I've already given a real-world example vs a far-fetched example like your pork.

 

Let's stick to real-world. Your thoughts?

 

 

OK. Let's look to Europe. Numerous times the conservative muslim community and the liberal European establishment have come at odds against each other to put it mildly. Europeans used to be extremely tolerant of different views, that is changing quickly with large scale muslim immigration in European countries. Europeans are primarily offended at how Muslims treat women (especially how they much cover their faces in public) and have been passing laws to outlaw such practices. Other laws have been passed which also were to outlaw other Islamic practices which on the surface would not seem to offend anyone but many Muslims claim were passed for no other reason than spite toward the Islamic Community. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both come out in defense of the Islamic Community religious rights while at the same time addressing the Islamic Community stating the the rights, integrity and value of women must be upheld and that such cultural restraints on women should be relaxed.

 

Is this example less far fetched and prove that the Church does not only speak out on religous rights that only benefit itself?

 

One of the Church's strongest supporters in this battle is evangelical Christians who (for the most part) do on agree with the Catholic Church's view on contraception and have never hesitated to point out views of the church it disagrees with but completely sees how this is a violation of religious liberty and also sees how this could easily and quickly become a very slippery slope which could further infringe on more religious liberties.

One key difference for the Catholic faith versus other religious denominations, is the belief that nothing should prevent contraception...meaning no artificial means of birth control. There is emphasis on NFP within the Church. Pills, IUD's, diaphragms, condoms, foams...they're all considered a sin. I'm not 100% sure of every other denomination's stand on contraception.

 

As well, I find no hypocrisy in the churche's stand on pre-marital sex and the fact that many of it's members do not practice abstinence. We're all guilty and capable of some transgressions...no matter our faith or denomination. Been there, done that...got the 26 year old daughter to prove it. What individuals choose to do or not do is not relative to the belief. The belief doesn't change just because the number of transgressors reaches a certain number or percentage of the membership.

OK. Let's look to Europe. Numerous times the conservative muslim community and the liberal European establishment have come at odds against each other to put it mildly. Europeans used to be extremely tolerant of different views, that is changing quickly with large scale muslim immigration in European countries. Europeans are primarily offended at how Muslims treat women (especially how they much cover their faces in public) and have been passing laws to outlaw such practices. Other laws have been passed which also were to outlaw other Islamic practices which on the surface would not seem to offend anyone but many Muslims claim were passed for no other reason than spite toward the Islamic Community. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both come out in defense of the Islamic Community religious rights while at the same time addressing the Islamic Community stating the the rights, integrity and value of women must be upheld and that such cultural restraints on women should be relaxed.

 

Is this example less far fetched and prove that the Church does not only speak out on religous rights that only benefit itself?

 

One of the Church's strongest supporters in this battle is evangelical Christians who (for the most part) do on agree with the Catholic Church's view on contraception and have never hesitated to point out views of the church it disagrees with but completely sees how this is a violation of religious liberty and also sees how this could easily and quickly become a very slippery slope which could further infringe on more religious liberties.

 

Fair example but I will argue my specific issue is different in degree.

 

I cannot compare the Church's view on women and its view on birth control. It's easy (and right) to stand up for women all around the world. No brainer. I applaud the Church for its stance.

 

It's not the same though as my example (which you still haven't responded to). The Church is adamantly against contraception. Not all religions are in the U.S. So, again, do you think the Church would stand up against the US govt if it declared that NO insurance plan for any religious organization could provide benefits for contraception?

 

Again, very good example and thoughtful.

Trying to get on your level, Clyde. Infant circumcision is not part of some religions in the United States. I'm pretty sure that it is covered by most insurance plans. So if you were a Jewish corporation with Christian employees, would you be required to cover newborn male circumcisions?

One key difference for the Catholic faith versus other religious denominations, is the belief that nothing should prevent contraception...meaning no artificial means of birth control.

Double negative. I think you meant nothing should prevent new life?

Trying to get on your level, Clyde. Infant circumcision is not part of some religions in the United States. I'm pretty sure that it is covered by most insurance plans. So if you were a Jewish corporation with Christian employees, would you be required to cover newborn male circumcisions?

 

I'm no expert on the healthcare laws but I'm assuming circumcisions do not fall under the same rules as contraceptives.

I'm no expert on the healthcare laws but I'm assuming circumcisions do not fall under the same rules as contraceptives.

 

Just trying to make an analogy to better understand your debate.

Just trying to make an analogy to better understand your debate.

 

My fault. I thought you were asking if such a procedure would be covered.

Well the weekly discussion continues. However, I give the priest credit for today's homily. He said that if an elected official is Catholic and doesn't vote Catholic he/she is a fraud. Even though he is 100% incorrect I applaud him for his openness.

 

I'm sure my non-Catholic brothers and sisters on here want their elected official voting Catholic.