A most disturbing development…

I have to tell you, when I heard the news at first, I was stupefied by it, and at the same time I was, to put it mildly, disgusted.

It seems that the State Supreme Court of California, that rotting cesspool of leftist ideologues, decided 6-1 that Catholic Charities, a non-profit foundation that does various charity work throughout the country, must offer contraceptives in its health coverage. Maybe that doesn’t sound like a big deal to most, but it really is when taken for what it is.

Remember Judge Moore? You know, the man who put a monument to the Ten Commandments (which, like it or not, are the basis of most law in this country; sorry) in the rotunda of an Alabama courthouse? Remember the outcry? The specific outcry?

There was a wall of separation between church and state, in that case.

Now what we have on our hands is a clear cut case of what that “separation” was meant for: protecting churches from the state and not vice versa. So where are all the “separationists?” Where are all the people who decried Judge Moore and his actions as religion interfering with the state, and why aren’t they outwardly offended by the blatant interference of the state with the church?

Well, don’t expect to hear any righteous indignation, or read any op-ed pieces in the liberal rags in this country. You won’t find criticism of this decision because they agree with it. There’s always this magical and mystical divide between church and state, as long as it’s perceived the church is getting the upper hand, but turn the tide and watch all those ideologues applaud.

The issue carves so many ruts into faith that it’s immeasurable. The right to free association; like-minded people working under the catholic belief system in a charity organization. The right to free practice; the right of the people running the charity to run the charity according to the belief system of the Catholic church. The right of the church to be free of interference from the state; I think that speaks for itself.

I would love to see all the Moore critics come out and say something right about now.

Of course they won’t, because this “separation of church and state” idea only matters when the idea is not popular with the left (for example putting a monument of historical significance in a courthouse rotunda which also happens to be a religious artifact) as opposed to when there really is a separation problem such as this.

It’s disturbing, but it’s something I’ve come to expect.

Next thing will be gays suing churches that refuse to marry them.

Don’t think it can happen?

Why not?

This entry was posted in In The News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jeff

    Okay, I’m a seperationist, I’m here. I don’t like this decision anymore than you do. And I wonder why you, five minutes after the dang news breaks, wonder where the criticism is. Sheesh.

    Why is it whenever something that is obviously going to be overturned upon appeal/review, the ‘victimized’ side thinks its some sort of conspiracy. Its just another person doing something dumb to make a useless political point.

    Over at One Hand Clapping, the blogger used a title ‘The Death of Separation of Church and State’ on one of his articles even.

    And as for the ten commandments being used as the basis for our legal system, thats just plain spin. No more than the code of hammurabi is.

  • Jeff

    Or are you going to insist that the Jews codified the basics of don’t-hurt-each-other first somehow? Any anthropology primer can let you know that if a society develops beyond the gang stage, there are some basic ‘donts’ that crop up. Don’t kill your friend, don’t lie to your friend, don’t make your friend’s life hell by interfering with his property/wife, and so on. The first four have little basis in our legal system, and in fact are contrary to it in most cases. So, at most, there is a 60% correlation, and even that is just based in fundemental values of people trying to live together.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Jeff, you go out of your way to attack me every time I open my mouth, yet you don’t bother to get your facts straight before doing it.

    The story has been out since Monday. It’s now Thursday.

    Get your shit straight.

    The rest of your post is irrelevant.

  • http://stageleft.crow.ws stageleft

    So is the alternative for this charity to hang out a sign that says “only Catholics who believe that birth control is a sin need apply”? The church itself is not being interfered with and the law applies to all employers in the state – this charity is not being singled out.

    I’m not even gonna touch the line about gay people suing churches if they refuse to marry them, it’s the type of unfounded slippery slope statement I expect to hear from hard right fundamentalist talk radio preachers and those guys down in the market telling me to beware for the end is at hand.

  • http://www.wild-heart.net/ Chelle

    The thing of it is that this a state issue and not a federal one. Not ever state requires that every employer includes birth control and abortion as part of it’s covered benefits. Fred knows I had excellent health care for years under benefits provided by my former husband’s insurance (90/10 major medical) and had to pay out of pocket for birth control pills. So, people take risks with sex. Why should any employer have to make sure or be forced to cover our sexual activities? But I’m sure that only lead to someone asking why our employee insurance benefits should pay for prenatal care and childbirth expenses. And you know what? Not all of them out there do.

