ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments

« Sleep warfareIs Ron Paul correct that the U.S. is at fault when it comes to Iran’s intransigent hatred for our country? »

ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments

Bookworm on Jan 30 2012 at 4:03 pm | Filed under: Abortion, Religion

In the halcyon pre-Obama days, when Prop. 8 meant that gay marriage was a hot blogging issue, I argued that religion organizations, not the state, should be allowed to define what constitutes a “marriage,” with states confined to authorizing “civil unions.” In that context, I commented upon the religious implications of the government mandating that a church engage in something that touches upon a core doctrinal belief:

The second problem right now with the emphasis on changing state definitions of marriage, rather than religious definitions, is the risk that there will be direct challenges between church and state. A lawyer I know assured me that this couldn’t happen because, for example, the Catholic church does not get sued because it opposes abortion. That was facile reasoning. While abortions may be a civil right, the Catholic church does not provide abortions. What the Catholic church provides is communion, which is not a civil right, so the church can withhold it at will. What happens, though, when the church provides something which is both a core doctrinal belief (marriage) and a state right (marriage)? It’s a head-on collision, and I can guarantee you that the courts will get involved and that some activist judge will state that the Catholic Church is constitutionally required to marry gay couples. (Emphasis added.)

I was prescient. Mandating that the Catholic Church provide abortions is precisely what the Obama administration is doing. Institutions such as the Catholic Church, which considers the right to life one of its core beliefs, must nevertheless fund abortions by providing insurance that makes abortion drugs available to all women on demand. Funding an act is tantamount to committing that act yourself.

Whether you support a woman’s right to have an abortion or not, surely anyone who is intellectually honest must see that it is morally wrong to make a religious institution fund it. To use an extreme analogy, this is the beginning of a continuum that ends with Jews being forced to dig their own mass burial pits before being lined upon along the edge of those pit and shot.

I assume that those who are celebrating this mandate will contend that, throughout the Bush years, they were forced to see their tax dollars go to fund a war they did not support, one that saw thousands of people die. Likewise, those who oppose the death penalty must nevertheless pay taxes that fund the judicial and prison system. That argument is a red herring. The Constitution explicitly authorizes both war and capital punishment, which are legitimate government powers. Those who don’t like that reality are welcome to try a Constitutional amendment to wipe out the government’s war powers and do away with capital punishment. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

There is nothing in the Constitution, however, that authorizes the Federal government (and, by extension through the 14th Amendment, any state government) to mandate that a religious institution be complicit in an act it believes constitutes murder. More to the point, the Constitutional grant of religious freedom, by which the government agrees to stay out of managing a religious institutions affairs, either practical or doctrinal, should prohibit such conduct entirely. This is one more example, as if we needed it, of the Obama administration’s fundamental lawlessness.

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: Abortion, Catholic Church, Freedom of Religion, Gay marriage, ObamaCare, Religious Freedom

Email This Post To A Friend

116 Responses to “ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments”

on 30 Jan 2012 at 4:23 pm 1Beth

Thanks for this post. I am Catholic and this IS a big issue; not just for us but for all who believe in religious liberty–and frankly, ANY KIND OF LIBERTY!
Thanks too for the related posts. The only way we get beyond this administration is continuing education–my friends and I are on a mission to wake people up to what’s going on around them. The more voices we have from different parts of the country, different faith backgrounds, the better.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 4:27 pm 2gpc31

This administration has the great virtue of forcing oneself to rethink the fundamental principles of and conditions for legitimate government. There’s a difference between the nation and state, after all. This state holds a monopoly on the use of violence, as do all regimes, but it is no longer a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence. St. Thomas More is the patron saint of the times.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:13 pm 3Oldflyer

There no longer seems to be any effective defense of the most basic principles of the Constitution.

Somehow the mythical notion of separation of church and state became conventional wisdom while, ironically, the simple phrase: ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”seems to have been truncated to the point of becoming meaningless.
Of course the Statists might say, “well so what? Congress did not pass a law restricting the free exercise of religion–President Obama using his plenary powers, decreed this. What Obama decrees supersedes an archaic document written by rich old white men.”
on 30 Jan 2012 at 6:56 pm 4jj

Yesterday was interesting. That letter was read at every mass in every Catholic Church in the country yesterday – and a good many in other countries, as well. There isn’t a whole lot of wiggle room here, the letter just says – quite flatly – no. We’re not going to obey this law now, and we’re not planning on obeying it any time soon. Interesting collision coming up, between the billion or so Catholics and the thirty or forty million democrats. (I have of course written to Pelosi, old Birdbrain of Alcatraz, a “practicing Catholic” – to ask how her practice is going, and find out if she figures she’ll ever be ready to stop practicing and get into it for real. I imagine I won’t get an answer.)

I suspect Obama’s not very bright, when you come right down to it. He trots around the world pointing out that America’s not a Christian country – and I don’t know what planet he was raised on. America is overwhelmingly a Christian country, and is in fact about an inch away from being properly termed not only a Christian country, but a Roman Catholic country, at that. I think there’s a good chance Little Dingdong is about to find that out. He has just – in an election year, no less – managed to piss off damned near one quarter of the country. That’s 75 million people, Catholics to one degree or another – and how many votes does it take to win a presidential election? How many did he get last time? About 60 million? (That’s a high-end estimate, I suspect, but I honestly do not remember.) Well congratulations, genius, even if the Catholics don’t hold completely together, but fracture on this issue, that’s still 40 million, or more, votes you aren’t going to get. How goddam dumb do you have to be, in an election year, to piss off a quarter of the voters?

Actually, as an Anybody But Obama voter, I’m quite grateful for this splendid act of arrogance combined with stupidity.

It’ll be interesting. I already notice attempts to downplay – or just not report – this, but that’s doomed to failure. Lots of people went to church yesterday, they all heard the letter read. Be tough for Brian Williams to get very far with pretending it didn’t happen. Nothing civil about this disobedience, the Church has just invited the Obama operation to go sit on a tack, in pretty plain language. Could be kind of fun, as, even in America, the Church wakes up and finds that it is strong.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:18 pm 5bizcor

@ jj let’s hope it isn’t just the catholics who wake up…
on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:31 pm 6Charles Martel

I’m a little less optimistic than jj. Whether you agree with it doctrinally or not, the Catholic Church is the fundamental remaining institution that has not been co-opted by Marxism/post-modernism’s final furious assault on the West. The United States as the essential western nation, and its constitution as the essential western political contract, is already badly crippled, in disarray, and lacking the means to defend itself from Obama’s lawlessness. The organs of counterbalancing power—Congress, the Supreme Court, the media, the academy, Reform Judaism, and mainline Protestantism have been so badly corroded and degenerated that I see no real prospect of help from them.

Knowing how livid the hatred for the Church is among the Brights and bien pensants, Obama’s assault against it is just the beginning. I ran into a recent quote by a U.S. bishop: “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”
on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:46 pm 7Wolf Howling

I just did a bit of research on this issue for my own post on this topic. I really find it hard to believe that Obama is picking this fight. This is the equivalent of requiring Muslims to eat pork. Christians may have given up lopping off heads some four centuries ago with the last of the Christian religious wars, but that does not mean that they are going to sit idly by over this fundamental attack on their religion. They do have the ballot box.

And as it turns out, in 2008, “Catholics, who accounted for about a quarter of the electorate, supported Obama at 54% to 46% for McCain. Obama was able to win that vote by promising, most famously in his speech at Notre Dame, to be respectful of religious liberties and conscience. Instead, he has given the finger to every Christian. Given the size of the Catholic vote alone, Obama’s decision to pander to his base on this issue is suicidal.

And indeed, the Catholics are on the warpath. I haven’t seen this degree of response since the Crusades. Two days before the HHS issued their ruling, the Pope sent a letter to Bishops in the U.S. condemning the “radical secularists’” war on religion in the U.S. Obama ignored it. And now the U.S. Bishops have issued letters, read at virtually every Catholic Church in the U.S. this past week, that read like a declaration of civil disobedience, if not an outright call to arms over this issue.

Obama has made a huge tactical error. This one will bite him at the ballot box – and I would not be surprised to find that it is determinitive in the next election.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:53 pm 8Wolf Howling

Here is a quote from the Bishops’ letters that I mentioned in my comment above:

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less. . . .
on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:56 pm 9Earl

Wow!! jj…I wish I could see it as you do.

But America’s Jews overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, including Obama, who are actively selling the state of Israel to the Arabs in what will be a second Holocaust if the rag-heads have their way.

And Catholics have been voting for the Democrats for decades….following Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, who have somehow made their peace with their consciences as they sell out the unborn all over the world.

What makes you so sure that this election cycle will be different?

As for me, I’m not Catholic (and I can’t claim that some of my best friends are, although I know plenty) but this policy is a threat to ANY church that accepts the Biblical view that human life is sacred – that is, “not to be touched”. “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away” as the Good Book says. Until the government gets involved, anyhow.

I can’t see how any Catholic, or any evangelical, can vote for a Democrat anymore…unless that Democrat is out front opposing this with everything they’ve got, including their vote…and regardless of the inducement to do otherwise.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 9:53 pm 10jj

Earl – check out the first line from Wolf’s second post, quoting the letter that every Catholic in church heard yesterday. As I said: there ain’t much wiggle room there. Not much space to talk about it, (and not much talk invited); it’s what my father used to refer to as “a flat-ass statement.” The Vatican (and you bet: this comes either from Benedict, or it’s been run by him and approved) has staked out a position here, and that’s the way it’ll be – period. They have said this is is fundamental, and there is no compromise. If you’re going to make this a law, Obama, just be forewarned: we won’t be obeying it. This doesn’t happen much, Earl. I’m not “so sure” this election cycle will be different – but this is something new for most of us; this doesn’t happen much.

Because that letter’s a lot stronger than what we’re accustomed to. And a whole lot more absolute. We get so used to endlessly discussing in this country that we more often than not forget: the Roman Catholic Church is under no obligation to engage in discussion. It’s not a democracy. They’ll discuss up to a point, out of sheer good manners – and then they’re done, the discussion’s over. This kind of “there you go and that’s how it is” statement is rare in American life, but the history is that when the Vatican issues one, they mean it. It’s going to put a lot of American Catholics in front of their bathroom mirrors – many of ‘em for the first time in years – addressing stuff they don’t very often address. They’re going to have to make a choice here, because the church has just said “no compromise” – and carved it in stone. Can’t bullshit your way around this one, Nancy, and now you do have to take a position. So far – largely because of irresolute church leadership in your diocese – you’ve been able to get away with pretending to be a “practicing” Catholic while also being a pro-abortion liberal dumb-ass. No more, it’s now been taken out of the irresolute locals’ hands, and Rome’s got the reins.

I think that the thinking has been done, and the position has been established. People will now have to make some decisions. If you want to regard that as “optimism,” undue or otherwise – okay. I think it’ll be, as I said, interesting.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 10:37 pm 11Bookworm

Earl: I think jj is right on this one. The Church has finally met a bright line issue, as to which there is no wiggle room.

jj: I think Earl is right on this one. For the past umpteen years, too many Catholic voters, marching down the same path as too many Jewish voters, have substituted the Democrat Party platform in place of their faiths scripture and doctrine.

The question, then, is whether this peculiar historic moment — a non-negotiable religious issue meeting a congregation that hitherto has happily flexed its collective conscience to the point of meaninglessness — will result in people abandoning the Democrat Party for the Church, or vice versa.

The last three years have shown that the majority of Jews, when faced with the existential threat Obama poses to Israel have done . . . nothing. But Israel isn’t a core doctrinal issue. One hopes that those who profess a faith that is predicated on the sanctity of life will be a bit more staunch in their beliefs.

I’m therefore optimistically inclined to agree with Wolf Howling to the effect that Obama finally picked the wrong battle.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:08 pm 12Charles Martel

jj’s take on what the Church is up to, namely that the sweet talking is over, is correct. Benedict and the Magisterium have drawn a clear line in the sand.

But Book is correct in her surmise that many—possibly a majority of—Catholics have been co-opted by the dominant culture. Great sex and cheap grace via Democratic Party platitudes are mighty effective in making the Church’s take on reality seem overly harsh.

What we will see, and this has happened several times before in history, is that the Church will shed most of her fair-weather followers and hunker down for a persecution. No big thang. Just as with Jefferson’s tree of liberty, the Church knows that blood is often the price you must pay to protect a good thing.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:09 am 13Oldflyer

This clash will be fascinating.

I am not Catholic, so I cannot speak as one. So, speaking strictly as an outsider (lapsed Baptist) I suspect that there will be serious upheaval within the Church as the laity are confronted with the Leadership’s hard line. I know Catholics who would follow the Church to martydom; I also know even more Catholics who partake of the comforting aspects of the faith, but draw the line when the Church impinges on their lifestyle. I suppose Obama is betting on the latter prevailing. Or maybe he is as stupid as he seems.

I had an email from the widow of an old squadron mate who was agonizing over who to vote for in the Florida primary. She is one of the true Catholics, and this letter has her in turmoil. I responded that she should vote for the person who she thought would best serve the country, and who would abide by the Constitution. Because constitutionally there is little that a President can do on the abortion issue. Of course, if you are Obama-like, and the Constitution has no meaning for you, it is a different story.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:27 am 14Danny Lemieux

I wish that, as one of several resident Episcopalians /Anglicans on this blog, I could say that the semi-secular functionaries of the Episcopal Church USA management would rise up and take a moral stand on this issue, but, alas, I suspect that most of them are all too happy to seek approval from their secular peers by rationalizing their support for Obama on this issue. They will wag their tails, tongues hanging out their mouths, as usual, looking for a pat on the head and a bone by those that would destroy them.

Thank God for the moral fiber of the Roman Catholics and evangelicals that leads them to draw this line in the sand.

I suspect that the Obama ideologues have made a fatal error. This is their Operation Barbarossa. Although I agree with Earl that many Roman Catholics won’t be swayed by their bishops’ declaration, I believe enough will be swayed to make a difference…a 10% shift would be enormous. I do get a sense that much of the country is coalescing in opposition to Obama (even among a significant number in the black and hispanic communities). In the next few months, we will probably witness more miscalculations and events that will contribute to this shift (Eric Holder’s impeachment? Please, oh please).

Whether it will be enough to overcome massive vote fraud and manipulation remains to be seen.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:35 am 15gpc31

I agree with Charles’ hard times / “mustard seed of hope” outlook.

It would be a very useful exercise to look at relatively modern historical case studies of countries whose rulers attempted to enforce top-down religious change. Tudor England, Revolutionary France, Communist Russia and Poland, all come readily to mind. My list is biased towards anti-Catholicism, because the institutional Church is such a visible target. There must be other cases that I’ve omitted in my ignorance.

England used to be a very Catholic country until Henry VIII did his business. He and his successors changed the national character within one or two wrenching generations. Given Obama and his ilk, that’s a scary thought. One mitigating factor: what’s left to loot? (i.e., the modern day equivalents of monastic wealth and New World piracy).
on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:36 am 16Obamacare’s Gift to the Catholics « The Anchoress

[...] Ed Morrissey Bishops pledge to defy administrationBookworm: As a secular Jewish lawyer, she’s incensed for sake of the church and the constitutionJoan Frawley Desmond: The Mandate and the Media // Tags: Anxiety, Catholicism, Constitution, First [...]
on 31 Jan 2012 at 10:33 am 17Earl

BW has summed up my thinking on this.

I GREATLY admire Benedict – he’s a “real Catholic” and not ashamed at any level that I can detect. He knows what Catholics believe, and he’s saying that this is so off that reservation that you can’t be Catholic and compromise with it. My kind of guy!

As I said before, I’m not a Catholic (in fact, my church put out a good deal of pretty anti-Catholic writing in the 19th Century when it was perfectly acceptable to say such things out loud, and a good deal of that kind of thinking exists even today), but what I want from Catholics is that they BE Catholic, and Baptists BE Baptist, and Episcopalians BE Episcopalian, and Jews BE Jews, etc. (Muslims are a special case – I need to know what it really means to BE Muslim before I decide.)

I’ve just been wondering about the issue that BW pointed out — are Catholic lay-people going to break out of their “affluenza” of the last several decades and actually follow Benedict when he reminds them of the teachings of their church? Teachings with which I absolutely agree, since they are derived from a straightforward reading of Scripture.

