Because of the volume?of email I have received on this Chicago Tribune column, I am posting some of the comments below. These comments--which came to me directly in email at dennis@dennisbyrne.net--are in addition to the many comments posted on the Tribune site under my column, at?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0207-byrne-20120207,0,3249104.column.
When James Madison, the "father of the Constitution" originally proposed that the Bill of Rights contain a clause to protect religious freedom, he saw it as more than simply a wall between church and state. His draft language included a strict ban on government infringement "in any manner, or on any pretence" on "the full and equal rights of conscience."
The final language of the First Amendment and many ensuing court cases have somewhat fogged that original meaning, focusing instead on preventing organized religion from imposing its views on the body politic. As it should.
But if you ask Americans if they have a free-conscience right to practice their religion in any way they please, most would say for sure, Constitution or no. Don't ask that in the?White House?though. The Obama administration has launched an unprecedented and stunning assault on freedom of conscience and religion.
Most spectacular is the Obama administration's view that religious organizations have no greater right to hire or fire their own ministers than secular organizations have over their leaders. The Supreme Court, usually closely divided, found the administration's argument so preposterous that it unanimously ruled it unconstitutional.
More recently, on Jan. 20, the Obama administration finalized regulations that force employers, including Catholic and other religious institutions, to provide insurance that covers?birth control, without deductibles or co-pays, to its employees in hospitals, charitable organizations, social-service agencies and universities. Because prescription contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients (chemicals that effectively kill a fertilized egg) violate their teachings and consciences, Catholic and other churches have loudly objected. Some declared they wouldn't comply, setting up a major constitutional fight.
Read the rest of this column on the Chicago Tribune op-ed page.
The readers get their turn:
Dear Mr. Byrne,
Your recent article referencing religious freedom as described in the Bill of Rights (State must remain out of matters of the church, Chicago Tribune, February 7, 2012) might better have been titled ?Church must remain out of matters of the State.? You are totally incorrect in interpreting the First Amendment. Religions should not impose their views on the ?body public.? Equally inaccurate and misleading is your venomous discourse, naturally lacking appropriate facts, that ?The Obama administration has launched an unprecedented and stunning assault of freedom of conscience and religion.? Where do you get these ideas? Do you have trouble sleeping at night?
What are the facts regarding the new health insurance law?s federal funding for abortion, or lack of it? (1) The law says individuals who get federal subsidy dollars must use their private money to pay for coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The same rules apply to Medicaid coverage for low-income persons and to the insurance available to federal workers and military families. The new law specifically states that only personal money be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions. Claims that the new law will lead to a large increase in the number of abortions lack support. (2) President Obama reaffirmed a federal ban on funding of abortion (as stated in the 1976 Hyde Amendment). In addition, the secretary of Health and Human Services and the director of the Office of Management and Budget must develop within 180 days guidelines for states to use to determine whether insurance companies are properly following those separation-of-money requirements for plans purchased with the help of subsidies. Individuals won?t start buying insurance through the exchanges until 2014.
Concerning the issue of contraception, if you can identify ?radical secularists? as you categorize them, chances are good that they are religious conservatives. The political right needs such brain-dead individuals to support the true issue of the party, care for the 1%.???I suspect that what some religious leaders fear about the widespread use of contraception is that there will be fewer children available to sodomize.
Perhaps you will find interesting reading our Treaty of Peace with Tripoli (ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797). Article XI of the treaty?explicitly?declares ?that ?the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,? or on any other religion. -A.N.
Mr. Byrne: It seems many of your readers are getting confused with the concept of control vs. paying. The Church cannot control its employees?use of contraception etc. and in fact your readers correctly point out that many practicing Catholics engage in the use of these. The Church as a matter of conscience however,?should not have to?facilitate?practices its well defined and long standing?dogma deems immoral by paying for them. Seems pretty simple to me! -RPK
When a family has more children than they can afford because their?religious institution?doesn?t approve of birth control, let?s have that religious institution pay the family?s welfare benefits, instead of the government.? Then they can opt out of any coverage they deem inappropriate to their faith. ??Oh, and while we?re at it, let?s stop giving them a free tax ride on the billions of dollars they take in.?It?s absurd and irresponsible to say that secularists want to impose their beliefs on the religious.? Nothing could be further from the truth. -K.W.