  • http://www.wild-heart.net/ Chelle

    Another thought or two… This is exactly where state and/or federal funding for faith based charities can go wrong. Sometimes Nearly all of the time a good thing will have a nasty consequence. If a charity or church sponsored business, like the various Catholic, Methodist, and Lutheran hospitals, want to have the state and federal income generated by providing a public service and they want to blur that line of separation of church and state they are going to have to swallow bitter pills such as this. Neither side is right on this. Both sides crossed the line and a freedom is at risk. I’m always amazed to see just how many adults never learn that for every good thing there is going to be something that is sacrificed in return and never once stop to consider what the sacrifice could possibly be.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that only Catholics need apply, but I have to wonder what people thought they were getting into when going to work for a Catholic organization.

    And we’re talking about a charity affiliated with the Catholic Church as a whole (capital C, capital C) here, so this is interfering with the church’s rights. What’s next? Forcing a Church-affiliated organization to recognize “domestic partners” for purposes of benefits, even though the organization is specifically against it?

    What this will result in is Catholic Charities leaving California in protest, and the people benefitting from their services being left without, all in the name of a political agenda. CC losing on this issue means everyone loses.

  • balbulican

    Well, suppose I go to work for a foundation sponsored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…is it appropriate for them to tell me than my medical insurance can’t be used for blood transfusions?

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com nathalie

    if you don’t agree with their policies, or you want better health insurance, go elsewhere! and what the fuck are people complaining about? last I checked, birth control costs ~$30/month. boo f’ing hoo.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Bal, it’s completely ridiculous to act surprised when a company would only support health insurance that performs procedures they endorse. In my mind, it’s like being homophobic and going to work for GMHC, and then acting surprised that gay people were all over the place.

  • balbulican

    So you’d agree that a JW Foundation would be justified in refusing to subsidize blood transfusions for their staff, whatever their staff’s belief’s. Or that an orgnanization of Christian Scientists would be correct in denying their employees any medical coverage whatsoever.

    That’s cool…just trying to understand the Ferrari mindset.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Do I agree with it? For the most part I do… Religious and Not-for-Profit organizations should not have to violate their core beliefs to provide services for employees.

    For example: Should the National Right to Life organizations have to provide abortion services for their employees? Maybe, because there’s no separation of Charity and State…

    Maybe that makes it a little clearer?

  • balbulican

    Oh, it’s clear, V. Not every failure to agree with you is the result of incomprehension. (insert winking smiley here.)

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Now where have I heard that before…

  • balbulican

    I don’t know, but it must have been from someone very, very wise.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Well, the person who said it originally was Canadian, so I don’t know :-)

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com nathalie

    dunno, Bal, don’t you think there is a difference between life-saving medical procedures and 100% optional birth control? after all, not all birth control is prescription-based. your local Target had an aisle of condoms ready for the taking…

  • balbulican

    You’re right, N…but Vinny’s point was that a religious institution should have the right to define the insurance benefits provided to its staff, based on their beliefs. So denial of any medical benefits at all to employees of a foundation or service operated by Christian Scientists is a logical outcome of that position.

    I do see his point, and it’s a defensible one.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    That’s exactly my point, Bal, and I’m glad you completely got it.

  • Jeff

    Okay, I’m a seperationist, I’m here. I don’t like this decision anymore than you do. And I wonder why you, five minutes after the dang news breaks, wonder where the criticism is. Sheesh.

    Why is it whenever something that is obviously going to be overturned upon appeal/review, the ‘victimized’ side thinks its some sort of conspiracy. Its just another person doing something dumb to make a useless political point.

    Over at One Hand Clapping, the blogger used a title ‘The Death of Separation of Church and State’ on one of his articles even.

    And as for the ten commandments being used as the basis for our legal system, thats just plain spin. No more than the code of hammurabi is.

  • Jeff

    Okay, I’m a seperationist, I’m here. I don’t like this decision anymore than you do. And I wonder why you, five minutes after the dang news breaks, wonder where the criticism is. Sheesh.