Another question that is equally interesting is “What are the bishops going to do?” Will they issue a ringing endorsement of Benedict….or put out some kind of pusillanimous statement that can be read this way or that and says very little to the point. A strong statement of obedience and support, along with instructions for the members of their flock to get with the program, would be a welcome change from earlier reactions to Papal restatements of the traditional positions of the Church.

Maybe I’m behind the times and the bishops have already spoken…..
on 31 Jan 2012 at 10:40 am 18jj

Here’s the point you’re missing. Try it this way. Forget what the individual Catholic voter does, nobody cares about him. But this is where the rubber hits the road.

If the Catholic laity want to stand up, that’ll be nice, but it won’t matter. The leadership has announced their position, and that’s that. (Keeping in mind that the Catholic Church has a far clearer idea of “leadership” than do most churches. They have a boss – there is a Head Catholic – they understand the concept quite clearly.) I don’t know how many Catholic hospitals and nursing homes there are in this country, but I wonder if HHS is prepared for them all to close – because the Church has as much as announced that it will close them. I wonder if the communities they serve are prepared for them to not be there any more. Because I’ll tell you what: closing the hospitals and nursing homes isn’t going to represent a loss of income for the Church, is it. The Catholic Church does not make money running however many hospitals and homes it is – hospitals and homes are a loser in this day and age. Closing the hospitals isn’t going to damage them at all. But it has real potential for collateral damage in lots of communities around this country.

And that’s where it’ll be interesting. When all of a sudden Aunt Kathleen has nowhere to go for those last few years. And the nearest hospital isn’t down the road, now it’s on the other end of the county. Here we have an organization – probably the largest single organization on the planet – that has hospitals all over the world. It has a lot of them right here in this country. They don’t make any money on them, but they keep them open anyway because they see it as part of their mission here on earth. A motive that fewer and fewer people seem to understand any more – and none at all in government do. Unlike Wal-Mart, Catholic Church Inc. doesn’t require that every franchise show a profit.

But they’re not going to obey this set of laws. Period. And that means those hospitals may well start closing. We’ve been talking about the Catholic citizens – and they don’t matter. Talking about them, as I did in my first two posts, is irrelevant because they’re irrelevant in this. What the one quarter of the US population that is Catholic thinks about it is not relevant. I suppose management would like them to stand up and be counted, but it doesn’t really matter: management has announced its position: they’re not going to obey these laws, and that’s that.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 10:54 am 19Earl

Are you sure, jj?

I mean are you sure that the Church has the power to close all those hospitals?

Because I’ve heard that there are “Catholic” hospitals that do abortions right now. It depends on the guy/gal who is running the show on the ground – if they are willing to support Catholic teaching (regardless of their personal views), then the hospital is Catholic in practice as well as in name. But if the local administration thinks the Pope is a reactionary old man, then the Catholic name on the hospital tells us very little about how things are run inside.

Maybe I’m all wet on this…but within my own church, I see stuff that makes me wonder. We also have an extensive medical work all over the world, as well as educational institutions at all levels….and it’s a struggle to keep them in line with church teaching. The guy at the top can say what he wants, but it’s difficult to assure that it’s happening down at the grassroots.

IF you’re correct about what the Church is prepared to do with its institutions, I’m guessing that they won’t all close…virtually all will be taken over by one or another of the major hospital groups, or perhaps even by the State or County. The name will change, but otherwise the community will hardly know the difference.

Again, I could be wrong….but I’m guessing that unless the ELECTORATE in this country stands up to be counted for religious freedom, the Catholics (and hopefully the Adventists) will gradually be squeezed out of their traditional roles in serving the public good. Our politicians need to learn that voting to violate the Constitutional guarantees will get them fired in short order. Failing that, we are going to become a banana republic.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 12:57 pm 20SADIE

Let’s see.. class/social warfare, 99% vs 1%/OWS, religious warfare for Catholics and 1967 borders for Jews. Did I miss anything other than a quote ….

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The icing on the yellow-cake is the internecine among conservatives..establishment GOP vs the Tea Party.

Divide et impera ring a bell?
on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:07 pm 21jj

I think all that might have stopped day before yesterday, Earl. I think Rome has had it, a lot of the flexibility may be reined in, and the party’s over. “Can they do that?” Why not? With the hospitals the Archdioceses own they can; how not?

The Catholic Church, unlike most others, does have a hierarchy. (I mean a meaningful one; sorry, Rowan.) As I said before, there is a Head Catholic. There isn’t, for example, a Head Jew. Or a Head Muslim. Or a Head Baptist. Or a Head Presbyterian. But there is indeed a Head Catholic. The Church is organized somewhat along the lines of the Mafia – or maybe, as a matter of history, the Mafia is organized somewhat along the lines of the Catholic Church. There is a local boss – (think the Chazz Palmentieri character in A Bronx Tale). A group of local bosses report to an under-boss, analogous to the bishop who runs the diocese. Bishops report to family-level bosses, Archbishops or Cardinals. They, of course, report to the boss of all the bosses – Capo di tutti capi – in Rome.

If there is a hospital somewhere that routinely flies in the face of doctrine (I don’t know of any actual Catholic hospitals that do, but they could be there), the leniency that might have allowed that looks to have been brought to a screeching halt Sunday. If there is such a hospital, then it will come under the aegis of a bishop somewhere, and if his boss, the Archbishop or Cardinal, taps him on the shoulder and says, “cessare – and do it now,” what’s he going to say? No? I kind of doubt it, I don’t think “no” is actually one of his options. The Boss has told the under-bosses: “we’re not doing this.” They can talk about it a bit – among themselves, he probably has no interest in listening – but that’s about all they can do. They really can’t, even if they were inclined to, oppose him.

There’s another reason. Another unique and interesting thing about the Catholic Church, though it’s an unknown for most people, and an “unbelievable” when they hear it. (Honestly, I didn’t know it either.) I was once present at a trivia contest, back in the eighties, between a bunch of fairly knowledgeable people, one of whom was an old family friend who happened to be bishop of a diocese outside New York. The question was asked: “who’s the wealthiest guy in New York City?” The answer was: “unknown for certain, but probably Cardinal O’Connor.” How? As a matter of Catholic law, fully acceptable to temporal authorities (and always has been), as head of the Archdiocese he owned – personally owned – everything from St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan to St. Brigid’s School on Long Island to St. Agnes Hospital in wherever-the-hell-it-is, New Jersey – and every other school, hospital, church, monastery, and convent in between. Thousands of properties. Everything the Church owned in the archdiocese, the name on the deed was his. (Which is why the first thing that happens when anyone is raised to Archbishop or Cardinal is that they sign their will, leaving all that stuff to their appointed successor.)

The Church does this for ease of operation. So, here’s an easy operation: if the Pope tells the current landlord in New York, Archbishop (about to be Cardinal) Timothy Dolan, that hospital X has become unbearable, “close it,” Dolan makes a phone call. It’s closed. He can do that: he owns it. Not much room for discussion there. (Think, “organized along the lines of the Mafia.”) I don’t know whether they’d go that Draconian or not. But they’ve said they’re not going to obey the law, and they certainly have the ability to be that Draconian. So – it’s interesting.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 8:27 pm 22SADIE

jj – You took me back 20 years to Roberto Calvi (suicide by hanging, Blackfriars Bridge in London) his secretary, Teresa Corrocher (she jumped off a building) and Michele Sindona, he served 25 years in the US, due to the collapse of Franklin National Bank in NY).
on 31 Jan 2012 at 9:58 pm 23Charles Martel

Dolan has a set, much like Chaput in Denver and Bruskewitz of Nebraska. Nancy Boy of the United States has never run into such men. He has always been surrounded by trousered apes of no principles, like Wright, and Ayers, Holder, and Jarrett.

Chance Gardner is in for one hard surprise.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:57 am 24Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Florida Showdown Edition

[...] The Saudi Persian War The Mellow Jihadi – Parading Vets: St Louis Vs. New York Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion paymentsThe Razor – The Twisted Memory of Newt Gingrich Rhymes With Right – Presidents Are Not Kings; [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 6:55 am 25Old Buckeye

I’ve been trying to analyze this act by HHS for the underlying subversive reason that it has been done. I’m not sure it was done *only* to pick a fight with the Catholic Church. What benefit will the regime reap if religious institutions get out of the business of healthcare? I’m not getting a clear picture of how that will benefit them, but I think there has to be a benefit. Also, because this does seem like election year suicide on the part of the regime, it makes me think once again that they intend to thwart an honest election and so they really don’t care what they do at this point.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 7:09 am 26This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 7:20 am 27This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 7:38 am 28Old Buckeye

Another thought: follow the money–who’s heavily invested in the companies that would benefit if hospitals are not run by religious institutions?
on 01 Feb 2012 at 10:15 am 29Charles Martel

Old Buckeye, I’m wondering if they may be looking at a two-fer or a three-fer:

1. Throw some meat to the Christian-hating base.

2. Set up, as you suspect, a rationalization for turning over Church property to properly enlightened and connected political allies, while using the Church’s “abandonment” of its sacred duty to serve the people as a political theme.

3. Create enough dissension and even civil disobedience that, coupled with SEIU and OWS thug violence, generates a “need” to restore order by postponing the 2012 election until tempers cool down. This last surmise is extreme—even the world’s premier nancy boy might shrink from setting off an armed response by the American people and military. The traditional Democratic Party devices of zombie votes, ballot theft, media mendacity, and at-the-poll intimidation may yet be enough to suffice.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 12:07 pm 30Ron19

JJ (comment 21): I’m flattered that you think so highly of us Catholics and our obedience to our faith, which includes obedience to our hierarchical spiritual leaders.

However, the Eastern Orthodox, tens of thousands of other Christian sects, even the many national Islamic sects, are the result of Christians and their spiritual descendents not doing what the Catholic Church has tried to tell them to do. There is a vast tree of religions that are descended from Catholicism, and who are about as obedient to their immediate predecessors as the typical teenager. Even Martin Luther was an ordained Catholic priest who took a sacred vow of obedience.

On the other hand, our own spiritual heritage descends (legitimately) from Judaism.

For a daily update of who’s opposed to what, see http://www.catholicculture.org/news/ for a sampling of dissidence in today’s world.

For a surprise rare activity of going the other way, check out the purchase of the Crystal Cathedral by the Diocese of Orange in Southern California. Even more so, Anglicans and even Muslims moving back to Rome.

By the way, at last Sunday’s Mass, no one even mentioned the topic of the post, OBamacare and mandatory abortion coverage, let alone read a letter from the Bishop. I couldn’t find mention of the letter on the local Diocesan Website, either.

This is not to say that we are all anarchists or whatever. After all, we are the Church of sinners. I know many good Catholics who are daily in the process of trying to be better Catholics.

JJ, God Bless you, and go with God.

Bookworm, G-d bless you too for providing us this forum.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 12:17 pm 31Charles Martel

I’ll echo what Ron19 said: Nary a word about Obama’s assault at last Sunday’s Mass. The priest where I go to church is a nice guy, and I can tell he is orthodox, but I think he may be intimidated by working in a county that is heavily Democratic—as in 80+ percent. (It doesn’t help that his archbishop is George Niederauer, a ball-less wonder who has yet to rein in Nancy Pelosi, or Tom Ammiano, or Gavin Newsom, three pseudo-Catholics who have done immense moral damage to San Francisco and California.)
on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:00 pm 32Earl

jj (and other knowledgeable Catholics): Help me understand the following (found at http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/31/first-they-came-for-the-catholics/):

“The ACLU called for a litigious fishing expedition against Catholic hospitals nationwide that refuse to provide “emergency” contraception and abortions to women. In their sights: Devout Phoenix Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted, who revoked the Catholic status of a rogue hospital that performed several direct abortions, provided birth control pills and presided over sterilizations against the church’s ethical and religious directives for health care.” (emphasis added)

The good Bishop did not close the wayward hospital, as he certainly could have if he were the owner, no? Or are some Catholic hospitals “Catholic” by agreement with the Bishop, and if they violate the agreement they can be forced to remove the name “Catholic”, but nothing more?

I’m not being snarky — I really do want to know. It is exactly this kind of thing that I was referencing in my earlier comment. I just didn’t remember where I’d seen it.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:09 pm 33Old Buckeye

Charles Martel, sadly, even your option #3 seems plausible to me at this point.
We had no letter read from the pulpit either; however, I think our bishop and others are presently in Rome for their ad limina visits. At least our diocese has Dolan’s comments posted on its website.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:10 pm 34NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Florida Showdown Edition

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:14 pm 35Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Florida Showdown Edition

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 2:23 pm 36Earl

By the way, Powerline blog has TWO posts that are excellent…letting us know where to protest this violation of our Constitutional right to religious liberty, and also highlighting the betrayal of three major figures who promised, or attempted to bring about, some cooperation by the government with the Catholic Church.

Here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-church-against-obamacare.php

and Here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-church-against-obamacare-contd.php
on 01 Feb 2012 at 3:30 pm 37SADIE

To any and all answering (Earl’s post #32) I’d like to know what constitutes “emergency” contreception.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 3:50 pm 38The Colossus of Rhodey

Watcher’s Council nominations…

The Colossus of Rhodey If you didn’t know this was coming by now, you’re living in a cave Joshuapundit-The New Egypt – Bankrupt And Sinking Fast The Noisy Room Tantrum on the Tarmac Simply Jews Wayne Madsen……
on 01 Feb 2012 at 5:18 pm 39Romney Wins Florida Primary by Double Digits – Time for the GOP Mudfest to Stop!?! Plus Florida Showdown Watchers Council Nomination Edition | askmarion

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 5:34 pm 40jj

Ron, I addressed it in #18. The people are not the point. Whether we obey the faith or not is of minimal interest to Rome. The hierarchy that runs the Church and owns the facilities has said: we’re not obeying this law. Period. Whether the people come along or not is entirely irrelevant. As a matter of historicity, when has the hierarchy in Rome ever particularly cared what the laity thought? (I’m being polite. I could have said: when have they at any time ever showed any signs of being concerned in the least about what the people thought?) They don’t need us to act, now or ever. It’s not a democracy, as more than one pope has (correctly) noted; nor is it a popularity contest.

I don’t think particularly highly of us Catholics, Ron. But we’re of minimal importance in this. The fact that most Catholics (probably) engage in some form of birth control despite what the church has said hasn’t changed by a comma the Church’s stance on the issue. Rome would probably think it would be swell to have us along on this one – but it makes no difference to them whether we are or not. They didn’t check with us ahead of time. They are opposed. We will do what we will do: we can be opposed with them; or neutral; or wishy-washy and opposed one day and sort of okay with it the next; we can be fervently for it. Rome does not care. They didn’t ask us what they should do, they didn’t invite our opinions, they didn’t take a poll. They just flatly said, “here’s the deal.” Every now and then they do just say: “here’s the deal.” It’s been a while since they have, but the power to do so remains in place. Whether the people come along or not is of little concern to the resident of the papal apartments.

Yes, Earl, Olmstead could have closed the hospital, and not being familiar with the situation I don’t know why he didn’t – or what the current status would be. If he Church built and owned the hospital he could have chosen that but it sounds as though they were in the position of running it, so he pulled the connection with the Church – which would be about all he could do. There are hospitals the Church administers, with full involvement of chaplains, nuns, etc. – but they don’t own them. I don’t know the situation there.
on 01 Feb 2012 at 6:21 pm 41Like Groundhog Day |

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 01 Feb 2012 at 7:41 pm 42Charles Martel

Since all forms of sex in Obamistan are equal, does this mean we soon are going have to pay for gays’ rubbers so they don’t acquire HIV? If a mere clump of cells in a womb can wreck a woman’s life, shouldn’t we pay to make sure that a deadly virus in the lower intestine does not disrupt the lives of poor boys who can’t afford (or remember) protection?
on 02 Feb 2012 at 7:32 am 43Danny Lemieux

“Since all forms of sex in Obamistan are equal…”

Bringing in the sheep, bringing in the sheep,
Obama comes rejoicing, bringing in the sheep.

- Old Christian Hymn (I think).
on 02 Feb 2012 at 1:10 pm 44Watcher’s Council Nominations – Florida Showdown Edition | Virginia Right!

