The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" | Facebook
|
I have plenty of "faith" in the Constitution. It recognizes that humans are flawed ;and realizes that if you concentrate power into the hands of a few ,that tyranny follows.
But I think our system requires a vigilant populace because of those who would test it out. That populace is also required to love the liberty of our system more than the freebies a powerful centralized government can promise. I quote Alexis de Tocqueville
In my signature and believe it. Democracies have fallen before for such .Greece has gone full circle and we are not far behind .
NK you are free to worship the flying spaghetti monster if you choose.
Make sure you say 'Ramen' at the end of all your prayers .
I do! :-)
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sure, but in the end the ones who need to be most vigilant are those who have the final say in the judiciary. Without getting into a discussion about oligarchs, that's just the way your system works.
As far as I can see your Constitution caters very nicely for peoples religious beliefs. It does so as far as reasonably possible and 'strict scrutiny' will protect these freedoms.
But in the end religious freedom is not absolute and the Constitution recognizes this. If such freedoms were absolute then you would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.
Tut
Of course . In the name of religion I can't commit an honor killing or a human sacrifice. We should stipulate that no rights are absolute .
There are also great abuses of religious freedom already . Ex brought up drug use in "sacramental rites" . I am pretty sure that sacramental wine was not banned during prohibition. Mormons are wrongly (in my view) prohibitted from the practice bigamy . There are constant battles over the display of religious symbols in the public square.
But those are restrictions . I can't recall a case where the government compelled a religion to do something against it's canon.
The President stepped into it big time ,and I am almost positive there will be a backing out in the next week or so.
They aren't - they are telling insurance companies to make certain services available. The person has to ASK for the services. Since it's against its canon then those services will never be asked for, problem solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Wrong answer . They are requiring the religious institution to pay for that service. You are aware that the employer pays a substantial part of the insurance coverage don't you ? The church is unwilling to be forced to pay for it because it is against it's doctrine .
The answer is very simple if the President wasn't being such a hard head .
Hawaii... his home state.. has the religious exemption . Then if the employee wants contraception coverage it cost them no more out of pocket to self insure that part of it than it would if the employers insurance policy was covering it.
Problem solved .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nahhh... It's the RIGHT answer if you understand that a hospital is NOT a church...
Let me ask you this... In the guise of religious freedom, could a priest run for president and CLAIM the donations to his campaign are TAX DEDUCTIBLE??
excon
I see a lot of hypocrisy crying about something they already do, and have done for decades.
Single payer would solve the problem of being held hostage by a religion, or an employer. LOL, but if the federal government backs down, then you think they will go crying to the states who have this law in place??
Actually the law as is gives churches exemptions they DON'T have in some states now. But it illustrates how a catholic ayetollah shouldn't be in the White House at this time. Mabe its not good to tell religion what to do. But I think its wrong for religion to tell ME what to do! Your freedom stops where mine begin.
And they are going to pay insurance premiums any way, so what's the big deal? Isn't that between your doctor and you? Does/ should religion get between you and your doctor?
G'morning, tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
We kind of kid around about that because we BELIEVE that that relationship is SOOO personal, and the privacy of it is SOOO ingrained in our American culture, that we scoff about any change in it becoming a reality...
Just like I did when that NUT in Florida said he was going to drug test welfare recipients. Well, he's DOING that.. Just YESTERDAY, these right wing fascists proposed, in the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, that we drug test welfare recipients NATIONWIDE!
DO NOT LET THESE NUTS GET THEIR HANDS ON THE LEVERS AND BUTTONS OF GOVERNMENT!! DON'T DO THAT!
excon
Ex the hospitals are part of their ministries .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You can CALL a hospital a ministry, but it's a HOSPITAL. I thought you wingers didn't like PC.
If the feds have no business interfering in how a Catholic hospital operates, do you think they have the right to serve UN-INSPECTED food? Do they have the right to pay their janitors $2.50/hr? Can they hire CHILDREN to be the janitors?? Can they refuse to hire gay people?
excon
Fine shut them down then... But before you do that take a look at the phone directory and see how many hospitals shelters and other services around the country start with the name Saint...
I do get it... you and tal want every service provided in the country with the name 'Uncle Sam' because you think they are so good at it . This is just a stepping stone to that end .Tal admitted it with his single payer comment .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Single payer WOULD solve this problem.. That's just so..
But, I'm no lefty commie pinko. If the Catholic hospitals want to pick up their blocks and go home, I'm sure there's a PRIVATE company who'll buy them...
