Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders invoke Martin L.King Jr, declare war

[moobu2]

on gay rights, stem cell research, end of life decisions and womens rights to make medical decisions about their own bodies.

Text
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.


“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

<snip>

The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”


Same ole hateful fear mongering

[sudopod]

1. Everything's gotta be a fuckin war with these people.

But have a non-violent struggle for equal rights or something and you're a commie.

[Jim__]

18. While the OP mentions war, the cited text doesn't.

There is plenty to complain about in what they do say, there's no need to make things up.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Let them live their consciences.

Don't get an abortion if you're pregnant and raise that child in love.

Don't be promiscuous with your gender if you're not inclined.

Die in agony but in the light of the Lord if that's your choice.

Don't use stem cells to grow new skin or organs or to improve your diabetes or Parkinson's Disease. Suffer in grace with the promise of the Hereafter.

But leave me and others out of your decisions and choices. We don't share your views and your opinions should not be made into laws have the force of coercion and punishment for disobeying them.

[FBaggins]

3. You may get along more than you imagine

Your last (quite eloquent) sentence is essentially their point. They don't want the "force of coercion and punishment" to have our opinion thrust on them.

I can, for instance, support a woman's right to choose how to handle her own body... yet still disagree with any law that would force a Catholic hospital to provide/perform that abortion.

Though their positions do not "leave us alone", THIS action is little more than a cry for us to leave THEM alone. Your title is correct... let them live their conscience... or don't ask them to let us live ours.

[Deep13]

4. I don't agree. Hospitals exist for patients...

...and not for proselytizing, I don't care whose name is on the building.

[pnwmom]

9. A Catholic hospital exists as a way to care for the sick,

which Catholics consider to be a religious duty. So it exists both for a secular and a religious purpose.

[Deep13]

10. There should be a disclaimer that it isn't a real hospital then.

Theology has no place in medicine. I guess I figured that would be obvious since we found out disease is caused by germs and not by divine wrath or curses from witches.

[pnwmom]

12. Catholic hospitals employ qualified doctors, nurses, and other

staff who provide excellent medical care in non-profit hospitals, as opposed to the for-profit ventures that are increasingly dominating the health care market.

[darkstar3]

16. Doctors, nurses, and other staff

who believe wholeheartedly that certain legal and safe medical practices should be against the law and completely unavailable, and therefore will not provide or perform them. IOW, these are medical professionals who outright refuse to do their jobs.

[pnwmom]

26. Then go to another hospital. n/t

[darkstar3]

28. Read #22. n/t

[Deep13]

25. Yes, but they refuse to practice a specific area of medicine...

...because they think an imaginary being has told them not to. A doctor has to do what's best for his patient, not his church or even his own conscience.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Bullshit.

Will they stop trying to shut down abortion clinics if we 'leave them alone'?

They are fucking theocrats who want for force the nation to live by their interpretation of god's will.

That is un-american.

[Deep13]

11. Exactly right!

:applause:

Religious institutions take it for granted that they have a right to make the rest of us live by their religious rules.

[nykym]

6. FINE!

Tax exempt status revoked to year one.

[rd_kent]

7. Is anyone ASKING them to do any of this? Nope.

SO they say "were not gonna do this and you can't make me!" So fucking what? No one was telling you to, dumbasses.

[pnwmom]

8. There are still lots of Catholic hospitals, so yes, they are being asked

to be involved in these things.

[rd_kent]

13. There are plenty of other, secular, hospitals we can go to.

I do feel that they should not have tax-free status, though.

[pnwmom]

14. If they are non-profit (and I think they all are), they should be treated

as any other non-profit.

[darkstar3]

15. Fuck 'em.

Their care comes not from a place of true altruism and compassion for their fellow man, but rather from an ulterior motive to save the souls of all mankind from eternal hellfire.

Proselytizing to a captive audience of the world's most injured and vulnerable is NOT healthcare, no matter what else the hospital might do, and you cannot deny that the hospitals are part of the ministry.

The bottom line is that they are not interested in providing full healthcare for the sake of health, but rather as a means to their own ends, and as such I don't give a damn what happens to them. If they want to continue to operate as hospitals where publicly funded ambulances take patients, and where various public funds like medicare are sent, then their only choice is to provide safe and legal healthcare (including abortion, contraceptives, and EOL treatments) for all with absolutely no discrimination.

