Doug is Truly in Deep – In the Tank and Over His Head

Updated… Doug responds and since I am currently leaving Perth, Australia to get back to Scotland and won’t have access to Al Gore’s greatest invention for a while, please take Doug up on commenting on his gracious explanation why I was wrong until I can get back online.

I don’t normally promote many comments to a full post and I rarely highlight people who comment – but sometimes the bias and outright idiocy of Obama supporters who come here demand it. They are so willing to suspend belief to support the Obamessiah that the positions taken just ooze stupidity. There are those following in the footsteps of Barbra Streisand, Bill Maher and Suze Orman, making things up out of whole cloth and then accusing any who contradict them of lying, racism or just being too stupid to recognize the greatness of the Lion King (more like the Lying King).

The basic equation is Obama = Truth, all else are lies.

Such is the case of a new friend, dougindeap. On the comment thread for Separation of Church and State in the Age of Obama, dougindeap accuses everybody who opposes Obama on this of being a liar, including leaders of the Church.

Some, including apparently the Church, have resorted to lies to in their efforts to oppose the health care law. Contrary to wild-eyed cries to the contrary, IT DOES NOT FORCE ANYONE TO ACT CONTRARY TO THEIR BELIEFS.

Well, dougie, that’s not quite true, now is it?

The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics cannot be involved in them. After the regulation was first announced in August, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic lay leaders urged the administration to rescind it while pointing out that it would require Catholics to act against their consciences and their faith and was thus a violation of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

So while it doesn’t include abortions, it does include challenges to the Catholic faith:

The new regulation does not require coverage of abortions, but — according to the bishops — the approved contraceptives would include sterilization and abortifacients, which church teaching forbids.

So doug goes down the “exemption provision” route:

Here, the question is whether a special exemption should be granted so the law does not force employers to take actions contrary to their religious views. As the law does not do that, there is no need for such an exemption…

That’s simple all right. I gather you too prefer not to discuss the exemption the US Bishop Conference seeks and, instead, revisit your notion of the Constitution’s enumerated powers. Knock yourself out.

Well, dougindeap, you seem to be the one that is having trouble following the discussion. Like all Obama supporters, you are willing to claim that what he says equals the outcome. It doesn’t. Just because there technically is language that is defined as an “exemption”, that should mean that there truly is one – but as I pointed out in the original post, there isn’t because it is impossible for Catholics organizations to meet.

I assume the exemption that you claim is not needed that the administration “gives” is this:

The Health and Human Services rule requires that FDA-approved contraceptive services be included in mandated “preventive services” covered in the basic insurance package of all insurance plans.

A religious organization is exempt if it meets four criteria:

  • It “has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose”;
  • “Primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets”;
  • “Primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets”;
  • “Is a nonprofit organization” under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code. Those sections “refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious orders,” according to a footnote to the interim final rule.

Apparently this really isn’t an “exemption”, it is a delay – from the same article:

Announcing the decision Jan. 20, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

Sebelius also said that nonprofit groups that do not provide contraceptive coverage because of their religious beliefs will get an additional year “to adapt to this new rule.”

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the bishops’ conference, was harsh in his response. “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” he said.

The Catholic Church leadership has it right, Obamacare is an unconstitutional law, the net effect of which is to usurp Constitutional freedoms:

“It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face,” Bishop Zubik wrote of the administration’s decision to force Catholics to act against their faith.

“Let’s be blunt,” said Bishop Zubik. “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.

“This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone–not only Catholics; not only people of all religion,” said the bishop. “At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens.”

“Last September I asked you to protest those guidelines to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services, and contact your political leadership in the federal government,” said Bishop Zubik. “I asked that you request that this flawed mandate be withdrawn because of its unprecedented interference in the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of the Catholic community, and our basic democratic process.

“You did,” said the bishop. “And you were joined by Catholics throughout the country (and many others as well) who raised their voices against the mandate, raised their voices against a meaningless religious exemption.