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 02 Feb 2012 at 4:32 pm 45Watcher’s Council Nominations – Florida Showdown Edition | Independent Sentinel

[...] Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 03 Feb 2012 at 1:32 am 46Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results

[...] The New Egypt – Bankrupt And Sinking Fast Second place with 2 2/3 votes – Bookworm Room- ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion paymentsThird place with 2 1/3 votes – The Razor-The Twisted Memory of Newt Gingrich Fourth Place with 1 [...]
on 03 Feb 2012 at 8:46 am 47This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com

[...] Second place with 2 2/3 votes – Bookworm Room- ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 03 Feb 2012 at 11:49 am 48NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 02/03/12

[...] Second place with 2 2/3 votes – Bookworm Room – ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 03 Feb 2012 at 1:58 pm 49The Colossus of Rhodey

Watcher’s Council winners…

*First place with 3 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit The New Egypt – Bankrupt And Sinking Fast Second place with 2 2/3 votes Bookworm Room- ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion paymentsThird place with 2 1/3 votes The……
on 05 Feb 2012 at 6:40 pm 50A Super Bowl Winner |

[...] Second place with 2 2/3 votes – Bookworm Room- ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory abortion payments [...]
on 06 Feb 2012 at 4:45 am 51Rhymes With Right

Watcher’s Council Results…

Without further ado, here are this weeks full results:Council Winners*First place with 3 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit The New Egypt – Bankrupt And Sinking Fast Second place with 2 2/3 votes Bookworm Room- ObamaCare, the Catholic Church, and mandatory a…
on 26 Aug 2012 at 1:21 am 52Bob From District 9

As a pro-life Catholic, I agree with the Bishops. I oppose abortion.

That does not mean Pelosi is wrong when she says not all Catholics do.

It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?

The Catholic Church supports universal health care. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?

The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?

All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.

I oppose all government funding for Abortion by choice, note, meaning those not necessary to save the mother’s life. However, for the Catholic church to claim a church exemption to paying the bills it must be talking about a church function. Whether Catholic hospitals are a church function depend on whether or not they are run as a charity. If not, then they are at risk on this.

Separation of church and state is a necessary protection for the church as well as the state. The Catholic church has been on the losing side of state involvement in religion often enough in this country. And remember, a large number of protestants who came to this country did so because of government oppression of their religion in Europe. So when Catholic institutions take government money they become subject to, and at risk of, government rules.

Consider all that before pronouncing on Catholic/government issues. After all, despite the focus on abortion, there are far more issues on which the Democratic party is in line with the Catholic church, and far more where the Republicans oppose Catholic teachings.

Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.
on 26 Aug 2012 at 2:46 pm 53Ron19

Bob From District 9:
As a pro-life Catholic, I agree with the Bishops. I oppose abortion.
[snip]
I oppose all government funding for Abortion by choice, note, meaning those not necessary to save the mother’s life.
[etc.]
Consider all that before pronouncing on Catholic/government issues. After all, despite the focus on abortion, there are far more issues on which the Democratic party is in line with the Catholic church, and far more where the Republicans oppose Catholic teachings.

Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.

As a Pro-life Catholic, I agree with many of our bishops, depending on whether or not they are in full communion with Catholic teaching.
For instance, I was an admirer of Timothy Cardinal Dolan until last week, when I was reading his new book. In it, Dolan let slip his socialist leanings, going against several encyclicals etc. against socialism for the past century and a half.
The teachings of Catholicism and the teachings of the Catholic teachers are not necessarily the same thing.
I am not pro-life some of the time, or even most of the time; I am a pro-life Catholic all of the time.
Etc.
If you want separation of Church and state, try not to block my rights in the Bill of Rights. Caesar’s authority comes from God, not the other way around.
on 26 Aug 2012 at 8:35 pm 54Earl

Bob from District 9: I’ll ignore your tone and just concentrate on the points you made. You might spend some time reading comments on this blog, though….just to notice that courtesy is the norm.

Each of the “pro-life” positions (other than opposition to abortion) that you told us the church supports is, I believe, a matter of prudential judgment, isn’t that correct?

If you don’t agree with this, please cite Scriptural mandates for opposition to the death penalty, for universal health care, and for a “living wage” (whatever that is).

Can you not see that these issues, while not unimportant, are in a completely different category from the issue of the sacredness of human life, and the Biblical prohibition against shedding innocent blood?

I believe that a properly formed Catholic (or any other genuine Christian) would rather DIE than to kill an innocent child. I’m having a difficult time believing that very many are so foolish that they would offer up their life in order to achieve a “living wage”.
on 26 Aug 2012 at 8:35 pm 55Bob From District 9

Ron19
“ As a Pro-life Catholic, I agree with many of our bishops, depending on whether or not they are in full communion with Catholic teaching.

For instance, I was an admirer of Timothy Cardinal Dolan until last week, when I was reading his new book. In it, Dolan let slip his socialist leanings, going against several encyclicals etc. against socialism for the past century and a half.
The teachings of Catholicism and the teachings of the Catholic teachers are not necessarily the same thing.

I am not pro-life some of the time, or even most of the time; I am a pro-life Catholic all of the time.

Etc.

If you want separation of Church and state, try not to block my rights in the Bill of Rights. Caesar’s authority comes from God, not the other way around.”

I am pro-life all of the time. So, what exactly is your point? Separation of church and state is what guarantees your rights listed in the bill of rights.

I have no idea what Dolan said that went against any encyclical. If you intent was to disagree with anything I said you will have to explain in some more depth.
on 26 Aug 2012 at 9:21 pm 56Ron19

Bob From District 9:

All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.

OK, since you were first, you go first.
on 26 Aug 2012 at 9:50 pm 57Bookworm

Bob from District 9, let me address your points in the order in which you made them:

“As a pro-life Catholic, I agree with the Bishops. I oppose abortion.

That does not mean Pelosi is wrong when she says not all Catholics do.”

Indeed, Pelosi is correct when she says that not all Catholics are pro-Life. She is a prime example. But the fact that people professing to be Catholic are pro-Abortion has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church, which still (at least ostensibly) looks to Rome for doctrinal guidance, is adamantly pro-Life. This means that those Catholics who are pro-Abortion have broken with the Church on that issue.

“It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?”

I was unaware that the death penalty was at issue in this election. You are correct that the Catholic Church opposes it. What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China.

“The Catholic Church supports universal health care. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?”

Really? I didn’t know that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or, indeed, any of his teachings mandated state run health care. I was under the impression that he did charge each individual to be generous to his fellow man. What I do recall is his saying “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” It seems to me that Jesus approved of the separation of church and state. I think you’re confusing social justice, a vague term that stands for anything liberals like, with Church doctrine. That there are left wing clergy who believe in social justice doesn’t make it doctrinal.

The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?

Same: social justice from Leftist church members; not church doctrine. In any event, a living wage is, again, an individual responsibility. An employer should treat his employees well, something that the Jews advocated in the old testament. That has nothing to do with the state robbing industrial Peter to pay slacker Paul.

All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.

As far as I’m concerned, you are welcome to your opinion. But to conflate protecting a life in utero with having the government redistribute wealth a la Karl Marx is an amazing stretch that has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with your particular political leanings. There’s nothing wrong with having your faith inform your political leanings. There’s a lot wrong with saying that your political leanings reflect core Catholic doctrine.

“I oppose all government funding for Abortion by choice, note, meaning those not necessary to save the mother’s life. However, for the Catholic church to claim a church exemption to paying the bills it must be talking about a church function. Whether Catholic hospitals are a church function depend on whether or not they are run as a charity. If not, then they are at risk on this.”

Any time…. No let me make that stronger: ANY TIME the government forces a religious institution to pay for abortion, it is violating the first amendment by imposing state rules on church doctrine. The government cannot establish a religion. To that end, it cannot dictate a religion’s belief system. If that system is fundamentally opposed to abortion, making the faithful pay violates the First Amendment.

“Separation of church and state is a necessary protection for the church as well as the state. The Catholic church has been on the losing side of state involvement in religion often enough in this country. And remember, a large number of protestants who came to this country did so because of government oppression of their religion in Europe. So when Catholic institutions take government money they become subject to, and at risk of, government rules.”

As long as the government money is taken for actions consistent with the faith, why not? I’m never going to turn my back on free money. But you are right that there is an element here of “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Catholics would do well to stop taking money. You’re wrong, though, about the real flow of benefits. The government funds many Catholic charities — especially hospitals — because they do the job better than the government. Without the church, a lot of needy people are going to go begging for food, shelter and health care.

“Consider all that before pronouncing on Catholic/government issues. After all, despite the focus on abortion, there are far more issues on which the Democratic party is in line with the Catholic church, and far more where the Republicans oppose Catholic teachings.

Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.”

And there’s the magic word: social justice. That’s Leftist cant conveniently retrofitted in Catholic doctrine. Go back to your catechism and remember that, for the good Catholic, doctrine first, wealth redistribution second.
on 26 Aug 2012 at 10:52 pm 58Charles Martel

By the way, Nancy Pelosi is an excommunicant of the Catholic Church.

In Catholicism, there are two ways to become excommunicated: You can be formally excommunicated by a bishop or incur the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae—bring it upon yourself automatically through certain actions.

In Pelosi’s case, her excommunication was incurred through her four explicit acts in support of abortion: 1. Helping women to obtain abortions by voting to fund abortionists like Planned Parenthood; 2. believing in abortion as a legitimate good end for the state to allow; 3. promoting abortion through her support of organizations like NARAL and the Democratic Party; and 4. voting as a legislator to defend the procedure.

She has further committed heresy by directly opposing the explicit pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church. Heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication regardless of whether a bishop formalizes the denial of access to the Eucharist.

Although Pelosi may continue to be presenting herself for Communion—I don’t know if she is or not—each time she does so she is committing a mortal sin. The Church sees her as having condemned herself to Hell. A bishop who loves her should tell her that. I have a sneaking suspicion that she already has been so warned and chooses to persist in following her own twisted path.
on 27 Aug 2012 at 6:03 am 59Bob From District 9

ookworm
Bob from District 9, let me address your points in the order in which you made them:
“As a pro-life Catholic, I agree with the Bishops. I oppose abortion.

…

The Catholic Church, which still (at least ostensibly) looks to Rome for doctrinal guidance, is adamantly pro-Life. This means that those Catholics who are pro-Abortion have broken with the Church on that issue.

         It also means the Catholic Church endorses all those positions I mentioned.
“It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?”
“I was unaware that the death penalty was at issue in this election. You are correct that the Catholic Church opposes it. What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China.”

If has everything to do with not agreeing to every jot and tittle and still being Catholic.
Whether or not the death penalty is at issue is nor relevant. What is relevant is painting Catholic democrats as not real Catholics, by someone on the side that opposes so much the Catholic church stands up for.

“The Catholic Church supports universal health care. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?”

Really? I didn’t know that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or, indeed, any of his teachings mandated state run health care

That one was truly pitiful.
Reread Obamacare. If you state has a plan to do it better your state can get an exemption.
“ I was under the impression that he did charge each individual to be generous to his fellow man. What I do recall is his saying “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.””
I was hungry and you did not give me to eat, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was homeless and you did not take me in.

I don’t know you.

You have excuses but no answers.

” It seems to me that Jesus approved of the separation of church and state. ”

So do I.

“I think you’re confusing social justice, a vague term that stands for anything liberals like, with Church doctrine. That there are left wing clergy who believe in social justice doesn’t make it doctrinal.”
http://www.snipurl.com/vaticansocialjustice *DOES* make it Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?

“Same: social justice from Leftist church members; not church doctrine.”
I said the *Catholic Church* supports a living wage. http://snipurl.com/usccblivingwage and http://snipurl.com/usccblivingwage1 are links to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website.
“ In any event, a living wage is, again, an individual responsibility. An employer should treat his employees well, something that the Jews advocated in the old testament. That has nothing to do with the state robbing industrial Peter to pay slacker Paul.”
Nor do your straw men have anything to do with reality.

All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.

“As far as I’m concerned, you are welcome to your opinion. But to conflate protecting a life in utero ”

The point was calling some people pro-life even though they are only anti-abortion.

“with having the government redistribute wealth a la Karl Marx is an amazing stretch that has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with your particular political leanings.”
http://www.snipurl.com/usccbeconjustice says you are wrong.

“ There’s nothing wrong with having your faith inform your political leanings. There’s a lot wrong with saying that your political leanings reflect core Catholic doctrine.”
Usccb.org is the website for the United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops. That says my post reflects Catholic teachings.

“I oppose all government funding for Abortion by choice, note, meaning those not necessary to save the mother’s life. However, for the Catholic church to claim a church exemption to paying the bills it must be talking about a church function. Whether Catholic hospitals are a church function depend on whether or not they are run as a charity. If not, then they are at risk on this.”

“Any time…. No let me make that stronger: ANY TIME the government forces a religious institution to pay for abortion, it is violating the first amendment by imposing state rules on church doctrine. The government cannot establish a religion. To that end, it cannot dictate a religion’s belief system. If that system is fundamentally opposed to abortion, making the faithful pay violates the First Amendment.”
Since the church is not required to pay for abortion, not even by your standards, that’s another straw man. Church owned market operations are not exempted, legitimately so.

“Separation of church and state is a necessary protection for the church as well as the state. The Catholic church has been on the losing side of state involvement in religion often enough in this country. And remember, a large number of protestants who came to this country did so because of government oppression of their religion in Europe. So when Catholic institutions take government money they become subject to, and at risk of, government rules.”

“As long as the government money is taken for actions consistent with the faith, why not? I’m never going to turn my back on free money. But you are right that there is an element here of “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Catholics would do well to stop taking money.”
Consistent with the faith just means not a violation. IF a church founded a restaurant that would not be inconsistent with the faith, but it would also not be a church. If that restaurant took govt money to feed the hungry that would be in the spirit of the church, but still be subject to govt rules. If they ran the restaurant solely on the basis of donations then it could be counted as part of the church.

“ You’re wrong, though, about the real flow of benefits. The government funds many Catholic charities — especially hospitals — because they do the job better than the government. Without the church, a lot of needy people are going to go begging for food, shelter and health care.”
The government funded Catholic Charities long before Faith Base Initiatives. They got money to serve the poor, but they, properly, were not allowed to proselytize on the job.
The advantage the church has is volunteers, but they still needed government money to pay the bills.
Without the government money a lot of needy people are going to go begging for food, shelter and health care. Even with the church, it’s still government money.

“Consider all that before pronouncing on Catholic/government issues. After all, despite the focus on abortion, there are far more issues on which the Democratic party is in line with the Catholic church, and far more where the Republicans oppose Catholic teachings.

Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.”

“And there’s the magic word: social justice. That’s Leftist cant conveniently retrofitted in Catholic doctrine. Go back to your catechism and remember that, for the good Catholic, doctrine first, wealth redistribution second.”
Go to the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, usccb.org, and learn that what I posted was taken from that site. I either confirmed it there, or learned if for the first time there. Social Justice *IS a Catholic doctrine, the pope says so.

“By the way, Nancy Pelosi is an excommunicant of the Catholic Church.

In Catholicism, there are two ways to become excommunicated: You can be formally excommunicated by a bishop or incur the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae—bring it upon yourself automatically through certain actions.

In Pelosi’s case, her excommunication was incurred through her four explicit acts in support of abortion” …
The arrogance it takes to claim the right to say who is excommunicated…
…
“She has further committed heresy by directly opposing the explicit pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church. Heresy also incurs a latae sententiae excommunication regardless of whether a bishop formalizes the denial of access to the Eucharist.”
Then so have Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan.
…
on 27 Aug 2012 at 6:05 am 60Bob From District 9

“Ron19
Bob From District 9:

All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.
OK, since you were first, you go first.”

I don’t know what your question is.
on 27 Aug 2012 at 6:18 am 61Bob From District 9

Earl

“Bob from District 9: I’ll ignore your tone and just concentrate on the points you made. You might spend some time reading comments on this blog, though….just to notice that courtesy is the norm.”
Hostility seems as much the norm.

“Each of the “pro-life” positions (other than opposition to abortion) that you told us the church supports is, I believe, a matter of prudential judgment, isn’t that correct?”
Everything is a matter of ‘prudential judgement”. Even abortion, when it comes to procedures and processes to stop it. Check the links I posted in another msg, you will find they are Catholic teachings.

