Catholic dioceses, colleges sue over Obama mandate

[rug]

By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer – 4 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Roman Catholic leaders opened a new front against the Obama administration mandate that employers provide workers birth control coverage, filing federal lawsuits Monday on behalf of dioceses, schools and health care agencies that argued the requirement violates religious freedom.

- snip -

The lawsuits have been filed in eight states and the District of Columbia by the Archdioceses of Washington and New York, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri and Indiana, health care agencies in New York and two dioceses in Texas.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress, and we'll keep at it, but there's still no fix," said New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

Erin Shields, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department, said Monday the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The liberal advocacy group Catholics United accused the bishops of serving a "right-wing political agenda."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grPMg9xW-0mo90_cs-dvjUd3LMyw?docId=ae149cb0030b4a659399a88d59fe8ce9

[laconicsax]

1. What do you think about this, rug?

Is this really an organization you want to affiliate yourself with?

[rug]

2. I'm flattered by your interest in my organizational affiliations.

But I prefer not to be the object of your obsession. I answered this just the other day. And I played ring-around-the rosey with you last week. Go look for it. DU3 has advanced search now.

[laconicsax]

4. I'm not sure I recall reading your opinion on this particular news item before.

Please remind me.

[rug]

5. Watch this instead.

&feature=player_embedded

0:19 - 0:54

When you're done, find a new hobby.

[laconicsax]

6. Watched it a while ago.

I already have a few hobbies and DU isn't one of them.

I'm really just here for amusement. Why else would I spend so much time in H&M and talking to you?

[rug]

7. Thank you for providing the classic definition of trolling.

[cleanhippie]

8. Says the one with the biggest boat in the fleet!

Fucking classic!

[rug]

10. I see you come for amusement as well.

You may like tumblr.

[cleanhippie]

11. I'm here for the same reasons as you are, rug.

[rug]

12. I seriously doubt that.

[cleanhippie]

13. Well, let's see then. Just why ARE you here, rug?

[rug]

14. Not to post cartoons, deride, and post smileys rolling on the floor.

You?

[cleanhippie]

15. I guess you misunderstood my question. Why ARE you here, rug?

[rug]

16. To discuss religion, not caricature. I guess you didn't answer mine.

[cleanhippie]

17. Then your "serious doubt it" meter must be broken because I'm here for the same reason as you.

Although it will be interesting to see you not do the things you say youre not here to do.

[mr blur]

33. But you never DISCUSS anything.

It's all just evasions, attacks, "look-how-smart-I-am!" comments, refusal to answer direct questions and sad attempts to avoid admitting that you're a proud member of a mysoginist, bigoted, oppressive cult.

[rug]

34. It's curious how one's peculiar views skew his perception of reality.

[laconicsax]

18. So anyone who doesn't take DU that seriously is a troll?

That really puts your continued defense of the RCC and its hateful, bigoted, and criminal actions into a new perspective. I didn't realize you were being serious.

[rug]

19. No, this is:

"Is this really an organization you want to affiliate yourself with?"

"I'm really just here for amusement. Why else would I spend so much time in H&M and talking to you?"

"That really puts your continued defense of the RCC and its hateful, bigoted, and criminal actions into a new perspective."

Play elsewhere.

[laconicsax]

20. It isn't trolling to say that you amuse me.

The entertainment you provide by trying to walk the fine line between denouncing your church as bigoted and admitting that you don't care about bigotry is unmatched elsewhere on DU.

Most of the time, people like you get carried away and start spouting the bigoted nonsense they openly support, but, and I mean this as a sincere compliment, you're cleverer than that--you've mastered the "art" of associating with bigots while refusing to comment on whether you agree with their bigotry.

This thread is a great example: You post an article about how leaders in your church are suing the Government to advance their misogynistic agenda and when asked for your thoughts on the article, you dodge and dodge and accuse me of trolling.

It's really entertaining to see you put so much effort into avoiding the fact that you support the organization led by the bigots you posted about. That you take DU very seriously puts this into a whole new perspective.

[rug]

23. It isn't amusing to say that you troll.

Quite the contrary.

[laconicsax]

25. I never said I'm here to amuse you.

Keep evading the issue of your continued support of a hateful, bigoted organization--it does amuse me.

[rug]

26. No, clearly you have a different purpose.

[laconicsax]

29. You seem surprised that I'm not here to amuse you.

Surely you didn't think that I joined DU nearly three years before you so that I could amuse you...or did you?

[rug]

32. You are the most unsurprising, obvious and transparent poster I have seen here.

[laconicsax]

35. I aim for consistency, clarity, and I'm not into playing bullshit games.

I think that's a significant difference between us--I see consistency, clarity, and honesty as desirable qualities whereas you see them as a negative qualities.

[rug]

37. No you don't.

You attempt to bait for amusement. You deliberately misstate what people say. And you treat your pronouncements as facts. As this subthread demonstrates, the only thing you consistently do is distract, derail and disrupt.

[laconicsax]

39. Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?

I think the first three points accurately describe your posting style and agree that this subthread clearly demonstrates your propensity to distract and derail (that's being disruptive).

This subthread started when I asked you of your opinion of the article you posted without comment and whether its contents factor into your decision to support the RCC. You refused to answer the question and have spent the majority of your time here calling me a troll because I find amusement in the way you continually run away from even the most basic questions (like, what's your opinion on this thing you posted).