If you can't do the job, then don't take the fucking job. That goes for pharmacists too. This conscience clause bullshit has to stop, with no exceptions, RTFN.

[Sinti]

17. We will not comply

with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.

This is not hateful fear mongering. They have every right not to do these things in their institutions. They have the right not to recognize our marriages in their churches. This is fair.

Please explain to me why this is a problem. I'm not trying to be dense, I don't understand. I don't think we want to force them to do things. I'm gay, I don't want to be married in a Catholic Church - I don't give a damn what they recognize - consider the source - look at the Pope.

I don't want them to have the right to force or compel their lack of morality on me. I think hey should be given that right also.

[darkstar3]

19. The problem is that they have injected themselves into the public scope

by running hospitals where public funds and publicly transported patients are sent. Further, if you believe as I do that healthcare is a public right, then no one should be denied any type of healthcare.

[Sinti]

21. The public funding is a problem

and that should be dealt with accordingly. I feel that the church has far too long enjoyed tax-exempt status and the use of public funds while forcing their opinions on the rest of us - this issue is only one part of the whole. Our leaders are far too concerned with the opinions of clergy, over the opinions of their constituencies.

There are clinics in my area who do not provide many services, most secular private hospitals do not provide abortions at all. I can see how their point of view disturbs you, but I feel they have the right within their own institutions to decide what they will and will not do. :shrug:

Beyond that, however, I think it's incumbent upon them to recognize that they only decide for themselves, to the rest of the world - that's where we run into trouble.

[darkstar3]

22. As my old Civics teacher used to say...

"Your right to swing your fist ends precisely at the tip of my nose."

The right of religious people to practice their own religion ends at the very moment that their practice interferes with the medical care of someone who may not agree with their religious views.

Of course, there's always the old defense of "If you're not Catholic, you don't have to go there." But that doesn't hold water for me, for two reasons.
1) Ambulances are often the way in which people reach hospitals, and publicly funded ambulances take people to Catholic and other Christian hospitals all the time, usually because they are the closest.
2) Generally, even if you don't go by ambulance, the best hospital to go to is the closest when you need acute medical care. Hospitals therefore should be standardized, and offer the same level and range of care across the board. I'm not just talking about Catholic or Christian hospitals here, but ALL hospitals. They should all offer the same services, and all services should be provided at the same level of competence. Yes, that is difficult to enforce, but difficulty in enforcement is no reason not to strive for something.

I'm sorry if I seem overly passionate about this topic, but I have seen certain medical procedures denied to women who needed them in Catholic hospitals because those women might be pregnant. I have seen doctors and nurses withhold pain-relieving and sedative medication, letting a patient suffer through horrendous pain because said medication might damage a theoretical fetus. And worst of all, I have seen hospital incompetency first hand, regardless of religious affiliation. Two family members have died due to that incompetency, and two more were very nearly paralyzed for life due to missed spinal injuries.

IOW: I may not believe in a god or gods, and I may not have much faith in the compassion or decency of most of the human race, but there is one thing that I believe wholeheartedly: This country will never truly be the land of the free until we have consistent, affordable, competent, and well-distributed health care that is accessible to every citizen, with no exceptions.

[Sinti]

24. Wow - that goes beyond the pale

Not giving the actual abortion, and withholding medication, because of a potential pregnancy are two very different things. Don't apologize for feeling strongly. Your point of view is more informed than mine. If I were you, I would have seen it that way, too.

Apparently, I need to educate myself about the on-the-ground effects of what appears to be reasonable requests, i.e., don't make me kill babies and marry gay people. Why I expect them to be really saying what they mean is beyond me - I don't want to live in a world of liars and abusers, I guess.

I worry about these churches having too much power in civil life, generally. The Catholics decided they were going to withdraw all services to the poor and homeless, because DC is passing a civil partnerships law, or something like that. That's real power over the government and damn dangerous, IMO. It's basically holding a large number of people hostage under threat of death.

There really is no "charity" is there. They give money to things in return for something else, not just because there is a need. Actually, having people in need gives them good PR opportunities. We must address that, and get rid of the need that gives them cover by some means.