“If you don’t agree with this, please cite Scriptural mandates for opposition to the death penalty, for universal health care, and for a “living wage” (whatever that is).”
And since when do you think you have the right to demand proof of things I didn’t claim. I said they are church teachings, you will find they are at the Catholic Bishops website, http://www.usccb.org.
However, “thou shalt not kil” will start, followed by ” I was hungry and you gave me to eat” etc.

“Can you not see that these issues, while not unimportant, are in a completely different category from the issue of the sacredness of human life, and the Biblical prohibition against shedding innocent blood?”
No, they are not completely different, they are in the same ball park. Letting an innocent die is on the same level as shedding that innocent’s blood.

“I believe that a properly formed Catholic (or any other genuine Christian) would rather DIE than to kill an innocent child. I’m having a difficult time believing that very many are so foolish that they would offer up their life in order to achieve a “living wage”.”
They did when they stood in picket lines and were shot up. Poverty and hunger and lack of health care kill.
on 27 Aug 2012 at 6:44 am 62Ron19

Bob From District 9

“Ron19
Bob From District 9:

All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.
OK, since you were first, you go first.”

I don’t know what your question is.

If you intent was to disagree with anything I said you will have to explain in some more depth.

Bob, I do not “intend” to disagree with you. I do not have a question, at the moment.

What I directed you to do was to “to explain in some more depth.”
on 27 Aug 2012 at 10:13 am 63Charles Martel

The conflation of poverty, hunger, and lack of health care (the latter which is a misnomer–the left’s agenda calls for health insurance) with abortion is a stretch. One involves the deliberate murder and destruction of a human being while the others are, at best, indirect results of a combination of circumstances over which we as Christians often have little control.

The issue here is not that we can neglect Christ’s clear command that we treat the least of our brothers as we treat ourselves. The question is how do we do that? Person to person, or by organizing voluntarily into charitable enterprises, such as the Catholic Church itself? Or do we allow the impersonal and often wicked hand of government to force us into charity? I don’t recall Jesus telling us to hire armed agents to waylay anybody with an ounce of surplus and command him at spear point not only to surrender it to a benevolent government, but to also understand that much of his “liberated” wealth will be used to pay the salaries of the same people who are relieving him of it.

The appeal to authority—citing the U.S. Conference of Bishops—would carry more weight if it were possible for Catholics to take the bishops themselves seriously. With few exceptions over the past 40 years, our shepherds have been hand-wringing milquetoasts who have taken on high-sounding causes like ending hunger and poverty while looking the other way as homosexual predators infested the seminaries and political predators like Biden, Kennedy, and Pelosi ran around simultaneously proclaiming their Catholic bona fides while pissing on the Magisterium.

As soon as liberal Catholic can show me 53 million dismembered American corpses that were caused by poverty, hunger, and lack of health insurance—sanctioned by the government and fiercely defended by the elites—I’ll take the “seamless garment” argument a little more seriously. Otherwise, it’s special pleading. “Yes, we see all those eviscerated babies piling up over there, poor things. But don’t you think that crippling the economy to forcibly insure an additional 1/10th of the U.S. population is just as important?”
on 27 Aug 2012 at 7:25 pm 64Earl

“Hostility seems as much the norm.” Really, Bob? I can’t believe that you’ve spent much time here, if you truly think that. I’ve been reading and commenting for years, and while you WILL find some hostility, to call it “the norm” flies in the face of reality.

As to the substance of our disagreement, Bob….Martel has elucidated it about as well as it can be done.
on 28 Aug 2012 at 2:22 pm 65Bob From District 9

Charles Martel
“The conflation of poverty, hunger, and lack of health care (the latter which is a misnomer–the left’s agenda calls for health insurance) with abortion is a stretch. One involves the deliberate murder and destruction of a human being while the others are, at best, indirect results of a combination of circumstances over which we as Christians often have little control.”

We as Christians are commanded by Christ to work against those very evils. All of them. And they cause death as surely as if you pulled the trigger, or aborted an infant.

“The issue here is not that we can neglect Christ’s clear command that we treat the least of our brothers as we treat ourselves. The question is how do we do that? Person to person, or by organizing voluntarily into charitable enterprises, such as the Catholic Church itself? Or do we allow the impersonal and often wicked hand of government to force us into charity? I don’t recall Jesus telling us to hire armed agents to waylay anybody with an ounce of surplus and command him at spear point not only to surrender it to a benevolent government, but to also understand that much of his “liberated” wealth will be used to pay the salaries of the same people who are relieving him of it.”

You are right about one thing, you are arguing details not substance. Anyone who brings in “command him at spear point” and “an ounce of surplus” is not someone to be taken seriously. If voluntary charitable enterprises worked we would not have had medicare in the first place. If voluntary charitable enterprises worked we would not have the highest infant mortality in the industrial world.

“As soon as liberal Catholic can show me 53 million dismembered American corpses that were caused by poverty, hunger, and lack of health insurance—sanctioned by the government and fiercely defended by the elites—I’ll take the “seamless garment” argument a little more seriously. Otherwise, it’s special pleading. “Yes, we see all those eviscerated babies piling up over there, poor things. But don’t you think that crippling the economy to forcibly insure an additional 1/10th of the U.S. population is just as important?””

Comparing abortion with death from lack of health care is another case of someone cannot be taken seriously. All that nonsense is a nice diversion, but you apparently don’t understand, some ten to twenty thousand infants die in this country every year from that poverty and hunger and lack or health insurance. That is one thing you can do something about, and your duty is to do what you can, not what is perfect.

Remember this, contributing to the death of one innocent will send you to the same hell as all the abortions in this country combined. There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.
on 28 Aug 2012 at 2:57 pm 66SADIE

“….some ten to twenty thousand infants die in this country every year from that poverty and hunger and lack or health insurance.”

“this” country? Are you posting from the United States?
on 28 Aug 2012 at 5:50 pm 67Charles Martel

Bob, I can see that you are no respecter of the English language. You have a regrettable habit of taking words and distorting them to underpin your desire to stand on a higher moral ground than the rest of us here.

For example: “There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.” So, you have declared conservatives guilty of murder because they oppose government-mandated health insurance. How do you make such a leap? Do you really think that’s persuasive? (I assume you are here to persuade, not snicker.)

You say you don’t take me seriously, yet you devote several hundred words to addressing my non-serious arguments—again from a sneering, higher-than-thou moral ground.

You also studiously avoid providing actual proofs of your assertions. I said that Nancy Pelosi is an excommunicant, which she is by the Church’s own objective standards, and your response was, “the arrogance to claim the right to say who is excommunicated.” Apparently the Church’s own criteria for latae sententiae excommunication, which I clearly stated, do not meet your criteria. (And, apparently, arrogance in proclaiming matters of faith is limited to me but does not apply to you.)

Does your blithely repeated statistic on infant mortality take into account a heterogenous high-population society versus a homogenous, low-population society? Does it take into account the marvelous U.S. devotion to saving preemies versus Europe’s counting of only healthy babies as live births? Does a paradise of free healthcare like Cuba provide truthful statistics? Is it possible that a dictatorship might lie about infant mortality? I don’t imagine that you dispute any statistic or figure that will make your argument look good.

But the one thing that showed your true colors was your ignoring of a central point: There is a vast difference between setting out to dismember a baby for pay and having qualms about paying a corrupted federal government to “do” Jesus’s work for us. You can blithely compare the two all you want to, but all that you succeed in doing when you make such an argument is to confirm your contempt for the language everybody else here has great love for.
on 28 Aug 2012 at 6:46 pm 68Earl

It’s useless, Martel….and keeping at it is non-Biblical, you know.

See Matthew 7:6
on 28 Aug 2012 at 6:55 pm 69Ron19

Bob From District 9:

….we would not have the highest infant mortality in the industrial world.

Thomas Sowell:

Take infant mortality statistics. The officially reported U.S. infant mortality rate has been indisputably high compared with similarly industrialized countries since at least the 1920s.

That fact has led to a widely accepted conclusion among public health people in the U.S. that these rates are “caused” by poorly distributed health care resources and can be “solved” by adopting a socialized government-paid system of health care.

We heartily disagree.

Let’s look at the numbers.

While comparing statistics among countries can be tricky, in the case of infant mortality figures, the comparisons are downright treacherous. For starters, different countries count differently.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.

Switzerland doesn’t count the death of very small babies, less than 30 cm. as a live birth, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting fellow, Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the US, 4.8 and 7.2 respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.

Other countries, such as Italy, use different definitions in various parts of their own country. Eberstadt observes that “underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first twenty-four hours after birth. In Australia, Canada, and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day….” In contrast “Less than one-sixth of France’s infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths.”

A UNICEF press release noted, “Under the Soviet era definition … infants who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams or measuring less than 35 centimeters are not counted as live births if they die within seven days. This Soviet definition still predominates in many [formerly Soviet] CIS countries.” The release also points out, “The communist system stressed the need to keep infant mortality low, and hospitals and medical staff faced penalties if they reported increases in infant deaths. As a result, they sometimes reported the deaths of babies in their care as miscarriages or stillbirths.”

Since the United States generally uses the WHO definition of live birth, economist John Goodman and others in their 2004 book “Lives at Risk” conclude, “Taking into account such data-reporting differences, the rates of low-birth-weight babies born in America are about the same as other developed countries in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development].” Likewise, infant mortality rates, adjusted for the distribution of newborns by weight, are about the same

American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would have surely died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very low birth weight babies weighing less than 3 pounds almost always died. Now, some of these babies survive with the help of breathing assistance and other recent inventions. While such vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low birth weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to the WHO. And these deaths count as infant deaths even though most would have been counted as stillbirths if they hadn’t received a gift of life, however transitory. Ironically, American doctors’ ability to save babies’ lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced medical treatment.

Because of varying standards, international comparisons of infant mortality rates are improperly used to create myths about how the United States should allocate local or national resources. If we want to lower our infant mortality rate so it compares better with that of other countries, maybe we should bring our measuring into line with theirs to better determine the actual extent of the so-called “problem.”
on 28 Aug 2012 at 7:01 pm 70Earl

Ron 19: You appear to be operating under the misconception that our friend is susceptible to data and logic….but we’ve seen that he is not.

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”, as my dear and departed grandmother used to say.
on 28 Aug 2012 at 7:59 pm 71Ron19

Bob From District 9
52: I oppose all government funding for Abortion by choice, note, meaning those not necessary to save the mother’s life. However, for the Catholic church to claim a church exemption to paying the bills it must be talking about a church function. Whether Catholic hospitals are a church function depend on whether or not they are run as a charity. If not, then they are at risk on this.
59: Since the church is not required to pay for abortion, not even by your standards, that’s another straw man. Church owned market operations are not exempted, legitimately so.
61: Everything is a matter of ‘prudential judgement”. Even abortion, when it comes to procedures and processes to stop it.
Letting an innocent die is on the same level as shedding that innocent’s blood.
65: Remember this, contributing to the death of one innocent will send you to the same hell as all the abortions in this country combined. There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.

Bob, from your quotes I simply cannot tell if you are against deliberate abortion in any and all circumstances, or if you are generally against abortion but tolerant of some circumstances.
And if you are absolutely against deliberate abortion, do you put all your time, effort, and resources into opposing it, or just the time, effort, and resources that you don’t want for yourself or for other issues that you are for or against, such as supporting a living wage. How many innocent lives will you save by fighting the death penalty instead of putting everything you’ve got against abortion.
Please clarify.

Bob, you are in my prayers, and have been even before I knew that you existed.
on 28 Aug 2012 at 8:08 pm 72Ron19

Bob From District 9

52: It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.

Since this was your first comment on this post, please “explain in some more depth.”
on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:29 am 73Bob From District 9

SADIE
“….some ten to twenty thousand infants die in this country every year from that poverty and hunger and lack or health insurance.”

“this” country? Are you posting from the United States?

Yes. Our infant mortality rate is twice that of Sweden and 75% higher than Germany. I chose those two countries because some posters try to us different methods of defining infant mortality as a factor. German and Sweden use the same standards as the US.

So, the 28,000 infant deaths in the US per year means 50% would be 14,000. That’s the portion of ‘excess deaths’ compared to Sweden.

My original numbers were based on older research I had done on this, but seem to be fairly close.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 6:15 am 74Bob From District 9

Ron19

Bob From District 9:

….we would not have the highest infant mortality in the industrial world.

“Thomas Sowell:”

I lost all respect for Thomas Sowell when I caught him in repeated falsehoods and deceptions.

“Take infant mortality statistics. The officially reported U.S. infant mortality rate has been indisputably high compared with similarly industrialized countries since at least the 1920s.

That fact has led to a widely accepted conclusion among public health people in the U.S. that these rates are “caused” by poorly distributed health care resources and can be “solved” by adopting a socialized government-paid system of health care.

We heartily disagree.”

…
“Let’s look at the numbers.

For starters, different countries count differently.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.”

Which is a fraud on Sowell’s part. Just look at the ones who do count them the same way. Or just adjust upwards to account for the difference in reporting.

…

“Australia, Canada, and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day….” In contrast “Less than one-sixth of France’s infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths.””

So, do some basic math. Assume the true figure is 1/3rd in any country you want to consider. Hong Kong’s rate jumps from less than 3% to 4.5%. The reported 1st day rate is so low I didn’t even bother to subtract it, just increase the total rate 50%. However, I specifically stated the industrialize countries, Hong Kong is a city not a country. Sowell also specifice industrialized countries.

France’s also goes from 3% to 4.5%.

Oh, I am using the UN figures for 2010. The CIA gives estimates, which are lower in every case I looked at so far.

” UNICEF press release noted, “Under the Soviet era definition … ”

Again, I specifically stated industrialized countries, I don’t count the Soviet Union among them.

…

“American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would have surely died only a few decades ago. Until
…
Ironically, American doctors’ ability to save babies’ lives causes higher infant mortality numbers here than would be the case with less advanced medical treatment.”

Not relevant to comparisons with countries that use the same standards.

“Because of varying standards, international comparisons of infant mortality rates are improperly used to create myths about how the United States should allocate local or national resources. If we want to lower our infant mortality rate so it compares better with that of other countries, maybe we should bring our measuring into line with theirs to better determine the actual extent of the so-called “problem.””

Or just use the countries that use the same standards, or adjust their numbers up to account for the difference.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 6:22 am 75Bob From District 9

Ron19
Bob From District 9 52: I oppose all government funding for Abortion by choice, note, meaning those not necessary to save the mother’s life. However, for the Catholic church to claim a church exemption to paying the bills it must be talking about a church function. Whether Catholic hospitals are a church function depend on whether or not they are run as a charity. If not, then they are at risk on this.

“Bob, from your quotes I simply cannot tell if you are against deliberate abortion in any and all circumstances, or if you are generally against abortion but tolerant of some circumstances.”

I believe I made that clear. In any case other than to save the mother’s life.
And if you are absolutely against deliberate abortion, do you put all your time, effort, and resources into opposing it, or just the time, effort, and resources that you don’t want for yourself or for other issues that you are for or against, such as supporting a living wage. How many innocent lives will you save by fighting the death penalty instead of putting everything you’ve got against abortion.

In opposing the death penalty I am fighting against the culture of death I believe brought us legalized abortion.

Fighting poverty and lack of access to medical care goes directly to the deaths of innocents, but also indirectly to abortion by removing causes for may abortions.

