S. and D. Bergeron: Diversity among Christians

As proud members of the High Street Congregational Church, which Diane Rines refers to (letter, March 1) as the “liberal church” of Stephen Carnahan’s, we not only agree with Pastor Carnahan’s point that the Sun Journal and the general public cannot lump all Christians into one group when it comes to opinions about women’s reproductive rights, but would like to point out that perhaps Rines misses the point of the controversy.

The federal government is not forcing anyone employed by the Catholic Church or other religious organizations to act against their beliefs. It is mandating that the insurance companies of all organizations give women choices about their reproductive health that supports their religious and/or health needs.

It sounds like religious freedom is supported by that mandate, and that seems like the “Christian” thing to do, but we are sure there are other Christians who disagree and that is OK.

Sharon and Denis Bergeron, Auburn

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

DOUGLAS TAYLOR's picture

Have you ever heard of the

Have you ever heard of the Jesus Party " Little Green Cathedral " in Lewiston Maine. Please take a look at my facebook page and send me a note. It is the extreme opposite of the Crystal Cathedral. We need things like toliet paper, floor cleaner, foam cups, paper towel, juice box's, soda, snacks, candy displays, postage stamps, window cleaner, Ect... Please go to my facebook page ( Douglas Taylor ) we do not spend donation money foolishly thats why we use facebook and we do not pay for a web-site. We have been doing this grassroot ministry for 17 years with no debt. My wife and I both hold down jobs and everything that comes into the ministry goes to the children of the ministry. ( Jesus Party Inc, 291 Bates Street, Lewiston, Maine, 04240. Rev. Douglas Taylor (207)786-5568

If you are sick of the megachurch mentality please support this type of ministry. This is the real deal.

 's picture

it's easy

The solution is very easy - have the churches put the money where their mouth is and stop accepting government money.

 's picture

The mandate on insurance companies ...

... came only after the colossal blunder of the mandate directly on the Church. That maneuver, and certain other staged events, were designed to mask the fact that the administration stepped in it big-time.

That aside, many, not all, organizations owned or operated by the Catholic Church are self insuring - that is, they act as insurance companies for their employees. The shifted mandate is still directly on the Church.

That too aside, does this mandate apply in situations where the faith is something other than Christianity? Does it apply to, say, Brandeis University? Very probably. Does it apply to, for example, Islamic charities, hospitals and universities? Until I hear "Yes, of course!" from someone with authority to answer, I will continue to believe there's a high level of hypocrisy at work, along with a high level of anti-Christianity and anti-Judaism prejudice.

RONALD RIML's picture

And even worse

And even worse - anti Female prejudice.

Steve  Dosh's picture

. . probably misogamist too

. . probably misogamist too . Ron ? 

Steve Bulger's picture

Anti-female prejudice??

Male bovine excrement, Senior Chief. Women have the choice, for now, to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancies, and to terminate the lives of unborn children if they choose not to use birth control - either their's or their partners'. What they want (and what many of us oppose) is the benefit of having someone else pay for their playtime mistakes. Insurance coverage for contraception and/or abortion means that the costs are spread out to all policyholders (or taxpayers under Obamacare), even if some of those policyholders/taxpayers are opposed to not just the financial implications, but the religious ones, as well.
Since I consider myself to be a member of the former - not the latter - group, I do not oppose the use of contraceptives (although I have to pay for mine), I do oppose the mandate that I be required to help pay for birth control for others - either through increased insurance premiums or increased taxes. And as for the unintended consequence of playing without protection...if you want to dance, YOU have to pay the fiddler. I don't.

Betty Davies's picture

You'll be paying the fiddler, too...

You seem to be saying that you would much prefer to pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and any medical crises that might entail (Rh incompatibility treatment, placenta previa, abruptio placenta, gestational diabetes, ectopic pregnancy, prematurity with months in the NICU, etc), for most women of chilcbearing age, every year or two, rather than pay for contraception.

The "fiddler" for bearing children costs a whole lot more than the "fiddler" for contraception...

Steve Bulger's picture

Assume?

No, Betty. You assume (we all know about THAT word, right?) that I would rather pay for any prenatal or postnatal care of a pregnant mother and her child. I don't want to pay for ANY of it - before OR after conception and birth. If a woman wants to play, she must decide whether or not she wants to prevent conception. It is then up to her and her playmate as to which one will obtain and use birth control. If her partner is the one designated, he must pay for the contraceptive devices WITHOUT reimbursement from an insurance company. If they decide that she is the player to use contraception, why should I have any responsibility to pay for the birth control pills, subcutaneous implants, IUDs, tubal ligations or morning-after pills? I'm not playing with her! And should she and her playmate decide to forgo any protection and she becomes pregnant as a result, why should I have to pay for her prenatal care, delivery, and sustainment of that child? I paid for my own children. Why should I be expected to support those of someone who didn't care to prevent their conceptions? They are not mine to raise and support.

Betty Davies's picture

Astonishing

Wow. By defining anything to do with conception as "play", you've come up with a spurious justification for denying health insurance coverage to every female of childbearing age in the US. Better make sure not to include mammograms in covered services, since a female might get pregnant and nurse a child. No PAP tests, since that could diagnose a cancer that would affect the reproductive tract.

This does appear to be the intent of some Republican politicians.

Let's apply your plans to men, as well. No prostate examinations or treatment for prostate cancer, since the urinary tract also serves to channel sperm when a man is "playing." No treatment for testicular cancer. No Viagra. No testosterone treatment for any reason. Treatment for a heart attack might be permissiible, but only if the man is able to prove he didn't have the heart attack during sexual intercourse, or while having sexual fantasies.