“On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration answered you and me,” said Bishop Zubik. “The response was very simple: ‘To Hell with You.’”

“Kathleen Sebelius and through her, the Obama administration,” the bishop wrote, “have said ‘To Hell with You’ to the Catholic faithful of the United States, to Hell with your religious beliefs, to Hell with your religious liberty, to Hell with your freedom of conscience.”

Bishop Zubik said the Catholic Church cannot submit to this regulation and urged Catholics to again tell President Obama, HHS Secretary Sebelius and members of Congress to rescind it.

“They have given us a year to adapt to this rule,” he said. “We can’t! We simply cannot! Write to the president. Write to Secretary Sebelius. Write to our Senators. Write to those in Congress.”

Bishop Zubik was far from alone in condemning the regulation and calling on Catholics to demand its reversal. Across the country over the past week, many Catholic bishops wrote similar articles and statements.

“The bell is tolling for religious liberty in America. All of us should listen well,” said Bishop James D. Conley, apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Denver.

Bishop Conley called on Catholics to fight the administration’s health-care plan.

“If plans go unchanged, the Catholic Church, acting through our Catholic institutions, will no longer have legal protection for the free exercise of religion,” he said in a column posted on the diocesan website. “Secretary Sebelius is wrong; this is not a year to ‘adapt.’ The Catholic Church will not adapt by violating fundamental elements of our faith. Instead of adapting, this is a year to unify, and to fight injustice and flagrant disregard for the institutional protection of our religious practice.

“The recent decision by HHS should make clear for all Catholics that under the proposed health care plan, the freedom to practice our religious faith is in jeopardy,” said Bishop Conley.

In a column for his diocesan newspaper, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles said the administration is trying to seize a power the U.S. government has never had.

“The Health Department justifies denying exemptions to Catholic charities, hospitals and colleges because it says they are not really ‘religious’ institutions. This may be the most troubling part of this new mandate,” said Archbishop Gomez. “Because in effect, the government is presuming it has the competence and authority to define what religious faith is and how believers should express their faith commitments and relationship to God in society. These are powers our government has never before assumed itself to have.”
“But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church,” said Archbishop Gomez. “They go to the heart of our national identity and our historic understanding of our democratic form of government.”

Archbishop Gomez also called on Catholics to defend their faith and their religious freedom.

“But this is clear: Now is a time for Catholic action and for Catholic voices,” said Archbishop Gomez. “We need lay leaders to step up to their responsibilities for the Church’s mission. Not only to defend our faith and our rights as Catholics, but to be leaders for moral and civic renewal, leaders in helping to shape the values and moral foundations of America’s future.”

But I guess that there really is an “exemption” as long as you pay an indulgence to the Church of the Immaculate Federal Government headed by Pope Obamacus I.

Here, it may be questioned whether there is real need for such an exemption, since no one is being “forced,” as some commentators rage, to act contrary to his or her belief. In keeping with the law, those with conscientious objections to providing their employees with qualifying health plans may decline to provide their employees with any health plans and pay an assessment instead or, alternatively, provide their employees with health plans that do not qualify (e.g., ones without provisions they deem objectionable) and pay lower assessments…

Your own words, there dougie – but your gravest error is assuming that Obamacare and the forced mandates will be found to be constitutional by the SCOTUS. I assume that we will have to wait and see but even if it is, a legal indulgence is an indulgence nonetheless.You are familiar with indulgences, aren’t you dougie? A religious and Constitutional scholar such as yourself would know that they are:

In the dark ages, when Papacy held control of men’s consciences and few dared to think, one method which she practiced to supply herself with money was the sale of indulgences. The indulgence was a permission to sin and yet be free from its consequences. Like all great evils it came in gradually, and at first consisted in the forgiveness of sins and remission of the penalty to all who would fight the church’s battles– holy wars as they were called–waged against all within her reach whom she deemed “heretics” and infidels. Heretics included all classes of Christians who differed from and did not support Papacy. Infidels were those who disbelieved in Christianity, such as the Mohammedans. Against these she waged her wars, and those who engaged in them and died in battle were sure of heaven, no matter what their previous course of life had been. This cancellation of sins was offered on account, not of repentance and faith in the ransom, but for what they termed the “good work” of slaughtering the church’s enemies in the crusades, etc. Thus indulgences got under headway.