Since the battle against abortion had been going on for decades, with pretty much zero accomplishment, I see going against factors contributing to abortion a more practical course.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 7:20 am 76Bob From District 9

Author: Charles Martel Comment: “Bob, I can see that you are no respecter of the English language. You have a regrettable habit of taking words and distorting them to underpin your desire to stand on a higher moral ground than the rest of us here.” Distorting them? Where? “For example: “There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.” So, you have declared conservatives guilty of murder because they oppose government-mandated health insurance. How do you make such a leap? Do you really think that’s persuasive? (I assume you are here to persuade, not snicker.)” I see nothing there showing I have distorted anything. Your first mistake, not all conservatives oppose govt health care. Mandated is a red herring IMO. Remember, Obamacare was a republican program from 1994 until Obama adopted it. And snickering wouldn’t be a bad thing, if the issue was not so serious. “You say you don’t take me seriously, yet you devote several hundred words to addressing my non-serious arguments—again from a sneering, higher-than-thou moral ground. ” Now you are the one inventing complaints out of thin air. “You also studiously avoid providing actual proofs of your assertions. I said that Nancy Pelosi is an excommunicant, which she is by the Church’s own objective standards, and your response was, “the arrogance to claim the right to say who is excommunicated.” Apparently the Church’s own criteria for latae sententiae excommunication, which I clearly stated, do not meet your criteria. ” No matter which criteria they meet, the arrogance is in assuming one has the right to judge another’s motives and behavior, without regard to facts not necessarily available to the judge. Or not examined in detail. “(And, apparently, arrogance in proclaiming matters of faith is limited to me but does not apply to you.) ” Notice that I backed up my positions with links to the USCCB. And I judge positions, not individuals. Though in some cases the individual makes his position quite clear. “Does your blithely repeated statistic on infant mortality take into account a heterogeneous high-population society versus a homogenous, low-population society? ” Both points are pretty much irrelevant. Population size is not that significant when considering so many societies the factors can balance out. Heterogeneous vs homogenous is a demarcation between access to health care and nutrition etc. Black Americans have twice the poverty rate, twice the unemployment rate, and 2 1/2 times the infant mortality rate as whites. Poor whites have a much higher infant mortality rate than well to do whites. All that reflects the damage done by lack of health care and the basics of life. Which supports my points. “Does it take into account the marvelous U.S. devotion to saving preemies versus Europe’s counting of only healthy babies as live births? ” Just look at the European countries who use the same standard as the US, Sweden and Germany were two I was given. Just compare the 1st day death rates, and increase the rates for the countries that don’t use the US (WHO) standard to match that of the US. Does a paradise of free healthcare like Cuba provide truthful statistics? Is it possible that a dictatorship might lie about infant mortality? I don’t imagine that you dispute any statistic or figure that will make your argument look good. I specifically stated industrialized countries. I don’t doubt you will invent any excuse you can to make your argument look good. “But the one thing that showed your true colors was your ignoring of a central point: There is a vast difference between setting out to dismember a baby for pay and having qualms about paying a corrupted federal government to “do” Jesus’s work for us.” You show your true colors in ignoring my first point, that I oppose abortion, and in using inflammatory adjectives in your argument. I find the health care system in this country more corrupted than the government. At least before GW Bush got hold of it. And except under republican rule in the last 30 years in general. ” You can blithely compare the two all you want to, but all that you succeed in doing when you make such an argument is to confirm your contempt for the language everybody else here has great love for.” Well, that makes no sense at all.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 10:24 am 77Charles Martel

Bob, I don’t think anybody will ever accuse you of understanding subtlety, let alone practicing it.

Earl, we Catholics have an expression when we are confronted with people who reject reasoned argument: Invincible ignorance. As the Gospel instructs, we are to shake the dust from our sandals and move on to more receptive souls. Hear that sound? I’m doing some dust shakin’!
on 29 Aug 2012 at 10:33 am 78Earl

Charles: As you pointed out, when someone apparently thinks it’s making a serious point to say that the intentional killing of a baby in the womb is in the same category as failing to prevent the starvation of a child (anywhere), it’s time to exit the conversation because it has become a waste of time. I have a life, so I’m working on recognizing “Invincible Ignorance” a little sooner than in the past.

By Bob’s standards EVERYONE is a murderer….except maybe Mother Theresa. I’ve found that generally, absurd results indicate that the premises are profoundly mistaken, if not sheer fantasy.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 11:34 am 79Mike Devx

Since my betters, Charles M and Earl, are bowing out, I won’t mind keeping the conversation going with some input. It won’t be nearly as informative or involving, though.

I will give Bob credit for trying hard. If you want to prove a point to someone who disagrees, it is important to justify your argument with some form of objective data. Or at least, data that YOU believe to be objective. I’d say Bob has done that; I don’t think he’s being deceitful. So I’ll give the guy credit, and I always give credit for coming into a forum where you know in advance that the vast majority are likely to disagree with you.

But let’s start with #52 from Bob:
>It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.
>The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>The Catholic Church supports universal health care. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.
> …
> Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.

Some of the above is ok, but some is, well, not acceptable at all. Hate for Obama obviously overwhelms reason? And you say this in your introductory blog comment to everyone? GOOD TACTIC! If you start out that way, how in the hell do you think ANYONE here will take you seriously?
And then – you just CAN’T help yourself, you close with the stern admonition:
> “Learn something about BLAH before you put forth your commentary on BLEH.

Well, pardon me, but F&*$CK you too. Were you wagging your finger like a nun when you typed that little admonition?   All of us – including you, Bob – we are all so VERY glad to be corrected in such a manner by our obvious superiors. It is a tactic that works so well when you’re talking to your inferiors, isn’t it?
————————————-
Bob then says:
> Comparing abortion with death from lack of health care is another case of someone cannot be taken seriously. All that nonsense is a nice diversion, but you apparently don’t understand, some ten to twenty thousand infants die in this country every year from that poverty and hunger and lack or health insurance. That is one thing you can do something about, and your duty is to do what you can, not what is perfect.

> Remember this, contributing to the death of one innocent will send you to the same hell as all the abortions in this country combined. There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.

I know some of this has been hashed to death already. Twenty thousand infants die from a combination of:
- hunger
- poverty
- lack of health insurance
And then the rather amazing claim: “contribution to the death of one innocent will send you to the same hell as all the abortions in this country combined”.

Well, Bob, I make the claim that ObamaCare will result in AT LEAST ONE infant death that could have been avoided via a better health care system. Therefore, in supporting ObamaCare, YOU are contribution to the death of one innocent. Your culpability by your argument is just as great as a person committing “all the abortions in this country combined”. You don’t like my ObamaCare argument? Well, I don’t like YOURS. In my world, that makes us even. One of us is right; one of us wrong; both of us are wrong. Your blanket statements and condemnations over policy positions are distrubing. I believe we are ALLOWED to fight out policy positions, and change, without being consigned to some level of hellfire and damnation for daring to disagree with public policy. Being consigned to hellfire and damnation isn’t much different than being called a RACIST for simply disagreeing with Obama’s positions.

And by the way, I was being facetious at the start of the above paragraph concerning ObamaCare. I am certain that ObamaCare will result in thousands of horrifyingly unnecessary deaths, along with innumberable injuries and harms and deteriorations of health, massive increases in significant suffering – and I mean PAIN! – due to declining standards of treatment. I’m certain. I’m sure you disagree and believe otherwise.

Then there are the inevitable massive cost overruns, on a scale we can barely imagine, eventually dwarfing those of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined. The economic devastation will be nearly unimaginable. You discuss the prospect of infant mortality as it relates to limited access to health insurance. Well, if you compare the economic devastation to be caused by ObamaCare to the current limited access to health insurance, I can tell you, the ObamaCare results will be orders of magnitude worse.

Infant Mortality Rates:
> Our infant mortality rate is twice that of Sweden and 75% higher than Germany. I chose those two countries because some posters try to us different methods of defining infant mortality as a factor. German and Sweden use the same standards as the US.

The stats I saw (Wikipedia) list as, mortality rate per 1000 births:
Sweden 3.18 (#4)
Germany   4.21 (#12)
United States   7.07   (#34)

The article also states: The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live births. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country. The infant mortality rate of the world is 49.4 according to the United Nations

Canada, with national health insurance, is at 5.07 by the way (#24).
Still it seems clear to me the USA can and should be doing better. But why is ObamaCare – or any other nationalized health care – to be considered the ONLY solution? That is a typical straw man argument. No one denies that our current health care system is rather a mess. I would also want to see a detailed breakdown of a list of the CAUSES of deaths (including #s of deaths by cause) in each country, before I would draw any broad conclusions. I am mentioning this, because life is sacred, and the quality of that life is sacred, and to many of us, LIFE includes freedom, liberty and honor. Paradoxically, when we are not bound to each other by the (socialist) chains inherent in ObamaCare and nearly everything else Obama and his supporters wish upon us, life is actually more dangerous. Many people choose safety and mere survival over freedom, liberty and honor. But is that the better life lived? I certainly do not think so. But the dangers of our lifestyle ought not to extend to infants, so I am interested in the story behind these statistics. Hopefully over the weekend I’ll have time to dig; or someone can enlighten me as to acceptable reasons why we would be doing twice as bad as, say, a Sweden or a Germany, and a little worse than, say, a Canada.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 11:49 am 80Mike Devx

This article makes some interesting points, though none are conclusive:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/infant_mortality_figures_for_us_are_misleading.html

Some of its paragraphs made me ponder about the effects of culture.
For example, let’s compare, for these rates of infant mortality per 1000 live births:
- Status of premature babies by weight, length, # of weeks premature, etc.
- Mother’s age
- Mother’s weight, general health
- Mother’s knowledge about pre-natal care, caring for an infant. (Remember we are talking about deaths that occur up to a period of months following birth. Mothering is *important* during this time period!)
- Mother’s marital status and monetary and physical support from father, her family, his family.

We have disastrous cultural problems in the USA with single motherhood and youth pregnancies. How much do these problems actually contribute to our too-large statistic (among what are termed civilized/industrialized countries) of infant mortality?
on 29 Aug 2012 at 11:55 am 81Earl

Gee, Mike!! How can you go on and on about irrelevancies like “mothering”, and “marital status”, “youth pregnancies”, etc.?

What’s the MATTER with you, man? Don’t you know that introducing any form of nuance into a recitation of statistics that damn the United States in all of its evilness simply serves to undermine the (self-) righteous argument?

Get with the program, for pity sakes!!
on 29 Aug 2012 at 11:58 am 82SADIE

With a Cloud of Dust and A Hearty Hi Ho Silver, It’s the Lone Ranger! Nice try Charles and Earl.

Mike Devx for your list: “I find the health care system in this country more corrupted than the government. At least before GW Bush got hold of it. And except under republican rule in the last 30 years in general.”

What does that mean?
on 29 Aug 2012 at 2:17 pm 83Bob From District 9

Sorry, this response was formatted like this when I typed it the first time, but when I posted it the formatting disappeared. So I reformated and reposted.

Bob From District 9

Author: Charles Martel

Comment: “Bob, I can see that you are no respecter of the English language. You have a regrettable habit of taking words and distorting them to underpin your desire to stand on a higher moral ground than the rest of us here.”

Distorting them? Where?

“For example: “There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.” So, you have declared conservatives guilty of murder because they oppose government-mandated health insurance. How do you make such a leap? Do you really think that’s persuasive? (I assume you are here to persuade, not snicker.)”

I see nothing there showing I have distorted anything. Your first mistake, not all conservatives oppose govt health care. Mandated is a red herring IMO.

Remember, Obamacare was a republican program from 1994 until Obama adopted it.

And snickering wouldn’t be a bad thing, if the issue was not so serious.

“You say you don’t take me seriously, yet you devote several hundred words to addressing my non-serious arguments—again from a sneering, higher-than-thou moral ground. ”

Now you are the one inventing complaints out of thin air.

“You also studiously avoid providing actual proofs of your assertions. I said that Nancy Pelosi is an excommunicant, which she is by the Church’s own objective standards, and your response was, “the arrogance to claim the right to say who is excommunicated.” Apparently the Church’s own criteria for latae sententiae excommunication, which I clearly stated, do not meet your criteria. ”

No matter which criteria they meet, the arrogance is in assuming one has the right to judge another’s motives and behavior, without regard to facts not necessarily available to the judge. Or not examined in detail. “

(And, apparently, arrogance in proclaiming matters of faith is limited to me but does not apply to you.)

” Notice that I backed up my positions with links to the USCCB. And I judge positions, not individuals. Though in some cases the individual makes his position quite clear.

“Does your blithely repeated statistic on infant mortality take into account a heterogeneous high-population society versus a homogenous, low-population society? ”

Both points are pretty much irrelevant. Population size is not that significant when considering so many societies the factors can balance out. Heterogeneous vs homogenous is a demarcation between access to health care and nutrition etc.

Black Americans have twice the poverty rate, twice the unemployment rate, and 2 1/2 times the infant mortality rate as whites. Poor whites have a much higher infant mortality rate than well to do whites. All that reflects the damage done by lack of health care and the basics of life. Which supports my points.

“Does it take into account the marvelous U.S. devotion to saving preemies versus Europe’s counting of only healthy babies as live births? ”

Just look at the European countries who use the same standard as the US, Sweden and Germany were two I was given. Just compare the 1st day death rates, and increase the rates for the countries that don’t use the US (WHO) standard to match that of the US.

” Does a paradise of free healthcare like Cuba provide truthful statistics? Is it possible that a dictatorship might lie about infant mortality? I don’t imagine that you dispute any statistic or figure that will make your argument look good. ”

I specifically stated industrialized countries.

I don’t doubt you will invent any excuse you can to make your argument look good.

“But the one thing that showed your true colors was your ignoring of a central point: There is a vast difference between setting out to dismember a baby for pay and having qualms about paying a corrupted federal government to “do” Jesus’s work for us.”

You show your true colors in ignoring my first point, that I oppose abortion, and in using inflammatory adjectives in your argument.

I find the health care system in this country more corrupted than the government. At least before GW Bush got hold of it. And except under republican rule in the last 30 years in general.

” You can blithely compare the two all you want to, but all that you succeed in doing when you make such an argument is to confirm your contempt for the language everybody else here has great love for.”

Well, that makes no sense at all.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 2:20 pm 84Bob From District 9

I don’t have time to respond in detail right now, but this portion was a response to the author, not to the readers.

But let’s start with #52 from Bob:
>It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.
>The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>The Catholic Church supports universal health care. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.
> …
> Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.

Some of the above is ok, but some is, well, not acceptable at all. Hate for Obama obviously overwhelms reason? And you say this in your introductory blog comment to everyone? GOOD TACTIC! If you start out that way, how in the hell do you think ANYONE here will take you seriously?
And then – you just CAN’T help yourself, you close with the stern admonition:
> “Learn something about BLAH before you put forth your commentary on BLEH.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 2:24 pm 85Bob From District 9

Charles Martel
Bob, I don’t think anybody will ever accuse you of understanding subtlety, let alone practicing it.

Earl, we Catholics have an expression when we are confronted with people who reject reasoned argument: Invincible ignorance. As the Gospel instructs, we are to shake the dust from our sandals and move on to more receptive souls. Hear that sound? I’m doing some dust shakin’!

Subtlety was not the intent, accuracy and analysis were.

Invincible ignorance is not alone a Catholic position. Nor is the “shake the dust” part applicable to arguments over policy, but belief in Christ’s teachings.
on 29 Aug 2012 at 5:18 pm 86Ron19

Bob From District 9: #83
Sorry, this response was formatted like this when I typed it the first time, but when I posted it the formatting disappeared. So I reformated and reposted.

That has gotten me more than a few times.
I’ve found that if my comment is not going to be short and simple, I get much better results if it’s developed in Word or some other external editor; then when I’m satisfied with it, copy and paste the entire thing into the comment box in one fell swoop and do touch-up. This also adds benefits like spell-checking.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 4:48 am 87Bob From District 9

SADIE
With a Cloud of Dust and A Hearty Hi Ho Silver, It’s the Lone Ranger! Nice try Charles and Earl.

Mike Devx for your list: “I find the health care system in this country more corrupted than the government. At least before GW Bush got hold of it. And except under republican rule in the last 30 years in general.”

“What does that mean?”

It means pretty much what it says. Medical care in this country is largely in the hands of drug companies that buy congressmen to improve their profit margins. Remember when you could go to Canada to get cheaper prescriptions? Now, not only did they take that away, but even got the Bush administration to create a new Medicare benefit for drugs, but with a rule against negotiating for lower prices.

Between that and hospitals and clinics that charge 2 to 3 times as much to people without insurance than those with insurance, I’d call the medical care *SYSTEM* corrupted. By comparison I find the government much more honest. Congress maybe not, after all it does have a lot of republicans.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 4:50 am 88Bob From District 9

Ron19
Bob From District 9: #83
Sorry, this response was formatted like this when I typed it the first time, but when I posted it the formatting disappeared. So I reformated and reposted.