    Why is it whenever something that is obviously going to be overturned upon appeal/review, the ‘victimized’ side thinks its some sort of conspiracy. Its just another person doing something dumb to make a useless political point.

    Over at One Hand Clapping, the blogger used a title ‘The Death of Separation of Church and State’ on one of his articles even.

    And as for the ten commandments being used as the basis for our legal system, thats just plain spin. No more than the code of hammurabi is.

  • Jeff

    Okay, I’m a seperationist, I’m here. I don’t like this decision anymore than you do. And I wonder why you, five minutes after the dang news breaks, wonder where the criticism is. Sheesh.

    Why is it whenever something that is obviously going to be overturned upon appeal/review, the ‘victimized’ side thinks its some sort of conspiracy. Its just another person doing something dumb to make a useless political point.

    Over at One Hand Clapping, the blogger used a title ‘The Death of Separation of Church and State’ on one of his articles even.

    And as for the ten commandments being used as the basis for our legal system, thats just plain spin. No more than the code of hammurabi is.

  • Jeff

    Or are you going to insist that the Jews codified the basics of don’t-hurt-each-other first somehow? Any anthropology primer can let you know that if a society develops beyond the gang stage, there are some basic ‘donts’ that crop up. Don’t kill your friend, don’t lie to your friend, don’t make your friend’s life hell by interfering with his property/wife, and so on. The first four have little basis in our legal system, and in fact are contrary to it in most cases. So, at most, there is a 60% correlation, and even that is just based in fundemental values of people trying to live together.

  • Jeff

    Or are you going to insist that the Jews codified the basics of don’t-hurt-each-other first somehow? Any anthropology primer can let you know that if a society develops beyond the gang stage, there are some basic ‘donts’ that crop up. Don’t kill your friend, don’t lie to your friend, don’t make your friend’s life hell by interfering with his property/wife, and so on. The first four have little basis in our legal system, and in fact are contrary to it in most cases. So, at most, there is a 60% correlation, and even that is just based in fundemental values of people trying to live together.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Jeff, you go out of your way to attack me every time I open my mouth, yet you don’t bother to get your facts straight before doing it.

    The story has been out since Monday. It’s now Thursday.

    Get your shit straight.

    The rest of your post is irrelevant.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Jeff, you go out of your way to attack me every time I open my mouth, yet you don’t bother to get your facts straight before doing it.

    The story has been out since Monday. It’s now Thursday.

    Get your shit straight.

    The rest of your post is irrelevant.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Jeff, you go out of your way to attack me every time I open my mouth, yet you don’t bother to get your facts straight before doing it.

    The story has been out since Monday. It’s now Thursday.

    Get your shit straight.

    The rest of your post is irrelevant.

  • http://stageleft.crow.ws/ stageleft

    So is the alternative for this charity to hang out a sign that says “only Catholics who believe that birth control is a sin need apply”? The church itself is not being interfered with and the law applies to all employers in the state – this charity is not being singled out.

    I’m not even gonna touch the line about gay people suing churches if they refuse to marry them, it’s the type of unfounded slippery slope statement I expect to hear from hard right fundamentalist talk radio preachers and those guys down in the market telling me to beware for the end is at hand.

  • http://stageleft.crow.ws/ stageleft

    So is the alternative for this charity to hang out a sign that says “only Catholics who believe that birth control is a sin need apply”? The church itself is not being interfered with and the law applies to all employers in the state – this charity is not being singled out.

    I’m not even gonna touch the line about gay people suing churches if they refuse to marry them, it’s the type of unfounded slippery slope statement I expect to hear from hard right fundamentalist talk radio preachers and those guys down in the market telling me to beware for the end is at hand.

  • http://wild-heart.net Chelle

    The thing of it is that this a state issue and not a federal one. Not ever state requires that every employer includes birth control and abortion as part of it’s covered benefits. Fred knows I had excellent health care for years under benefits provided by my former husband’s insurance (90/10 major medical) and had to pay out of pocket for birth control pills. So, people take risks with sex. Why should any employer have to make sure or be forced to cover our sexual activities? But I’m sure that only lead to someone asking why our employee insurance benefits should pay for prenatal care and childbirth expenses. And you know what? Not all of them out there do.

