Comments for: Maine diocese leads birth control rule protest

Posted Jan. 29, 2012, at 12:16 p.m.

PORTLAND | The Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine is asking parishioners to speak out and take action against a pending federal rule that will require nonprofit employers with religious affiliations to cover birth control as part of health insurance benefits. The Maine Sunday Telegram said Bishop Richard Malone is …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Bishop Malone, when your church starts paying taxes on the billions of dollars worth of property  it owns in this country you might have some valid argument about the law. Until then, shut up.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe ademain should research the tax exempt code on all Tax Exempt organizations to see who does not pay taxes.

      • luvGSD

        Churches have more tax exemptions than other non-church nonprofit organizations. They are exempt from paying state and Federal unemployment tax (FUTA) and can ask to be exempted from Social Security and Medicare tax (FICA). Churches are also exempt from adhering to anti-discrimination laws.  But this birth-control issue doesn’t apply to churches, it’s about “church-related organizations,” meaning Catholic Charities as well as hospitals, universities, etc.

    • Anonymous

      I know I won’t be able to convince you because you sound too angry. But for the benefit of other readers I’ll say this much:

      The church’s property is used as places of worship or for rendering public services. You ought to know better…shame on you! Besides, are you suggesting non-profit organizations pay income taxes? If there are ultimately no profits how do you hope to squeeze them out?

      PS: Make sure when you give someone any money it is declared on their income tax return, be it a close family member or not.

      • Anonymous

        A church should be used for the purpose of worship for those voluntarily attending, not dictating social, economic, or political policy to the rest of the population. When a church, Catholic or otherwise, attempts to dictate public policy which can effect non members as well, it stops being just a church. Please do not try to say the money a church has is used for charitable work. Take a computer trip around the world and look at the architecture of churches. Pay particular attention to South America, where most of the population lives in poverty. The buildings in the US alone cost millions of dollars, which if they were truly charitable would have been used to aid the needy instead of construction of million dollar buildings on prime land.
        Let the church leaders preach to their followers and leave the rest of us alone. We already know from 1500 years of Catholic propaganda (300CE-1870CE) that their goal is control of everyone’s personal life.

        • Anonymous

          comment entered unintentionally deleted

        • Anonymous

          You’re confused. The Church is not trying to dictate any policy on anybody else. It’s the Obama Administration that is doing the dictating! They are requiring organizations who hire people to carry insurance policies that cover aborting contraceptives and sterilization to end pregnancies as as a form of “preventative medicine”. Apparently this administration considers pregnancy and fertility as diseases. If anything these are not diseases. They are signs of health! This is all about this Administration’s effort to force privately run organizations to accept an ideology that runs counter to the private consciences of people who operate them. This has nothing to do with you or others who support tax payer funding of aborting contraceptives and sterilizations.

          Before you condemn the Church, you need to get informed about what is really going on here, and start to think logically. Also, your statement, “We (who is “we”?) already know (yah, right!)…their goal is control of everyone’s personal life”, is so foolish and bigoted it doesn’t even deserves a response. All I can say is that it’s an effort by you and others to twist facts and disseminate false propaganda to say the least. To repeat what one poster already told you just recently when he quoted Joe Friday: JUST THE FACTS PLEASE.

          • Anonymous

            We are those who have actually studied the history of the Catholic church. How far back do you want to go? How about before Martin Luther, when even owning a bible was punished by the Church? Only the clergy were allowed possession of a bible, and it better be in Latin or they faced imprisonment, torture, and death by burning or drowning. Or after Martin Luther when all religious writings had to be approved by the church or again the writer, publisher, seller, and those owning any document not approved faced the above penalties. Perhaps you would like to discuss the ghettos in Rome where Jews were forced to live separate from the general population. I’ll bet you thought Hitler came up with the idea of ghettos. He actually got it from the Catholic church. I could go on, but the best suggestion I can make is to recommend that you actually do a detailed study of Catholic church history. I picked the year 1870 arbitrarily because that is the year Italy became a unified country and limited Catholic control to Rome, thus freeing millions from their tyranny. Actually the church continued to have dictatorial influence up until around 1960. They are now trying to reassert their BS.
            Bigotry? Until you have a reasonable acquaintance with the policies of the Catholic church I will deem that accusation as borne of ignorance.

          • Anonymous

            Well, I just showed you that you were speaking through your hat. Shall I try again? Just for starts, please tell me how you came to the assertion “only the clergy were allowed possession of a bible”. I’m waiting for your answer as I presume you are still on the line.