“That has gotten me more than a few times.
I’ve found that if my comment is not going to be short and simple, I get much better results if it’s developed in Word or some other external editor; then when I’m satisfied with it, copy and paste the entire thing into the comment box in one fell swoop and do touch-up. This also adds benefits like spell-checking.”

That is how I did it, but it got me anyway. I used wordpad just because it was easy.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 5:07 am 89Bob From District 9

Bob From District 9
“Charles Martel
Bob, I don’t think anybody will ever accuse you of understanding subtlety, let alone practicing it.

Earl, we Catholics have an expression when we are confronted with people who reject reasoned argument: Invincible ignorance. As the Gospel instructs, we are to shake the dust from our sandals and move on to more receptive souls. Hear that sound? I’m doing some dust shakin’!”

Oh, and willful ignorance is worse. You seem to be unable to resist the temptation to ignore reality.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 10:01 am 90Bob From District 9

Bob From District 9
Previewed comment:
Mike Devx
“Since my betters, Charles M and Earl, are bowing out, I won’t mind keeping the conversation going with some input. It won’t be nearly as informative or involving, though.”

Don’t be so hard on yourself. You did as well as CM. You should notice, Earl didn’t really contribute anything but discouragement from any discussion at all. IOW, don’t even think about an alternative.
“I will give Bob credit for trying hard. If you want to prove a point to someone who disagrees, it is important to justify your argument with some form of objective data. Or at least, data that YOU believe to be objective. I’d say Bob has done that; I don’t think he’s being deceitful. So I’ll give the guy credit, and I always give credit for coming into a forum where you know in advance that the vast majority are likely to disagree with you.”
Every so often I actually do get through to one.

“”But let’s start with #52 from Bob:
>It’s obvious your hate for Obama overwhelms your reasoning, and your knowledge of the Catholic Church.
>The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>The Catholic Church supports universal health care. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?
>All of these are Catholic pro-life positions. As far as I am concerned, you are not pro-life if you do not hold those positions.
…
> Learn something about Catholic social justice teachings before you put forth your commentary on them.”

Some of the above is ok, but some is, well, not acceptable at all. Hate for Obama obviously overwhelms reason? And you say this in your introductory blog comment to everyone? ”
Nope, it was a comment to the author. That is the purpose of most comment sections. He does make it clear he is not Catholic, nor does he seem to have any real depth in Catholic teachings.
””GOOD TACTIC! If you start out that way, how in the hell do you think ANYONE here will take you seriously?
And then – you just CAN’T help yourself, you close with the stern admonition:
> “Learn something about BLAH before you put forth your commentary on BLEH.””
Like I said, that was to the author.

“”Well, pardon me, but F&*$CK you too. Were you wagging your finger like a nun when you typed that little admonition?   All of us – including you, Bob – we are all so VERY glad to be corrected in such a manner by our obvious superiors. It is a tactic that works so well when you’re talking to your inferiors, isn’t it?””
Reread what you wrote. It seems that’s exactly the game you are playing.
————————————-
“Bob then says:
> Comparing abortion with death from lack of health care is another case of someone cannot be taken seriously. All that nonsense is a nice diversion, but you apparently don’t understand, some ten to twenty thousand infants die in this country every year from that poverty and hunger and lack or health insurance. That is one thing you can do something about, and your duty is to do what you can, not what is perfect.

“> Remember this, contributing to the death of one innocent will send you to the same hell as all the abortions in this country combined. There ain’t no special hell for abortion, just the one any murder leads to, even one.”

“I know some of this has been hashed to death already. Twenty thousand infants die from a combination of:
– hunger
– poverty
– lack of health insurance
And then the rather amazing claim: “contribution to the death of one innocent will send you to the same hell as all the abortions in this country combined”.”
That is how it works in Christian teaching.

“Well, Bob, I make the claim that ObamaCare will result in AT LEAST ONE infant death that could have been avoided via a better health care system. Therefore, in supporting ObamaCare, YOU are contribution to the death of one innocent.”
You can’t see the difference between better and perfect? Reread the previous, “your duty is to do what you can, not what is perfect.” If you come up with something better more power to you. You are aware, aren’t you, that the waivers the right wing is complaining states are getting are allowed, if the states come up with what may be a better way. So, go ahead and come up with a better way.
You have to chose to do what is wrong for you to do wrong. Obamacare is a step in the right direction, but not near good enough. With time it can get there.
“ Your culpability by your argument is just as great as a person committing “all the abortions in this country combined”.”
Not when the purpose it to do your best to mitigate the harm. That is one I learned from Cardinal Maida of Detroit.
“You don’t like my ObamaCare argument? Well, I don’t like YOURS.”
Then you misunderstood. My argument was only in response to his insistence that I had to put all my effort into ending abortion rather than providing care for the ill and poor and malnourished.
“In my world, that makes us even. One of us is right; one of us wrong; both of us are wrong.”
Since I am both supporting universal health care, and opposing abortion, I am right on both. In fact, one reason for being pro-universal health care is as a step to preventing abortion. IMO.
“Your blanket statements and condemnations over policy positions are disturbing.   I believe we are ALLOWED to fight out policy positions, and change, without being consigned to some level of hellfire and damnation for daring to disagree with public policy.”
Government policy is not the issue in that argument, but saving a few lives over saving none by insisting on saving them all.
“Being consigned to hellfire and damnation isn’t much different than being called a RACIST for simply disagreeing with Obama’s positions.
AMOF it is absolutely different. Unless you are a racist, then the effect, yeah, even then it’s different. That old saw about being called a racist for disagreeing with Obama’s positions is a right wing lie. In the real world, your being wrong has nothing to do with Obama’s race.

“And by the way, I was being facetious at the start of the above paragraph concerning ObamaCare. I am certain that ObamaCare will result in thousands of horrifyingly unnecessary deaths, along with innumberable injuries and harms and deteriorations of health, massive increases in significant suffering – and I mean PAIN! – due to declining standards of treatment. I’m certain. I’m sure you disagree and believe otherwise.”
Well, you got that last line right. Obamacare will save lives. Not as many as many national health care plans in the rest of the world, but it’s better than nothing.

“Then there are the inevitable massive cost overruns, on a scale we can barely imagine, eventually dwarfing those of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined. The economic devastation will be nearly unimaginable. You discuss the prospect of infant mortality as it relates to limited access to health insurance. Well, if you compare the economic devastation to be caused by ObamaCare to the current limited access to health insurance, I can tell you, the ObamaCare results will be orders of magnitude worse.”
I have been considering that very issue, the tendency of the right to believe Americans and America are corrupt and incompetent. That is the only explanation I can come up with for the insistence by the right that the US cannot do a competent job of running a national health care system on the level of any other industrialized country, and not realize the same savings. Which savings, BTW, is about $1trillion/yr for the most expensive national health care in the industrial world.

Infant Mortality Rates:
> Our infant mortality rate is twice that of Sweden and 75% higher than Germany. I chose those two countries because some posters try to us different methods of defining infant mortality as a factor. German and Sweden use the same standards as the US.

“The stats I saw (Wikipedia) list as, mortality rate per 1000 births:
Sweden 3.18 (#4)
Germany   4.21 (#12)
United States   7.07   (#34)”

I found several sources, that looks like the one I used.
“The article also states: The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old per 1,000 live births. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country. The infant mortality rate of the world is 49.4 according to the United Nations”
Which is irrelevant since I was comparing only the US against the other industrialized countries, selecting those that use the WHO standard for live birth, as does the US.

“Canada, with national health insurance, is at 5.07 by the way (#24).
Still it seems clear to me the USA can and should be doing better. ”
The point of the whole discussion.
“But why is ObamaCare – or any other nationalized health care – to be considered the ONLY solution?”
Obamacare, no, not the only solution. Though it does have the advantage of being a republican proposal.
SOME national health care? Well, it’s the only system that has actually worked so far. If you have a better way to provide health care for all, as good as we have for the insured now, at much lower cost, then I’d be willing to take a very close look at it.
“That is a typical straw man argument. No one denies that our current health care system is rather a mess. I would also want to see a detailed breakdown of a list of the CAUSES of deaths (including #s of deaths by cause) in each country, before I would draw any broad conclusions.”
Feel free to look it up. Do you really think there aren’t already people looking at those very questions and using the information to draw a picture of the system.
Several of the nations I know did a thorough study of the world’s health care systems before adopting theirs. Taiwan was one of the more recent. Germany has had some kind of national system for some 130 years, and has had a lot of time to fine tune it. That’s why it works, they make it work.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971406
“I am mentioning this, because life is sacred, and the quality of that life is sacred, and to many of us, LIFE includes freedom, liberty and honor. Paradoxically, when we are not bound to each other by the (socialist) chains inherent in ObamaCare and nearly everything else Obama and his supporters wish upon us, life is actually more dangerous.
IOW, anything good for the poor is evil socialism? Get off it, Obamacare was invented by the Heritage Foundation, pushed by the Republican party, and enacted into law in Mass signed by Romney. It’s a republican program based on private sector insurance. Get unemployment down and we will have very little of it done through the government.
Or, do you advocate abolishing Medicare? I can’t see any rational basis you can hold the view that Obamacare is evil socialism, and Medicare isn’t.
“Many people choose safety and mere survival over freedom, liberty and honor.”
Many times that many people chose safety and survival and freedom and liberty and honor. It is absurd to believe you can have the last three without a good dose of the first two.
“But is that the better life lived? I certainly do not think so. But the dangers of our lifestyle ought not to extend to infants, so I am interested in the story behind these statistics. Hopefully over the weekend I’ll have time to dig; or someone can enlighten me as to acceptable reasons why we would be doing twice as bad as, say, a Sweden or a Germany, and a little worse than, say, a Canada.”
Uh… because there are, literally, millions of children who live in poverty and suffer malnutrition and lack of health care.
For all you bitch about my responses, as if there were something about them that intimidates you, look at what you wrote just above. In your screed it is obvious you consider your side the one of nobility and danger faced nobely. Please be aware, I have a very well paid job, excellent health insurance and a rather decent life. I am following the Christian principle of reaching out to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Your lines are “Take care of number 1.” Please don’t play that security or freedom line, it not a little security, it’s life and death.
In his acceptance speech Paul Ryan recited this version of an old and true line,”We have responsibilities, one to another— we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.”
Now, aside from the fact that the first sentence of that is a very good statement of agreement with Obama’s statement that, if you own a business, you didn’t do it alone. That statement that the right has so much twisted and lied about. There is also the rest of the statement that was likely intended to refer to abortion, but it applies just as much to the plight of the uninsured and the working poor. In light of that, do you still support him? Oh, and if you watch the video, that line got him one of his less enthusiastic responses from the republican audience.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 10:25 am 91Bob From District 9

Mike Devx

“This article makes some interesting points, though none are conclusive:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/infant_mortality_figures_for_us_are_misleading.html”

Suffers from the same failing as so many others, going on and on about the countries that are different, and never mentioning the countries that really are comparable.

“Some of its paragraphs made me ponder about the effects of culture.
For example, let’s compare, for these rates of infant mortality per 1000 live births:
- Status of premature babies by weight, length, # of weeks premature, etc.
- Mother’s age
- Mother’s weight, general health
- Mother’s knowledge about pre-natal care, caring for an infant. (Remember we are talking about deaths that occur up to a period of months following birth. Mothering is *important* during this time period!)
- Mother’s marital status and monetary and physical support from father, her family, his family.”

Don’t forget, the only comparison needed is to countries with a comporable situation.

“We have disastrous cultural problems in the USA with single motherhood and youth pregnancies. How much do these problems actually contribute to our too-large statistic (among what are termed civilized/industrialized countries) of infant mortality?”

Single motherhood in the US is lower than the Netherlands, Denmark, France and Sweden.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 10:52 am 92Earl

Bob: “You should notice, Earl didn’t really contribute anything but discouragement from any discussion at all.”

Clearly you don’t read, Bob….look over the first 50 posts and note my “contributions” to the discussion. In which of them did I attempt any “discouragement” at all?

To everyone: I spent two years in Peace Corps with a couple of 40-something progressives who “discussed” things in exactly the way Bob is doing here. I learned that it’s useless to carry on with someone who is impervious to logic, who twists the language to suit the situation, and when finally backed into a corner, starts name-calling – or in Bob’s case, consigning opponents to hell. We maintained the friendship for 30+ years, and this perfectly nice (mostly) man finally got to travel to the one country in the world he still wanted to go to….because they had universal healthcare, education, etc. — North Korea. He’s gone, now….and at one level I miss him. But the effort of deflecting his often-offensive attempts to enmesh me in another argument will not be missed, at all.

OK, Bob – Now, go back and read #54 above, and defend your statement that “…Earl didn’t really contribute anything but discouragement from any discussion at all.” No one who has been on this blog for very long is fooled by such inanities, but I want to hear your defense of what you wrote…or are you prepared to inject a bit of nuance into that accusation, at this point?

When you refused to recognize any moral difference between a. the affirmative act of intentionally killing an innocent and b. the death of a child in Africa from starvation that another $20.00 donation (or whatever) from me might allegedly have saved, I realized that any sort of genuine “discussion” with you wasn’t possible.

I’m sure you’re correct that there are priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. of the Catholic church who hold the positions that you ascribe to the Church, generally. However, it’s my view that those folks’ real religion is “Progressivism”, and their Catholicism takes second position. Because most of the Christians I know who espouse the Catholic faith are aware that there is a moral difference between the guy who pushes someone off the cliff to their death and the guy who won’t risk his life to climb down and save someone who has already fallen. Maybe Christianity requires me to climb down the cliff or be damned to hell — but that’s an eminently debatable point, something that you don’t seem to allow for.

I’ve spent ‘way too much of my life “discussing” disagreements with people who think and “discuss” the way you do, and I’ve got more important things to do with my time.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 11:40 am 93Charles Martel

Earl, my friend, your cogent rejoinder will be greeted by yet more loghorrhea that manages to, as you say, quickly descend into inanity. Troll spew is not motivated by any need to be logical or civil. The spewing itself is the reward.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 3:25 pm 94Bob From District 9

on 31 Aug 2012 at 10:52 am 92Earl

“Bob: “You should notice, Earl didn’t really contribute anything but discouragement from any discussion at all.”

Clearly you don’t read, Bob….look over the first 50 posts and note my “contributions” to the discussion. In which of them did I attempt any “discouragement” at all?”

I have gone back and searched for “earl”. What I found is, not one single actual comment on *THIS* discussion. You may have contributed to other discussions in the comment stream, but not this one.

“To everyone: I spent two years in Peace Corps with a couple of 40-something progressives who “discussed” things in exactly the way Bob is doing here.”

IOW, offers facts and evidence to back up what he says, and links where necessary.

” I learned that it’s useless to carry on with someone who is impervious to logic, who twists the language to suit the situation, and when finally backed into a corner, starts name-calling – or in Bob’s case, consigning opponents to hell. ”

This, of course, is completely false. Reread what I posted, no one was consigned to hell. I gave a comparison of death caused by abortion and willful failure and showed how, if you cause the death of an innocent you go to the same hell. Unless Earl admits having killed some innocent person there is no condemning anyone there. No name calling, not backed into a corner. Oh, sorry, it is the right wingers who resort to “impervious to logic”, or “invincible ignorance”. Which merely serves to prove their disinterest in a discussion.

…

OK, Bob – Now, go back and read #54 above, and defend your statement that “…Earl didn’t really contribute anything but discouragement from any discussion at all.”

#54 doesn’t seem to be much but contradiction, much like the Monty Python arguement sketch. Sorry, that might have opened the door, but it didn’t because you did not follow up.

“No one who has been on this blog for very long is fooled by such inanities, but I want to hear your defense of what you wrote…or are you prepared to inject a bit of nuance into that accusation, at this point?”

Nuance? I have injected facts and reference links and logic.

“When you refused to recognize any moral difference between a. the affirmative act of intentionally killing an innocent and b. the death of a child in Africa from starvation that another $20.00 donation (or whatever) from me might allegedly have saved, I realized that any sort of genuine “discussion” with you wasn’t possible.”

To be more realistict, the difference is not failing to send $20 to help feed a child in Africa, but in blocking the government from sending help to save that same child. You are the one who does not see the difference between not doing something, and preventing others from doing that same thing.