Dennis:?Let me preface this correspondence with the fact that I am a practicing?Roman Catholic?from a big Irish Catholic family.??However, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the state has no role in asking, let alone demanding,?a for-profit wing of the Church to follow federal law.? The federal government is not asking/demanding that the Church and its'?followers bow to their laws.? The federal government is asking/demanding a?private, for-profit?wing of the non-profit, tax-free Church who receives payment in the form of federal tax dollars (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) not to prevent a free individual from having the option of contraception in their insurance coverage.?The issue is not?abortion?or contraception.? The issue is keeping the Church from trumping public policy and forcing their beliefs on Catholic and non-Catholic employees who freely choose to use contraception.? Abortion is a legal procedure, like it or not.? The separation of the Church and state is a sacred American treasure.??You don't have to have an abortion or use contraception, Dennis.? Nor does your wife.? But, as a person who lives in a very real world, I thank the same God we mutually worship in the same Church that abortion is safe, legal, and rare.?I only wish the journalistic acolytes of the Vatican would use one-tenth of their energy focusing on poverty and hunger - period.? It will do more to make abortion rare. ?Instead, we keep reading articles about a red herring in abortion which is legal and will never be illegal.? At least not over my dead body.??I don't believe in abortion, but I cannot take that choice of a medical procedure away from a woman in a free society.? Please, re-read the underlined, understand it, digest it, and appreciate that it is the essence of freedom (tolerance).?Your headline was crafty... I will give you that.? It drew me in.?May you and your family have a good rest of the winter and a pleasant St. Patrick's Day season! -T.M.
Dear Dennis,
I read your article, "State must remain out of matters of church", and as you know you claimed that offering?birth control?would conflict with church freedoms.? But as I'm sure others will point out is that this is only a choice.? Birth control isn't mandatory.? It should be the other way around; not offering birth control would allow the church and religion to dictate public policy.? I think you should stop relying on fuzzy math.? Thanks. -A.W.
Mr. Byrne:I feel you have mis-characterized and mis-applied Constitutional arguments in your zealotry to defend the indefensible:? that an employer has an inalienable right to enforce religious beliefs and practices upon their secular employees.Let me tell you of a real concern which may threaten my husband's life.? He has a condition called MGUS.? It entails an increased risk of developing cancer.? He is under care of an oncologist, who tests him regularly to check for the development of this cancer.? He has worked at the same privately-owned company for?over twenty years, and hisemployer-sponsored health?insurance is (thank heavens!) covering this very expensive testing, including the bone-marrow biopsies he has received.? (Three, so far, all clear).?Here lies the problem:? In the last couple of years, the company owner's wife has converted to the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I am told, has converted her husband as well.? This religion, among its many tenets,?absolutely forbids the use of blood transfusions, even to save life.? Should my husband develop cancer, his treatment would include the use of transfusion, specfically of bone marrow.? Does my husband's employer have the right to deny coverage for this lifesaving?transfusion, specifically prohibited by their religious beliefs??Of course, one could argue that my husband has a perfect right to pay for these transfusions out of his own pocket.? This would bankrupt us, as anyone who has faced catastrophic illness will tell you.I love my husband with all my heart, and hate that he is going through so much pain and uncertainty.? Why are you advocating a policy that could add to his pain and uncertainty, or take his life if we cannot raise the money to combat this disease on our own?"State must remain out of matters of the church"? Indeed, the churches must remain out of the affairs of state, or we will all suffer.Respectfully, -S.L.
Gee even Catholics want the coverage.? WTF is wrong with you?? After surveying the religious preferences of the people I work with? we will be no longer supporting Pro-Life computer users.? I have a line I can?t cross either. C.A.
Dear Mr. Byrne,?Thank you for your commentary in today's (Tuesday) Tribune.?Obama is not just over-stepping his bounds; he is dangerously undermining the religious freedom of all citizens.? He has got to be stopped.? He is acting more like an Emperor than a President.?Thank you for your attention. -L.R.