          • Anonymous

            For starters, pick up a copy of Phillip Schaff’s “The History of The Christian Religion” Charles Scribner’s Sons, NY 1910. Note Archbishop Berthold of Mainz, January 4, 1486. There are other sources available online but it takes some time to sift through them.
            Here is a real special trick I am about to show you. Nothing up my sleeve….
            Using google search, look up “Bible Possession Once Banned By the Catholic Church”.
            There you will find reference to Pope Innocent III and later the Council of Toulouse 1229.

          • Anonymous

            I did the Google search you urged me to do on “Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church.” If you read the text concerning what Pope Innocent III wrote you will clearly see he was referring to certain French Translations of the Bible, not official ones. Had he banned reading by the laity of the bible as you indicated, he would have been going the against the official stand of the Church urging everyone to read  and get acquainted with the bible.

            I would now urge you to read the question-and-answer format found in the following link:

            http://biblelight.net/Bible-Clement-XI.htm

          • Anonymous

            The laity, ie, the average person of any country, could not read Latin or Greek, the only official languages allowed for the bible by the Catholic church. Translating the bible into native languages was punishable by death. I stand by my statement that possession of the bible by the common man was forbidden.
            The main reason the church did not allow people to read the bible in their own language was because they then might question many of the practices and authority of the church, as Martin Luther and others did in the 1400s and 1500s.

          • Anonymous

            You’re right, the laity throughout most of Church history could not read Latin or Greek. In fact the laity could not even read in their own vernacular! There is no reasonable basis for assuming the Church did not allow the reading of the bible. Throughout its history even its most prominent leaders encouraged the reading as illustrated in the link below:

            THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE

          • Anonymous

            ademain probably means the complete Bible, not the one that was edited by the catholic hierarchy.

          • Anonymous

            Read the history of the King James Bible and it’s references to the Vulgate and the “spin” put on it’s translations and the Church’s resistance to translations of any kind.

          • Anonymous

            We are those who have actually studied the history of the Catholic church. How far back do you want to go? How about before Martin Luther, when even owning a bible was punished by the Church? Only the clergy were allowed possession of a bible, and it better be in Latin or they faced imprisonment, torture, and death by burning or drowning. Or after Martin Luther when all religious writings had to be approved by the church or again the writer, publisher, seller, and those owning any document not approved faced the above penalties. Perhaps you would like to discuss the ghettos in Rome where Jews were forced to live separate from the general population. I’ll bet you thought Hitler came up with the idea of ghettos. He actually got it from the Catholic church. I could go on, but the best suggestion I can make is to recommend that you actually do a detailed study of Catholic church history. I picked the year 1870 arbitrarily because that is the year Italy became a unified country and limited Catholic control to Rome, thus freeing millions from their tyranny. Actually the church continued to have dictatorial influence up until around 1960. They are now trying to reassert their BS.
            Bigotry? Until you have a reasonable acquaintance with the policies of the Catholic church I will deem that accusation as borne of ignorance.

          • Anonymous

            Aren’t you the same one that rants about people on welfare and Mainecare having children they can’t pay for? Suppose any of those welfare parents are catholic? You can’t have it both ways. Well, I guess you can if you’re catholic.

          • Anonymous

            No, you’re mistaking me for someone else “that rants about people on welfare and Mainecare having children they can’t pay for”.  Besides, your comment smacks of religious bigotry.

          • Anonymous

            “religious bigotry”?? How so?

          • Anonymous

            Oh yes the Church is dictating, and not just “trying” (as they always have since they became the State Church).  Their stand on contraceptives is argeuable at best and purely ideological and uninformed at worst.

          • Anonymous

            Please define for me what the church’s immediate concern is with the state as we speak. Personally, I think you are missing the point since you say it is “dictating”. Exactly what is it dictating so that we can have an intelligent discussion?

        • Anonymous

          Ever see The Tudor’s ?
          Catholic Charities of Maine bankrupt the Lewiston area w/ their Somali re location project. Did they ever ask the citizens of Maine if we had the extra cash to take care of all of them and the services they will recieve? … When we could have helped our own that were already here and needing?
          The Catholic Church is the richest entity in the world from all its pillaging. The rest of the world does not even know what they have in the Vatican.
          Where, is this good flock inspiration?
          In The Tudors, Al Swarengen from HBO’s ” Deadwood” played the ruthless cardinal that pushed Henry the 8th into all his atrocious acts…perfectly fitting
          The diocese carries no wait w/ me. The should return all they stole over the centuries and start rebuilding their flock.
          The Cool Aid jug is empty

      • Income tax =/= property tax.

      • Anonymous

        Nobody in this day and age believes that the catholic church is “non-profit”.