I don’t recall any discussion of a child in Africa, so I don’t see the point in considering that. I did make the point, over and over, that I was talking about doing what you can, not resolving all the world’s problem yourself. Try not to push things to an absurd extreme.

“I’m sure you’re correct that there are priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. of the Catholic church who hold the positions that you ascribe to the Church, generally. However, it’s my view that those folks’ real religion is “Progressivism”, and their Catholicism takes second position. ”

Your view is absolutly wrong, as evidence the links I posted to the Catholic Bishop’s website.

That there are left wing clergy who believe in social justice doesn’t make it doctrinal.”
http://www.snipurl.com/vaticansocialjustice *DOES* make it Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church supports a living wage. How many of your Catholic readers subscribe to that?

“Same: social justice from Leftist church members; not church doctrine.”
I said the *Catholic Church* supports a living wage.

http://snipurl.com/usccblivingwage and

http://snipurl.com/usccblivingwage1 are links to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website.

Because most of the Christians I know who espouse the Catholic faith are aware that there is a moral difference between the guy who pushes someone off the cliff to their death and the guy who won’t risk his life to climb down and save someone who has already fallen.

Preventing the establishment of a rescue agency is not the same either. You are giving examples that are, at best, near misses. More like way off target.

Maybe Christianity requires me to climb down the cliff or be damned to hell — but that’s an eminently debatable point, something that you don’t seem to allow for.

IF there is no risk to you, it’s another matter entirely.

I’ve spent ‘way too much of my life “discussing” disagreements with people who think and “discuss” the way you do, and I’ve got more important things to do with my time.

It seems you do find facts and reason less important than something you have to do with your time.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 3:36 pm 95Earl

Voila.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 3:47 pm 96Charles Martel

Yes, Earl, QED
on 31 Aug 2012 at 8:02 pm 97Earl

Just finished vacuuming the house (great for thinking about things), and fairness requires me to recognize that contrary to my earlier accusation, Bob IS capable of making distinctions. In fact, he made a big one, and it’s important to point it out, because it tells us so much about my religion and his. From Comment #94:

“To be more realistic, the difference is not failing to send $20 to help feed a child in Africa, but in blocking the government from sending help to save that same child. You are the one who does not see the difference between not doing something, and preventing others from doing that same thing.”

According to my understanding of Christianity (one which I can defend from the Bible), we are judged on what we do for the poor. So, it would be wrong of me to withhold my $20.00 from a needy child – next door, or even in Africa, if I knew about her. Bob seems to be saying that the real fault is to vote against authorizing the government to take OTHER people’s money to help the needy child. I’m not sure what religion counts that as a sin, but it has never been my understanding of Christianity. Is this because I’m not Catholic? Maybe someone can help me out with this.

Nevertheless, it’s a real distinction….although I need it explained how my voting to prevent taxes being raised “prevent(s) others from” helping the needy child. That one is quite beyond me.

For me, one of the points of real insight into the progressives’ religion came when the tax returns of certain candidates began to be released….and I realized how little the progressive ones gave to charity. I’m not even talking about % of income. It’s that Kerry and Biden and others who had incomes of 10 times (and more) my fifty grand or so were giving away fewer actual dollars than I did. All that talk about caring for the poor and downtrodden looked like so much hot air to me. Because, like Bob, they got the approval of their “g-d” NOT for giving up their own cash, but for voting to take OTHER people’s money to give to those they saw as being in need.

I’ll take Christianity, every time.
on 31 Aug 2012 at 8:07 pm 98Mike Devx

Bob, I am not blocking you from giving $20 of charity to help a needy child in Africa. You go right ahead!
on 31 Aug 2012 at 11:49 pm 99Charles Martel

Earl, do not be obtuse. Jesus commanded us to bow to our moral superiors, especially when it comes to letting them tax us so that they can efficiently (with them taking just a teensy-weensy-teeny-tiny slice of the proceeds to pay their $250,000-per-year administrative salaries) save the poor children of Africa.

Is your concept of charity so niggardly that you cannot see that God smiles on a credentialed bureaucrat as much as He smiles on a reactionary destined-for-Hell sinner like you?
on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:38 am 100Bob From District 9

“Mike Devx
Bob, I am not blocking you from giving $20 of charity to help a needy child in Africa. You go right ahead!”

What are you talking about? Who mentioned Africa?

You are raising a straw man. The US health care plan does not affect Africa. US poverty programs are not supporting people in Africa last I heard.

Bush sent billions to Africa, BTW.
That’s one thing he has been praised for, by democrats. Where you been?
on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:42 am 101Bob From District 9

Mike Devx
Bob, I am not blocking you from giving $20 of charity to help a needy child in Africa. You go right ahead!

Just went back, the child in Africa was Earl’s diversion. I responded to his point, and now you try to assign that to me? Get back to US poverty health care and hopelessness. That’s what this election is about, the problem we are dealing with now.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:48 am 102Bob From District 9

“Charles Martel
Earl, do not be obtuse. Jesus commanded us to bow to our moral superiors, especially when it comes to letting them tax us so that they can efficiently (with them taking just a teensy-weensy-teeny-tiny slice of the proceeds to pay their $250,000-per-year administrative salaries) save the poor children of Africa. ”

I have dealt with dishonest right wingers before, I should have expected this. When you try to discuss issues of faith with a dishonest right winger he twists the discussion to accusations and tosses in straw men. Nothing in your comment here referred to anything I said in any comment.

That is dishonest of you.

Oh, and the things you said are factually dishonest also.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 7:44 am 103Mike Devx

My apologies, Bob. In your comment in which Africa and donations to help needy children were mentioned, I lost track of which person was saying what. It can be puzzling in those lengthy comments to follow which person is saying what – especially when some paragraphs are “quoted” and some are not, and the quotes are used without discrimination; but I did not pay close enough attention.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 10:14 am 104Charles Martel

Bob, I too apologize for the diversion, which you did not create, to discussions of Africa. The original discussion was on American “social justice” as envisioned by leftists like you and progressivism’s Obama Administration avatars.

It would be helpful to me to better understand your point of view if you would do two things:

1.) Explain how your Catholic conscience reconciles itself with the manner in which Obamacare was passed—no GOP input, no timely publication of texts, bending Congressional rules to reconcile two very different versions of Obamacare, the dishonest promises made to Catholic legislators like Stupak to gain their assent, Pelosi’s extraordinary statement that she didn’t know what the act contained. Did any of that bother you? (Let me know if any of these observations are straw men!)

2.) Explain how in the course of supporting government-mandated charity you are willing to get into bed with pro-abortionists like Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, and Obama—immoral characters who openly advocate for a system where Catholics eventually will be forced to pay for killing children. Does your support for a living wage and other social justice baubles somehow negate your indirect support of evil?

Just askin’.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 3:16 pm 105Bob From District 9

>“To be more realistic, the difference is not failing to send $20 to help feed a child in Africa, but in blocking the government from sending help to save that same child. You are the one who does not see the difference between not doing something, and preventing others from doing that same thing.”

“According to my understanding of Christianity (one which I can defend from the Bible), we are judged on what we do for the poor. So, it would be wrong of me to withhold my $20.00 from a needy child – next door, or even in Africa, if I knew about her. Bob seems to be saying that the real fault is to vote against authorizing the government to take OTHER people’s money to help the needy child. ”

You asked for nuance, then you twist the entire context of the exchange. You raised the issue of a child in Africa. I expressed the *MORAL* position that you quoted above. The discussion was about poverty and health care in the US, you brought in Africa and I replied only from the moral position.

The very position of “taking other people’s money” by government is a diversion and smokescreen. Taking my money to kill people in Iraq, and Iran if it goes that way, is far worse than taking anyone’s money to feed hungry children. Unless you condemn those who call for attacks on Iran, or any other country that does not actually threaten any other country, you have no case to make.

” I’m not sure what religion counts that as a sin, but it has never been my understanding of Christianity. Is this because I’m not Catholic? Maybe someone can help me out with this.”

It’s because you are not honestly discussing the issue of US politics and care for the vulnerable.

That was an issue even Paul Ryan brought up in his acceptance speech. Of course it got a very weak reception from the convention goers.

“Nevertheless, it’s a real distinction….although I need it explained how my voting to prevent taxes being raised “prevent(s) others from” helping the needy child. That one is quite beyond me.”

If school lunches and food stamps and chldren’s health insuranc program and medicaid go away and social security and medicare are cut, then children go hungry and do not get medical care and the elderly sink in their standard of living and get less medical care. All of the above lead to malnourished children and elderly, and lead to children and the elderly dying.

Those are the facts you and the rest of the right wing refuse to address. That is except for the few who will address it, and say it’s ok with them.

“For me, one of the points of real insight into the progressives’ religion came when the tax returns of certain candidates began to be released….and I realized how little the progressive ones gave to charity. I’m not even talking about % of income. It’s that Kerry and Biden and others who had incomes of 10 times (and more) my fifty grand or so were giving away fewer actual dollars than I did.”

Morally what anyone in any movement does individually has exactly zero meaning as to the correctness of the cause. Oh, and at best Biden had 5 times your income. His mortgage interest payments were more than your income. DC is an expensive place to live. After all, he was only a senator, not in the big money like the lobbyists.

” All that talk about caring for the poor and downtrodden looked like so much hot air to me. Because, like Bob, they got the approval of their “g-d” NOT for giving up their own cash, but for voting to take OTHER people’s money to give to those they saw as being in need.”

What you saw was an excuse for not supporting help for the poor.

“I’ll take Christianity, every time.”

I tried to give you links to real Christian positions, all you have to do is look at them.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:07 pm 106Bob From District 9

Charles Martel

Bob, I too apologize for the diversion, which you did not cr”eate, to discussions of Africa. The original discussion was on American “social justice” as envisioned by leftists like you and progressivism’s Obama Administration avatars.”

Understandable that things get confused with multiple contributors and notions being spread out.

Actually, I am pretty conservative in a great many ways, old fashioned conservative as in as it was before the neo-cons took over. Mostly I am a realist who recognizes that, unless we solve some of the problems the workin class face this country won’t exist for the next generation. And the debt is the smaller part of the problem. The first problem to solve is to raise the poor by bringing more jobs back to this country. That, however, will require changes that will frighten the hell out of the right and left wingers. None of the solutions being offered now will work. None from either side, not for that.

“It would be helpful to me to better understand your point of view if you would do two things:”

“1.) Explain how your Catholic conscience reconciles itself with the manner in which Obamacare was passed—no GOP input, no timely publication of texts, bending Congressional rules to reconcile two very different versions of Obamacare, ”

It was a republican plan before Obama ever touched it. It is so close to Romneycare it’s practically a clone.

There was a great deal of republican input. It was debated for a year, and anti-abortion provisions were included and the public option were taken out specifically to meet republican demands. So there was a lot of GOP input.

As to timely publication, I had downloaded it well before it was passed, add to which it was fought out over a year, with constant reporting.

“the dishonest promises made to Catholic legislators like Stupak to gain their assent,”

Which dishonest promise? I was recently rereading that part of the bill, and it simply does not change the law from what it was before the bill was passed. IOW the Hyde amendment was and is in force.

“Pelosi’s extraordinary statement that she didn’t know what the act contained.”

What Pelosi said was the public needed to see it outside the fog of politics. I don’t recall any other such statement.

”Did any of that bother you? (Let me know if any of these observations are straw men!)”

You just believed the frauds, gotta be more selective.

“”2.) Explain how in the course of supporting government-mandated charity you are willing to get into bed with pro-abortionists like Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, and Obama—immoral characters who openly advocate for a system where Catholics eventually will be forced to pay for killing children. ”

Since the bill specifically states that it does not repeal the hyde amendment that part is not a part of the discussion. The options are either supporting those I disagree with on some things, to achieve a great good, or algning with those who have very little to recommend them, and block that great good, simply because I disagree with the good guys on one issue.

“Does your support for a living wage and other social justice baubles somehow negate your indirect support of evil?”

There is no need for negation since there is no indirect support for an evil which is already prohibited under existing law.
on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:35 pm 107Charles Martel

“Since the bill specifically states that it does not repeal the Hyde amendment that part is not a part of the discussion. The options are either supporting those I disagree with on some things, to achieve a great good, or aligning with those who have very little to recommend them, and block that great good, simply because I disagree with the good guys on one issue.”

Thanks, Bob. I knew that sooner or later you’d let the mask slip. I see that when it comes to rationalizing the actions of the “good guys”—pro-death Catholics like Pelosi and Sebelius—they conveniently become “those you disagree with on some things” if they line up with your social justice issues on others. This from a man who tells us that abortion is an unmitigated evil.

Except, apparently, in cases when it is “one issue” that stands in the way of “great good.”

(By the way, since Obamacare scrupulously protects the Church’s right not to be compelled to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, do you have any opinion on the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate seeking to make it do exactly that? Or is this another instance of something we’ll have to accept for the greater good?)
on 01 Sep 2012 at 5:47 pm 108Earl

Sorry to all for mentioning Africa. I retract Africa.

I do not understand how it is morally correct to authorize people with guns (try not paying your taxes, and in time, the guns will come out) to extract money from the paychecks of millions of people who might or might not willingly give it, in order to pass it out (minus the “expenses”) to needy people, anywhere.

If you’re telling me that we all voted for the people who decided to do this, then would it be moral (not legal) for the board that represents my church community to vote on a plan to tax ourselves, and if 51% voted “yes”, to send our representatives to the homes of the 49% and take the money by force? What is the moral (not legal) difference?

By the way, Bob — the issue doesn’t change based on where the child is located….how does Martel voting not to raise taxes for more of “x” prevent you and Biden, Kerry and the Kennedys, plus the entire progressive crowd, from providing money from their own funds to support whatever program they think is worthy?

If every liberal, progressive, and Democrat (but I repeat myself) in this country gave, on average, what conservatives do, the need for welfare would be far less than it is. And if we all chipped in 20% of our gross pay (and I lived 25 years in the Napa Valley of California – not known as a low-cost center), I don’t think government would have ANY particular need to fund welfare work….unless it would be to keep the leeches running those programs employed. I have a high school buddy who worked for the county 40 years and is RETIRED on twice as much as I ever made working full-time. It’s my taxes providing him with that pension and full and free healthcare, while I’m on S.S., Medicare, and the money I invested on 80% of my salary.

Perhaps you can understand why I’m tired of people who act as if their vote to tax others to do good is the same as actually doing the good that they might. It will be an interesting time in the Judgment to hear the excuses they offer…….
on 02 Sep 2012 at 5:44 am 109Mike Devx

Earl in #108 says (or asks):
> I do not understand how it is morally correct to authorize people with guns (try not paying your taxes, and in time, the guns will come out) to extract money from the paychecks of millions of people who might or might not willingly give it, in order to pass it out (minus the “expenses”) to needy people, anywhere. > If you’re telling me that we all voted for the people who decided to do this, then would it be moral (not legal) for the board that represents my church community to vote on a plan to tax ourselves, and if 51% voted “yes”, to send our representatives to the homes of the 49% and take the money by force? What is themoral (not legal) difference?

I’ll put on my lefty hat and answer. Theirs is a utilitarian answer. I call it utilitarian because primarily, they see no difference between FORCE and CHARITY. As you said, if 51% of the people vote for a candidate who promises to seize tax dollars for a particular redistributive purpose, as long as they see that purpose as “doing good”, it is acceptable.

To them, there is no difference between people voluntarily giving $1000 dollars to charities, and the government taking $1000 and using it for the same purpose.

It is also a question of utilitarianism out of FAIRNESS. Not everyone will give $1000. Some will give more, some less, and some will give $0. The goal is social justice, and everyone should contribute “their fair share” to the cause of social justice. It’s only fair! (Goes the argument)

It’s also a question of utilitarianist FAIRNESS on the other end: who receives the money? When people are voluntarily contributing to charity, they pick and choose which charity/ies to give their money to. This can result in unequal redistribution. Some get more than others. Well, when the goal is social justice, and not just the reduction of suffering, we cannot have THAT. All the money must go into a common pool, controlled by the government, and then the government will ensure that it is redistributed fairly. Equality of outcome.

