Disingenuous? That is the very issue being debated! Insurance companies are paying for it, not the individual administrators who object to it, that are employed at organizations that must provide health insurance. So if birth control is morally objectionable, why not gastric bypass, does that not subsidize gluttony? Is that not a sin?
Hindus and Jews pay taxes, some of which goes to fund food stamps, are people forbidden to spend food stamps on pork rinds and hamburgers? No. So they are compelled to contribute to their consumption and use. Should they object?
Why is it birth control, specifically, that is so objectionable?
Because they saw an opportunity to throw a tantrum and damage the administration.
As evidence for this, look at their public statement responding to the compromise.
Note that it has random bolding for emphasis. This is very similar to a typical Tea-Party email you’d get from your crazy uncle. The reason it looks like that is the person who wrote that missive is just like that crazy uncle. Frowning, bitter, hateful and full of rage. Rage against the turning of the clock and the world not living by the church’s rules.
They saw a chance to hurt some people who were scoffing their rules and took it.
Just my opinion, mind you. But I strongly suspect that’s the deal.
Regrettably, I concur. It seems like there was a bit of a trap laid here, in that the White House can infer that any of its actions will be criticized by these people. It selected this issue in order to poke them, knowing that if they chose to respond - and how could they not? - that feelings on this issue would break with the Republican establishment and raving lunatics on one side, and nearly the entire country on the other. It’s perfectly reasonable to look at this from the perspective of the OP, and further, to wonder how the anti-contraception faction could possibly hold such a ludicrous opinion. The Republican party then gets tainted by association.
So putting words in bold indicates that the writers are “crazy”, “frowning”, “bitter”, and “full of rage”? That’s news to me.
If by “these people” you mean the Catholic leadership, you couldn’t be more wrong. Catholic bishops in the USA tend to be politically liberal and many high-ranking people in the Catholic Church supported Obama in his presidential campaign and in his drive for health care reform. Presumably that’s why Obama told Archbishop Timothy Dolan last fall that he wouldn’t take away from Catholic institutions the freedom to make their own decisions on insurance. The real question is why Obama broke his word, and thus forced so many of his allies to speak out against him. (Cite)
I think it’s birth control especially because that’s one of the few places where the Republican rank-and-file and the Church hierarchy overlap. They can’t get the Republican rank-and-file het up about nukes when that rank-and-file wants to bomb Iran.
You’re attempting to cloud the issue. It isn’t using bold. It’s using bold in the manner they do. Let’s try to be less casually (and incorrectly) dismissive for the rest of the debate, okay?
Can you see how your casual dismissal didn’t actually reflect the reality of the situation? They guy who wrote that was pissed. Seething. I would be too if I believed in that kind of nonsense. But it doesn’t mean that they are sitting on the side of angels.
Gosh, it’s not political opportunism at all, nope. The church just suddenly realized that they’ve always opposed such laws, no pun intended, religiously.
I don’t mean the Catholic Church so much as I mean Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, congressional Republicans, and the quarter of the American people who fell in line with whatever the Obama attack du jour happened to be. Republicans, not the Catholic Church, are responsible for the congressional hearings that didn’t invite a woman to speak on the matter. I do not begrudge the Catholic hierarchy their positions, but it’s the choice of the rightmost faction of the political class to air these grievances in the public forum as if they’re an issue worthy of consideration. That’s what the OP is about, in my opinion. Why are we pretending like this is a serious issue that merits consideration?
Importantly, the church is not forced to comply with this order in provision of coverage to employees of the church or of institutions which serve the congregation. It is only institutions which serve the public without respect to faith, such as private universities or hospitals, which are subject to the rule to pay for coverage. I’m not accusing any poster of forgetting this fact, but it seems to be often neglected in the discussion at large. This exact requirement was already in place in nine states including Massachusetts, of which six contained various exemptions similar to this. What’s different this time is Obama, not the Catholic Church’s position on contraception.
So using bold in a particular manner indicates that the writers are “crazy”, “frowning”, “bitter”, and “full of rage”? That’s news to me.
I have actually read the statement and judged it by the words it contains, rather than by the typeface that certain words are in. To me it looks like a very clear and sensible statement in defense of religious liberty. I’ve certainly seen some statements in this debate that were crazy and full of rage, but they generally weren’t the ones coming from the Catholic Church.
I see. So is your belief that it’s possible to denote that the writers of some text can be diagnosed as “crazy”, “frowning”, “bitter”, and “full of rage” based only a particular manner of using bold shared by any human being other than yourself? If so, who? If not, why should I or anyone else believe it, rather than treating is nonsense that you made up?
You don’t understand why anyone views religious freedom as a serious issue that merits consideration? If you don’t understand that, I’m afraid the best I can do is point out that the founding fathers did understand it, because they made it the sujbect of the first part of the First Amendment.
The exemption that you’re refering to is worded so narrowly and so ambiguously that it certainly does not exempt all churches, and could be interpreted as not exempting any church. If Obama wanted to provide an exemption for all churches, he could have said so directly, but he chose not to. In a typical church, most or all of the employees split their work time between services for the congregation and services in food banks, hospitals, and other charities. Thus, a typical church does not fit into the tiny exemption that Obama has carved out.
Moreover, while it’s true that some states have had a similar mandate on the books for years, it’s also true that anyone who disagreed with such a state-level mandate could easily avoid it by organizing under federal guidelines; Obama’s rule change takes away that option.
I have one suggestion for ‘why contraception’ when there are so many other, seemingly bigger issues to tackle these days.
If you are a GOP strategist and you look into the future at demographic trends, it can’t look good. Younger people simply aren’t as interested in racism or homophobia as they were in the past. Fundamentalist religion is on the decline too, so how are these guys going to maintain political support for positions that don’t stand up to calm scrutiny if people lose their tendency to be jerked around by hateful prejudices and worthless red herrings? One way, I guess, is to try to slow down the process. Remember what Rick Santorum said? From here:
People who go to college also start having sex. If they can be deprived of birth control, more of them will get pregnant and drop out. Remaining uneducated, and assuming that overlaps with being less intelligent, they are more likely to be swayed by GOP rhetorical devices.
I think it is a small effect, but besides finding ways of preventing young people from voting altogether, how many ways does the GOP have of maintaining their support? It isn’t going to be on the merit of their positions, as this birth control issue reveals that when people find out the specifics of what conservatives really intend to do, they don’t like it. ‘Conservative’ just has a pleasanter penumbra around it for some people, especially after years of demonizing ‘libruls’.
Anyway, I do think this is a terrible stand they are taking. How far do they want to go with it? If the Christian Scientists (my apologies if I’m picking on the wrong group here) get billionaire backing, buy up scads of hospitals and businesses, can they then decide that they are opposed to health care itself on moral grounds and refuse to provide coverage for anything other than faith healing?
Your reasoning is ridiculous and easy to debunk. The Republican Party is not trying to deny anyone birth control. The Republican Party’s goal in this debate is to ensure that everyone has the freedom to take the stance on birth control which they wish to take.
Moreover, your assumption that Republicans benefit from people being less intelligent is unfounded, since it’s based on a single article in a British tabloid that says nothing about Republicans or even about Americans. Tabloids generally aren’t reliable sources.
John Mace already addressed a similar line of argument here.
During the last election those with college degrees voted Republican over Democrat by 53% to 47%. Keeping people from graduating college would not help Republicans it would help Democrats.