Since they would technically have to pay to avoid breaking their religious covenant with God and the Church, it really isn’t an “exemption”, now is it? It is an indulgence, in point of fact. Catholics will still be paying a fee to the government to allow it to follow its religious tradition and beliefs and that, my new friend, IS unconstitutional:

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please keep coming back. We need people like you to help illustrate the duplicity and the alternate realities that have to be created to support this president and his party.

20 thoughts on “Doug is Truly in Deep – In the Tank and Over His Head

  1. Not to piss you off on a beautiful Sunday morning, but it seemed to me that Doug was just pointing out what was written in the law. I didn’t grasp that he was pro-Obama or anti-religion. Then again, you know and I know that I seem to misinterpret people.

    Augger is the one who hit the nail on the head by saying that Obamacare is unconstitutional and so the argument is moot. The only problem with that is that we now have Obamacare and it is legal unless the Supreme Court doesn’t see it that way.

  2. I don’t think that I ever said that he was anti-religion. I made the pro-Obama assumption based on his support for Obama’s policies and the fact that he accused critics and the Catholic Church of lying.

    I did make a simple deduction based on evidence provide by doug’s own words, a deduction that I believe is supported by the facts at hand. The assertion that he is an Obama supporter is my opinion, as you rightly point out and is based only on circumstantial evidence, but the conclusion that he is simply wrong is a refutation of his points based on discoverable fact.

    Perhaps doug will be along to prove me wrong.

    • Dang! He’ll probably come along as I’m hanging out with 1st and 2nd graders talking about Jonah……oh, well….sometimes it’s fun to be swallowed by a big fish…..

  3. Terry Bradshaw: Hoo-weee boy! Did you say that Utah got game? No, I said it! Man, now that is some game!
    Mike Ditka: Who needs game against a lightweight who has none? Clear the field of this doug’s remains and get a debater out there!
    Lynn Swann: And some viewers will ask, So how would Utah stack up against the great debaters of years gone by, so we ran his stats against, among others Noam Chomsky, and…
    Mike Ditka: Chomsky? He’d Chomsky that lightweight into little piec…

  4. That’s what the armor and weapons are for.
    The Arabs asked us for help, and I thought it was chicken…surprise of GHWB to to give that order. As big a jerk as Saddam was, he would have been a better ruler of Saudi Arabia than they have now, or had then.

    • We were told we couldn’t wear our crucifixes openly, either. The order generally was we couldn’t wear them PERIOD – to prevent inadvertent exposure and thus offense to the Saudis.

      I know because I disobeyed that order. Mine stayed on my chain with my dog tags, which were usually under my T-shirt, anyway. If we had Saudis with or around us, I figured to hell with them – and that order.

  5. Pingback: Somebody help me… « The Rio Norte Line

  6. Utah,

    Having been alerted by kellsbells (thank you) on another blog of the honor you’ve bestowed on my earlier comment here, I’m happy to rejoin the discussion and further ‘splain my point to you. Since the time of my earlier comment, arguments for a “religious employer” exemption have gone from wrong to ridiculous.

    Constitutional framework: As noted in my earlier comment, questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but allows the government to enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g.,

    When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), add provisions to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.

    Issue: Under the foregoing framework, the real question here is not whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.

    Discussion of Facts: Those demanding such an exemption initially worked themselves into a lather with the false claim that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved–except perhaps for an employer who really desires not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather wants to retain control of his employees’ health plans, limit their choices to conform to the employer’s religious beliefs, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.

    Indeed, some continued clamoring for just such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments they would be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to most taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.

    In any event, those wanting an exemption put up enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.

