VI and his charming daughter Lucrezia.

[whell]

Since everyone ducked this I'll run it up the flagpole again.

If they provide contraception "good" catholics will not use it and only "non catholics" in their employ well use it. Since it is also used to alleviate some medical conditions, the church is allowing its dogma to interfere in the life of certain women who may require such treatment, hardly a christian act.

Not all women are wealthy enough to cover this cost AND the cost of the health insurance.

Not an issue at all. The issue is the coverage of medication used for contraception. The church's insurance carrier will deny coverage based on diagnostic codes provided by the employee's doctor when the bill is presented to the carrier. If that same medication is used as treatment for other conditions, then the doctor will prescribe it using a different diagnostic code.

[merrylander]

Not an issue at all. The issue is the coverage of medication used for contraception. The church's insurance carrier will deny coverage based on diagnostic codes provided by the employee's doctor when the bill is presented to the carrier. If that same medication is used as treatment for other conditions, then the doctor will prescribe it using a different diagnostic code.

Guess you have had few interactions with Aetna. Their clerks are barely literate.

[noonereal]

Guess you have had few interactions with Aetna. Their clerks are barely literate.

Rob

This makes me think.

Where are all the literate people in the USA working?

I can think of few big businesses I interact with that don't struggle with reading a clock if it is not digital?

[noonereal]

As to the catholic church.

This is one strange organization if you think about it.

It is run by men who do not have sex with women and believe in magic.

Then every Sunday people bring their families to them to hear what they have to say.

I'd be more inclined to do the opposite of what they suggest.

[mezz]

The basis is how these bishops and archbishops kept moving predatory priests from parish to parish instead of handing them over to the police as they should. These are the people who are going to preach morality to us? I think not.:rolleyes:

They only have all those "principles" when it suits them. Have not changed much since Alexander VI and his charming daughter Lucrezia.


There's no call here to examine the recent or medieval history of the church with regards to morality, beliefs etc. nor even the merits of the particular point of contention with regards to birth control. The political issue here is simply that this president is caught up in another episode of being two-faced and lying, not only in a direct meeting with a high ranking church official, but again he's managed to counter his own stated conviction to respect religious freedoms and be the protector of maintaining the separation of church and state.

This is not an isolated case. Can anyone really honestly claim this president has enough integrity for them to continue believing in his desire and/or ability to act in the best interest of the country - or in anyone's best interest other than what he (most often incorrectly) calculates to be his own at any given moment?

[d-ray657]

There's no call here to examine the recent or medieval history of the church with regards to morality, beliefs etc. nor even the merits of the particular point of contention with regards to birth control. The political issue here is simply that this president is caught up in another episode of being two-faced and lying, not only in a direct meeting with a high ranking church official, but again he's managed to counter his own stated conviction to respect religious freedoms and be the protector of maintaining the separation of church and state.

This is not an isolated case. Can anyone really honestly claim this president has enough integrity for them to continue believing in his desire and/or ability to act in the best interest of the country - or in anyone's best interest other than what he (most often incorrectly) calculates to be his own at any given moment?

The particular recent history of this bishop and his part in coverups is relevant to his credibility. I've met many people who are capable of hearing what they want to hear and twisting words to make them fit their wishes. The bishop might be a religious man, but he is also accustomed to his position of power. He can enhance that hold on power and influence with his version of the truth. You are predisposed to believe anyone but Obama. I think many of us here are predisposed to disbelieve politicians. But make no mistake about it; the bishop is a politician.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Guess you have had few interactions with Aetna. Their clerks are barely literate.

Actually I'm very familiar with their large group services which are quite robust. I'm not that familiar with their small group/individual products and services.

[whell]

But if they use federal money to do it, is it really charity work? Public clinics and secular organizations have provided a lot of free or low cost medical care for years as well - Organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Regards,

D-Ray

You can raise the issue of federal funding, church recent history, ancient history, whatever. They're great ways to side-track from the central issue of whether or not the church as an employer was minding its own business and one day the HHS decides to try to make the church behave in a way that violates its rights as a religious organization. Can't get any simpler than that.