[darkstar3]

35. It is indeed very difficult to find someone who is truly charitable.

But as much as I might grouse about it, I will not abandon the quest.

[pnwmom]

30. It is standard medical procedure to not do x-rays or a number of other procedures

without first determining whether the woman may be pregnant.

Hospitals aren't standardized because it isn't cost effective to offer all of the same specialized services in every hospital. For example, in our metro area there is one hospital that is the best for serious trauma cases. The ambulance takes people there even if it isn't the closest (patients also arrive there by helicopter from other cities).

You say you have seen "hospital incompetency first hand, regardless of religious affiliation." You somehow think that point adds to your anti-Catholic argument. It doesn't.

[darkstar3]

31. My overall argument is not JUST anti-Catholic.

The Catholics in this case just happen to be caught in it. The bottom line in my mind is that hospitals across the board need to live up to certain standards, and many, if not most religiously affiliated hospitals do not live up to those standards. So you can brand me with any label you like if you're looking to dismiss what I have to say, but that doesn't make me any less right when I say that medical care should be consistent, competent, well-distributed, and affordable to all. When there is consistency between the range of services that Catholic hospitals provide and the range provided by secular hospitals, then maybe my POV won't sound so "anti-Catholic".

Further, your SOP argument is bunk. I personally have been to TWO hospitals where the SOP was not to determine IF a woman was pregnant, but rather to treat her as if she WERE pregnant, just in case there was a fetus in there that no one could actually find yet. One of those was Catholic, the other "Christian," and both had pro-life posters hanging in the elevators and/or hallways. This is NOT an industry standard, but rather a deliberately implemented policy designed to prevent even the remotest possibility of an accidental abortion. That makes the life of an undetectable and possibly non-existent fetus more important that the health and/or life of the actual patient, and it is an abject dereliction of duty. And so I say again, with all the emphasis that I can muster, that if your moral, ethical, or physical limitations will keep you from performing the full range of duties for your job, then DON'T TAKE THE FUCKING JOB.

[pnwmom]

32. My experience with a Catholic hospital, while I was pregnant, was entirely different

than yours.

The doctors never hesitated to give me necessary care, even though I was known to be pregnant. And when I asked about the risks of a procedure (involving radiation) to the baby, they focused on the need for ME to have the procedure and downplayed the risk to the fetus.

[darkstar3]

34. Well then,

it's good that you found competent and reasonable doctors in your experience with a Catholic hospital. I can applaud them for that, and recognize that my experience is not universal. But if even ONE patient suffers in the care of a medical professional due to a religious refusal to act, given that religious practice is secondary to the basic freedom of life itself, then that is one patient too many.

[FBaggins]

20. Your response is reasonable

You don't want to force them to do these things... and I think that's the right way to go. Persuade... not compel.

The answer to your question is that they perceive a threat... and truly, by their standards one exists. They are being told that if they want to have a hospital in town they must provide abortions. If they want to live out their opposition to abortion by aiding with adoptions... they must do so to gay and lesbian couples.

[DeSwiss]

23. The hypocrisy of these people no longer shocks me.....

...because I realize that they must advance this surreal disjointed take upon reality. It's all they've got, really. Especially then the likes of Charles Colson, Nixon's dirty trickster, is giving-out ethics advice. Of course. They're all in the suspension of belief business, and so anything they say only has to make sense to them. And into the rabbit hole we go.

For example, many of the social service and health programs that The Church contracts out for, are worth multiple millions of dollars, come from the feds, state and local governments sources. And The Church is compensated in city after city from such activities, thus providing them a steady stream of tax-resources for which they themselves are not taxed. Along with getting free advertising and PR services which allows them to tell everyone on our dime, about what great guys they are for helping all these poor sick folk, and the little children. Whom they also occasionally sexually abuse.

And yet they seem to have no similar reaction nor ethical quagmires to slow them down where federal, state and local non-discrimination laws require that they provide services for heterosexual couples who are not married according to Roman Catholic law - including those not married by any clergy (fornicators), and those remarried after a legal divorce without the benefit of a church-approved annulment (adulterers). In addition, in order to be paid for performing functions like helping the homeless or placing children for adoption, or when going so far as to contract out medical services as they do in administering Georgetown University Hospital in D.C. and others around the country, that they have to treat Protestants (heretics), and those who read the King James Version of the bible (blasphemers) -- all as equal citizens. Which they have no problems with. Nope, no problems there, Larry. It would seem that their ethics is shaped much like a Swiss cheese.

