Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Felch]

This particular institution has also made it possible for sexual predators to abuse children without fear of punishment, thus the institution has no merit.

There is more than one way to play that particular game, Felch.

Is this new rule intended to solve the problem of child abuse or is it instead going to disrupt the good work done by Catholic hospitals? Try to separate your anti-Catholicism from the issue at hand. This is a matter of first amendment liberties, and the question of whether the government is free to discriminate against people who are exercising their right to freely exercise their religion. Either the government should get out of health care, or it should respect the fundamental rights of health care providers. It shouldn't have the power to show disfavor to a religion.

[Jon Miller]

This particular institution has also made it possible for sexual predators to abuse children without fear of punishment, thus the institution has no merit.

So does the education system and the family.

Not that I am a fan of the Catholic church as an institution, and i think it has been atrocious on the child abuse front. If I was catholic I would force a change or split.

But to say there is no merit because of the existence of child abuse doesn't follow.

JM

[MRT144]

If your family was starving and had no roof over your head, I'm sure you wouldn't refuse a job working for Satan, so please don't insult people just because they work for the Church in some obscure manner.

Working for and receiving benefit from Catholic charity is almost identical when it comes to contraception and attitudes towards gender and sex, so I'd rather receive charity than work for an organization I fundamentally loathe.

[MRT144]

So does the education system and the family.

JM

Obviously the problem is the Family Bishop and the Local School District Cardinal doing everything in their power to hide, shift and disavow any blame.

If a family member is a sexual predator, there isn't some hierarchy protecting them.
If a teacher is a sexual predator, they aren't being shuffled around school district to school district.

[OzzyKP]

Obviously the problem is the Family Bishop and the Local School District Cardinal doing everything in their power to hide, shift and disavow any blame.

If a family member is a sexual predator, there isn't some hierarchy protecting them.
If a teacher is a sexual predator, they aren't being shuffled around school district to school district.

For decades family sexual abuse was covered up by local authorities. It wasn't talked about, wasn't prosecuted, wasn't interfered with. But people knew what was going on. Same deal with schools. This **** happened all the time, and the school administrations handled it no better then the Catholic hierarchy. But no one has an axe to grind against schools so we don't hear about it as much.

[Elok]

I'm staying out of the "Is Catholicism good or evil" argument in general, but MRT, have you heard of Jerry Sandusky? Educational institutions have been known to coddle perverts for the sake of their reputation too. As for families, lots of 'em keep mum about abuse. So much that schools tend to take a very aggressive stance about reporting even the slightest suspicion of it.

[MRT144]

I'm staying out of the "Is Catholicism good or evil" argument in general, but MRT, have you heard of Jerry Sandusky? Educational institutions have been known to coddle perverts for the sake of their reputation too. As for families, lots of 'em keep mum about abuse. So much that schools tend to take a very aggressive stance about reporting even the slightest suspicion of it.

Paterno was Catholic.
You state schools take very aggressive stances against family sexual abuse.
So obviously educational institutions with Catholics don't take it very seriously.

[MRT144]

For decades family sexual abuse was covered up by local authorities. It wasn't talked about, wasn't prosecuted, wasn't interfered with. But people knew what was going on. Same deal with schools. This **** happened all the time, and the school administrations handled it no better then the Catholic hierarchy. But no one has an axe to grind against schools so we don't hear about it as much.

Or maybe, just maybe, schools and families just decided that child rape was unacceptable at some point.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Paterno was Catholic.

And Paterno reported the offense both to his superior Curley who was not Catholic and the man in charge of the Campus Police (Shultz) who had legal jurisdiction on the campus. Both of which enacted no actions and were the real culprits in the cover up.

You state schools take very aggressive stances against family sexual abuse.

No.

[Guynemer]

I'm staying out of the "Is Catholicism good or evil" argument in general, but MRT, have you heard of Jerry Sandusky? Educational institutions have been known to coddle perverts for the sake of their reputation too. As for families, lots of 'em keep mum about abuse. So much that schools tend to take a very aggressive stance about reporting even the slightest suspicion of it.

This was exactly my point. Institutions, in and of themselves, are almost never good or evil. Such discussions are inherently silly and stupid.

That was my point, people. Usually, you folks are smart enough to read between the ****ing lines. (Not referring to you, Elok, you obviously got it.)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Show me the evidence-based support for conversion therapy, and THEN feel free to use the thumbs up.

I believe the entire premise was phrased as a thought experiment meaning a hypothetical. The rationale for the conversion therapy and its applicability is a down in the weeds arguement. (and furthermore doesn't carry much weight) It doesn't have to make sense as numerous executive edicts don't. (Case in point the latest attempts to regulate Mercury to levels beyond detctability). In fact that is one of the reasons it is so believable, there's a pretty good track record for the goverment regulating to the absurd based purely on the premise that there is a greater good involved, all that needs to be done is give a rationale (as absurd as it may be).

I also believe that the article author clearly spelled out his own belief that such a conversion therapy approach was "a harmful crock" before going onto explain as DD points out "point out that governments in liberal societies do not force individuals or voluntary associations to violate their consciences where their conscience-following does not violate the rights of others."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This was exactly my point. Institutions, in and of themselves, are almost never good or evil. Such discussions are inherently silly and stupid.

Institutions almost always act on their own behalf in order to increase their influence or to ensure their own self preservation. No matter what the initial creationary purposes institutions ultimately will become perverted to the point that they are willing to betray their founding principles in order to either increase influence or prevent their ultimate demise.

Does this mean they always act in an 'evil' fashion, No. But beware when an issue threatens a groups power, livelihood, or existance.

[Jon Miller]

This is the only place on the internet where people seem to continually mix up the issue.

It is about catholic hospitals/etc having to pay for/provide varying forms birth control to their own employees or not being able to exist.

It is no different, from a logical perspective, from any other attack on separation of church and state or freedom of conscience.

Just because you and I support birth control does not mean it is not an attack on freedom of conscience.

It is not about catholic institutions withholding birth control or not allowing people to have it or restricting it in anyway. Nor about catholics not providing it to patients who desire it. It is purely about what catholic institutions provide to their employees, what they pay for.

JM

[Jon Miller]

This is no different than if suddenly slavery became 'OK' again, for the general populace.

You were against slavery, found it unethical in your very center.

But the government mandated that you provide your employees with slaves.

Would this be 'OK'?

JM

[Aeson]

That's a silly analogy Jon. Not to mention it could just as (if not somewhat more) easily be phrased, "If government mandated that you couldn't give your employees slaves, would that be wrong because it infringes on some people's beliefs that God made blacks to be servants unto us?"

A much more applicable analogy would be if blood transfusions/vaccinations should be covered by government mandated health insurance for employees. (Still not perfect, since blood transfusions and vaccinations are more important than contraceptive measures both for cost and necessity. But it's at least in the same ball park as contraception, rather than being something completely different in just about every way like slavery.)

-------------------------------

The real problem here is government is mandating that insurance be provided, but not actually providing it. It's a stupid compromise that's the worst of both worlds.

Ignoring that, the only question is if insurance should include coverage for contraceptive measures or not. Once you take the step of mandating health coverage, you need to treat everyone equally. If it's important for an employee at X to have Y coverage, it's important for employee at Z to have Y coverage as well.

The fact that some religious organizations get exceptions at all is clearly favoritism towards some belief systems over others.