Church and State

[rev_hp_meyers]

There seems to be some controversy over the interjection of a policy promoted by the Roman Catholic Council of Bishops in House “healthcare” bill.  The policy would restrict the use of Federal and Insurance moneys for abortions.

Bill Press, one of the progressive radio personalities I listen to every morning, seems to think that this is a

Comments

[jimbow8]

(1) establishing a national government (like England has)
I believe that you mean national religion

I listen to Bill Press but only for the last 90 minutes so maybe I missed this. I believe quite firmly in the WALL. And I believe it was intended as a two-way wall: gov't stays out of religion, and religion stays out of gov't.

The problem, as I understand it, with the Stupak amendment (I believe this is what you're referring to) is that people are being intentionally misled. The amendment gives a HUGE foothold for the Pro-Life agenda into not just gov't but into the private sector.

This amendment does precisely what the right-wing was criticizing: puts someone between a patient and her doctor. This just happens to be an intrusion that they agree with.

[rev_hp_meyers]

I disagree with the amendment to the bill, I'm just upset that it's become a church vs. state thing. This isn't a church vs. state issue, it's a pro-life agenda thing and it was set up by House Republicans and let through by the House who voted it in.

[jimbow8]

Ah, I think I may have misconstrued the point of your post.

[rev_hp_meyers]

It happens, I generally don't write out well constructed arguments on LJ.

[gr82live]

What gets me the most is how there is so much focus and energy spent by the right on the abortion issue. At the same time, they rail against social programs that benefit needy children, or at best ignore these issues. Hypocrisy in its worst form here, because it hurts the powerless.

[rev_hp_meyers]

Abortion is a tricky issue, no doubt, but when you claim to be "pro-life" and at the same time are pro-death penalty, pro-war(any war/conflict), and at the same time you're anti-contraception you come off as a little schizo. I appreciate those who value life period, and I myself do. At the same time I am compassionate for those who are in situations where terminating the pregnancy is really the only option.

Of course the far-right doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm trying to understand those on the more moderate right. I'm reading a book right now dealing with seven major issues of our time and looking at both left and right perspectives with an open mind - and it has helped me see how some Christians (educated intelligent and faithful colleagues) could believe the opposite of what I do. But that's not really talking about the far left or the far right, just those in the median.

[crimson_musing]

I think it's silly that many think "separation of church and state" is some kind of rule . . . Especially in THIS country, where you cannot be elected president without mentioning God in your speeches

[jimbow8]

Would abortions funded by the government in the universal health care system do the same? A woman who becomes pregnant is told that it's HER choice, she can do "the responsible thing," patted on the back and pushed toward the abortion clinic?

In a "free market" society, a woman will be pushed toward whichever option generates the highest profit (at least for the person doing the advising), which is sadly probably toward the abortion clinic.

(I am pro-choice, but extremely in favor of reducing the situations in which abortions are .... required/desired/etc. Also, I'm a man and not about to tell a woman what to do with her body.)