It is also utilitarian concerning EFFICIENCY. Putting all the money under the control of the national government means there is one provider, not many. Just ONE. We don’t need or want all those hundreds of charities distributing money or services “willy nilly”. We don’t want or need fifty states doing that either. How inefficient! Just put it all under the authority of the national government, and let them do their efficient thing. One size fits all.

Now for my conservative hat: It is, AT BEST, an open question of whether the far-removed national government can ever actually do a job like this more efficiently. A national bureaucracy – in conservative thought – becomes uncaring and monolithic and extraordinarily wasteful over time. It is too far removed from “the boots on the ground” to care. The impersonal machine bureaucratic grinds everyone to dust. The money gravitates towards those who want to use it to exercise power. Corruption at the national level grows and becomes endemic, due to those vast sums of money being available, just sitting there waiting to be used for whatever purpose can be claimed to advance the goal. Follow the money, always, if you want to follow the twists and turns of national corruption and grasping for ever more power.

I will admit that when a free people voluntarily donate to charity, you can expect inequality of outcome, and unequal redistribution. Those who see that as a *significant* flaw will always support the government program (and the government force) over the use of private charity.

I believe in the 10th Amendment whole-heartedly. What is not enumerated in the Constitution as a power or right reserved to the national government is supposed to remain with the States (or with the People). Regardless of whether it is more efficient for One Government to redistribute to the entire country, or for fifty Governments to perform the redistribution piecemeal, I stay with the Constitution on this one. The leftist argument chooses to completely ignore the Tenth Amendment, as do their Supreme Court Justices. It is as if the amendment does not even exist; it has never been repealed; it is just a very irritating obsolete and archaic thing, to them, that is simply best ignored. In this modern age, how INEFFICIENT leaving such things to the States would be! We can’t have THAT!

Luckily, however, it is written, and it is there. And as time and decades pass, the argument shifts and peoples’ opinions shift. Thus we see the push for Medicaid being returned to the states as block grants, an idea gaining traction, to the absolute horror of leftists everywhere.

So it’s all about utilitarianism, “fairness”, and efficiency. But never forget it’s also about POWER and control.
on 02 Sep 2012 at 8:28 am 110Bob From District 9

Charles Martel

“Since the bill specifically states that it does not repeal the Hyde amendment that part is not a part of the discussion. The options are either supporting those I disagree with on some things, to achieve a great good, or aligning with those who have very little to recommend them, and block that great good, simply because I disagree with the good guys on one issue.”

“Thanks, Bob. I knew that sooner or later you’d let the mask slip. I see that when it comes to rationalizing the actions of the “good guys”—pro-death Catholics like Pelosi and Sebelius—they conveniently become “those you disagree with on some things” if they line up with your social justice issues on others. This from a man who tells us that abortion is an unmitigated evil.”

Do you realize what you just posted doesn’t mean a whole lot? I do believe you let the mask slip to show the fanatic. The ranks of pro-death Catholics includes Santorum, Ryan, etc. Those who oppose health care for all are pro-death.

Doing what is right, even if supported by those who support what is wrong, is still right. Try to argue against that under Catholic teaching.

Your republican party has controlled the federal courts for most of the last half century or more, and has done nothing to end abortion. So the republicans have no claim to any loyalty on that.

“Except, apparently, in cases when it is “one issue” that stands in the way of “great good.” ”

Cardinal Maida, in speaking to a Detroit politician Sharon McPhail, said, if you can’t end a great evil, your duty is to mitigate it as much as possible. Universal health care, food for the poor, WIC etc are efforts that will help mitigate it, IMO. That is the Catholic duty there.

“(By the way, since Obamacare scrupulously protects the Church’s right not to be compelled to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, do you have any opinion on the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate seeking to make it do exactly that? Or is this another instance of something we’ll have to accept for the greater good?)”

There is no such mandate. The Church is exempted. Business owned by the Church are not, nor does the church have a claim to such an exemption for non-church business. Oh, and contraception is not the same as abortion, and abortificants are not contraception. That is where the difference is.
on 02 Sep 2012 at 9:02 am 111Bob From District 9

Earl

“Sorry to all for mentioning Africa. I retract Africa.”

“I do not understand how it is morally correct to authorize people with guns (try not paying your taxes, and in time, the guns will come out) to extract money from the paychecks of millions of people who might or might not willingly give it, in order to pass it out (minus the “expenses”) to needy people, anywhere.”

When storms hit and the Feds do not declare a disaster the right criticize Obama for not sending aid. Yet that aid comes from the same taxes that go to needy people anywhere.

I do not understand how it is morally correct to authorize people with guns to extract money from the paychecks of millions of people who might or might not willingly give it, in order to fight a war and cause the deaths of 100,000 people in a country that did not threaten us, to control their oil.

The “people with guns” is a diversion, unless you are saying all taxes should be voluntary.

“If you’re telling me that we all voted for the people who decided to do this, then would it be moral (not legal) for the board that represents my church community to vote on a plan to tax ourselves, and if 51% voted “yes”, to send our representatives to the homes of the 49% and take the money by force? What is the moral (not legal) difference?”

The difference is, no church has the right to use force for any purpose. Giving a church power in this world corrupts the church.

“By the way, Bob — the issue doesn’t change based on where the child is located….how does Martel voting not to raise taxes for more of “x” prevent you and Biden, Kerry and the Kennedys, plus the entire progressive crowd, from providing money from their own funds to support whatever program they think is worthy?”

Are there any Kennedy’s in congress? The very fact that you ask that question reveals you really don’t understand the theory of the commons, and the inevitable tradgedy of the commons if rule of law is not the basis.

“If every liberal, progressive, and Democrat (but I repeat myself) in this country gave, on average, what conservatives do, the need for welfare would be far less than it is.”

Less is not zero. Show that is true, show the LPDs are not on average poorer than the cons.

“ And if we all chipped in 20% of our gross pay (and I lived 25 years in the Napa Valley of California – not known as a low-cost center), I don’t think government would have ANY particular need to fund welfare work….”

If all of us earned enough to chip in 20% that would make sense. We don’t, it doesn’t.

“unless it would be to keep the leeches running those programs employed.”

So, to you those who keep the poor alive and fed and housed and cared for are leeches.

“I have a high school buddy who worked for the county 40 years and is RETIRED on twice as much as I ever made working full-time. It’s my taxes providing him with that pension and full and free healthcare, while I’m on S.S., Medicare, and the money I invested on 80% of my salary.”

Since I have no idea where you live, what he did, and how much he earned, your complaint is meaningless. I don’t know how pensions there are paid for. In Ohio public sector workers pay into a pension fund, and the state contributes, just like a 401K. That money is invested in the market, and pensions are paid out of that. The state does not pay pensions. They also get medicare. Where does your friend get his full and free health care? I have never heard of that under any retirement system.

Federal employees are also under social security, including elected officials, like congressmen and senators.

“Perhaps you can understand why I’m tired of people who act as if their vote to tax others to do good is the same as actually doing the good that they might. It will be an interesting time in the Judgment to hear the excuses they offer…….”

Your local system is no basis to judge all such systems. Nor does it have anything to do at all with National Health Care, social security or medicare. But don’ts worry, if Romney gets elected he will start us down to road to doing away with all that, and we will find ourselves back where we were before the 1960s, where “The Other America” is even larger than it is today. Larger and worse.
on 02 Sep 2012 at 10:22 am 112Bob From District 9

Mike Devx

Nothing you say below means anything unless you declare you are also against medicare and social security. Just a side note.

“Earl in #108 says (or asks):
> I do not understand how it is morally correct to authorize people with guns (try not paying your taxes, and in time, the guns will come …”

“I’ll put on my lefty hat and answer. ”

If you pretend to answer for those you disagree with expect to be accused of putting words in their mouths.

” Theirs is a utilitarian answer.”

Well, you got one sentence right.

“ I call it utilitarian because primarily, they see no difference between FORCE and CHARITY. ”

And one sentence wrong. Though it’s the right wing fixation on force that bothers me.

” As you said, if 51% of the people vote for a candidate who promises to seize tax dollars for a particular redistributive purpose, as long as they see that purpose as “doing good”, it is acceptable.”

Vague and little meaning, and your opinion.

“To them, there is no difference between people voluntarily giving $1000 dollars to charities, and the government taking $1000 and using it for the same purpose.”

One big difference, if the government does it it’s far more likely to get done. When it comes to feeding the hungry or treating the sick, it has to work everytime. some of the time is not good enough.

“It is also a question of utilitarianism out of FAIRNESS. Not everyone will give $1000. Some will give more, some less, and some will give $0. The goal is social justice, and everyone should contribute “their fair share” to the cause of social justice. It’s only fair! (Goes the argument)”

Not bad, not all that great. Those who have more should give more. However, you ignore the issue of having the system work at all. Private charity did some good, but a huge number of the hungry and sick were not taken care of. There is much less hunger in the US today because of government programs. There is still too much because the right blocks more effecive programs. That and right wing politicians believe too few poor people will lead to inflation.

The elderly in the US is the only group whose life expectancy equals that of the rest of the world, whose health care equals that of the rest of the world, thanks to medicare.

“It’s also a question of utilitarianist FAIRNESS on the other end: who receives the money? When people are voluntarily contributing to charity, they pick and choose which charity/ies to give their money to. This can result in unequal redistribution. Some get more than others. Well, when the goal is social justice, and not just the reduction of suffering, we cannot have THAT. All the money must go into a common pool, controlled by the government, and then the government will ensure that it is redistributed fairly. Equality of outcome.”

And now you are giving purely your opinion, and laying it off on others. The goal is reduction of suffering. You don’t redistribute to areas of low poverty as much as areas of high poverty just to be fair. Nor do you tax high poverty areas as much as high wealth areas just to be fair. That’s your thinking, please don’t pretend it’s anyone else’s.

It is also utilitarian concerning EFFICIENCY. Putting all the money under the control of the national government means there is one provider, not many. Just ONE. We don’t need or want all those hundreds of charities distributing money or services “willy nilly”. We

Then why are they still tax deductable? Why are they getting govt money to do their work?

“don’t want or need fifty states doing that either. How inefficient! ”

Then why are almost all welfare programs actually run by the states?

“Just put it all under the authority of the national government, and let them do their efficient thing. One size fits all.”

In the real world, it pretty much does.

“Now for my conservative hat: It is, AT BEST, an open question of whether the far-removed national government can ever actually do a job like this more efficiently. A national bureaucracy – in conservative thought – becomes uncaring and monolithic and extraordinarily wasteful over time.”

That’s conservative thought, but I believe that is just an excuse to do nothing. When you get into the system you are dealing locally, and the local bureaucracy can be as good or bad as any.

“It is too far removed from “the boots on the ground” to care. The impersonal machine bureaucratic grinds everyone to dust. The money gravitates towards those who want to use it to exercise power. ”

Why do conservatives believe the American people are so incompetent and corrupt?

“Corruption at the national level grows and becomes endemic,”

Corruption at the local level is as bad as the national level if not worse.

“due to those vast sums of money being available, just sitting there waiting to be used for whatever purpose can be claimed to advance the goal. Follow the money, always, if you want to follow the twists and turns of national corruption and grasping for ever more power.”

Yes, all those corrupt Americans. Nothing can stop that, can it? The ultimate proof of what you say is the military budget and Iraq. Now Iran joins the mix.

“I will admit that when a free people voluntarily donate to charity, you can expect inequality of outcome, and unequal redistribution. Those who see that as a *significant* flaw will always support the government program (and the government force) over the use of private charity.”

IOW, some people starve but that’s OK. Oh, and private charities can be as corrupt as any govt agency. Next time someone calls you to raise money for some charity ask him if he works for the charity or a professional fund raiser. When he tells you it’s a professional fund raiser, which it will be most of the time, ask how much of the donation goes to the charity. Typically it will be about 15%.

“I believe in the 10th Amendment whole-heartedly. What is not enumerated in the Constitution as a power or right reserved to the national government is supposed to remain with the States (or with the People). Regardless of whether it is more efficient for One Government to redistribute to the entire country, or for fifty Governments to perform the redistribution piecemeal, I stay with the Constitution on this one. The leftist argument chooses to completely ignore the Tenth Amendment, as do their Supreme Court Justices. It is as if the amendment does not even exist; it has never been repealed; it is just a very irritating obsolete and archaic thing, to them, that is simply best ignored. In this modern age, how INEFFICIENT leaving such things to the States would be! We can’t have THAT!”

The supreme court has been republican for most of the last 50 years. It is blatantly partisan now.

“Luckily, however, it is written, and it is there. And as time and decades pass, the argument shifts and peoples’ opinions shift. Thus we see the push for Medicaid being returned to the states as block grants, an idea gaining traction, to the absolute horror of leftists everywhere.”

How has block grants worked for TANF? Got a report on that? Since 40% of medicaid goes to caring for the handicapped, and a huge percentage for the elderly, you are giving the states the ability to siphon off money from their care to pay for other state functions. The absolute horror is being felt by the handicapped and those caring for them.

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/ryan-s-medicaid-ideas-scary-to-low-income-disabled/article_05892893-d391-5ab4-9fcb-8421cfe41e43.html

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/deal-welcomes-idea-of-medicaid-block-grants/nQsNr/

Both democratic and republican governors have come to realize the block grants will just shift more costs to the states, with little advantage to counterbalance it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicaid/213973-some-republican-governors-wary-of-house-gops-medicaid-reforms

“So it’s all about utilitarianism, “fairness”, and efficiency. But never forget it’s also about POWER and control.”

Utilitarianism means it’s gotta work. Your way never did. The current way does work, just not enough. Universal health care works in every other industrial country, why not here? Are Americans so corrupt, or so incompetent, they can’t do what every other industrialized country does?

The “power and control” meme just emphasizes the belief on the right that Americans are stupid and corrupt.
on 02 Sep 2012 at 11:43 am 113Charles Martel

Bob, one of the reasons why your arguments have so little traction here is that you conflate snappy rejoinders with substantive refutation. When somebody makes a statement you disagree with, you don’t parse the statement for logic or content, you simply deliver a glib or snarky reply that tells us what you think but not why.

Here’s an example:

Mike Devx: “So it’s all about utilitarianism, “fairness”, and efficiency. But never forget it’s also about POWER and control.”

You: Utilitarianism means it’s gotta work. Your way never did. The current way does work, just not enough. Universal health care works in every other industrial country, why not here? Are Americans so corrupt, or so incompetent, they can’t do what every other industrialized country does?

The “power and control” meme just emphasizes the belief on the right that Americans are stupid and corrupt.

So many assertions, so little proof: “Your way never did.” Any examples of that, or is simply pronouncing it all you need to do to make it so? Care to define “universal health care” and “every other industrial country?” All healthcare systems are the same? Is China an industrial country? Care to address the problems the UK’s rapidly deteriorating NHS is having with scheduling routine surgeries? Want to comment on the huge U.S. medical industry that has grown just across the border from Canada to serve all the Canadians who can’t afford to wait for medical procedures?

Also, you commit a huge fallacy–and you do this constantly—when you offer us a false choice: Either Americans, in your rhetorical fancy, can only be corrupt and inefficient if they reject your collectivist solution or, by implication, honest, effective pragmatists if they accept your nostrums. There is a possibility that neither of your false choices applies here (but I do understand the leftist longing for a Manichean world).

Your sneer at “the power and control meme” utterly fails. Not only do you believe that the right, your bogeyman, is a monolith to which you can attribute any lack of virtue, you do not show us how the right believes Americans are stupid and corrupt. Assert, assert, assert—that may work on low-rent sites like HuffPo or wherever it is you hang out on the left, but it’s not impressing anybody here, especially orthodox Christians.
on 03 Sep 2012 at 5:49 pm 114Earl

Just got confirmation of my earlier statement that progressives have their own religion – and it’s not Christianity:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/09/02/obamanation-of-the-day/

September 2, 2012 – 5:54 am – by Roger Kimball

This exchange, from an interview with Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times, took even my jaded breath away:

Falsani: Do you believe in sin?
Obama: Yes.
Falsani: What is sin?
Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.
on 03 Sep 2012 at 6:53 pm 115SADIE

Earl – all roads lead to Bookworm.

President Obama’s church is the Chapel of (Progressive) Democracy
on 03 Sep 2012 at 7:15 pm 116Earl

What could I have been doing in April that I missed that?

Wasting my time, obviously!