The Revenge of Sandra Fluke

[TitanTiger 21,064]

I don't think that would ever happen either, but there will be another encyclical on birth control and family planning in the future. Humanae Vitae was and is still very controversial within the Church.

It's only controversial with those who were never following church teaching on a lot of things to begin with.

As long as insurance is so closely intertwined with employment, rulings like this mean the potential that somebody's medical autonomy can be stepped on by their employer is there.

No one's autonomy is being stepped on my saying the government has to find a mechanism for providing this that doesn't involve the employer in it. Birth control is still legal and easily purchased. The government can still work out arrangements with insurance companies to provide it. The only time autonomy was being stepped on was when the government decided to force religious organizations to violate their beliefs in facilitating its procurement.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Homer- take a breath

Stop weasel-lying and I'll let it go.

I've never started, so you can stop now.

[homersapien 12,172]

Homer- take a breath

Stop weasel-lying and I'll let it go.

I've never started, so you can stop now.

Weasel-lying on top of weasel-lying.

[cole256 17,085]

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

Ever ask a similar question like this to you, your reply is so and so has nothing to do with this or we're talking about so and so this is a distraction

[AURaptor 1,137]

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

Ever ask a similar question like this to you, your reply is so and so has nothing to do with this or we're talking about so and so this is a distraction

Bless your heart...

[AFTiger 282]

Rumours of Rush's demise are premature.

Long-time conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is facing troubles and the business of talk radio is on “shaky ground,” Weekly Standard associate editor Ethan Epstein recently argued in a 3,800-word dissertation published at Politico magazine.

Nothing could be further from the truth says America’s self-proclaimed “anchorman.”

The article, according to Limbaugh, is an attempt to interfere with his business model with “lies” at a time when he is known to be at the end of the eight-year iHeart Media deal that he signed with Clear Channel (now iHeart), in 2008, and is presumably in negotiations for a new one.

“The Politico story is a long and worn out laundry list of lies about my business timed to the end of my iHeart deal,” Limbaugh told Breitbart News Wednesday evening.

The numbers tend to back up Limbaugh, who isn’t showing signs of hemorrhaging audience at all.

According to ratings provided by Nielsen Audio, the Rush Limbaugh Show’s average quarter hour (AQH) audience in every demographic has increased by at least 30 percent, including overall AQH by 37 percent, over the previous year.

Despite affiliation changes in some major markets, evidence used by his naysayers as a sign Limbaugh’s future is in peril, Limbaugh has enjoyed huge gains. In the nation’s top three markets, Nielsen Audio shows the talk radio giant’s AQH is up 151 percent in New York City, 18 percent in Los Angeles and 215 percent in Chicago in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

Limbaugh’s overall national ratings continue to lead talk radio as they have continuously for more than a quarter of a century and no one else has come close. In the last year alone, his numbers in 25-54 audience is up 37 percent across the United States.

Critics, including Epstein, have been dismissive or reluctant to note this in their analyses.

In fact, Epstein’s article is the same song and dance routine that we’ve seen play out before. The mainstream media has offered up multiple iterations of the Limbaugh radio obituary since he stormed The Rush Limbaugh Show airwaves in the late 1980s.

But specifically to Epstein’s argument, two sources at the heart of Epstein’s Politico piece have questionable credentials as unbiased arbiters of talk radio status and sounding Limbaugh’s death knell.

One of those sources, Holland Cooke, is an individual that aligned himself with Media Matters and former MSNBC host Ed Schultz, whose MSNBC show was finally cancelled in 2014.

Cooke, billed by Epstein as a so-called “talk radio consultant,” has been forecasting Limbaugh’s demise as far back as 2012.

“Every shock jock goes a word too far at some point,” Cooke said on Schultz’s March 12, 2012 MSNBC show. “And until now, it seemed like Rush Limbaugh had nine lives. But I got to tell you, radio stations are nervous. I swapped emails today with a guy who runs a group of radio stations and has Rush Limbaugh on some of them. And he says he`s considering switching to that new Mike Huckabee show, which is going to debut head-to- head against Rush Limbaugh, 12:00 to 3:00 Eastern on April 2.”

Cooke went on, in his 2012 appearance, to add that Limbaugh would lose some major affiliates to Huckabee and that would be the beginning of Limbaugh’s end.

“He’ll probably still always be on the radio. But it won’t be as big a deal,” he said.

That new Mike Huckabee show lasted until December 12, 2013 and never came close to competing with Limbaugh nationally.

A source close to the Limbaugh program told Breitbart News that Cooke has been aiming to destroy Limbaugh’s business model, noting that “for Politico to quote him at length is either lazy or utterly deceptive.”

Another source, widely quoted in Epstein’s Politico piece is Darryl Parks, who is labeled “a radio industry veteran and former Clear Channel news-talk format chief.”

But Parks seemingly has his own axe to grind with Limbaugh.

According to a November 7, 2013 Cincinnati Enquirer report, Clear Channel fired Parks in what the company called a corporate restructuring. Previously, Parks served as Clear Channel’s vice president for news talk operations.

Since his firing, Parks launched a blog where he regularly criticizes Limbaugh and other top conservative radio talkers.

Parks referred to Limbaugh’s 2012 so-called Sandra Fluke incident, adding that it “did a lot of harm to talk radio.” Epstein points to liberal storefront Media Matters boycott in the wake of that incident, describing it as a “considerable success.”

“[M]ost consequentially, David Brock’s liberal watchdog Media Matters for America launched a $100,000 (at least) campaign calling for advertisers to refuse to buy time on Limbaugh’s show and for local affiliates to jettison it. The anti-Limbaugh faction came up with the social media-friendly slogan ‘Flush Rush,’” Epstein wrote. “The group’s efforts met considerable success in the months that followed. Dozens of companies, including Netflix, JCPenney and Sears, announced they would boycott Limbaugh’s show. Most have yet to return. And the increasing popularity of platforms like Twitter, which can be used to stoke outrage and promote boycotts, makes it highly unlikely they ever will.”

According to Limbaugh spokesperson Brian Glicklich, neither Sears nor JCPenney were ever national sponsors of the show, so to say they “dropped it” is simply false. Moreover, Glicklich challenged the notion that the boycott has any impact whatsoever.

“The boycott against Rush was a phony one, ginned up by David Brock’s Media Matters as a speech suppression effort. It failed, and turned out to be a handful of dishonest political activists, who have been identified in public and to advertisers. Here’s the truth: every week, The Rush Limbaugh Show is home to almost 10,000 advertisers locally & nationally,” Glicklich said in an email to Breitbart.

He continued, “They are small businesses selling their products to a receptive audience, entrepreneurs bringing new ideas to market, and everything in between. It should be self-evident, but with this year’s political process holding all of America’s attention, the business of being Rush Limbaugh has never been better.”

Over the years, there have been others who have incorrectly heralded Limbaugh’s radio funeral, and many of them have come around the time when there’s a possibility of political change in Washington, D.C.

At the end of Bill Clinton’s second term, some speculated about whether Limbaugh could maintain his popularity without having Clinton and members of his administration as a daily targets.

“Liberals are always my target,” Limbaugh told the Los Angeles Times’ Brian Lowry in a Dec. 29, 2000 interview. “The notion I’m going to have nothing to say because Clinton is gone is ridiculous.”

Not only was he correct when he said that, but the early part of the Bush administration was a time when conservative radio talk show hosts, who have since become household names, rose to national prominence.

Sean Hannity, who follows Limbaugh in many U.S. markets from 3 p.m.-6 p.m. ET came on the scene with national syndication in 2001. Laura Ingraham joined him in 2001, along with Glenn Beck in 2002 and Mark Levin in 2006 — hardly suggesting that Rush Limbaugh and the fad of conservative talk radio were on their way out.

In 2008, with the coming new age of Obama, some suggested that the long-liberal-nightmare of Limbaugh would finally be over.

Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff told CNBC on July 2, 2008 Limbaugh’s star would finally dim, calling a newly announced eight-year, $400 million deal with Clear Channel-owned Premiere Radio Network an error.

“I think it’s a monster error,” Wolff said of the deal. “I know – I’m sitting here saying, ‘What are these people smoking?’ You know, the truth is that Rush Limbaugh has been – he’s ridden the rise of conservatism for 25 years and I don’t, maybe nobody quite, quite has been following the news, but that’s coming to an end.”

“It’s going to be over and Rush Limbaugh in a relatively short period of time is going to look like a really kind of out-of-it kind of oddity,” Wolff added. “And I cannot for the life of me imagine how someone could have made this deal.”

He too was wrong.

Eight years later, Limbaugh is still at the top of the heap. In the year of Trump, despite not officially endorsing the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee yet, Limbaugh has continued to grow his audience.

Although the justification to suggest Limbaugh is on “shaky ground” seems to leave a lot to be desired and there was no effort made Politico to include that point of view, there is probably one thing on which you can bet: If the talk radio business model ship does begin to sink, Limbaugh won’t be going down with the ship. He’ll instead be on the beach with a drink in his hands and others are struggling to get to the shore.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/05/26/exclusive-limbaugh-rips-politico-laundry-list-lies-suggesting-demise/

[cole256 17,085]

" Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find " - James Carvill, on Paula Jones.

Where's the outrage ?

Ever ask a similar question like this to you, your reply is so and so has nothing to do with this or we're talking about so and so this is a distraction

Bless your heart... :laugh:/>

I know. It's hard for me to fathom a man who says things but goes against what he says. And a person who will manipulate words and things like that to not be wrong. I literally can't imagine a person doing that on the internet on a football forum...Just can't

[AURaptor 1,137]

[AUDub 11,784]

It's only controversial with those who were never following church teaching on a lot of things to begin with.

Not so, though the majority of Catholics do use some form of artificial contraception in spite of Humanae Vitae. The reaction of the western laity and the clergy at the time of its passage was unprecedented and continues to this day among theologians, the laity and the clergy and they aren't all heretics.

No one's autonomy is being stepped on my saying the government has to find a mechanism for providing this that doesn't involve the employer in it. Birth control is still legal and easily purchased. The government can still work out arrangements with insurance companies to provide it. The only time autonomy was being stepped on was when the government decided to force religious organizations to violate their beliefs in facilitating its procurement.

I disagree with your contention that this is an establishment clause violation. They are not being asked to pay "because" of their religious beliefs. In fact, if they were somehow able to avoid paying, that would be the violation of the separation of church and state. Speaking as a Catholic, my religious views should not exempt me from paying the same health insurance rates as everyone else. Whether or not I agree with the care that is provided is irrelevant. Religion is not to be considered in such matters. I should be on on the same playing field as everyone else, and asking for exemptions and special treatment is the real violation. I believe it is already a violation enough that religious organizations don't pay proper taxes. Not getting preferential treatment is not a violation of my rights. Getting preferential treatment is a violation of everyone else's rights.

It doesn't stop at birth control. Rulings like this plant a minefield of legal questions. From RBG's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"Would the exemption… extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations… Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

Taken to the extreme, a business owned by a Christian Scientist could legally refuse to provide any health insurance at all! Then who is on the hook for it? And can we legally deny them that option in light of striking down the mandate?

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

There's an open question as to whether people needing other forms of healthcare can legally be pushed under the bus just to keep religious right happy.

My thoughts? Get them employers out of it entirely. Maybe go full on single payer. There. No more ambiguity.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Not so, though the majority of Catholics do use some form of artificial contraception in spite of Humanae Vitae.

And church teaching prior to it.

The reaction of the western laity and the clergy at the time of its passage was unprecedented and continues to this day among theologians, the laity and the clergy and they aren't all heretics.

It is most only a controversy amongst those who were theologically liberal to begin with and wish to change all manner of church dogma to better suit their modern tastes. But it was in reality just a restatement of Catholic doctrine.

I disagree with your contention that this is an establishment clause violation. They are not being asked to pay "because" of their religious beliefs. In fact, if they were somehow able to avoid paying, that would be the violation of the separation of church and state.

If you wish to force someone to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs, it most certainly is an establishment clause violation. The standard is not, nor has it ever been, whether the violation is "because" of religious belief. Intent to single them out is not a criteria.

Speaking as a Catholic, my religious views should not exempt me from paying the same health insurance rates as everyone else. Whether or not I agree with the care that is provided is irrelevant. Religion is not to be considered in such matters. I should be on on the same playing field as everyone else, and asking for exemptions and special treatment is the real violation. I believe it is already a violation enough that religious organizations don't pay proper taxes. Not getting preferential treatment is not a violation of my rights. Getting preferential treatment is a violation of everyone else's rights.

I'm sorry but this is just wrongheaded all the way around. If you can force someone to facilitate the procurement of something you believe to be a grave evil - to violate your conscience in such a manner, then you really don't have religious freedom at all. Catholics in this case are not stopping anyone from getting contraception through another means. They aren't trying to make such things illegal. They aren't trying to prevent the government from providing it or even insurance companies. But they are asking that they not be forced to help with it or be party to it. That is not asking much of you.