  • http://wild-heart.net Chelle

    The thing of it is that this a state issue and not a federal one. Not ever state requires that every employer includes birth control and abortion as part of it’s covered benefits. Fred knows I had excellent health care for years under benefits provided by my former husband’s insurance (90/10 major medical) and had to pay out of pocket for birth control pills. So, people take risks with sex. Why should any employer have to make sure or be forced to cover our sexual activities? But I’m sure that only lead to someone asking why our employee insurance benefits should pay for prenatal care and childbirth expenses. And you know what? Not all of them out there do.

  • http://wild-heart.net Chelle

    Another thought or two… This is exactly where state and/or federal funding for faith based charities can go wrong. Sometimes Nearly all of the time a good thing will have a nasty consequence. If a charity or church sponsored business, like the various Catholic, Methodist, and Lutheran hospitals, want to have the state and federal income generated by providing a public service and they want to blur that line of separation of church and state they are going to have to swallow bitter pills such as this. Neither side is right on this. Both sides crossed the line and a freedom is at risk. I’m always amazed to see just how many adults never learn that for every good thing there is going to be something that is sacrificed in return and never once stop to consider what the sacrifice could possibly be.

  • http://wild-heart.net Chelle

    Another thought or two… This is exactly where state and/or federal funding for faith based charities can go wrong. Sometimes Nearly all of the time a good thing will have a nasty consequence. If a charity or church sponsored business, like the various Catholic, Methodist, and Lutheran hospitals, want to have the state and federal income generated by providing a public service and they want to blur that line of separation of church and state they are going to have to swallow bitter pills such as this. Neither side is right on this. Both sides crossed the line and a freedom is at risk. I’m always amazed to see just how many adults never learn that for every good thing there is going to be something that is sacrificed in return and never once stop to consider what the sacrifice could possibly be.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that only Catholics need apply, but I have to wonder what people thought they were getting into when going to work for a Catholic organization.

    And we’re talking about a charity affiliated with the Catholic Church as a whole (capital C, capital C) here, so this is interfering with the church’s rights. What’s next? Forcing a Church-affiliated organization to recognize “domestic partners” for purposes of benefits, even though the organization is specifically against it?

    What this will result in is Catholic Charities leaving California in protest, and the people benefitting from their services being left without, all in the name of a political agenda. CC losing on this issue means everyone loses.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that only Catholics need apply, but I have to wonder what people thought they were getting into when going to work for a Catholic organization.

    And we’re talking about a charity affiliated with the Catholic Church as a whole (capital C, capital C) here, so this is interfering with the church’s rights. What’s next? Forcing a Church-affiliated organization to recognize “domestic partners” for purposes of benefits, even though the organization is specifically against it?

    What this will result in is Catholic Charities leaving California in protest, and the people benefitting from their services being left without, all in the name of a political agenda. CC losing on this issue means everyone loses.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that only Catholics need apply, but I have to wonder what people thought they were getting into when going to work for a Catholic organization.

    And we’re talking about a charity affiliated with the Catholic Church as a whole (capital C, capital C) here, so this is interfering with the church’s rights. What’s next? Forcing a Church-affiliated organization to recognize “domestic partners” for purposes of benefits, even though the organization is specifically against it?

    What this will result in is Catholic Charities leaving California in protest, and the people benefitting from their services being left without, all in the name of a political agenda. CC losing on this issue means everyone loses.

  • balbulican

    Well, suppose I go to work for a foundation sponsored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…is it appropriate for them to tell me than my medical insurance can’t be used for blood transfusions?

  • balbulican

    Well, suppose I go to work for a foundation sponsored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…is it appropriate for them to tell me than my medical insurance can’t be used for blood transfusions?

  • balbulican

    Well, suppose I go to work for a foundation sponsored by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…is it appropriate for them to tell me than my medical insurance can’t be used for blood transfusions?

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com/ nathalie

    if you don’t agree with their policies, or you want better health insurance, go elsewhere! and what the fuck are people complaining about? last I checked, birth control costs ~$30/month. boo f’ing hoo.

