What Can't Hurt You Know You Do

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Did somebody say gay cake?

 

 

(Sorry in advance.  couldn't resist.)

 

 

I don't see how that cake is very Gay, 1. It isn't very colourful and 2. Those two guys don't look so carefree and merry.  Looks like a wrestling cake to me. Oh just noticed the chain around one of the guys throats, it could be an s&m cake with absolutely nothing to do with gay as in homosexual. :)

Edited February 27, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

<edit> But Gay can also be not in the homosexual sense but this cake fits none of the 3 meanings from the dictionaries meaning of GAY as far as i can tell. :)

[Luigi]

 

4. Obama Care. Force the Catholics to pay for non-Catholics' birth control, abortions, etc. Would Obama try to force Jews to eat pork? Would he try to force Muslims to eat shellfish? Even if he did, nobody dies from violating dietary laws. 

 

I don't think Obama care forces people to use birth control. Who pays for school lunches, tax payers or the families whose children eat of it?

 

Obama Care doesn't force anyone to use birth control. But if they choose to use it, the cost will be covered by all American taxpayers, including Catholics. I'm not going to pay for other people to use abortifacients to kill their unborn children. And I shouldn't have to. And I never have had to - until Obama.  

[Anastasia13]

Obama Care doesn't force anyone to use birth control. But if they choose to use it, the cost will be covered by all American taxpayers, including Catholics. I'm not going to pay for other people to use abortifacients to kill their unborn children. And I shouldn't have to. And I never have had to - until Obama.  

 

And if school lunches are paid for by tax payers, they better be kosher.

[Luigi]

And if school lunches are paid for by tax payers, they better be kosher.

The school cafeterias I know of do offer Kosher meals, and vegetarian meals, and the pork sausage pizzas are clearly marked so the Muslim kids don't accidentally eat pork thinking it's hamburger. 

 

And nobody has any trouble with that kind of consideration for diversity. 

 

 

But by GOD the Catholic Church better walk in lock step with government policy. Which this lame president can't get passed as legislation, so he passes as presidential (read, "personal") mandate.

 

He doesn't know the difference between presiding over the country and being king. After he claims to have "studied" constitutional law.

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

The difference between The Affordable Care Act and school lunches in the immediateness of the cooperation. The former requires Catholic businesses to directly pay for the birth control through the insurance they offer. While the latter is a remote situation. We pay tax money and the government chooses what to do with it. No one has any say where their tax money goes, nor do they know if there money will actually go to one of the things they have a religious objection to. That's not the case when you are supplying insurance to an employee.

[NotreDame]

The difference between The Affordable Care Act and school lunches in the immediateness of the cooperation. The former requires Catholic businesses to directly pay for the birth control through the insurance they offer. While the latter is a remote situation. We pay tax money and the government chooses what to do with it. No one has any say where their tax money goes, nor do they know if there money will actually go to one of the things they have a religious objection to. That's not the case when you are supplying insurance to an employee.

 

So it is immediacy, but it's also still the subject of where the money goes.  I'm pretty sure things like whether medicaid funded abortion or birth control were previously decided at the state level, but I think the ACA has made it so that birth control is now mandated at the federal level.  I'm still not clear about abortion though.  I think the hyde ammendment still applies, but that means there are some states where employers would be directly subsidizing insurance coverage for abortions.  Any insight into this?
 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's late, I'm tired, and I have neither the time not the inclination to find the links. But if you have time, you can Google these stories. I'm using the term "state" to include any government agency or quasi-governmental agency. Some of these examples are lawsuits filed by individuals or agencies against Catholic organizations - if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would be a government agency acting against the Church. And I'm including other countries, so I should edit your question to read, "How are states attacking..."

 

1. Washington DC tried to - and I believe successfully did - close down the Catholic adoption agency in the diocese because the Catholic agency refused to place children in homosexual homes. That was about three or four years ago. They rather see an agency go out of business and not place any children in homes than allow the agency to turn down any gay applicants. 

 

2. Attempts by school districts to force Catholic schools to hire teachers who stand in direct opposition to Church teaching - gays among them, but not only gays. 

 

3. In Ireland, the attempt by the government to force priests to break the seal of confession. I don't know where that legislation stands at the moment. 