    Nonetheless, some continue to complain. They fret that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They counter what they call the government’s “accounting gimmick” with one of their own: the “Catholic dollar.” These dollars remain true to an employer’s religious beliefs, it seems, even after paid by the employer to others, e.g., insurers or employees, in that they can be used only for things the religious employer would approve. The religious employers’ aim, we are assured, is not to thereby control the actions of others, oh no, but rather is merely to assure that the employers themselves do not somehow act contrary to their own beliefs by loosing “their” dollars into hands that would use them for things the employers themselves would not buy. Their religious liberty, the employers say, requires not only that they be exempted from the law, but further that anyone to whom they pay money also be exempted and thus “free” to act according to the employers’ desires.

    I wonder what they would think of their tag-the-dollar theory if they realized that I have loosed some of my “atheist dollars” into society and they have some in their wallets. Those dollars can be used only for ungodly purposes, lest I suffer the indignity of paying for things I disbelieve. Whatever they do with them, for god’s sake, don’t put them in the collection plate.

  7. Folks, when you see someone use verbiage such as this:”the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), add provisions to laws affording some “, you my friend are looking at a perversion of government, and a supporter of such perversion.

    Liberty is equally afforded to all, not just those deemed “privileged.

    And here (“then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs”) we see further perversion. First of all, “assessments” (i.e., penalty, i.e., punishment) is not the scope of the federal government, especially not the executive branch. Secondly, I would say “Tell that to the Amish.”

    doug – the rest of your opine is just plain out garbage … no matter how eloquently you attempt to package with your word salad. You might have gotten away with it had you left out your last paragraph, but now I see what your really PO’d about. You feel slighted by some poor “bible thumper” you feel like stepped on your poor little misguided toes.

    Everyone has an agenda, right?


    • When augger is correct, he is correct and he is correct here. The founders repeatedly said the federal govt. had NO authority to provide welfare nor make law that did not apply EQUALLY to ALL citizens.

      Doug has found he can’t dazzle with brilliance, so he’s trying to baffle with bull and augger sniffed him out.

      NICE! 🙂

      • Thanks for the endorsement! LOL!

        No matter how these people try to confabulate us with their long winded tripe, the truth remains in the simplicity of liberty.

        It’s just common sense.

  8. “the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), add provisions to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.”

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, dougie. Too many COs (or fortunate sons) joined the national guard or fled to Canada during the Vietnam War.

    Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
    Ooh, they’re red, white and blue.
    And when the band plays “Hail to the chief”,
    Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son, son.
    It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no,

    Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
    Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh.
    But when the taxman comes to the door,
    Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no.
    It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no.

    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
    And when you ask them, “How much should we give?”
    Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no military son, son.
    It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, one.

    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one, no no no,
    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate son, no no no,

    Creedence Clearwater Revival (1969)

  9. I may upset a few of you with this, but…

    Our founders did NOT agree with the draft. In fact, several of them specifically said it was a violation of a person’s right to conscience to force military service.

    Now, here is the part where Doug gets in trouble:

    Those same men SPECIFICALLY said it was a violation of that same right of conscience for the govt. to use the authority each citizen grants it against their conscience. In other words, the FOUNDERS say doug is full of it (I can provide the quotes, if anyone cares).

    Now, more specifically to the point at hand, I have found a nearly unanimous opinion among the founders that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making ANY law – ANY LAW – that deals with religion IN ANY WAY! I have also found where they specifically said this removes the possibility of dealing with religion from the Executive – as it has no law to enforce – and the Judiciary – as it has no law to interpret.

    Which means, as we apply it today, the notion of a separation between Church and State is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of the founders’ intentions (and they clearly said intention is the ONLY correct interpretation of ANY law – especially the Constitution).

    Seems to me that any HONEST party in this fight would be forced to accept that we have things back-assward in this nation today. But then, that rests on the assumption of honesty, which requires virtue, which our founders said rests on religion, which has been forcibly kicked out of the public square. Anybody else see a connection here?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.