Cavaleiro
Veterano |
# fev/12
So the Health Commissar, Kathleen Sebelius, has decided that, under Obamacare, religious institutions, like any other employer, will be required to offer their workers free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. Well, there's a surprise.
This entirely predictable news was received with stunned bewilderment by Obamaphile rubes such as the Reverend John Jenkins of Notre Dame, who in 2009 gave the president both an honorary degree and his imprimatur in exchange for the promise of a "sensible" approach to conflicts between church and state. Now that they're on the receiving end of Obama's good sense, many of America's Catholic bishops have issued protests, characteristically anguished and hand-wringing but betraying little understanding of the stakes.
In a land of Big Government, everything else gets real small. In the U.S., the Catholic Church, aside from abortion, is generally on board with the "social justice" agenda. It never seemed to occur to them to ask themselves, If health care is a "human right" in the debased contemporary sense (i.e., not a restraint upon the state — as in Magna Carta — but a gift of the state), then who gets to define what health care is?
Outro trecho interessante:
"Religion is fine as a private code that you deposit in the umbrella stand as you exit your house every morning, but it may not govern your conduct beyond your front door. If you insist on being Catholic, you must be Catholic in the sense of a Kerryesque Democrat on the stump: "Of course, I'm personally, passionately, deeply, passionately, personally opposed to abortion, but I would never dream of letting my deeply passionately personal beliefs interfere with my legislative agenda."
http://www.steynonline.com/4829/the-catholic-state
Dissertem, ou não
O poder é de vocês.
|
brunohardrocker
Veterano |
# fev/12 · Editado por: brunohardrocker
· votar
Cavaleiro
O que eu tenho a dizer é praticamente a mesma ideia consta no texto:
"Of course, I'm personally, passionately, deeply, passionately, personally opposed to abortion, but I would never dream of letting my deeply passionately personal beliefs interfere with my legislative agenda."
Sobre essa e todas as demais questões, defendo mesmo a ideia de separação entre o Estado e a Religião. Todos devemos reconhecer as diferentes religiões na sociedade e conviver com as diferenças e termos um espaço comum, que seria do direito de todos onde ninguém pode ter a liberdade cerceada. Ou seja, o espaço público.
Porém, ninguém me passa a perna com a malandragem de que, se uma ideia pode ser defendida laicamente, sendo ela convergente a ideia da religião, eu estaria ferindo o estado laico. Malandragem pura empurrar a contrariedade ao aborto apenas a motivos religiosos, por exemplo.
E o que quer dizer aquilo no primeiro parágrafo? Entendi direito ou e Estado irá obrigar as instituições a oferecer abortivos para os "empregados"?
Tem muita expressão no texto que não consigo entender e o tradutor deixa confuso.
Esse site aí é imparcial ou pertence a algum grupo específico?
Por que acha que ninguém se interessou pelo seu tópico?
|