By the way, with single payer, private hospitals will STILL exist. You didn't buy the "government takeover", crap did you?? I think you DID.
excon
It's essentially a take over if they are violating their 1st amendment religious rights.. . and they are... and you know this mandate is a violation.
I hear as early as today Obama is going to back down.
Like I said and like the Gerson column I linked to affirmed, you aren't going to like it when the church gets forced out of their ministries. It's not just the hospitals which the church has provided for ages - it's homeless shelters, feeding centers, prison ministries, after school programs, day care, women's shelters, adoptions, orphanages, jobs programs, addiction recovery - you name it, the church pretty much does it.
WE ARE our brother's keeper unlike that deceptive power grabbing, freedom destroying BS Obama preaches.
http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/wavey.gif from socialist Canada! :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Anyone who wants single payer can go the Canada with my blessing .
Now that President Alinsky sort of caved on this, ( because he gets what he wants anyway with all of us have to pay for condums and abortion pills)... The fight to get rid of the mandate part of Obamacare is with SCOTUS . That in itself is unconstitutional ;but I have less confidence in that getting overturned than his attempt to trample on religious rights .
Some accommodation, it changes nothing as far as the ethics of it are involved. Religious employers will still have to offer plans that cover exactly that which violates their conscience.
Whew, that makes me feel better. The good news is it eases Obama's mind:Quote:
The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.
Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug
I don't know how it makes sense financially and I appreciate the condescension in implying people of faith don't understand how contraception works.Quote:
“We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions,” the White House said on the conference call LifeNews listened to because they “understand how contraception works” and it “makes sense financially.”
When you lose your cherished right don't come whine to me if you failed to take a stand against this mandate.
Problem is ,I know my church... that's the type of cover they are looking for. Don't forget ;it was "Catholic Dems " who bought that Stupak bs when Obamacare was passed.
I'm wondering why the Catholic Church is still against contraception. The last thing needed in this 21st-century world is more people. Women want contraceptives and use them.
(Notice who's "upset"... )
I think tom addressed the "too many people" excuse, so how do you feel about sex-selection abortions?
Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada said:
“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]...From a macro perspective, I don't think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don't have any right to say that one person's reason is better or worse than another's.”
I don't think it's a good idea to be eliminating women either, do you?
P.S. Sounds to me like she is also admitting that glob of tissue is a person.
P.P.S. This is what I like about Rick Santorum...
Quote:
“Are we going to believe, as our Founders did, that our rights don't come from the government, that they come from a much higher authority?” Santorum asked today. “There are those in the Oval Office who believe that's not the case, that rights do, in fact, come from the government, and they have gone around convincing the American people that they can give you rights. We see what happens when government gives you rights. When government gives you rights, government can take away those rights. When government gives you rights, they can coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you.”
“As a result, government will own because you will have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children,” he said.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If it isn't overturned then it is constitutional. If it is overturned then it is unconstitutional. Isn't that how it works?
Tut
Contraception isn't abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
LOL, Mr prez came up with his solution, but of course the righties ain't happy, because they are never happy unless they are telling you what's right. Of course what you believe means squat to them because they are the only ones who are threatened with gloom and doom when it doesn't fit there idea of theocracy. These are the guys who want to shrink the government, but want it big enough to force you to go through there lock step idea of how the proper person should behave and give them the top rung of the ladder, by making YOU the second class citizen, there fore undeserving of a place next to them.
The right wing love is conditional on the do as I say do, and if you don't, I will make you. That's why they cannot compromise, or accept any other way but there way. That's why there is no good ideas being acted on, because only they have good ideas. That's why they can have a CPAC, and throw red meat at each other, because that's the way they roll. That's why they are always threatened by new concepts and ideas, that's why they give but at a price, and are lousy at debate and resolution.
It wasn't always that way, but even the great conservative statesmen of a decade ago find little support for being fair or accommodating for fear of being cast aside by the new wave of fringe right wingers who have taken over the mainstream conservative american thinking. That's the problem, as no one but the hard core righties can be in the club of one opinion fits all and the rest don't count.
That's why republicans who have sense are silently hiding way over on the sidelines, so they won't be drawn and quartered by there out there upfront fringe brethren, and sent packing as rinos who don't fit anymore in the party they have built and served.
So go ahead you righties, be afraid, be very afraid of the liberal ideas that will certainly move most of us forward without you. And while we celebrate being humans (you are invited I might add), you sit together with your chosen ones and tell scary stories to each other.