 

4. Obama Care. Force the Catholics to pay for non-Catholics' birth control, abortions, etc. Would Obama try to force Jews to eat pork? Would he try to force Muslims to eat shellfish? Even if he did, nobody dies from violating dietary laws.  

 

5. Attempts to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions - the most recent case I read about was in Michigan, wasn't it?  

 

6. Attempt to stop St. Joseph's Benedictine Abbey in Louisiana from producing and selling caskets/coffins as a means of supporting themselves. The monks won the case last year, but it counts as an attack. 

 

7. The UN lambasting the Catholic Church in whatever that recent publication is. There's another thread about that on the board. The UN, a secular institution that's a grand total of 86(?) years old, thinks it can dictate theology to a worldwide institution that's two millenia old.

 

8. In France, the government banning the wearing of crosses or crucifixes by any citizen in public. To be fair, the French government is also attacking Islam by banning Muslim women from wearing head coverings in public. 

 

9. The claim by certain political groups that "there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court." 

 

10. Governor Mario Cuomo's recent public statement that Catholics are not welcome in New York state/

 

I'm sure there are more, but that's all that come to mind off the top of my head. As I said, it's late and I'm tired. 

 

Note, though, that government agencies and the associated groups are NOT systematically attacking other churches. The Catholics do not hold a monopoly on many of these issues, but we are the biggest, oldest, most well-established religion in this country (and the other traditionally Catholic countries mentioned) so we are the primary target. 

 

Although I'm starting to get tired of it, this country has a long tradition of anti-Catholicism. If you read American church history (something deeper than a high school textbook), you can find lots of examples of it. 

 

Some of the topics are new to me, so feel free to correct me.

 

1. I'm not sure if they shut it down or refused to continue funding it. I'd agree with you if it was the former.

 

2. I agree. Would you be okay with a private school firing its faculty for being Catholic? If so, then we're on the same page.

 

3. Isn't this related to the sex abuse cases? Meh, this is pretty sticky. I think of it more as a questionable method of solving a complicated problem than anything. You'll need to give me more information, as i'm not knowledgeable in Irish laws/politics and don't see how anti-catholicism ties into this.
 

4. Not sure if we can say that's a blatant attack on Catholics.

 

5. My little knowledge of the Michigan case makes me think it's a bit more complicated than that. Apparently, the plaintiff is suing because the hospital withheld information regarding the slim to none chance of her child surviving and the dangers of continuing her pregnancy.

 

6. Actually, the monks were granted an exception to a law in place requiring a funeral director's license for those selling caskets in Louisiana. Is it an unfair law? Sure. But I don't think the makers/enforcers of this law had an anti-catholic agenda in mind.

 

7. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/world/europe/un-vatican-report/
You mean this^? Based on what CNN highlighted, the accusation of the Vatican clumsily taking the law into its own hands on the sex abuse issue doesn't seem far from the truth. That being said, i'm sure the call for the Vatican to be pro-choice isn't the only silly thing in this report.

 

8. It's odd how France has taken separation of Church and State to a new level. I think the cross ban is  in effect for public schools students and public workers and only the hijab is banned in public. This is interesting because most hijabis feel that wearing the headscarf is a religious obligation. I don't agree with the French governments idea of secularism but it seems that they're being easier on Catholics in this example.

 

9. I'd have to agree with them for different reasons.  Six out of nine justices being Catholic is a bit much. If all six are actually devout Catholics (like I'm sure they claim to be), that leaves us with six justices with similar views on many issues. It's not ideal. I'd prefer to have a different flavor of person for each seat.

 

10. I don't know if it was Mario or Andrew Cuomo. Either way, they're both listed as "Roman Catholic":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo

It makes it harder to invoke the term "anti-catholic" in this scenario when we're talking about a Catholic saying these things.

 

 

 I've experienced Anti-Catholicism and I know it's real, but our society isn't nearly as biased against Catholics as Catholics let on. You can't be the majority and the underdog at the same time. It'd be so much easier to argue your case for Muslims, Jews, or Atheists, and I still wouldn't buy it (If we're talking about America, that is).

Edited February 28, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl