“Sedition”: Obama Says Catholic Church Encouraging Military Rebellion Against Him, Orders Chaplains Not To Read Letter at Pat Dollard

When you don't have anything on topic to say...deflect deflect deflect

Hypocrisy is the main stay of the Catholic church.Now that marching orders are being given by the ultra right wing against the black man in the white house crap like this will continue to pop up.The only thing this pathetic exercise is about is getting "the base" to the polls ,heaven knows the GOTP cant run on there record of accomplishments or a vision of the future.And yes I did attend a Catholic school that had a priest sodomizing boys I went to school with .

against the black man

.

When you don't have anything on topic to say...deflect deflect deflect

Or play the race card

Food stamp President ?

Record amount of people on welfare ?

Both blatant lies ,but what the heck ignorant people love to here it , suck it up and believe it.

I guess some people will just continue to miss G . W . Bush with his American valuuuuuuuues

and family valuuuuuuuuuues

You might want to clean your keyboard. Looks like your "u" key is sticky.

:-P

:)

Nice, informative post. And thanks for your service.

Thank you and well said.

If they object this much then they need to consider if they still wish to stay. I am sure the army will separate them with no acrimony.

Started to read that rant...got a little ways into it and realized it was just that....a rant with no other agenda than grind one's ax. Not worth my time to finish reading it.

One man's comment is another person's rant, especially when that person disagrees with the comment. And that you didn't read it does not in the least bit concern me, as it is obvious you are too close-minded to accept the premises.

"No political party can, or ought to, exist when one of its comer-stones is opposition to freedom of thought. ... If a sect sets up its laws as binding above the state laws, whenever the two come in conflict, this claim must be resisted and suppressed at whatever cost" (Memoirs, Vol. i., p. 213). - Ulysses S. Grant

"To show how easily one can get these, a man by the name of Grant, of this State, got eight of these marks for not going to church to-day. He was put under arrest, so he cannot leave his room perhaps for a month; all this for not going to church. We are not only obliged to go to church, but we must march there by companies. This is not republican" (Brown's Life of Grant, p. 329).

I am glad that the Army has changed from the time when there was church parade and everyone had to march off to the chapel, regardless of religious affilliation.

Oh, and the whole Church teachings and Jesus rant by the seeder was OK?

Mike - Did I somehow miss the relevance of your objectionably long, off-topic comments? Is there actually some point to be made, other than to let people know that you do not believe? Do you think that your lack of faith will actually sway the faithful? Do you hope to reason away faith? Do you honestly believe that you are somehow doing people a favor or something?

That was pretty much what I took away from it as well, JC so I just stopped reading half way thru. It certainly had nothing to do with the actual topic of the seed.

Thank you for this breakdown of Christianity.

I loved his INFORMATIVE post. FR being sent, Mike. You've added a lot to this seed.

Early Christians were Jews, as was Jesus of Nazareth.

Not all early Christians were Jews.

The rest of that comment is nothing more than a pure, unadulterated perversion of the Gospel of Christ and not even worth the minutely small effort it would take to completely destroy everything contained therein.

Actually I took it as an analysis of the early church and how it came into being. The fact that you can't look at it objectively and immediately categorize it as 'perversion' is more telling about your view point. Drummer, I suggest you squash down the part of your feelings that can't see anything that isn't glowing about your religion as offensive and read what Mike wrote again. Nothing slams christianity. Nothing in his post say it's wrong, evil, stupid, or crazy. All it does is mention how Christ was perceived in the early centuries up until now. It mentions the inconsistencies which is not an attack and it no way did it slam Christians for believing in it.

The guilty flee where no man pursues.

Mike, thanks for the information. I always did wonder about most of the discrepancies given from the different time period. I find it fascinating, FR sent, and if you have some sources that I can read, I'd appreciate it.

Started to read that rant...got a little ways into it and realized it was just that....a rant with no other agenda than grind one's ax. Not worth my time to finish reading it.

You do not have time for the truth as seen by another? Yet we are supposed to swallow the veracity of this seed hook, line, and sinker without even a chaser to help it stay down.

Gotcha.

I don't personally care what -you- decide to swallow one way or another. You get to decide that for yourself. So do I, thanks.

drummerboy2011, comment # 6.8:

"... that comment is nothing more than a pure, unadulterated perversion of the Gospel of Christ..."

You've missed the entire point of his summary, 'drummer'. The Bible is not the '...unerring, literal word...' as claimed by some; never was and never will be. If you or anyone else wish to believe this, that is your business. It is more correctly described as the collection of the memoirs of the followers of Jesus and his early 'colleagues' (Apostles), to use modern terminology. The only 'document' that can lay claim to this assertion are the Ten Commandments and no other. PERIOD.

The notion that the Bible is the '...unerring, literal word...', and so by extension has equal and/or, at chosen times, greater status than the Ten Commandments is a 'construct' created by flawed humans to exempt themselves and their questionable actions, through the use of pre-selected passages, from the mandates of the Ten Commandments, like the specific prohibition of not "bearing false witness against they neighbor".

Over the years, this 'construct' has further divided the Bible into several denominational versions, all claimed by 'believers' as the 'real Bible'. If you need a visual example of some of these versions, just look up 'bible' in Websters Dictionary and, along with the definition of the word, you'll come across a partial table listing them.

Can wisdom be found in one or all of these different versions? Of course it can but to pillory and comdemn someone for 'daring' to choose differently from the one personally preferred by some is not and never was a duty demanded of Christian theology; that is politics under the guise of religion.

As for the seeded article itself, as 'douglasq' referred to in his comment # 1.5, President Obama made no such statement as the articles title ostensibly says he did. All subsequent actions to the bishop's letter originated directly from senior Army officials as it should and must be. Chaplains have no right(s), directly or implied, to promote disobedience among the ranks regarding the policy(ies) of the particular branch of service they are a member of under the justification and shield of the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution (see comment # 4 from Lt. Col. Snyder).

The Colonel has not "perverted" anything... His comment is rooted in historical fact that is directly traceable to the ancient documents themselves.

Very nice summary, Colonel. FR also sent.

That's all very interesting, Mike Snyder, but even if you are 100% correct it is still utterly off topic. The first amendment guaratees the free exercise of religion, not "the free exercise of the correct religion as determined by Bible scholars."

It is ever the way with cultists, that they listen to nothing that proves their cult is only a power mad Nazi doctrine.

Catholics are cultists, nothing grand or important, simply deluded followers of a perverted franchise; which was never Christian.

The Bible you all quote is Jewish, and it proves nothing about Catholicism...which was a cult started by Constantinople, to murder his rivals.

I don't think you understand what flagging a seed inaccurate means in relation to the CoH. Did you know -you- can get in trouble for false reporting?

I don't think you understand what flagging a seed inaccurate means in relation to the CoH.

On the contrary...

From the CoH:

Headlines should be supported by the information presented in the article/seed, rather than used primarily as a means to draw attention.

This headline of this seed is NOT supported by the content of the article. Seeder's don't get a pass for recycling dishonest headlines that aren't supported by the content of the article.

Did you know -you- can get in trouble for false reporting?

True. Fortunately that doesn't apply in this case...as they headline is a clear violation.

This is a non starter issue. Nice try to raise the blood pressure of the right. I dont know anyone who has not practiced contraception of some sort during their lifetime mainly to ensure no abortion or unwanted pregnancy, most often due to age or financial status. Its really up to individuals to determine for themselves- women & men alike

OhNoWay - whether people use contraception is their choice, requiring insurance to pay for it is another matter altogether. Inclusion of these types of items is part of what drives the cost of insurance higher.

Here's a hint. The more that must be covered, the more it will cost.

JC...aside from the fact that the RCC's contention is alleged one of morality...not one of cost....your assertions (and assumptions) about insurance pricing...as presented... are largely erroneous.

The more that must be covered, the more it will cost.

Pricing is based on a thorough actuarial risk analysis....not the individual line item prices for the various elements of coverage.

Which will cost more:

Covering contraception...or covering all of the pre & post-natal care costs (for mom and baby) if there's a 1 or 2% increase in birth rates amongst the coverage pool?

When you factor in the rate of complications and birth defects...a small handful of births will likely cost more than the contraception coverage for hundreds (thousands?) of insureds.

Or, shouldn't the RCC's plan be required to cover pre- & post-natal care for mothers and their children? Too expensive?

If the Catholic Church wants to be in the healthcare business, they need to provide the services required. Otherwise, go back to preaching. Why DO these churches have tax exempt status anyway? It seems to me they want to be in business and politics. Tax them.

Lib50 - No. They don't want to be in business and politics, instead they want to run hospitals and charities that provide food and care to the sick and needy. What they don't want is to be told that in order to do so, they must do things that are in opposition to their fundamental beliefs. When that happens, then they must address the business and political realities to protect their beliefs.

they must do things that are in opposition to their fundamental beliefs

No one is making them take birth control or get an abortion in opposition to their beliefs. They in turn do not have the power over other non-Catholic US citizens to make them follow same beliefs.

You are attempting to create a false equivalency - the Catholic Church (as an institution) is NOT the same as the individuals that hold those beliefs. It goes against the doctrine of the Catholic Church to enable individuals to do things that are against the beliefs of the church. It is no different than suggesting they should supply guns to non-Catholics so that they can shoot their neighbors, simply because they are not part of the church.

I repeat, they don't have to follow the law if they don't get involved in healthcare.

only problem is this is the title of the article she seeded...so, no, not inaccurate.

Which will cost more:

Covering contraception...or covering all of the pre & post-natal care costs (for mom and baby) if there's a 1 or 2% increase in birth rates amongst the coverage pool?

ONLY if you make the ABSURD assumption that people whose insurance doesn't cover birth control won't use it. That's crazy! Even if they are destitute, people can get free birth control from Planned Parenthood or the county health department. Most people CAN afford birth control, and BTW most women are NOT on the pill, which is the only expensive form of birth control. You can get condoms and foam everywhere, even in the middle of the night at the drug store.

I paid for my own birth control for 35 years, like most women my age. It was never a hardship to do so even when I was unemployed or making not much more than minimum wage.

Here's another question: the Pill has many known risks. What does it cost insurance companies to treat these conditions?

@Oom

ONLY if you make the ABSURD assumption that people whose insurance doesn't cover birth control won't use it.

Yelling at me in ALL CAPS won't lend any validity to your assertion. Research has shown that even nominal copay can discourage use. Claiming otherwise based solely upon your anecdotal experience is what's "crazy".

Pill has many known risks. What does it cost insurance companies to treat these conditions?

Most of the "known" side effects do not require costly treatments or invasive medical care....so the costs to the insurance company are likely inconsequential. If an insurer believes otherwise, rest assured, those costs are accounted for.

You are repeating Fairy Tales, there is absolutely no truth in what you state, and no evidence this ever occurred. By all means, believe what you choose, but do not tell us lies.

I object most strongly, to the nonsense you scribe on the vine. It needs a credibility warning, as it is a tissue of imagination, nothing else. Unproveable Codswollop.

John - perhaps you would prefer something with more "evidence", such as the Big Bang theory. Historical documents pretty well back up the existence of Jesus and the history of the Catholic Church is also fairly well documented. While you may choose not to believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he was anything other than a man, there is certainly no doubt that he lived. And, while you may despise the Catholic Church and/or christians in general, it does not change the fact that the church came into being following the death of Jesus has been around since that time. So, what exactly makes this a fairy tale? What exactly is untrue? Sweeping generalizations that are easily disproven are rather pointless.

Documents which are not authenticated are not evidence, you have no eveidential material, pity the poor world if you had. there is irrefutable evidence that since man learnt speech, shysters and tricksters told tall tales.

The what you call Catholic Church, was simply a franchise, maybe the first franchise in history, started by mad Constantine, who sent his wife to find proof of a prophet, some hundreds of years from the start of Christianity.

As she ladled out foolish money, her past was as a Tavern whore, (Constantine was an ill educated soldier) to wily locals, who could show her where this prophet was buried. They told the silly tart all sorts of rubbish and sold her hot air, good business tactics which today's politicians use, to their own enrichment.

You lot always claim you have irrefutable proof, but when challenged, can never produce it: it appears the wily locals continue in their deceptions.

Constantine had no power-base in the east from which to mount a bid for the throne – but he had been at Nicomedia in 303 when Diocletian had decided to purge the Roman state of the disloyal Christian element. He had also served under Galerius on the Danube and witnessed at first-hand how the favoured Galerius – designated heir and rival – in particular despised the cult of Christ.

The ambitious and ruthless prince, from his base in Trier, immediately proclaimed himself 'protector of the Christians.' But it was not the handful of Jesus worshippers in the west that Constantine had in mind – there had not, after all, been any persecution in the west – but the far more numerous congregation in the east. They constituted a tiny minority within the total population (perhaps as few as 2%) but the eastern Christians were an organised force of fanatics, in many cities holding important positions in state administration. Some held posts even within the imperial entourage.

By championing the cause of the Christians Constantine put himself at the head of a 'fifth column' in the east, of a state within a state.

It may be noticed that the Catholic cult still enacts the role of Constantine; sniveling their way into control of governments..you need to alter you're tactics, you only fool the stupid and mentally deranged. Well evidenced with the obvious lack of mental capacity, of the screeching ignoramuses we note here.

That's exactly what it is. Also a form of blackmail. Not very Presidential and certainly not deserving of a second term so he can go even further.

Let me guess, you didn't like his talk at the prayer breakfast either. He must be hitting close to home for some of you - calling out the hypocrisy of those who like to talk about "values".

Obama 2012

You mean his campaign speech while at the prayer breakfast? That one?

mrsrachel - wasn't that the speech where he suggested that "To those whom much has been given, much will be required" means that in order to help the poor the government should take it from you? Perhaps he feels that way because he personally hasn't given all that much to the poor on his own, in the past.....

He is messing with religion.

How?

He hasn't decreed that any religion change in any way.

Not on gay marriage, not on contraception, not on abortion.

However, the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestant denominations have been tireless in their efforts to impose their will on the secular world with regard to those three issues (not to mention others).

JC:

I won't deny the Obama's have given to charity and I absolutely give them their props for that without hesitation.

My issue is with how he flip flops around depending on what will get him the most play at any given time. He's terribly inconsistent and more than a lot self-serving. He's supposedly a Constitutional Scholar but he dislikes the Constitution and wants to make it resemble a bowl of not-quite-set jello.

I am coming to the realization that Obama studied the Constitution not because he loved it and wanted to uphold it but because he needs to know it backwards and forwards in order to be able to destroy it from within. This is only my personal opinion and obviously many others won't share it and that's perfectly fine. This is still America, after all.

The best way to fight/defeat one's enemy is to know that enemy inside and out. I truly believe Obama sees the Constitution as something of an enemy to ....whatever his actual plans are. What the plans are, I can only speculate but considering all he's done since being elected, I can't help but consider the notion that his actual plan is to do as much damage to the Country as he possibly can as quickly as he can. He's got everyone divided against everyone in every conceivable way: race, class, economy, even religion. In order to remake a Country into something new...you must first destroy what it is and Obama, along with his buddy Soros, seem to be working very hard at doing just that.

It's like that frog in a pan of water example. The frog is sitting in a pan of room temperature water, quite content. Very very slowly, little by little you turn up the heat and let the frog get used to the new temp. You keep doing this and the frog is none the wiser that it is slowly being boiled to death.....until it too late. Obama seems to be slowly but steadily turning up the heat, in my opinion, and our Country and it's citizens are unaware they are being boiled alive. By the time the majority "get it", it'll be too late and the damage will have already been done. There won't be any way of going back for this Country once that happens.

mrsrachelm,

he and Biden were a little late to the game when it comes to charity. The Obama's have done some better but Biden is so tight he squeaks when he walks...but that could be something else...LOL!

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/04/21/biden-stingy-charitable-giving/

He is not the one that said the Constitution is only a piece of paper.

He is not the one that said the Constitution is only a piece of paper.

He doesn't have to. Actions can speak just as loud and often much louder than words.

Jesus spoke to me, and he said Obama is doing His work. He was pissed at the teapubs for perverting His message.

He must be hitting close to home for some of you - calling out the hypocrisy of those who like to talk about "values".

Most religions if not all command their followers to practice charity. Paying more taxes isn't charity, and most of our taxes don't go toward helping the poor. Studies show that religious people give considerably more to charity (not just their own church or synagogue). Let people keep more of their own money and encourage charity, even for people who can't itemize their federal income tax.

He hasn't decreed that any religion change in any way.

Forcing them to pay for things they consider repugnant IS changing them, genius.

Here's a suggestion. If you want your company to pay for things like birth control, sterilization, and abortion, don't work for a Catholic company! Either that, or plan for paying for those things yourself. It seems very simple to me.

Here's a suggestion. If you want your company to pay for things like birth control, sterilization, and abortion, don't work for a Catholic company!

Here's another suggestion: If the Catholic Church...or any other religious group...doesn't want to follow the same rules as other secular employers...they can stop running companies which don't attempt to inculcate religious values ....which do not primarily employ or serve persons who share its religious tenets and which cannot qualify as a non-profit organization.

Churches and religious groups which meet the above qualifications should be left alone...and are justifiably exempted from this provision. But their businesses should be subject to the same rules and statutes as all other businesses.

A more important question would be why are we requiring insurance companies to provide these items at all. It just drives the cost of insurance up for everyone.

It's medicine. Isn't that what they cover???? It's also cheaper for a society than what we pay for an unwanted or a lower-income parent's child.

American Spirit

Oh good grief. The President isn't forcing anyone to take birth control or have an abortion against their beliefs. What he is doing is to ensure outside employees of the church's enterprises get the same coverage as anyone else. If they did not, then the church would be inflicting their beliefs on their employees.

Shhh, you don't want to ruin a good old Conservative "Obama is the Anti-Christ" rant with facts now.

If the Catholic Church, or it's Bishops, can't control the thoughts and actions of it's flock why should the Federal Government do it for them (by allowing the Church to provide lees Insurance coverage than other institutions)? Most Catholics in America don't believe in, or follow, the Churches teachings on this subject anyway.

Maybe we should make laws banning dancing since some Churches frown on that, or maybe drinking, how about letting Churches ban transplants and blood transfusions in their insurance policies?

And as far as the Catholic Military Chaplains reading a letter to their flocks (active duty Military), what are they hoping to accomplish? The Catholic Church has *no say* in the coverage granted our Military (nor should they). The active duty military *have no say* in the insurance coverage granted to Catholic institutions. So again what was the purpose except to stir up religious trouble? Especially using the phrase "We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law".

And to all the Obama Haters out there, the Catholic Chaplains *did* get to read their petty little letter after all.

Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.

You realize that even though they (Catholic/Protestant Christians) are serving in the military (thank you for your service guys and gals), they are ALSO -still- of their chosen religion and to be denied the same information, materials, etc that others not serving have access to is blatantly wrong, don't you?

Or do you believe our service people are not entitled to information on those current issues which effect them as citizens of this Country simply because they are in the military?

American Spirit,

Would you want to insure your car in the same manner? Have them cover your oil changes, reupholstery, tires, paint scratches, anti-freeze? How much more do you think they would charge you per year if they had to cover all those items?

Now, given that we all know that the insurance companies are making such huge profits that they can pay executives exhorbitant salaries, what makes you think that adding those things in would be done at "cost"? Do you honestly think they make money paying for things at cost? We pay for whatever goes into the plan. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. Somehow you have convinced yourself that politicians are untrustworthy, scheming, scum.... until it comes to something that you think you are getting a deal on. Does it ever cross your mind to wonder who it is that wants these things included? Who is making the money? Do you think that having the government force everyone to buy more insurance coverage than they need is somehow against the wishes of the insurance companies? They will be glad to include anything and everything into the plans. Ask yourself this..... how many times does the government require companies to carry things and at the same time tell them they cannot raise their rates?

, they are ALSO -still- of their chosen religion and to be denied the same information, materials, etc that others not serving have access to is blatantly wrong, don't you?

Oh yeah. Like they haven't read of this or any other publically announced government decision. They do have internet and newspapers on military bases, ya know.

If the church needs to contact their flock in the military, perhaps they should get their email or snail mail list, yes? The chaplain is a military employee. Town Crier is not his job.

Would you want to insure your car in the same manner?

This is a false equivalency. Car insurance covers, first and foremost, the owner/driver's liability in case of an accident. For an extra cost, the owner can purchase comprehensive coverage...to cover the cost of collision or non-collision damage.

But, auto insurance never covers wear and tear items or the cost of regular maintenance.

But since you broached the issue...while a policy would likely cost more if it covered tune ups and oil changes....in theory then, it would have to cover engine replacement and/or major repair bills on the back end.

Which has the greater collective expense...a tune up and oil change every 15-20K miles...or replacing your engine at 75-80k miles?

Widewillie,

I assume the tune-up and oil change will be less expensive. But, they aren't going to let you have it for free - you're going to have to pay extra for it. And, yes, if you actually manage to keep driving the same car long enough, they will have to replace your engine, transmission, etc. So, do you honestly think that they are going to simply charge you enough to cover an oil change? Or, are they going to consider the number of oil changes required over the life of the car, the likelihood that the car will require an engine replacement, other repairs that may be required to keep it going, and of course PROFIT for them? And, do you think they are going to price all of this based on the actual rate that they are going to end up forcing the dealers to take or the highest price they can?

Eventually, you are going to figure out that the insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors are all in business to make a profit... as much profit as possible... and that you are not going to get anything for free.

Eventually, you are going to figure out that the insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors are all in business to make a profit... as much profit as possible...

LOL...eventually huh?

I made a very good living selling insurance...so I'm pretty sure I've got the whole "profit" part figured. But, thank you for your vote of confidence!

But, they aren't going to let you have it for free -

On the contrary...they very well might! They'll happily lose pennies on a line-item of coverage... to make dollars on the policy as a whole.

While insurance companies would love to make a profit on every line item of coverage...that's simply not possible.

Even if they were able to get such rates approved by the state....they'd price themselves out of the market....and lose business to competitors willing to make a smaller profit.

How much profit will an insurer make on a policy they DON'T sell because it's priced too high?

Yes, profit is the motive...yes, the scope of coverage effects pricing...but determining effective pricing models... which maximize profit and still past muster w/ State Insurance Commissions ...and their customers...is FAR more complex than determining line-item costing and the frequency of occurrence for a given coverage...and then building in a profit margin.

There are literally dozens of variables and actuarial calculations that go into determining the price.

And, the idea that covering contraception dramatically "drives the cost of insurance up for everyone" ....is bunk. If you need an explanation on how utilization models...and service delivery models, geographic factors...service provid­er payment models and medical-loss ratio models impact insurance rates...I'm sure I can dig something up.

As I noted in #7.5...covering contraception is likely to represent a cost savings for insures over the long run. To paraphrase what I said at the top...they'll happily spend a few pennies to save a few dollars.

Utterly insane rubbish, we do not want this Cult, take it back where it came from, the Church of Perversion.

Right on the money, when you sign up you are an officer first and a chaplain second. The Archbishop doesn't mean squat.

More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop.

That appropriate term is insubordination at the least or disobeying a direct order. Accepting commands from a subversive element is treason. Charges need to be filed.

I think you may be misreading the sentiment of people regarding this issue. Personally, I think that what the Chaplains did was exactly what they should have done, if they are following their religious convictions. That being said, I also agree that it would also likely qualify as insubordination or disobedience of a direct order and it would be appropriate to treat it as such.

In the past, people have been persecuted and even died for their deeply held religious convictions. If their convictions truly place them at odds with their duty, then they must make a choice and understand that that choice may have repercussions. Standing for your convictions, only when it is convenient, isn't really much of a stand at all.

Are you willing to stand fast with a Muslim soldier or officer that takes orders from the Taliban and defend their right to accede to a religious conviction if you share it or not? I believe that when orders are in conflict with the religious beliefs they hold, the only appropriate response would be to resign the commision, not disobey the order, it is called honor.

ExplorerDog,

Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, makes no difference. But, please tell me that you are not actually attempting to equate the Catholic Church with the Taliban.

Regardless of the religion of the chaplain, I would find it highly unlikely that many of them would follow an order to take up arms and join in a battle. To simply fail to acknowledge that they are there as representatives of their faith is unrealistic.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of resigning their commission, however, that is again a choice that each man must make on their own. But, is it really dishonorable for a chaplain to follow their religious beliefs? Do you think they would prefer to honor God or honor man?

Not to mention that Chaplains are given the job of being a CHAPLAIN and all that this entails.

You honor a sworn oath. A chaplain following orders from an Archbishop over the orders of a superior officer is fundamentally no different than a soldier following orders from any other religious authority, at what point would that be unacceptable. The nature of the military is to follow command, not to interpret or quantify that hich you are comfortable with. A Chaplain holding allegience to a church and yes that means any church over sworn duty is beyond dishonorable. Churches are governed by failible humans which can and do make self interest decisions. The role of the officer is not to be an extension of the church positioned well inside the bowel of the military, his job is to bring aid and comfort to those soldiers that desire that comfort and that is what the job entails. I have no reservation about pointing out the simple fact that the Catholic Church has established itself in the past as a the power in a theocracy and I believe it would love to see itself there again.

There is actually a fundamental difference when it comes to the chaplain and a soldier. You must realize that a priest is, in fact, part of the church hierarchy and has taken vows accordingly. The Archbishop is just as much a superior of the priest as an officer would be and a priest would not denounce the church when they become a chaplain - nor does the military expect them to do so. The reality is that it is a complex situation that places a priest in a situation where they must serve two masters (and we know what the Bible says about that).

You can save yourself some sleepless nights. There is less than a zero percent chance that the Catholic Church will attempt to change the U.S. into a theocracy. It isn't going to happen.

Most likely not the Catholic Church as its influence and power have been waning for a few hundred years, but the fervent fundamentalists are pushing as hard as they can. Three dominionist candidates were not only fielded by the right, but two of those actually were front runners for a few moments and the third was within an inch. I still object strenuously that a military officer can be commanded by any force outside the military protocol and if that is true then perhaps the position of chaplain should be relegated to a civilian status.

As I said earlier in post #2.13, I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church having to follow this rule.

The healthcare mandate that the bishops are complaining about is not specifically for places of worship. It is for all organizations that accept government money to provide services to the public. If you take the government's money, you have to follow the government's rules. If you don't like the rules, DON'T TAKE THE MONEY.

Plus there's an exemption clause in the requirement. Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the rule, if they can show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the teaching of religious values as their purpose. So if they mainly service their own community, they still have a way out.

That means they cannot force their beliefs on other people. That sounds fair to me.

Chad - the issue is that the state is telling a religious institution that it must offer something that it finds objectionable, in direct conflict with the first amendment. Separation of church and state goes both ways, not just one.

JC...

the state is telling a religious institution that it must offer something that it finds objectionable, in direct conflict with the first amendment.

The government is not "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

The Catholic Church...one of the wealthiest organizations is the history of the world...and all religious groups...are still FREE to fund the services they wish to provide entirely out of their own coffers....and avoid the mandate.

But, if they want government money to conduct their activities...they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

The Constitution affords them no "right" to receive government funds...and ignore government rules.

You're right Widewillie,

This only requires them to provide healthcare coverage that offers birth control, not pay for abortions. They can avoid this regulation by spending their own money, or use the exemption clause. In layman's terms, the exemption says that any officially recognized religious group that employs & services mostly people of their own faith, don't have to follow this mandate. It's true that the exemption does not cover institutions like hospitals or universities that employ people of all faiths. But several catholic universities & hospitals have stated that they already offer this coverage.

Truthfully, the more I research this, the more it looks politically motivated.

There are 28 states that already require the same thing, including New York where I live. 8 of those states don't have the exemption clause. So this law is an improvement for those 8 states. There are countries in Europe that have similar requirements, including Italy. Also, the language of this law, including the exemptions, are almost identical to the law Romney signed while Governor of Mass. Where're the objections to all of these? Why target Obama & the ACA, and not the rest?

If this is about separation of church & state, then I think this law strikes a fair balance. A person should not be held to rules of a faith different from their own, any more than the government should be telling anyone how to practice their religion, as long as it doesn't break the law (e.g. no human sacrifices). I don't see any other religious group complaining about the unfairness of it.

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/static/114.html

kappa_man_stew, comment # 12:

"when you put on the uniform you give up some of your constitutional rights."

Actually you don't. That is a myth that has been promoted within the service branches to disorient those persons that 'thrive' on 'confrontation'. What you do agree to when you 'sign up' are to certain policies, rules, regulations and procedures that in civilian life would be so minor as to being almost irrelevant but in the military, they have the 'force of law'. For example, being late to work in civilian life is, for the most part, a minor issue that can result, at most, in termination of employment. In the military, it can potentially escalate from an Article 15 (misdemeanor) to a trial by Court Martial and possible imprisonment (felony conviction).

Flashy, I saw this ad in today's paper from Catholic for Choice... it sums it up loverly!

They see a President trying to make sure that employees of institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, have insurance that is comparable to what everyone else has.

My wife is a very devout Catholic and owns a small business. Why does she have to pay for insurance coverage that provides services that she finds immoral?

So, insurance companies have to base their coverages upon what different religions find immoral? Suppose your wife worked for a Jehova's Witness who refused to pay for blood transfusions should she need one?

Perhaps there is a fundamental lack of understanding regarding how insurance works. The doctor is going to perform whatever procedures are necessary to treat the illness, wounds, etc. of the patient, then the insurance company is going to pay for those items that are covered, and the patient will be responsible for paying the remainder of the bill. In your Jehovah's Witness example, the patient would still receive the blood transfusion if they need it, they would simply have to pay the cost for it since the insurance would not cover it. This is nothing new. There are many procedures that insurance companies don't cover, depending on the policy, especially things like elective procedures.

Contempt towards officials is addressed in the Punitive articles, specifically Article 88 of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice in the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2008 Edition) as follows:

“

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

- Wikipedia

The UCMJ limits speech in the military. The President has stepped back on the requirements upon the church. Chaplains(officers in the military) should avoid inflammatory rhetoric, not just because it is unwarranted, but because it could be viewed as a violation of the UCMJ.
When churches are engaged in businesses that employ workers and turn profits, they should be ready to comply with the same mandates as those with whom they compete.

”

I know the rules, and I know when a man is hiding behind the rules. The Obama Administration is hiding behind the rules.

So a claim of injustice is contemptuous? If the government so views such claims, that is very unfortunate.

Are you a christian or an american first??

This is such a no brainer answer. You are a CHRISTIAN first and foremost before anything else.

CHRIST ABOVE ALL

...and what do you say to americans that say they put Muhammad/Allah first???

I say that is their right as Americans.