If you can't grant them that much, then what you think the free exercise clause means is to merely allow someone freedom in what happens in pews on Sundays or perhaps in their homes. But that was never the Founders intent. Such a thing could not rightly be termed the "free exercise of religion", as the exercise of religion extends far beyond a worship service, Bible study or private prayer. That would merely be "freedom to worship", which is a misnomer when it comes to the free exercise clause. Honestly, if the government can force them to do this, there really isn't much else they can't force them to do.

And as I said, it is apparent from the Little Sisters of the Poor ruling that the current SCOTUS agrees - the government can find a compromise that makes everyone happy here and doesn't force people to violate their consciences.

There's an open question as to whether people needing other forms of healthcare can legally be pushed under the bus just to keep religious right happy.

Not really. That's mostly scare tactics that the left would never let someone on the right get away with on one of their pet subjects such as gay marriage or transgender facility access.

My thoughts? Get them employers out of it entirely. Maybe go full on single payer. There. No more ambiguity.

This we can agree on. Either single-payer or a market based solution not tied to employers. Then you could even have some insurance plans where people could purchase from companies that don't cover morally problematic things like elective abortions or certain forms of contraception.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I know. It's hard for me to fathom a man who says things but goes against what he says. And a person who will manipulate words and things like that to not be wrong. I literally can't imagine a person doing that on the internet on a football forum...Just can't

I didn't go against anything. The only thing manipulated is in your brain. This isn't a " football forum ", genius.

[cole256 17,085]

I'm sorry football site. Genius huh? I'm still waiting on you to post any scores, accomplishments, titles, honors whatever to justify the greatest brain next to Limbaugh....I know you can't....I mean won't

[AURaptor 1,137]

I'm sorry football site. Genius huh? I'm still waiting on you to post any scores, accomplishments, titles, honors whatever to justify the greatest brain next to Limbaugh....I know you can't....I mean won't

" Politically speaking " , genius. Not a football forum.

Funny, the more you try to prop up your reputation as a smart guy, the less intelligent you sound.

Just say " thank you for correcting me " , or some such, and move on.

[AUDub 11,784]

And church teaching prior to it.

It is most only a controversy amongst those who were theologically liberal to begin with and wish to change all manner of church dogma to better suit their modern tastes. But it was in reality just a restatement of Catholic doctrine.

Our understanding of doctrine evolves, Titan. An example: The "Americanist heresy" notably promoted by Father John Courtney Murray was roundly condemned as heresy. Father Murray was silenced by the Vatican, but his ideas were discussed during the Second Vatican Council and morphed from heresy to official Church teaching with Dignitatis Humanae. Shoot, the "medically necessary exceptions" from Humanae Vitae contradict an earlier moral order. Sterilization, even for therapeutic reasons, was absolutely forbidden.

The church came extremely close to lifting its blanket condemnation of contraception back in the 1960s. This wasn't some liberal conspiracy. A significant majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals who were asked to take a formal look at that teaching recommended this change. His Holiness Paul VI overruled them in Humanae Vitae, of course.

Handwave all you want, but this support in favor of lifting the condemnation has not waned. The clergy is not stupid. Seriously, go to confession and confess to using birth control. The response will invariably be some variation of "*pfft* Of course you do. So does everyone else. Say three Hail Marys because that's never a bad idea and be on your way."

It's going to happen eventually. Not a matter of if, but when. Don't dismiss it as theological liberalism run amok.

If you wish to force someone to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs, it most certainly is an establishment clause violation. The standard is not, nor has it ever been, whether the violation is "because" of religious belief. Intent to single them out is not a criteria.

This sets a precedent for any religious person who owns a corporation or business to refuse to abide by federal laws based on their religion. If it is not birth control, then blood transfusions, organ transplants, fertility treatment, palliative care. What about circumventing antidiscrimination hiring practices? They can refuse service to customers based on religious freedom? What about some type of biblical justification for not paying taxes? It makes it terribly difficult to run a country.

Jews, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Scientologists, Pagans, Buddhists, Rastafarian, those of you who own businesses, please come forward and make your case for religious freedom. How will this all play out?

I'm sorry but this is just wrongheaded all the way around. If you can force someone to facilitate the procurement of something you believe to be a grave evil - to violate your conscience in such a manner, then you really don't have religious freedom at all. Catholics in this case are not stopping anyone from getting contraception through another means. They aren't trying to make such things illegal. They aren't trying to prevent the government from providing it or even insurance companies. But they are asking that they not be forced to help with it or be party to it. That is not asking much of you.

As long as the taxpayers provide support for church operated secular organizations involved in providing health care for fees, it is the church, not the government, that has breached the wall of separation. I do not willingly support any entity that denies a segment of the population any right or service that the government specifically supports.

The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from religion as much as it does freedom of religion. Health care, birth control included, must fall into the irreligious protections guaranteed the minority.

If you can't grant them that much, then what you think the free exercise clause means is to merely allow someone freedom in what happens in pews on Sundays or perhaps in their homes. But that was never the Founders intent. Such a thing could not rightly be termed the "free exercise of religion", as the exercise of religion extends far beyond a worship service, Bible study or private prayer. That would merely be "freedom to worship", which is a misnomer when it comes to the free exercise clause. Honestly, if the government can force them to do this, there really isn't much else they can't force them to do.

And as I said, it is apparent from the Little Sisters of the Poor ruling that the current SCOTUS agrees - the government can find a compromise that makes everyone happy here and doesn't force people to violate their consciences.

A business is not a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or any other place of worship. If a church wants to participate in a secular endeavor, I believe they should be expected to play by the same rules as any other businesses.

Regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor, I happen to believe that the Court did its job here and correctly applied the law as written, but I quite frankly do not like the result. Congress needs to take another look at RFRA and whether it needs to be amended. Until RFRA is addressed in Congress, the Supreme Court has likely opened itself up to years of litigation over how far RFRA actually goes. Some interesting cases will be brought up by minority religions like the Witnesses. One early example: Citing the ruling, a judge excused a FLDS member from testifying in court in a case about child labor who claimed it violated his religious freedom.

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?213cv0281-121

Not really. That's mostly scare tactics that the left would never let someone on the right get away with on one of their pet subjects such as gay marriage or transgender facility access.

I disagree, of course. See the example I linked above. Also, these other mines in the minefield:

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/07/gitmo-detainees-invoke-hobby-lobby-ruling/

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/12/satanic-temple-turns-tables-hobby-lobby-ruling/

There is a potential legal quagmire here, Titan.

This we can agree on. Either single-payer or a market based solution not tied to employers. Then you could even have some insurance plans where people could purchase from companies that don't cover morally problematic things like elective abortions or certain forms of contraception.

I'm glad we agree on this. I'm all for ending this "who's going to pay for it?" nonsense.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Our understanding of doctrine evolves, Titan. An example: The "Americanist heresy" notably promoted by Father John Courtney Murray was roundly condemned as heresy. Father Murray was silenced by the Vatican, but his ideas were discussed during the Second Vatican Council and morphed from heresy to official Church teaching with Dignitatis Humanae. Shoot, the "medically necessary exceptions" from Humanae Vitae contradict an earlier moral order. Sterilization, even for therapeutic reasons, was absolutely forbidden.

The church came extremely close to lifting its blanket condemnation of contraception back in the 1960s. This wasn't some liberal conspiracy. A significant majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals who were asked to take a formal look at that teaching recommended this change. His Holiness Paul VI overruled them in Humanae Vitae, of course.

A significant majority of the early church were Arians that denied the divinity of Christ also. And though the divinity of Christ was something that had been handed down by the Apostles, it had not been formally explained and detailed as doctrine by the Church. Eventually is was formally detailed and declared.

Handwave all you want, but this support in favor of lifting the condemnation has not waned. The clergy is not stupid. Seriously, go to confession and confess to using birth control. The response will invariably be some variation of "*pfft* Of course you do. So does everyone else. Say three Hail Marys because that's never a bad idea and be on your way."

It's going to happen eventually. Not a matter of if, but when. Don't dismiss it as theological liberalism run amok.

And a priest who does that is being derelict in his duties and would better fit in the Episcopal church or some other mainline denomination.

The Arians probably thought eventually they'd win out too. I don't think it ever going to change not matter what those awash the Spirit of Vatican II wish to think.

This sets a precedent for any religious person who owns a corporation or business to refuse to abide by federal laws based on their religion. If it is not birth control, then blood transfusions, organ transplants, fertility treatment, palliative care. What about circumventing antidiscrimination hiring practices? They can refuse service to customers based on religious freedom? What about some type of biblical justification for not paying taxes? It makes it terribly difficult to run a country.

Jews, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Scientologists, Pagans, Buddhists, Rastafarian, those of you who own businesses, please come forward and make your case for religious freedom. How will this all play out?

Most likely on a case by case basis until some newer precedents are set. But to dismissively treat the free exercise clause as the least of our freedoms, always cast aside the second some secular desire comes into play is to devoid it of any meaning at all.

As long as the taxpayers provide support for church operated secular organizations involved in providing health care for fees, it is the church, not the government, that has breached the wall of separation. I do not willingly support any entity that denies a segment of the population any right or service that the government specifically supports.

The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from religion as much as it does freedom of religion. Health care, birth control included, must fall into the irreligious protections guaranteed the minority.

You've got this backwards. In most cases, churches and religious groups were doing some sort of charitable work, starting hospitals, helping people and they were doing it well. The government saw benefit in coming alongside these groups and instead of spending far more money to create entirely redundant secular structures, wished to instead save taxpayer money and utilize what these religious groups already had going. And it's a smart move. To then turn around and demand that they essentially deny that which makes them what they are is arrogant and underhanded.

If the government wishes to waste money and recreate the wheel everywhere so they can have their "purely secular" institutions doing all these things, then by all means, go waste money and explain it to the American people. But you don't get to come in and take advantage of what others have built and made good, then dictate all the terms to them too.

And again, no one is being denied a damn thing. What is being denied is forcing someone to pay or facilitate it for you. If the government wishes to make that an entitlement, then they need to figure out a way to provide it without coercing or forcing others to do their dirty work for them.

A business is not a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or any other place of worship. If a church wants to participate in a secular endeavor, I believe they should be expected to play by the same rules as any other businesses.

Regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor, I happen to believe that the Court did its job here and correctly applied the law as written, but I quite frankly do not like the result. Congress needs to take another look at RFRA and whether it needs to be amended. Until RFRA is addressed in Congress, the Supreme Court has likely opened itself up to years of litigation over how far RFRA actually goes. Some interesting cases will be brought up by minority religions like the Witnesses. One early example: Citing the ruling, a judge excused a FLDS member from testifying in court in a case about child labor who claimed it violated his religious freedom.

https://ecf.utd.usco...c?213cv0281-121

I think the court did the right thing here. I also think if Scalia hadn't died, you likely would have seen a 6-3 decision in their favor as it is my opinion from reading the tea leaves that this was a compromise brokered by Kennedy who was leery of setting a huge precedent without a full court or without a big majority one way or the other. It seems to me from his questions and arguments that he leaned toward ruling in the Sisters' favor but wanted more than a 5-3 count to establish something like this. So he approached both sides with this idea to basically tell the parties what to do without ruling the matter itself, which could be a unanimous decision for now.

The Sisters, the religious colleges, and others in this lawsuit have every right to their religious freedom rights as any church does. No one is forced to go work for Wheaton College or Little Sisters of the Poor. And even if you do...you'll still get the contraceptives you want. The government just has to find a way to make it happen that doesn't entangle these groups in providing it for you. Win-win.

I disagree, of course. See the example I linked above. Also, these other mines in the minefield:

http://samuel-warde....y-lobby-ruling/

http://samuel-warde....y-lobby-ruling/

There is a potential legal quagmire here, Titan.

There's always a potential legal quagmire for cases where both sides see things quite differently. I think for instance that the legal ramifications of gay marriage and this transgender mess are far larger and more concerning that merely what restroom someone uses or whether Sam and Dave get a marriage license. But that doesn't seem to be of any concern to its supporters.

[cole256 17,085]

I'm sorry football site. Genius huh? I'm still waiting on you to post any scores, accomplishments, titles, honors whatever to justify the greatest brain next to Limbaugh....I know you can't....I mean won't

" Politically speaking " , genius. Not a football forum.

Funny, the more you try to prop up your reputation as a smart guy, the less intelligent you sound.

Just say " thank you for correcting me " , or some such, and move on. :laugh:/>

Me asking you for anything besides your self proclamation of owning people is propping myself up? Lol. Ok. You are lord of the political forum on a football board! Lol.

[AUDub 11,784]

A significant majority of the early church were Arians that denied the divinity of Christ also. And though the divinity of Christ was something that had been handed down by the Apostles, it had not been formally explained and detailed as doctrine by the Church. Eventually is was formally detailed and declared.