The caption for your column really should be ?Church must remain out of matters of the State?.? When will we respect women?s rights as human rights in this country?? If a church proclaimed their women members must wear a blanket over their heads with peepholes in it, would the state preserve their right to do so?? It seems odd that insurance companies cover Viagra for men and not the pill for women?perhaps a lesson in anatomy is what?s needed.? Are women simply vessels for men to fill??this really smacks of second-class citizenry?don?t tell me you don?t see the comparison with third world countries toward women.? M.G.
Dear Dennis
While reading your column on church and state today, I was wondering how you reconcile state funding to church. If the church wants state to stay out of their house then church should stop accepting state funds under the guise of common good.? The line of separation would become clearer.
Regards, -A.C.
Dear Mr. Byrne -
As a practicing Catholic, I do not in any way have cause for anger or regret over my vote for Obama or the Obama health care policy requiring ALL corporations - regardless of their religious beliefs - to pay for contraception.? The facts indicate the majority of Catholic women chose to use birth control, and therefore the majority of women most likely support the Obama regulations requiring employers of all religious beliefs to pay for the reproductive choices made by their employees.
Respectfully, -K.D.
Maybe we should look at our defination of Church. Where does it cease being a?church?& become a business? What are the tax implications??Thanks for the mental exercise. -A.M.
Dennis;
I will admit to being no expert on the ruling where religious owned business have to offer insurance for birth control. What I know I read in today's paper.? But it occurs to me that churches do not have to do this - but church run businesses do. In America, if you are going to run a business you comply by the law. They are not exempt from OSHA or EPA regulations - they are running a business and this is one of the challenges faced when you do so. further it occurs to me that employees are now given the choice to use this service - not forced to do so. Many employees are not of the same faith as the employers. In fact my bet is you can find many high ranking authorities in these businesses who are not of the same faith. How many execs at Lutheran General are Lutheran? This is a consequence of owning a business; I think you are bleeding over into making it sound like something improper is being forced on churches. -L.S.
Please Dennis...not just "many" Catholics use?artificial birth control. Most use artificial birth control and expect their health providers to pay for it.?Many of we Catholics would also like to see our priests marry. The church needs to get out of the dark ages.?Just FYI, I attend mass every Sunday. -N.D.
Mr. Bryne - Thank you for your concise analysis regarding the latest "divide and conquer" tactics employed by the Obama Administration?concerning mandated?contraception coverage applying to religious organizations. Much to your credit, you augmented the column with the recent 9-0 Supreme Court ruling regarding Hosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC (an over reach pretty much ignored by the media).?I'm glad you see the fog creeping in. -S.C
The Right picks and chooses on this issue.? For example, if schools and the building of churches is offered federal money (my taxes) it's okay with the right.? I'm a retired Catholic who feels the church is greedy? and feels it is the only true church as many other religions feel.? It's nuts!!? -J.W.
Dennis Byrne:
Caught your Feb. 7 ,2012 Tribune Op Ed " State must remain out of matters of the Church".
The Church has for centuries both here and abroad led what it likes to call 'the .faithful' toward
any number morally indefensible practices stemming from ignorant moral teachings framed
within the context of a philosophical or theological decisions based upon little more than the
concept of Papal Infaltibility, a dogma the existence of which owes its origins to nothing more
than a personal moral belief unsupportable by fact or science....but never-the-less allows the
intellectually failed Church teachings to be sold to Congregations of unquestioning Catholics
who follow this'rot'emanating from the Roman Curia and Magisterium like lemmings.
How so? The problem originates from the very institution itself, the business model if you will,
of the Church itself. They are ALL men....spewing out teachings from one perspective, the
male gender.....teachings coming in succession from a long line of Pontiffs surrounded by
advisers who are conservative theological clones of the very Pope who has elevated them to
Cardinal status, thus insuring that there will never be a viewpoint that disagrees or argues for
enlightened review of Church theological policy'
The Church is run by conservative ignorant men whose intellectual thought processes gravitate
to preserving the status quo of values, even if it means covering up, who are more concemed
with furU than substance adopting practices deeply rooted in tradition, and whose leaders are
motivated by an unwillingness to question those practices to determine if they comport with
Christian concepts on the one hand or represent comfortable familiarity with the ignorance they
represent and innate human reluctance to change on the other.