If you want to make it complicated, you can suggest that the church is getting in the way of Obama and company's social agenda, and putting a rough edge on the bone the Administration wants to throw to the "reproductive rights" crowd.

[merrylander]

There's no call here to examine the recent or medieval history of the church with regards to morality, beliefs etc. nor even the merits of the particular point of contention with regards to birth control. The political issue here is simply that this president is caught up in another episode of being two-faced and lying, not only in a direct meeting with a high ranking church official, but again he's managed to counter his own stated conviction to respect religious freedoms and be the protector of maintaining the separation of church and state.

This is not an isolated case. Can anyone really honestly claim this president has enough integrity for them to continue believing in his desire and/or ability to act in the best interest of the country - or in anyone's best interest other than what he (most often incorrectly) calculates to be his own at any given moment?

So because Dolan said the pres lied we must believe him? When you look at the recent past with bishops and archbishops here and in Ireland I would be inclined to take whatever they say with a large amount of salt.:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

They've also been providing a lot of free health care forever.

With taxpayer money.

[whell]

By the way, social engineering via mandating reproductive rights is not new territory for the Obama bunch. The Catholic Church's top-rated program for assistance to human trafficking victims was denied funding for refusing to provide "the full range of reproductive services," including abortion.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104711.htm

It would seem that the administration is willing to prioritize its social agenda at almost any cost.

[piece-itpete]

I'm no Catholic, but recognise that they run a HUGE charity orginization. That at least should be admired imo.

Pete

[d-ray657]

I'm no Catholic, but recognise that they run a HUGE charity orginization. That at least should be admired imo.

Pete

No question about that. But, "render unto Caesar . . . " If the church is going to operate in the secular sphere, I do not see any free exercise problem with requiring it to operate under the same rules as other employers.

The charitable works were brought up as an excuse for this huge institution to be able to operate under different rules than other employers. Ford, GM and even McDonalds sponsor substantial charitable activity, but they have to follow the rules that apply to employers.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

If I was a woman who had been abused or violated a catholic run organization would be at the bottom of the list of places to seek help.

[piece-itpete]

They run a LOT of battered womens' shelters.

D, those are for profit entities. Surely there's a difference.

Pete

[d-ray657]

They run a LOT of battered womens' shelters.

D, those are for profit entities. Surely there's a difference.

Pete

They are huge institutional employers.

And don't call me Shirley.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

http://thevirtualcooler.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/homer-doh.jpg

:D

Pete

[whell]

The charitable works were brought up as an excuse for this huge institution to be able to operate under different rules than other employers.

Regards,

D-Ray

No, its because they are religious entities with beliefs that are protected by the US Constitution.

The main goal of this mandate is not, as HHS has claimed, to protect women's health. Instead, it is a move to compel religious organizations into a political agenda, forcing them to facilitate and fund services that violate their beliefs, within their own institutions. As I've posted above, is it consistent with other questionable moves the administration has made.

[merrylander]

The main goal of this mandate is not, as HHS has claimed, to protect women's health. Instead, it is a move to compel religious organizations into a political agenda, forcing them to facilitate and fund services that violate their beliefs, within their own institutions. As I've posted above, is it consistent with other questionable moves the administration has made.

You forgot to add IMHO.

Suppose a woman who was raped goes to one of these "institutions" will she be given the morning after pill(s)?

[merrylander]

So if the Constitution protects religious belief can I practice voodoo? Or Zoroastianism? Can I worship Wicca or the Goddess?

[whell]

You forgot to add IMHO.

Suppose a woman who was raped goes to one of these "institutions" will she be given the morning after pill(s)?