        • Anonymous

          Nobody???  Maybe nobody but you and some others.

          • Anonymous

            Maybe me and a lot of others.

    • Anonymous

      Tax-exempt does not in any way imply being “rights-exempt.” Non-porfits don’t become indentured slaves in exchange for not being taxed. At least not in America, the land of the free. And the basic argument isn’t about birth control. It is about being forced, in a rather back-door manner, to do something that goes against fundamental beliefs. Where are the civil rights arguments now? Strangely ironic and inconsistent the liberal mentality is these days. Psychotic might be a better description actually.

      • Anonymous

        The only reason you think there is an inconsistency is because you cannot think beyond Fox news opinions, or perhaps Fox news has not told their listeners what to think on this subject. The question of civil rights is usually about those of the individual versus those of an institution. In spite of the recent US Supreme Court decision that corporations are people, the rulings usually favor the individual over the institution. An example is that all male clubs or all white associations are usually in violation of equal protection/opportunity laws. Regardless of the fact that private clubs believed males were superior to females, or that whites were superior to other races, even when no government money was involved it was ruled they are discriminatory.
        In this particular case, the individuals involved must be given the opportunity to have birth control covered by their insurance. It does not force any of them to actually use birth control, it just prevents the hospital or other church affiliated organization from telling them they cannot if they want it.

        • Anonymous

          Well, thank you for the civics lesson. You know, I wish I could think beyond what a news broadcast, that I don’t even watch, tells me to. Do you suppose I might be picking up their brainwashing signals through my fillings? True to form, you, as a liberal are rather vicious and condescending when defending your irrational thinking, and off-point I might add. This is a classic case of forcing others through laws to abide by a certain ideology, nothing more.

          • Anonymous

            I know, it really irritates right wing nuts when they find out individuals actually have more rights than corporations and organizations, especially if it’s a “christian” issue.

          • Anonymous

            Put aside your prejudice against Christians for a moment and try to focus on the fact that, as an institution, religious entities or corporations, if you will, are being forced to offer certain benefits to their employees that go against their beliefs, which have been clearly stated and known to many for a very long time. I fail to see how the federal government has any business doing so. Ask yourself why it is so important to have birth control treated as a “right” when it comes to insurance. And please stick to the insurance aspect rather than puke up more liberal script on women’s rights.

          • Anonymous

            There you go again. I do not have any prejudice against Christians, or Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, or any other INDIVIDUAL who wishes to practice their beliefs. I do condemn an organization, association, or group that attempts to impose their rituals or beliefs on those not willing. As I mentioned before, the Christian organized religion (and yes, the Catholic church because it was the strongest for the longest) has a 1500-1700 year history of persecuting anyone who did not conform to their dictates. When I say persecute, I mean rape, murder, torture, imprisonment, wholesale slaughter (genocide), destruction of property, kidnapping, theft, etc.
            Any one who denies those events occurred is ignorant of the history of their own religion.

          • Anonymous

            You simply can’t stick to the point, eh? Fine, I’ll play your game. Did the Catholic church enact any of the atrocities you just mentioned on American soil (besides what may have transpired through the support of unions)?

          • Anonymous

            The Catholic affiliated institutions are not limited to Catholics only. The hospitals will admit anyone. The charities for the most part will help anyone. They will also hire regardless of a persons religious beliefs. Unless they are strictly Catholic dealing with Catholic, they must conform to federal laws. I believe the point is the Catholic church wanting to impose their beliefs on their employees at church affiliated institutions by refusing to offer birth control options through insurance to everyone, not just on their employees at a Catholic church. That is what the government said they can not do.
            Yes, the Spanish conquistadors murdered and enslaved between 5 million and 10 million natives throughout South and Central America in the name of their god, the Catholic god. It was primarily protestants in North America who murdered the “heathen” indians from the east coast to the west in the name of their “christian” god.

          • pbmann

            Yes, the Catholic Church did all of the things ademain said they did on American soil.  Do a little research on early American history and you will be shocked at the things that happened.

          • Anonymous

            I should have been more specific and framed the question as pertaining to the English colonies and the U.S.

          • pbmann

            The Church of England, or the Protestant Church, was just as active as the Cathoilic Church and employed the same methods as the Catholic Church.

            Do the SAlem Witch Hunts ring a bell?

          • Anonymous

            You really don’t know the argument I initally made do you? Or did you fail to catch the not so subtle jab at the unions I made? It doesn’t seem to matter to you though, so long as you get your own point across. I don’t know why I keep getting into it with you folks here, it’s like debating 8th graders.