It was dissent from the laity that prevented that heresy from becoming doctrine.

His Eminence Cardinal John Henry Newman, as a result of taking a dissenting position by elevating the laity, faced some hardship, but like Fr. Murray was ultimately vindicated. Cardinal Newman was the foremost expert on the Arian heresy of his era:

Even John Henry Newman, often cited as the greatest Catholic figure of the 19th century, took a significant dissenting stance and suffered the consequences. Ironically, this dispute was over an occasion of dissent by hundreds of thousands of Christians that occurred 1,400 years before Newman was born.

In 1859 Newman was 59 and past his prime physically though not intellectually. As the editor of the magazine Ramparts, he got into trouble with the English hierarchy for asserting in an article that the British bishops would be well-advised to seek the counsel of lay Catholics in important matters. Such a view was regarded as rash and disruptive of good order. He was subsequently informed by his own bishop that the next issue of Ramparts, July 1859, would be his last as editor.

Newman accepted the decision somewhat badly, then set to work producing an exceptionally long study that constituted the entire July issue. It was titled "Consulting the Faithful on Matters of Doctrine," and it set off a firestorm of controversy because Newman placed himself in bold opposition to well-established teaching and interpretation.

In his study, Newman returned to a subject on which he was unquestionably the world's leading authority: the fourth-century Arian heresy (a movement that claimed that Jesus is not God, only God's greatest creation). Newman reviewed exhaustively a 60-year period that followed the Council of Nicaea in 325; the council had condemned Arianism and formulated in the famed Nicene Creed the orthodox position. However, during that post-conciliar period, Newman showed, the overwhelming number of bishops and dozens of regional church councils dismissed the Nicene formula and embraced Arianism. Even Pope Liberius signed a pro-Arian statement, though probably under pressure.

So great and so widespread was the Arian position, said Newman, that it would surely have become official Catholic doctrine, except for one thing: the Catholic laity. In Europe, Asia, and the Middle East they dissented from what their priests, their bishops, even their pope was proposing. Jesus is true God, they insisted in the face of excommunication, persecution, and (in some cases) martyrdom.

As it turned out, they won. At the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Arian heresy was finally laid to rest, and the hierarchy agreed to abide by the faith of the people. Summarizing this remarkable period, Newman wrote, "The Nicene dogma was maintained during the greater part of the fourth century not by the unswerving firmness of the Holy See or councils of bishops but by the consensus of the fidelium [the faithful].

"On the other hand, I say that there was a temporary suspension of the functions of the ecclesia docens [teaching church]. The body of the bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously against one another. There was nothing after Nicaea of firm, consistent testimony for 60 years. There were untrustworthy councils, unfaithful bishops . . . misguidance, delusion, hallucination . . . extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church."

From all this Newman drew some shocking conclusions that have been reverberating in the church ever since: that there is in the body of the faithful (the laity) an "instinct" for the truth, that this "sense of the faithful" must never be ignored or taken for granted by the church's official teachers, that authentic church teaching therefore comes about through a kind of "conspiracy" or cooperative enterprise on the part of both laity and hierarchy, and finally that certain lapses (or "suspensions") can occur when one side or the other of this living body temporarily ceases to function.

This was radical interpretation indeed, and there was immediate protest. Was Newman actually saying that the infallibility of the church doesn't reside exclusively in the church's head? asked the prominent English theologian John Gillow. Newman replied that he meant what he said: Because the promise of the Holy Spirit was given to the whole church, the whole church must be a party to its decisions.

This seemingly unprecedented elevation of the laity was particularly abhorrent to Msgr. Edward Talbot, a leading churchman, who asked in exasperation, "What is the province of the laity? To hunt, to shoot, to entertain. These matters they understand, but to meddle with ecclesiastical matters they have no right at all. . . . Dr. Newman is the most dangerous man in England."

Newman would not recant; thus charges were brought against him before the Vatican's Office of Propaganda by several English bishops, and a protracted investigation got underway. For the next six years Newman lived under a cloud, his creativity seriously impeded.

"This age of the church is peculiar," he complained. "In former times primitive or medieval, there was not the extreme centralization now in use . . . There was true private judgment in the primitive and medieval schools. . . . There are no schools now, no freedom . . . of opinion, no exercise of the intellect."

A decisive resolution never came from Rome, the affair passed, and in his last days Newman was made a cardinal for his lifetime contributions to the church.