Steve Bulger's picture

Well, we have a new "stretch" award winner.

At what point did I advocate "denying health insurance coverage to every female of childbearing age in the US."? You are, once again, making assumptions without merit and trying to "stretch" a conclusion without basis. I never said anything about mammograms, PAP smears, or any other preventive medicine examinations; you did! Stop trying to put words in my mouth! But then, that seems to be the normal modus operandi for all you liberals.
My opposition is to my being forced to subsidize the prevention and ensuing termination of conception due to the promiscuity of the principal parties. Pregnancy (except in the cases of rape and incest) is NOT a disease; it is the result of a conscious choice - one for which the involved parties must bear the results.
By the way, my insurance company's formulary does not cover Viagra, Cialis or Levitra, nor does it cover condoms.

Steve  Dosh's picture

. .Hmm. . ... 6pm hst

. .Hmm. . ... 6pm hst • Monday
Romney care ? i doubt he'll change it if he wins ...
Q : N e one here want to go back to the 1959 days of rusty coat hanger abortions in back alleys ?
A : Didn't think so , Steve , /s, Steve :)

Steve Bulger's picture

That's quite a stretch, Dosh

The likelihood is very small that the availability of clean, sterile and professional environments in which to perform the legalized murders of innocent, unborn children will ever disappear. That being said, I can see no ethical, legal or moral responsibility for me to financially support the careless, callous and irresponsible mating habits of others.
Your extrapolation of public defunding of birth control and clinical abortions to "back alley" butcher jobs is a quantum leap in dissociated logic. Maybe hitting the Maui Wowie a bit too hard there, Steve?

RONALD RIML's picture

Not very conservative

Not very conservative with what we'll have to pay for the result of some of these mistakes down the line, are you....

You and yours will be paying for a lot of 'Fiddling around' down the road - don't think you won't.

Steve Bulger's picture

Mistakes?

To what "mistakes" do you refer? If you mean the "mistake" of playing unprotected - that's not my mistake. If you mean refusing to accept the ill-advised (and probably illegal) mandate to pay for others' unprotected playing, that is not a mistake. And if you mean not subsidizing the termination of life for unborn children conceived by its parents' unprotected playing, that one doesn't even deserve the dignity of an explanation.
And just how do you surmise that "You and yours will be paying for a lot of 'Fiddlin around' down the road..." If you're talking about the liberal-advocated social welfare programs and payments, you are speaking about the government-sanctioned theft of money that I work to earn as opposed to those who don't. That "mistake" also has a limit to its life.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The sad part is, and it's

The sad part is, and it's unfortunate, many of these mistakes will result in terminated pregnancies; ie, abortions.

Steve Bulger's picture

You're absolutely right, Pirate

there likely will be terminated pregnancies. And although I oppose that option, I am also unwilling to fund it either through increased insurance premiums or the additional tax burden of the Affordable Care Act. If the liberals want that option, I suggest they start their own "Kill the Kids" fund and pay for it from their own pockets.

RONALD RIML's picture

So you're

So you're selfish. Who'da thunk it.

Steve Bulger's picture

Call it whatever you like, Ron

I am responsible for my actions, and I am willing to pay for my own mistakes. I am not responsible for the actions of others, nor will I pay for their mistakes. See my post above for guidance on what you and your liberal/socialist/progressive komrades can do to support the lifestyles of the "loose and careless".

Betty Davies's picture

Good luck finding an insurance pool for Perfect People

I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but mine pays out for heart attacks (even people who should eat better and exercise more), cancer treatment (even for smokers), and surpery (even for people who should have driven more slowly or stayed home on an icy day).

Most of us live in glass houses... Best not to cast stones.

RONALD RIML's picture

We are all paying

Don't hand me that crap,

We are all paying for the mistakes of Bush...

Steve Bulger's picture

Huh?

Has that rascal been running around again stealing birth control pills and impregnating unsuspecting females by forcing them to submit to his unequaled manliness and irrestible s-e-x appeal? And is he then singlehandedly denying them the option of having that new life scraped and sucked out of them by Planned Parenthood, et al?
Or am I to gather that, since you have no credible argument to oppose my position, you simply play the "It's All Bush's Fault" card? Well, just so you know, I did not agree with everything the man did, but there comes a time when someone else owns the economy and all its eccentricities. W's time has passed. Move on.

RONALD RIML's picture

Dubya may have passed

"Dubya may have passed"

But all his borrowing, tax cuts, and wars have not.

Steve Bulger's picture

Sorry, Ron

Too far off-topic. Wait for something more suitable.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Agreed. You present a

Agreed. You present a compelling argument.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"Veritas has become a

"Veritas has become a feminist activist?", inquired the disillusioned parrot.

RONALD RIML's picture

No...

Veritas has always been a 'Human Activist'

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I'd have to agree with that.

I'd have to agree with that.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Paul , 6 pm Monday hst

Paul , 6 pm Monday hst
Santorum's position on abortions is " no abortions any time for any reason ," isn't it ? i could be wrong . Didn't realize he was Catholic ( just a joke ! ) . Sounds - c r a z y - to me
i was astounded to hear on the History Channel ® how many German women were raped by the Russians when they invaded during WWII and even more astounded to hear how many of them subsequently committed suicide afterward upon finding out they were pregnant
hHhHHMmm , Our Cradle of Western Civilization
/s, Steve :)

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...