Chilling. I know that this does not rise to the level of the very real bodily persecution of believers in truly hostile territories. But it is an insidious manuver that is a sign of things to come. The death knell of religious freedom as we understand it is ringing.
Prepare to be an outlaw.
Posted by Blandus at March 18, 2004 01:04 PMFrom the new photo, can I assume that you are currently declaring yourself to be an old, stone man?
Posted by: Shade at March 18, 2004 11:25 PMha ha
Posted by: Jake Allen at March 18, 2004 11:44 PMit is Nicodemeus from a damaged Michelangelo pieta. It is said that Mich used his own face as the model.
It symbolizes his participation in the death of Jesus and is one of my favorite pieces of art.
Posted by: Blandus at March 19, 2004 05:02 PMUmm, for very good reason the CA Supreme Court declared them a non-religous employer: they receive 65% of their funding from the federal and state government.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_how_catholic_charities.html
They get utterly no syumpathy from me for this one, if they want the government off their backs, they can stop taking the money, then we'll talk.
Posted by: Bob at March 20, 2004 04:10 PMBob - not that I entirely disagree, but which of the various ways for the Catholics to "resolve" this new legal reality are most preferable to you?
1) Stop taking the money (like you suggest). Then the poor do not get the sizeable portion that gets to them. Catholic Charaties gets this money because they can efficiently distribute the benefits to the poor. Catholics don't take it - poor don't get it. New or Existing government offices will need to be enlarged, takes up more of the money, duplication of distributive resources and the poor get less than they did before.
2) Catholics stop providing health care for all workers. Workers now don't get any perscriptions filled. They were charity workers to begin with, they don't get paid a lot. Now they are poor. Maybe they leave. Now fewer people to distribute benefits to the poor. Systems clogs up more than normal and the poor get less when they need it.
3) Catholics forsake their religion and bow to the Imperial state, hand over their scriptures, profess that Caesar is really a god, and eat all the idol meat they can find.
4) Fire all the non-Catholics. Hire only Catholics from now on. Fight lawsuits claiming they discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. Spend lots of money defending themselves, have less to distribute to the poor.
5) Maybe another option?
Posted by: Blandus at March 20, 2004 11:03 PMWell, personally, I'd have them take option #3, it doesn't strike me as that horrible of a situation, being the product of a protestant medical family...
But, other than that, I would have them drop precription coverage entirely...more or less a 100% co-pay, then merely give the workers their share of the savings. Let the workers have the money and spend it as they like: I know several businesses that take this approach.
I actually have a good bit of respect for Catholic Charities, they seem lean and effecient. However, the little lawyer on my shoulder gets pretty irritated when they want to claim that they are entitled to a religous exception when they receive a majority of thier funding from secular governement sources, and a majority of their staff isn't Catholic. If they're entitled to the exception, it would follow that I could open a strip club called "Friar Bob's House O' Fornication" and get the exception to save money...and defeat the intent of the legistature.