Let me know how that works for you, but I have no doubt you will. Good thing your vote is no bigger than mine. Or else the pope would be president, and pedophiles would be the congress. Now don't take it personally, my dim view of the theocracy you worship, because as I see it, you are one of many theocracies that hold the common sense of man hostage, and causes the sufferings of wars in the name of power, and influence, and control, that feeds your elevated sense of relevancy at the expense of those who you subjugate.
Just saying.
WG have I got some reading material for you!
Enjoy!!
Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968
The church has not deviated from this and I fully support their stand .They held firm on this despite the liberalization the church went through since Vatican II .
Biologically, contraception is not abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Who goes along with this teaching any longer?
What are the Catholics who are having pre-marital and extra-marital sex doing with this teaching?
They are acting against the doctrine of the church . Truth is not a fad subject to popular culture. .
Sorry ; you know my opinion of the judiciary . The last thing I'd think ;and there is absolutely no interpretation of the Constitution that suggest it ;that the court is the final arbiter... THE PEOPLE ARE ! I have documented too many cases where SCOTUS was just wrong . They put a constitutional stamp on Jim Crow laws even though a fair interpretation of the 13th and 14th amendments saw it was wrong. They put the Constitutional stamp on the internment of Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps . They put a constitutional stamp on the systematic murder of American babies. They told farmer Filburn that Congress had the power to prevent him from growing a legal crop to feed his chickens because it might affect the price of wheat . Then the government used that as a springboard for all types of abuse .Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Any American who counts on the court to guarantee their rights will ultimately be disappointed .
I know what the Constitution says and the historical backround of the religious rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment . I don't need SCOTUS to tell me that the Imperial President is clearly doing an over-reach on his powers .
What gives him the right to say Insurance companies MUST provide FREE contraception ? It is certainly not in the legislation .
I know what he is doing. While this debate rages on ;his HHS is doing overtime writing code that will be impossible to sift through and reverse piecemeal . That is how these Levithians work. They come and go ;but the government is ever expanded in size and scope of power.
You want to have a new baby every two years or so?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nope. The church does not find natural birth control methods (Natural family planning)immoral. Anyone who can count can prevent pregnancies. Face the facts ;the left wants this so there is less risk of disease from promiscuity . Why do you pretend it's anything else ?
SCOUS held that a religious school is immune from an anti-discrimination law on First Amendment grounds, even if the statute itself didn't grant them an exemption. That was a 9-0 ruling. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC).Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Clockwork menstrual cycles are not that common. The rhythm method does NOT work. And how regular are the cycles of all those teen girls having sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So in other words ;the church should be compelled ;in complete violation of the Constitution ,by the Almighty Government to pay for free contraception;a practice it teaches as morally wrong , for immoral behavior it opposes. I get it . I don't even know why I should pay for it.
Edit , I expect the Bishops will fight this on 1st Amendment grounds all the way to SCOTUS, if they lose ;may they shut down all Catholic hospitals and divest themselves of them .There's your landmark victory for women's health !
It does not matter what the facts are, I had a lady in my office today, telling me that we have to re-elect Obama because the Rep are going to take away women's health insurance, that no one could get a abortion and that birth control pills were going to be illegal if Obama did not get re-elected, she really believed that. That is the message the poor and the what I consider uneducated are getting and are being told. She had a local flyer that showed a hospital with a sign that said no women allowed.
It does not matter what the real truth is, it is a election ploy to scare people so they think they are victims and only the Dem can save them.
Fr Chuck I fully agree with you about the motive . They don't want to run on their record of managing the economy ;so they needed a wedge issue .
Their miscalculation is that Catholics represent a sizable voting block in swing states like Pa. They are playing that 'bitter clinger ' card again.
Was she correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Will abortions and birth control still be available to all women if a Republican is elected?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
I pretty much agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately, there isn't an answer so I guess I will only be adding to the pessimism.
In the end a legal decision can't be what the people will. It isn't a legal decision, it's a popular decision. 99.9 percent of the population can be wrong and any one time.
I know you are a student of history because you cite historical examples. No doubt you are aware of Caesar and Cicero. Cicero was a constitutionalist and objected to the way Caesar distorted the constitution towards his own ends. From what I remember his letters to Caesar were an attempt to persuade him to do the right thing by Rome.
History is full of ambitious politicians. Pushing the limits is what politicians naturally do. This was always going to happen at some stage in the future. Whether it be Obama or someone else. Voting him out won't solve the problem. The door is slightly ajar.
Sorry about the pessimism.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 AM. |