Don't believe me? Perhaps some examples will help'
The Church has stonewalled its members, failing to sack failed leadership after the USCCB in
its own audit identified 108 transferring Bishops and Cardinals vl4ro transferred 5,148
documented abusers { many of whom were serial re-offenders}, resulting in 1I,750 victims. That
is astonishing, but supports my above assertion: "The Church is run by conservative ignorant
men whose...."
Is it any wonder then that 'the.faitt?ful' are jaded by an experience of witnessing the Church's
wholesale cover up from the top on down, pretending that all is well as it marches on instead
owning up and clearing house, offering instead as a sop) meaningless changes to the Liturgy of
the Word. . ..like: " end with your Spirit " in lieu of " and also with you " AND " chalice of my
blood " in lieu of " cup of my blood " AND " which will be poured out for you and for many "
in lieu of " it will be shed for you and for all men " and the winner " consubstantial with " in
lieu of " one in being with the Father ".
This Church is in the midst of the greatest scandal to beset this Institution EVER and the Church
Hierarchy is engaged in these meaningless changes to the Liturgy of the Word.
Then there is Rev. Robert Barron, championed by none other than the chief buffoon, Cardinal
George, in his four part PBS series on Catholicism....waxing on about Caravaggio's painting of
St. Paul as though this 16th century artist captured the essence of Christianity in a painting
depicting Paul's conversion....and for historical effect referring to St. Paul by his Hebrew
pronunciation Sha'ool...I'm surprised he did not offer his viewers a Jewish subtitle of the name
Paul in Hebrew )txia. BUT offering nothing more !
Need more?
Like many a Church irte trans-formed into a Sacrament, Confirmation is but a religious service
instituted to drum into the Faithful, the'lemmings in the pews', institutionalized obedience to
the Pope and Catholic Doctrine and...a way to secure an oath of allegiance if you will...where
one'confirms' both their acceptance and belief of the Papal 'line' emartating from the Roman
Curia and Magisterium, but sold as a'gift' from the Holy Spirit'
Consider as an example, the Eucharist. For 1200 years the words of Consecration: "This k My
Bod:t - Do This In Memory U Mn" was commemorative. ..and symbolic only.
Then, following the Dark Ages I saeculum obscurum ] in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council
headed by none other than Innocent the III inaugurated the use of the term transubstantiation.
In 1220 Honorius sanctioned adoration of the wafer as Dogma.
Finally,336 years later, the Council of Trent in 1551, despite any evidence to support it, adopted
the concept of transubstantiation as Catholic Dogma. Thus, what was once sJtmbolic onlv,
became Truth by that elusive doctrine of "ta da"....Papal Infallibility! Whoa! I am surprised
the Church did not offer a Latin version of Presto...Abracadabra Ala Kazam.... Please don't
be offended by my rhetorical cynicism.
Of course, who would question the Doctrine of Infattibility in 1551 emanating from a Vatican
which simultaneously espoused and supported the Crusades of armed soldiers heading off to
recapture from those Infidels the Holy? Land by force, armed violence and death...or a Vatican
that supported the Inquisition with its Papal surrogates putting to death non believers or a wiser
and more educated Vatican that placed Galileo under arrest for correctly asserting the Earth
orbited the Sun, despite Papal buffoonery to the contrary, attesting otherwise.
More ALL Male gems:
The denial in20}4 by then Trenton N.J. Bishop John M. Smith of a request to have an 8 year
old Haley Waldman make her l't Holy Communion with a host made of 'rice' instead of wheat
because she suffers with celiac sprue disorder which damages the lining of the small intestine,
blocking nutrient absorption and leading to vitamin deficiencies, bone-thiruring and sometimes
gastrointestinal cancer.