          • pbmann

            I ignored the jab at  unions because I considered it a silly attempt to put the blame on unions for things they do not do and never did.

            Why don’t you look up the history of corporate america’s use of private police forces such as Pinkertons before you start naming ‘atrocities’ committed by unions.  I’ll bet you’ll be surprised at the viciousness of corporate america in the 19th and early 20th century.

            Here are some links to help;

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmoreland_County_Coal_Strike_of_1910%E2%80%931911

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_blue.html

            That should help you start.

          • Anonymous

            I must apologize for my last comment. It was uncalled for and I have no excuse for speaking to you or anyone that way. I really just wanted to have a discussion about the insurance mandate, but I quickly became mired in reacting to opinions and emotions, my own included. I think anyone who posts here enjoys debating and I will remeber to try and have good clean fun with it.

          • pbmann

            Apology accepted

          • Anonymous

            Thank you.

      • Anonymous

        The Catholic church doesn’t want people to have access to birth control ,even if they may want it,
         and the Obama administration isn’t forcing anyone to use them but thinks it should be made available to those that do. It would seem to me that the church is the one wanting to take away your civil rights,not the Obama administration.

        • Anonymous

          Again, the argument is not a religious one, it is about insurance mandates and how far the government has a right to go in devising and enforcing them.

          • Anonymous

            Oh yes it is a religious matter.

          • Anonymous

            If I said I was against robbery, fraud, rape, etc., would you say that this is merely a religious matter? More properly you would classify my stand as a matter of conscience. If I am against being forced to pay for abortions, which I believe rob innocent human beings of life, would you consider that a mere religious matter? No, not if you are consistent. You would consider it a matter of conscience as well. Therefore, just because the Church objects to the issue of being forced to pay for sterilizations and pills that can cause abortion doesn’t make the issue any less a matter of conscience.

  • Anonymous

    Until they restrict their admissions to only Catholics tell the bishop to take a hike.

  • Anonymous

    All  Catholics that are against birth control can certainly refuse it. Don’t the Bishops trust their parishioners?

    • Anonymous

      But this stipulation is forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control–something the church has always taught to be unnatural and a sin. People may not agree with the Catholic church on the nature of birth control. But you should be concerned to see a government tell a religion that it must support something that is directly against their faith and morals.

      • luvGSD

        No one is forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control.  This is about charities, hospitals, and universities which claim to have a religious affiliation.

        • Anonymous

          and all that receive money from the government, one way or another

        • Anonymous

          Before the government took control, the Church established the hospitals and provided free health care to those that did not have insurance. Face it the abortion issue is not about freedom but about making money, $1 billion a year business. Lawyers give pro bona why not the abortion centers?  The Churchs also established the universities, etc,
          No one is forcing anyone to join any Church, no one is being forced to work for any religious affiliated enterprise.  If you don’t believe in our faith go get a job somewhere else, but don’t force me to believe or support what the government is forcing down our throats. Where is the freedom of individuals beign able to choose on their own?  Now we have mandated health care, the government owning corporations (line GM) and telling private individuals they can no longer work because the government doesn’t want that many car dealerships.  Hmm whatever happen to supply and demand.

          • Anonymous

            Facism is do doubt here, what is so surprising is the democrats full-fledged support of such tyranny and peice-meal restriction/destruction ofour liberties.

    • Anonymous

      I think it’s not so much that clergy doesn’t trust parishioners, but rather, the Roman Catholic church has always preached against anything that will endanger or weaken an individual’s faith.  Making birth control or family planning readily available to those church members who choose to use it puts the church leaders in an awkward position – that of preaching that’s it’s wrong and at the same time making it readily available(from the leaders’ standpoint, placing temptation in front of an individual).

      • Anonymous

        Time for a reevaluation on the Church’s part.

  • Guest

    • Anonymous

      Yah right, and people should be forced to pick up insurance policies that pays for it and for sterilizations. Nothing to do with healthcare! That said, Obummer is all  about dictating!

      • Guest

        • Anonymous

          You’re right, sterilization is the ultimate form of birth control. So are birth control abortificients, you know, those “after morning” pills like Ella and Plan B that can cause chemical abortions. Should people be forced to pay insurance coverage of these too against their personal consciences? This doesn’t sound to me like the America that I’ve known all my life.

          Look, I’ve nothing against the person Obama, so forget the “slamming” accusation. For one, I refrain from calling him names even though I disagree with many of his policies.

          • Guest

            ….

          • Anonymous

            The issue is mainly about forcing people to violate their conscience. Obviously not everyone believes as you do concerning the pill, which is capable of causing an abortion.