What do you think? :rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

Sure Rob! Heck happens all the time. It's amazing, how many freaks there are in the world.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

But, when you become Zoroastrian, you have to post a pic in your traditional garb :D

Pete

[merrylander]

What do you think? :rolleyes:

You're the RC, you tell me.:)

I do know here was a period in Quebec where if there was a complication during birth they would save the baby at all cost, even to sacrificing the mother.

[bhunter]

This has now blown up because Archbishop Timothy Dolan had meetings with Obama a year ago and in those meetings was personally assured by Obama that the provision to require catholic universities and charities to provide free (covered) birth control would "go away". Then he went and announced recently that the provisions would indeed be enforced but the institutions in question would have a year to comply (this was Obama's supposed bone throw to the church on this). So now Archbishop Dolan (who is slated to soon become a Cardinal) is claiming that Obama told him a bald faced lie.

At last count 41 catholic institutions have filed lawsuits.

Sleaziest president ever.

But his position has evolved!

[bhunter]

Or once in are not required to stay, and given their behaviour precisely why my wife said goodbye.:p

Between the nuns and child molestation she had more than enough.

An aside here: Why do former Catholics have such a hatred for nuns?

[bhunter]

Rob

This makes me think.

Where are all the literate people in the USA working?

I can think of few big businesses I interact with that don't struggle with reading a clock if it is not digital?

LMAO

My favorite:
"We're in trouble when people need to wear flip-flops to count above ten."

[whell]

An aside here: Why do former Catholics have such a hatred for nuns?

I'm a current Catholic, and I still have post-traumatic stress flashbacks to 5th grade, Sister Humiliana, her metal ruler, and its frequent collisions with my knuckles. :eek:

[finnbow]

An aside here: Why do former Catholics have such a hatred for nuns?

The Blues Brothers

http://i36.tinypic.com/29l1n3l.jpg

[Rex E.]

Sister Mary Elephant......

[bobabode]

So you're a nun lover BH? or a masochist?:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

The nuns got quite upset when they caught my wife reading Freud in geography class. But they generally gave her a hard time all through school, seems to be their teaching style.

Regardless, all the organized religions only exist to perpetuate themselves, teaching what Jesus said is an afterthought.

[bhunter]

So you're a nun lover BH? or a masochist?:rolleyes:

The only time I've been within 10 feet of a nun was when I saw the controversial movie "Cruising" at the theater. A pair of nuns were sitting in front of me. Given today's context and the movie's subject, a pair of priests would have been more fitting.:D

[merrylander]

E.J.Dionne has a good column on the Battle of the Bishops. It would seem that the 41 GOP Bishops who are suing did not bother to consult the 195 others who are not suing and they are more than annoyed.

[Wasillaguy]

Nuns are hot. It's the whole "off limits" thing.
That's a habit I could get into!

[piece-itpete]

Here you go!

http://bp1.blogger.com/_AkEvgj60n-M/SC9UkAmkzgI/AAAAAAAABWM/-0anIJJrxEQ/s400/pirate_nun-2.JPG

[Wasillaguy]

Grrrr! The eye patch is really doing it for me!

Reminds me of an old joke about a whore house that handled unusual requests. The punchline- "I'll keep an eye out for you"

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

Pete

[d-ray657]

You are one sick dude, Wasillaguy. :rolleyes:

BTW, are you the pilot of that craft in your avatar?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I think he's watched the Holy Grail once too many times :D

Pete

[Wasillaguy]

You are one sick dude, Wasillaguy. :rolleyes:

BTW, are you the pilot of that craft in your avatar?

Regards,

D-Ray

No, I'm just a regular customer. Actually, I mostly drive a desk nowadays, got younger guys that go do remote comm install/maint work. I still go now and again when they need a hand or for site surveys and such.

[d-ray657]

No, I'm just a regular customer.

Of the helicopter or the gal with the glass eye. :D

Regards,

D-Ray

[Wasillaguy]

Of the helicopter of the gal with the glass eye. :D

Regards,

D-Ray

She still flies the thing pretty well, you'd be surprised.