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com/ nathalie

    if you don’t agree with their policies, or you want better health insurance, go elsewhere! and what the fuck are people complaining about? last I checked, birth control costs ~$30/month. boo f’ing hoo.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Bal, it’s completely ridiculous to act surprised when a company would only support health insurance that performs procedures they endorse. In my mind, it’s like being homophobic and going to work for GMHC, and then acting surprised that gay people were all over the place.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Bal, it’s completely ridiculous to act surprised when a company would only support health insurance that performs procedures they endorse. In my mind, it’s like being homophobic and going to work for GMHC, and then acting surprised that gay people were all over the place.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Bal, it’s completely ridiculous to act surprised when a company would only support health insurance that performs procedures they endorse. In my mind, it’s like being homophobic and going to work for GMHC, and then acting surprised that gay people were all over the place.

  • balbulican

    So you’d agree that a JW Foundation would be justified in refusing to subsidize blood transfusions for their staff, whatever their staff’s belief’s. Or that an orgnanization of Christian Scientists would be correct in denying their employees any medical coverage whatsoever.

    That’s cool…just trying to understand the Ferrari mindset.

  • balbulican

    So you’d agree that a JW Foundation would be justified in refusing to subsidize blood transfusions for their staff, whatever their staff’s belief’s. Or that an orgnanization of Christian Scientists would be correct in denying their employees any medical coverage whatsoever.

    That’s cool…just trying to understand the Ferrari mindset.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Do I agree with it? For the most part I do… Religious and Not-for-Profit organizations should not have to violate their core beliefs to provide services for employees.

    For example: Should the National Right to Life organizations have to provide abortion services for their employees? Maybe, because there’s no separation of Charity and State…

    Maybe that makes it a little clearer?

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Do I agree with it? For the most part I do… Religious and Not-for-Profit organizations should not have to violate their core beliefs to provide services for employees.

    For example: Should the National Right to Life organizations have to provide abortion services for their employees? Maybe, because there’s no separation of Charity and State…

    Maybe that makes it a little clearer?

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Do I agree with it? For the most part I do… Religious and Not-for-Profit organizations should not have to violate their core beliefs to provide services for employees.

    For example: Should the National Right to Life organizations have to provide abortion services for their employees? Maybe, because there’s no separation of Charity and State…

    Maybe that makes it a little clearer?

  • balbulican

    Oh, it’s clear, V. Not every failure to agree with you is the result of incomprehension. (insert winking smiley here.)

  • balbulican

    Oh, it’s clear, V. Not every failure to agree with you is the result of incomprehension. (insert winking smiley here.)

  • balbulican

    Oh, it’s clear, V. Not every failure to agree with you is the result of incomprehension. (insert winking smiley here.)

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Now where have I heard that before…

  • balbulican

    I don’t know, but it must have been from someone very, very wise.

  • balbulican

    I don’t know, but it must have been from someone very, very wise.

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, the person who said it originally was Canadian, so I don’t know :-)

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, the person who said it originally was Canadian, so I don’t know :-)

  • http://www.insingificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, the person who said it originally was Canadian, so I don’t know :-)

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com/ nathalie

    dunno, Bal, don’t you think there is a difference between life-saving medical procedures and 100% optional birth control? after all, not all birth control is prescription-based. your local Target had an aisle of condoms ready for the taking…

  • http://turningwheels.blogspot.com/ nathalie

    dunno, Bal, don’t you think there is a difference between life-saving medical procedures and 100% optional birth control? after all, not all birth control is prescription-based. your local Target had an aisle of condoms ready for the taking…

  • balbulican

    You’re right, N…but Vinny’s point was that a religious institution should have the right to define the insurance benefits provided to its staff, based on their beliefs. So denial of any medical benefits at all to employees of a foundation or service operated by Christian Scientists is a logical outcome of that position.

    I do see his point, and it’s a defensible one.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    That’s exactly my point, Bal, and I’m glad you completely got it.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    That’s exactly my point, Bal, and I’m glad you completely got it.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    That’s exactly my point, Bal, and I’m glad you completely got it.