Friday, March 29, AD 2024 5:01am

Schadenfreude, Sweet Schadenfreude

National Catholic Reporter

 

Go here to read the often hysterical, and frequently unintentionally humorous, comments on the Hobby Lobby decision at the National Catholic Reporter.

 

One of my personal favorites:

No, Pete, this decision is not good and it is not a start. Thanks to Congress and the US Supreme Court it is a continuation of the slide from a pluralistic society into a theocratic one. And not just a theocracy, but a Christian theocracy. (Judaism and Islam is not included.) And not just a Christian theocracy, but a so-called Christian theocracy embraced by a small minority who hold certain “sincere beliefs.”
With this decision all tax payers of whatever belief or no belief will have to allocate part of the US budget to pay for medical benefits for women who are denied those benefits so their corporate employers can be free to exercise their “sincere beliefs.”
As we celebrate this Independence Day 2014 it might be beneficial to ask if this is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment U.S. Constitution.
George McCartin
priest/lawyer

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 7:22am

Outstanding!

Thank you!!

First thing this morning you give us a perfect example of the oxymoron: priest/lawyer!!!

McCartin,

Actually, the waning plurality of Americans that have jobs and pay taxes . . .

The real slide/slippery slope is from liberty to tyranny of the libidinous, liberal busybody (at best) or Big Brother/1984 (at worst). How is it a free state when the all-powerful state orders its serfs to buy something regardless of it being against your conscience?

T. Shaw
Trying with varying degrees of success to be a Christian.

Paul W Primavera
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 8:11am

Thank you. Good post.

the Old Adam
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 8:13am

Whatever “the Founders had in mind…”, I’m quite sure it wasn’t the forcing of the citizenry to pay for somebody else’s birth control.

Barbara Gordon
Barbara Gordon
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 8:59am

T Shaw said:

“The real slide/slippery slope is from liberty to tyranny of the libidinous, liberal busybody (at best) or Big Brother/1984 (at worst).”

Here, here! Mr. Shaw. 😀

TomD
TomD
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 11:24am

“…it might be beneficial to ask if this is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment U.S. Constitution”
Agreed. Let’s ask! Here’s the answer: “Yes. Indeed.” See, it’s simple.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 12:29pm

Democrats are closet theocrats? Who knew?!?

Clinton
Clinton
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 4:56pm

I’ve seen Fr. McCartin’s fuzzy logic being dismantled by Fr. Z about a year and
a half ago. Check out the “priest/lawyer’s” trip to the woodshed in the final
comments on Fr. Z’s 30 January 2013 post “Confession to SSPX Priest a Sin?”.

Ouch. That dressing-down might have left a mark.

Mary De Voe
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 7:10pm

“And not just a theocracy, but a Christian theocracy.”
.
Yes, our Founding Fathers brought forth this nation on Christian pinciples. If any citizen is not content, he is free, really free, to change these founding principles by getting three quarters of the states to ratify any change he proposes. Put it on the ballot, hear the will of the people, get informed consent of the governed.

Charlie
Charlie
Tuesday, July 1, AD 2014 8:24pm

Cannot employees purchase contraceptives out of their own pockets? Money from employers to pay for them is cash withheld from net pay. Healthcare benefits are not an addition to one’s salary. And why do people who exclaim “keep your rosaries off our ovaries” believe they are suddenly entitled to their neighbor’s income when they find themselves in trouble due to their actions?

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Wednesday, July 2, AD 2014 5:32am

Charlie wrote, “Healthcare benefits are not an addition to one’s salary”
That rather depends on how they are treated for tax purposes. I do not know the US Tax Code, but, in most countries, one finds benefits in kind are used when they are more favourably treated than equivalent cash payments.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top