[rug]

41. This

"Is this really an organization you want to affiliate yourself with?"

is not this

"I asked you of your opinion of the article you posted without comment and whether its contents factor into your decision to support the RCC"

esprcially when it is followed by this

"That really puts your continued defense of the RCC and its hateful, bigoted, and criminal actions into a new perspective"

and this

"It's really entertaining to see you put so much effort into avoiding the fact that you support the organization led by the bigots you posted about"

and this

"Keep evading the issue of your continued support of a hateful, bigoted organization--it does amuse me."

Pardon me if I find your protestations to be full of shit.

[laconicsax]

45. The funny thing is that all but one of those are replies to personal attacks made by you.

The first one, a question that you still haven't answered in favor of distracting and derailing, is relevant to the OP you posted without comment and here you choose to distort it (let's be polite and say you deliberately misstated what I said).

The subject line asks your opinion of the article you posted without comment ("What do you think about this, rug?&quot and the message asks whether its contents factor into your decision to support the RCC.

Would you like to answer the two questions put to you or will you continue to refuse to comment on your own OP?

[rug]

47. Sanity calls. See you next time.

[laconicsax]

54. I realize that it's easier for you to call me crazy rather than talk about issues. n/t

[ohiosmith]

36. This post was alerted on. Allowed to stand 5/1.

[rug]

38. Looks like his baiting failed this time.

[laconicsax]

40. Please, rug. Do you really consider #35 to be baiting?

[rug]

42. Do you consider #23 alertable?

Oh wait, the answer is obvious.

Don't trouble yourself answering. Use the time to pick through the subthread.

[Kali]

43. I don't know who alerted, but it was alerted on

I backed out of jury on it because I like both of you. Knock it off. Both of you.

[rug]

46. Good try Kali but as you can see . . . .

In any event, I am reminded of what Oscar Wilde said about George Bernard Shaw,

"An excellent man: he has no enemies, and none of his friends like him."

[Kali]

51. just being a mom

[rug]

53. Which reminds me of another quote from Oscar.

"All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That’s his."

I promise to be good.

[laconicsax]

44. Not particularly.

Why? I haven't alerted on any of your posts in this thread because I'd hate to see you get locked out while you're doing so much to further destroy any credibility you had left.

Oh, and when you say "don't trouble yourself answering. Use the time to pick through the subthread," do you mean exactly like what you did in #41?

[Goblinmonger]

48. I alerted on it

I had a post hidden for far less than this level of calling someone a troll and wanted to see if the sword was indeed double edged. It wasn't. Apparently you get a pass.

At Tue May 22, 2012, 11:29 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Thank you for providing the classic definition of trolling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=28451

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Calling someone a troll is a no-no. And before you dismiss this as just them going back and forth, this is an alert on nothing other than the troll accusation. Yes it is veiled, but it is there.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue May 22, 2012, 11:39 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Accusation of trolling. Hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not gonna get in the middle of this.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No worries. I am looking at that post and it is a personal attack so I am going to vote to hide. But, admonishing the jury is probably going to cause a few of them to leave it, just to spite you, unfortunately.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[rug]

49. You alerted on #7. I wonder who alerted on #23.

How amusing.

[Goblinmonger]

50. My bad.

Same statement. Both should have been hidden as breaking the rule of calling someone (especially a long-standing member) a troll.

So, how do you get away with that? Twice. What are your tricks?

[rug]

52. I'm more concerned with how people get away with trolling.

Consistently.

[oldernwiser]

3. oh man....

It seems to me that if you agreed with the tenets of the Catholic Church, litigation like this would be unnecessary. Contraceptives would be an option you would never even consider.

On the other hand, why don't we just throw out the Constitution and let our religious leaders run the country? We could have wars to determine the next cleric to set up our morals, and openly persecute the adherents of different faiths. Or.... we could all just move to Iraq.

[AlbertCat]

9. Catholic dioceses, colleges sue over Obama mandate

Well, they've got the money for it.

[laconicsax]

21. It really is interesting, isn't it?

Catholics overwhelmingly oppose the agenda of these lawsuits, but don't seem to mind funding it.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

22. "our fundamental rights hang in the balance,..."

Whatever Dolan, you piece of shit. The government is telling you that you have to meet certain minimum standards in order to gain access to billions of taxpayer dollars.

[meow2u3]

24. The church leaders want to have their cake and eat it, too

If I were Obama, I'd issue an ultimatum to urge the church organizations to drop the suit or face certain revocation of their tax-exempt status. The Church accepts Federal funding, so they need to quit biting the hand that feeds them and stop the childish, un-Christian, un-Catholic tantrums.

If the bishops and cardinals want to play hardball, two can play that game. Either stay out of politics or pay your taxes.

[rug]

27. It's not a tax exemption issue or a federal fnding issue.

It's not advocating for or against a candidate and it's not about takingfederal funds for a eligious purpose.

The only logical outcome of these suits is that the Church stops employing people.

[2ndAmForComputers]

30. Stop employing people?

I imagine how that could happen.

[2ndAmForComputers]

28. So, is the aforementioned suing an initiative you approve of?

[rug]

31. Why would you asume that?

[2ndAmForComputers]

55. I'm asking. The answer may be yes or no.

So, again: is the aforementioned suing an initiative you approve of?

[rug]

56. No, it's groundless. Now, why do you ask?