The ignorance of Bishop Smith, a male chump if there ever was one, is evident not only because
neither he nor any Catholic Prelate is aware of the substantive content of the bread allegedly used
by Christ at the all important Last Supper, but fails to recognize that there were many grains
used by the ancients like 'spelt' or 'barley' to make bread. Example: John 6:9 o'There is a boy
here with 5 barley loaves and two fish..." No matter male chump Bishop Smith denied the
request!
Another, the pointless recitation at the Canon of the Mass of the names of the 12 Saints
'oln communion with those whose memory we venerate Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius
Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas, Damian and all your saints"
no one has ever heard of, inserted into the Liturgy by a contributor to the General Instruction on
the Roman Missal, akla the GIRM...a work whose compilation was authorized by a
knucklehead....which deals with such esoteric subjects like whenthe faithful should execute a
'bow' such as a simple nod of the head as a sign of respect like upon hearing the name of Jesus
as opposed to a 'profound bow', where one executes the bow by bending at mid torso or at the
waistline....a work the content of which would provide ample fodder for any PhD candidate in
Philosophy or Psychology seeking a subject upon which to author a Thesis that could be entitled
The Etiology Of Idiocy In An All Male Institution.
Still another, the Philippines, 85% Catholic, has the fastest growing population of any nation in
the World. It is the largest importer of rice in the World. It is also at its carrying capacity, with
its reefs being depleted of fish by overharvesting with a hungry populace illegally using
dynamite and iyanide to fish depleted reserves and its farmers unable to produce enough food.
The Philippines is headed to the brink of oblivion adhering to a Church teaching that artificial
birth control is sinful.
No, the problem with this Church is not whether the Bishops can be trusted after covering up all
these years...it is the very construct of the Church....they are all men. Do you think for one
minute that we would have this chaos in the Church if half of the clergy Cardinals, Bishops and
Priests were women?
The Church needs to change; needs to include in its policy making one-half of its membership
heretofore excluded....WOMEN; needs to "term limit" the time that any one Pope can hold that
position either by mandatory retirement age or outright term limit. No Pope should be permitted
io o""npy that position for more than 10 years, and any election should equally be term limited
by age, all having to retire by age 70 including Bishops and Cardinals.
No pope should be allowed to fill the ranks of the Church leadership with his intellectual,
philosophical and theological clones; but Bishops and Cardinals should be appointed by the Pope
with the simple majority joint consent of both houses, the existing College of Cardinals and a
worldwide lay board of 100 elected members.
A Church so constructed would be intellectually "pollinated" by the experience of its leaders
coming into contact with others from the cross section of humanity and would less likely be
rendered lemmings by one guy at the top appointing clones supporting one point of view to the
exclusion of all others.
NOW confirming the fallacy of the Church position on birth control:
Catholic theology argues that an act of marital relations must be 'open to life' and that
interrupting that process is not being 'open to life'.
Yet, Church teaching argues and offers to 'the faitkfuf the concept of Natural Family
Planning, in other words o abstinence' to aid a couple in controlling the number of children bom
to them...advising that couples abstain during those time when biologically a woman is likely to
conceive and engaging in relations qly during those times a woman is not going to conceive.
Only theological and philosophical sophistry at its zenith could find that this practice is somehow
'open to life' when the intent to engage in relations during those time when biologically a
woman is not likely to conceive, rigidly followed, is 'open to life'.
I could go on...but what is the point? How the hell can a faith community grow when all its
ideas are generated by ignorant males from one perspective...Pope clones who are ALL male ?
Anyone well past age 70 as the titular head of a organization, appointing like minded 'clones' ,
whilst serving in spirit, if not in reality, to the bitter end, like John Paul, or Ratzinger is a
fool...attempting to guide a Church, when both'common sense' or the colossal absence thereof,
and Wexperience demonstrate one's faculties are not up to the task at that age.
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it. But, in the end,
there it is.
Hopefully, about the best that will come from the Church's opposition to the OBAMA
administration's decision to apply Health Insurance mandates to ALL employers, including
Catholics Employers to provide birth control will be the salvanizing effort by the Bishops and
Cardinals of the lemmings among 'the fuiiltrM' to vote against Obama in the general election!
-D.W.
?
golden globe winners zappos hacked the express jane fonda morgan freeman jon huntsman bit coin
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.