Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If the church wants to pick up its blocks and not play anymore, they can bite my American a$$. I'll bet the Jewish hospitals obey the law.
excon
|
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If the church wants to pick up its blocks and not play anymore, they can bite my American a$$. I'll bet the Jewish hospitals obey the law.
excon
First they came for the Catholics.....
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Spare me the histrionics... I actually thought you were above that.
excon
and you haven't used a variation of that quote before ? Please spare me .
You have completely ignored the implications of the state imposing conditions on a religious institution that violates it's values. This is not restricting them from something ;like your pot example . This is telling them they MUST do something morally objectionable to them.
You don't see the ridiculous position that puts them in ? That they would have canon that prohibits artificial contraception while they provide it as a benefit ? Come on ! Suppose the state told your Jewish shelter that they MUST work on the sabbath ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I DO see the conflict between religious freedom and women's rights. I just happen to come down on the side of woman's reproductive rights.
excon
I don't know, looks to me like they're in cahoots with the Catholics, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Welcome to Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare
Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare is a not-for-profit health care system with hospitals, outpatient care centers and physician offices located in the Louisville, Kentucky region.
Aha, so a woman's right to free contraceptives trumps my specifically defined constitutional right to freedom of religion? Dude! I think I have a right to free Dos Equis Ambar. If a woman doesn't have to pay for her own birth control pills I shouldn't have to pay for my beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
VP Biden is a Catholic and has been conspicuously silent on this issue.
I think he should put his cards on the table like Madame Mimi did.
Interesting stuff . Now I will write a letter to my Bishop suggesting the church stops this practice immediately . The church survived very well before the progressives began imposing unacceptable terms .
501c3: Facts about 501c3 tax-exempt status for the churchQuote:
Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.
For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, this is is an absurd analogy. You know as well as I do the state will determine what the church will and won't do. In this particular instance it will be determined by the High Court.
Tut
This is not an invalid comparison at all ! This will leave the church only two options ;comply with the dicates of the secular pope of America ;or discontinue funding health care for it's employees .
I think politics will be the determining factor. This moron we call President knows very well that many key swing states are populated by sizable Catholic populations.
Besides that ;what he does to the Catholics he also does to every religious organization in the country . They will stand in solidarity with the Catholics on this .
I predict a backing down before the elections ;and then if he is reelected ;God help us all. All bets are off. The courts will not stand up to his dictates.
We will have our own version of Hugo Chavez occupying the White House.
You have to understand that the Obots have already stated their goal of removing private charity from the public option. They want to change the tax codes for that purpose ;and with this putsch it is clear that he wants to take over the traditional religious role in administering charity .The statists of American are convinced that only the Levithian is competent in determining who needs charity ,how it should be paid for ,and who should administer it.
If its such a big deal, then the church should stop offering health insurance. But its clear that a vote for the republicans will affect more than catholics, it will affect ALL the females in the country in an adverse and profound way, but we already know that.
Now we could fix this very EASILY with a single payer system, and get rid of employer based health insurance. Then workers wouldn't be screwed by YOUR religion, or the boss. And you could take a job not for the insurance, but the money.
Fascinating seeing everybody jump up and down and holler foul, at the president, and not the states that they have been doing all this charity working in for decades now, under the SAME rules, and in many cases, even more restrictive than the one they cry about now.
My point is it was no big deal before, why is it NOW. Sounds like more right wing BS to me trying to disguise pushing religious belief down the throats of those that want no part of it, in the name of religious freedom. The church should not be allowed to discriminate who gets what, and dictate there policy to others, especially not the business private sector. So feed the hungry, or not, but to deny the needs health wise of half the population is a very direct slap in the face of ministry and charity, they claim their mission is. For sure it makes all those good works seem like a carrot to gain influence by some at least, and lets be specific what I am talking about is the policy makers of the catholic church, because obviously the people on the ground who do the work don't care what they say.
Heck if 98% of the churches females use contraceptives, what makes you think they are listening to the pope in the first place? But I do think they will vote against anyone who tries to take that choice away from them.
Geez, its okay for the state to tell you what to do, or NOT, but its not okay for the government to?? Religion should get out of the way between a person, and their GOD!
That's more fear mongering nonsense, Tal. Contraception is already readily available and accessible. Things were just fine on this front until Obama fouled them up and you know what, it's going to bite him in the a$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The fear mongering is on the right, by you guys who holler freedom of religion, over a practice that's been going on for decades. The truth is it started with Newt, hollering about what Romney did as governor, which nobody said SQUAT about until NEWT brought it up, and the right wing wants to paint the prez with the same brush to kill two birds with one stone.
Fact is the catholic church has provided all these services for freakin' decades, (Thats what your link said, not me.) so b1itchin' about it now is about politics, and the right wing social agenda. Don't worry, the whole thing goes away when they have something else to scream at the left about!! Or that make Santorum look better than what he is.
What you thought this was about freedom of religion?? Naw, the Catholic Church is free as ever to do what they do. As long as they follow the rules of the American society that apply to us all. Even the pope is entitled to express their opinion, but he isn't allowed to vote or dictate.
I'm calling bullsh*t. What link did I furnish that said the Catholic church has been providing free contraceptives for decades? Seriously, until you stop making crap up we can't have an honest discussion.