          • Anonymous

            some religious groups don’t believe in blood transfusions, guess they should be able to deny those because it’s against their conscience

          • Anonymous

            The issue at hand is not about denying a certain medical treatment. It’s about forcing people against their conscience to pay for insurance policies that cover abortifacients that can take a human life and sterilization.

          • Anonymous

            You just called him a name!  You called him “Obummer”.

          • Anonymous

            Hey, about that, you caught me. Shucks! I guess I owe Obama an apology. :)

          • Anonymous

            They’re not abortifacients.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, certain forms of contraception are – namely Ella and Plan B – capable of causing an abortion. Many in the abortion industry deny this by saying these drugs cannot not end or abort a pregnancy. Of course the only way they can justifiably make that claim is by saying that a woman is not pregnant unless the fertilized egg is attached to the lining in her womb. They won’t say this publicly, but they are using a newly created  definition of pregnancy designed to cover up what the drugs Ella and Plan B are capable of doing, that is, causing the demise of a nascent human being. 

        • Anonymous

          whawell is just acting his obsessive love-hate appreciation of Mr. Obama.  His admiration for the man and his policies is only equaled by his guilt for doing so.  It is very entertaining to watch him act out in public.

          • Guest

            ….

      • Anonymous

        This obsession with Obama probably indicates your conflict and guilt over deeply admiring the man and his place in American history..

  • Tom

    Form a union at the church and Obummer will issue you a waiver.

    • pbmann

      Unions only get a waiver if their health insurance policies are better than the Affordable Healthcare  requires.  Nice try though

  • luvGSD

    Hmm.  Maybe they could also refuse to cover people who eat meat on Fridays, people who are divorced, non-church goers, etc.

    • Anonymous

      You got it but in reverse the government is now mandating what you must do, no more free choice.  So yes they can say you can no longer produce this or that.  They are mandating what can be eaten in a school and even towns limit what can be served.  You are giving up your liberties and you can’t even see it!

      • Anonymous

        The government is not mandating what the individual can do. If someone wants to bring their own food to school the government will not stop them. The government is saying they will not provide certain foods in certain quantities. The government will not pay for candy, soda, etc. The government is not mandating that Catholics or anyone else must use birth control. They are saying THAT OPTION must be covered by insurance policy.

  • Anonymous

    If Catholics follow their beliefs, then there is no issue.  The birth control will be covered, but no Catholics will use it.  Everyone knows there are no Catholics on birth control, right?

  • Guest

    You know if the Catholic Church wants to influence politics and public policy, let them pay property taxes.  Besides, this is the 21st century.  Time to cross out some of your out dated puritanical rules.

  • Anonymous

    Whawell, before you go too far off the deep end, let me ask you a couple of questions.  The Catholic Church operates a hospital and receives financial compensation from the government in the form of medical insurance reimbursement payments, true or false?
    1.  Once the hospital is making use of taxpayer funds, is it fair or unfair to subject that hospital to the same guidelines as any other facility, religious-based or secular?
    2.  Do you feel the government has no authority to tell a religious-based hopsital that it must comply with hazardous waste disposal regulations (blood products, sharps, etc.).
    3.  Do you feel the government has no authority to tell this hospital that it must abide by HIPAA regulations?
    4.  Do you feel the government has no authority to tell this hospital it must abide by OSHA regulations to provide a safe workplace for employees?
    Once you answer those questions, we’ll move onto the next question, which I am sure you can anticipate…

  • Guest

    ….

  • Anonymous

    The Obama administration cannot resist the opportunity to exercise control over any entity, public or private, religious or secular.  This is only the tip of the iceberg, and you can bet that if he wins reelection the mandates will get increasingly oppressive as he will be unaccountable to the voters.

    • Anonymous

      I am beginning to wonder if this tyrant will actually transfer power if he is not re-elected. The man is a domestic enemy of our constitution and an outright threat to the traditional American way of life. 

      • pbmann

        Look out!   The sky is falling!

    • Anonymous

      You mean, when he wins. Who’s the republican party nominating that can beat him? Gingrich the lobbyist or Mitt the millionaire with Caymen Island accounts. If that’s the best the repubs. can offer up, they should stop wasting money, and start waving the white flag.

  • Anonymous

    Of course they are.  For the churches themselves, they probably could get an exemption.  But not for the “church affiliated” organizations.

  • Anonymous

    At least seven members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights have signed a letter addressed to President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius thanking them for approving the right of women to have access to birth control covered by insurance. The cosigners included Baptist, Jewish, Unitarian and other representatives. This coalition has around 40 member groups from all faiths.

Similar Articles