Following his death in 1890, theologians began to further develop his concept of the church as an organism of interactive parts. That theology is still in process, but it achieved a measure of official recognition at Vatican II, which Pope Paul VI called "Newman's council." Said the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, "The body of the faithful as a whole, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief . . . thanks to a supernatural sense of faith which characterizes the people as a whole. . . ."

And in another place the constitution declared, "Christ, the great prophet . . . continually fulfills his prophetic office . . . not only through the hierarchy who teach in his name . . . but also through the laity."

- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/catholic-dissent-when-wrong-turns-out-be-right

Dissent has its place.

And a priest who does that is being derelict in his duties and would better fit in the Episcopal church or some other mainline denomination.

The Arians probably thought eventually they'd win out too. I don't think it ever going to change not matter what those awash the Spirit of Vatican II wish to think.

I would argue they're being realistic, which is an approach I can appreciate. If we can combine a fidelity to difficult teachings with a generous pastoral mercy then we will do well. This approach has applications to other controversial and difficult areas of moral theology. The clergy made headlines by debating controversial topics such as admitting remarried Catholics to Communion and acknowledging the positives of same-sex relationships at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, but there was little discussion on contraception. The bishops simply called on the church to do a better job of relaying the message of Humanae Vitae. That is, the rejection of the birth control ban is a messaging problem, which isn't really true. The church’s unwillingness to address this gap between official teaching and practice is not an encouraging sign for Catholics regarding the moral authority of the church. At worst, it might encourage Catholics to disregard all manner of other teachings, including those on marriage and abortion.

I'll admit my belief is heterodox, but Humanae Vitae left that door wide open by being, in my opinion, logically incoherent. The encyclical bypassed appeals to Scripture and Tradition while attempting to establish its teachings on a natural law basis, yet it did not offer cogent natural law argument from either a liberal or traditionalist point of view.

Humanae Vitae is honest in paragraph 11 by pointing out the obvious, which is that, most of the time, sex is not procreative. But then there is this sentence at the end that says, "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." It's difficult to reconcile this contradiction.

It left unaddressed the reason why, if contraception is immoral, natural family planning and other methods approved by the Church are not. If it is immoral to take steps to avoid procreation, then it must be immoral to take steps to avoid procreation with natural family planning. His Beatitude Franz Konig, the retired Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, noted this "irritating distinction between artificial and natural contraception." in a debate with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Konig stated: "Here we have ended up in a bottleneck above all because of the distinction (cast into doubt even by medicine) between artificial and natural, as if even from the moral viewpoint what is important is the trick of cheating nature."

No contraceptive method is perfect, thus any mode of contraception allows for the possibility of pregnancy. If, as is asserted in Humanae Vitae, the probability doesn't matter, then a contraceptive method with a failure rate of 5% or 1% is just as moral or immoral as one that fails 25% of the time, or at the same rate as no contraception at all.

So, the way I see it, by natural law, this is not a logically consistent position. The Church should do one of two things : Either ban all forms of contraception not used for licit medical reason (the traditional stance, which can also be taken to an extreme by banning them in their entirety) or accept all contraceptive methods as they do natural family planning now (the liberal stance, but consistent with Humanae Vitae).

Also of note, unlike your example using the Arians, the teachings within Humanae Vitae fall into another category. They are presented as "non-infallible" teaching, in which the Magisterium does not give us any absolute guarantee that the teaching is immutably true and therefore forever irreformable. It is not error to disagree with this level of authoritative teaching. One may dissent from a particular teaching if reasons are serious and well founded.

[cole256 17,085]

I tried to read it, lol. I'm sorry Ben but I failed

[AUDub 11,784]

I tried to read it, lol. I'm sorry Ben but I failed

I don't blame you. It's quite the discussion.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Alas, this discussion will need to pause for a day or so. We're packing to go on vacation. Once I'm in place, I'll have time to respond.

[AUDub 11,784]

Alas, this discussion will need to pause for a day or so. We're packing to go on vacation. Once I'm in place, I'll have time to respond.

Y'all be safe.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Use plenty of protection. Sunscreen.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Me asking you for anything besides your self proclamation of owning people is propping myself up? Lol. Ok. You are lord of the political forum on a football board! Lol.

Only if you say so," Carl ".

[channonc 466]

Very interesting back and forth Ben and Titan.

[AFTiger 282]

Rush Rules