Fact is, contraceptives are readily available and accessible. This regime believes wrongly that every woman has a nonexistent constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay. I can show you my constitutional right to freedom from being forced to violate my religious beliefs, you show me your constitutional right to contraceptives and abortifacients without a co-pay. Put up or shut up.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If this happens then there is something seriously wrong with your political system.
Comments we have seen thus far ; interpreted as, violating the constitution references to dictatorships, running roughshod over the courts. Are these scare tactics or do you think yours and other similar comments are a calculated ploy? I am wanting to know. Do you actually believe these comments?
Tut
Tut, Tom believes what Tom believes until he arrives at a different opinion. Sometimes he is conservative, sometimes he is not.
violating the constitution... check yes
References to dictatorships... perhaps some hyperbole ;but no less than the left used describing Bush for 8 years .
Running roughshod over the courts... to be determined..
I will say in a similar recent case about church employment practices that the left considered "unfair" and "discriminatory ",the court ruled in favor of the religious organization.
Do I believe them ;absolutely the President has already shown that he can take it or leave it when it comes to Constitutional issues . He specifically argued in the past that the founders blew it because there weren't more positive rights enumerated . The fact that he would even consider imposing these conditions on religion shows he doesn't give a d@mn about the most basic rights enumerated .
I believe you can still buy Bush*tler shirts.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I find it interesting that excon calls him "Bush on steroids" but defends him every time we protest one of his power grabs. This one is his most shameless and disturbing. So far...
Here's some interesting reading about the right's war on Obama:
5 Big Lies About the Phony 'War on Religion' | | AlterNet
Thanks NK, their first "lie" is a lie. No need to go further, nothing to see there.
No it isn't since you can't even refute it. It's true and you know it.
It's fun to watch you come in and say it's a lie with absolutely no supporting info while the article links to its sources. LOL!
Hi Speech,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
"Shameless and disturbing?" So you mean there have been other power grabs by politicians on both sides that don't compare? Don't worry future administrations regardless of their political persuasion will run with this gauntlet.
Tut
No, I mean this is HIS most shameless and disturbing, just as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Been refuting it flawlessly all week, I just can't copy and paste their lies using my phone. So now that I'm at my desktop...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
A) The ruling is not that "birth control should be covered", the ruling is birth control AND abortifacients MUST be covered.Quote:
Republican politicians and religious-right leaders—particularly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, known previously for its willingness to tank healthcare reform over private abortion coverage that women could purchase with their own money—are claiming, incredibly, that the Obama administration's ruling that birth control should be covered by health insurance without a co-pay infringes on their freedom of religion.
B) The Catholic church including their works such as "homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs", etc., regardless of member behavior stands doctrinally against birth control and abortifacients. This violates their constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Period.
It does not matter if some Catholics believe in birth control or if some Catholic institutions furnish birth control, that does not justify mandating ALL Catholic institutions violate their beliefs. THta's the same stupid argument Planned Parenthood uses to justify violating parental rights. "Kids are going to have sex anyway so we're going to violate your house rules and provide them anyway."
Hello again:
So, I understand that STATES, like mine, have laws that MIRROR the policy the HHS just instituted.
Why doesn't it bother you when a STATE does it?
excon
Dude, if the church in your state wants to make a deal with the devil that's not my problem. Most that do have this provision provide an exemption for religious employers. As for those that don't I'm surprised this hasn't already been challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on religious rights. But don't worry, Obama has awakened a sleeping giant so I expect that to change.
Answer: because it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
State mandates have been challenged at least twice. In 2007 New York state’s Women Health and Wellness Act of 2007 was challenged. An appeal by Catholic Charities of Sacramento of a California law requiring prescription coverage to include contraceptives was also challenged . SCOTUS decided to not hear the cases . That doesn't mean that they aren't violations . It just means that SCOTUS probably decided it was a states power issue ,or didn't think it important enough to intervene. It is my view that SCOTUS will have no choice but to hear a challenge to a Federal law on this issue.
Catholic challenge to contraception law is rejected in New York :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
Sebelius admitted already she used the NY ,California and Oregon laws as template for crafting this regulation. These are the states that have gotten away with violating the religious freedoms the most. If it succeeds on a national level that'll be used as a precedent for more and more religious encroachments in the future.
What tom said. This isn't over, a woman's mythical "right" to free contraceptives does not trump my explicit right to freedom of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Still not getting how getting free contraceptives affects your freedom of religion.
Suppose not . But I get it . That's why I support the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012'
Okay, show me where your rights are being violated! Love to see that!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hi Speech,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Probably not quite. As I understand your constitution your right to religious freedom comes with a caveat.
Secular law takes precedence if it can be show that the issue is of enough importance. In other words, a decision in relation to religious freedom would be enunciated under 'the strict scrutiny' review.
That's may understanding, what's yours?
I don't think the current Obama proposal would pass this strict scrutiny test. Then on the other hand I'm not a lawyer.
Tut
Render unto Obama .........Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What does that mean??
He's comparing Obama to Caesar. The right-wing fanatics do that in that country, they'll allude that the leader from the other side that they despise is akin to Hitler (he's already done in this thread) or some such other figure. It's in lieu of an actual argument; lowest common denominator stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Mark 12: 13-17
Actually if I'm looking for a historical example ,I'd go with Napoleon ripping the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII ;and crowning himself Emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
Obama didn't write the constitution. He just has a bad habit of wanting to test it out all the time.
I find it strange that I have more faith in your constitution than you do.
Don't worry he'll probably lose out on this one if he doesn't back down.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 AM. |