Because in none of these aforementioned instances from Official Sins List, are they adequately persuaded not to "look the other way" when that much CASH is involved. So what's an old edict or two under these circumstances? Especially involving such "regular" folks? But now we can't have such an attitude when it comes to allowing a woman to have the right to decide health issues which affect her when she's pregnant. And they're prepared to also stiffen their necks when human sexual activity results in a death sentences for many from transmitted diseases because they've been admonished not to use condoms on pain of hellfire and demons with pitchforks, because contraception IS a sin they can't and won't overlook. Because it's their best and regular source of new Catholics. As it is, it's also too close to the whole "letting a women have reign over her body" issue. So you know that's a no-no.

And of course, they'll not look away if you're gay. Not even the gay priests will look away. Gay civilians don't count in God's army. They must be held to a different standard. And no, there's no deception nor hypocrisy here. This is just the way they operate and its approved by the Pope who is NEVER WRONG. Just don't get me started on the hiding of the pedo priests and then shuffling them around so they could sexually assault children in all parts of the world. We don't want to bring that up now, do we?

And so we're to take ethical advice from these bozos? They really expect for people to just forget all of this other shit and listen to them because they're men in black somber dresses and robes? But their authority is waning, and they know it. They fear that they have NO FUTURE. And they're right. What power they have left is slipping away from them with today's youth, more and more each day. Which is why they want to try to "talk to young people" as the article reported. They want to bring up global warming and hunger issues -- where they agree. And once they're in the door, I'm sure they believe that they'll be able to guilt them into accepting that "other stuff," or at least to get people remain indecisive and uninvolved, and of no help or electoral support whatsoever to anyone like Obama or feminists or gay people.

These people and this institution is a pretty sickening prospect when you stop to think about it, isn't it? The Inquisition may be over, but The Church still tortures, it still maims and abuses. It still kills.....

- But as I said, I'm longer shocked. Just pissed.

[moobu2]

27. lol read the Preamble to the decloration

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

A link to the entire declaration (of war)

Hmmmm, No mention of the forced conversions (under threat of death), the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, heretic burnings, the many Jewish pogroms, the destruction of thousands of unique cultures, the Nazi Holocaust...Did I forget any? I'm sure I did.

[Odin2005]

29. BASTARDS!

Tax them!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[LAGC]

36. I was raised Eastern (Greek) Orthodox...

And the church never seemed to be that political (one way or another) to me when growing up. We never had lectures about the evils of abortion, or any other topic for that matter. It was just the same ritual liturgy every Sunday, with Sunday School before. However, it doesn't surprise me that the leadership believes in this fashion. They're the one who control all the money from tithing and contributions and get to mold policy decisions for the church. Shame on them, politicizing things... it does make one want to see their tax-exempt status go away. If they keep it up, I'm sure public opinion will continue to turn against them...

[moobu2]

37. Good LA Times editorial about this

Christian leaders' stance on civil disobedience is dangerous

Philosophers have argued for centuries over whether it is ever justifiable to break the law in the service of a higher cause. The question acquired a new complexity with the advent of societies such as the United States, in which laws were enacted by elected representatives and not decreed by a monarch or dictator.

Few today would criticize civil rights activists, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., for participating in or condoning the violation of laws that perpetuated white supremacy -- with the understanding that they would face punishment for their actions. But such civil disobedience is rightly regarded as the exception that proves that the proper redress for unjust laws lies in legislation or in court rulings based on the Constitution.

That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.

Last week, a group of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders released a “declaration” reminding fellow believers that "Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required." Then, after a specious invocation of King, the 152 signers hurl this anathema at those who would enact laws protecting abortion or extending the rights of civil (not religious) marriage to same-sex couples:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones. The strange land described in this statement is one in which a sinister secularist government is determined to force Christians to betray their principles about abortion or the belief that "holy matrimony" is "an institution ordained by God." The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

LATIMES