Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Churches (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=633427)

  • Feb 10, 2012, 08:52 PM
    talaniman
    The right joins the other holier than thou edicts of the Chinese, with their draconian social order, and the Iranians who think controlling behavior through strict theocracy is the way to govern, and it's a wonder an alliance hasn't been formed by now.

    And since when can a church make public policy for everybody? The insurance companies are going to bridge the gap so the church is off the hook of supporting contraception so what's the beef? I don't think this will get to the courts myself because before today the mandate is the only issue that's even been taken up.

    And I doubt seriously if the court will overturn this latest accommodation when there is so much precedent in state law already, or if the church itself will bring this to the judicial branch. Its just that the right has nothing else to holler about at this moment that they seize on what they see as a weakness by an ever growing popular president.

    I mean if the bishops are satisfied, which we will find out about soon, will you be? Boner? The Santorum guy? Or will you continue to cry foul at everything this President tries to do. I really can't believe you guys worship the plutocrats and oligharchs as much as you do your precious religious hierarchy. Do you really think this country will go back to those golden Bush years, and a republican congress to back him up??

    Surely you jest.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 03:16 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    The insurance companies are going to bridge the gap so the church is off the hook of supporting contraception so what's the beef?
    Anyone thinking this through knows that it still puts the church on the hook for funding something morally objectionable. A rational person sees a distinction without a difference in this not so clever accounting ploy .Do you really think the insurance company won't upcharge for this "FREE " contraception ? Who pays for it ?

    I know the real issue here for the left because I've seen it for years. The left doesn't like religious liberty . The reason that it has not gone to SCOTUS yet is that they conveniently dodged from hearing cases decided by NY and California Catholics about their state laws. They will not be able to avoid this clear executive over reaching violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise AND speech clause .Yeah that's right ! It violates free speech too because it mandates contraceptive councilling .
  • Feb 11, 2012, 04:05 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    They will not be able to avoid this clear executive over reaching violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise AND speech clause .Yeah that's right ! It violates free speech too because it mandates contraceptive councilling .

    Hi Tom,

    Unfortunately this is not the case. The Free Exercise Clause in historical terms has expended and contracted like a balloon. It depends on the social conditions of the time.

    See for yourself...

    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

    I don't really see any reason why it won't continue this trend in the future.

    Tut
  • Feb 11, 2012, 04:34 AM
    tomder55
    I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).

    I have also argued on this op that this goes well beyond past cases where the government restricted activity to where now the state mandates that the church engage in activity of which it has moral objections .
  • Feb 11, 2012, 04:50 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).

    Hi again Tom,

    Ok, I think it get it,

    Are you saying that there is a clear-cut and unequivocal meaning to the Free Exercise Clause? Are you also saying that to date only a few decisions have embraced its true meaning? In other words, only a few judges have actually, 'got it right'.

    Tut
  • Feb 11, 2012, 05:14 AM
    tomder55
    The word shall leaves little wiggle room . Congress SHALL make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    Not only does this violate the free exercise clause ;but by telling religion what it MUST do ;it breaches the establishment clause. Let's call it the Church of the Almighty Obama .

    Further ;by mandating councilling on contraception ,it goes against the freedom of speech. That mandate doesn't say they can speak of their opposition to artificial contraception . Instead it is to council on the availability of artificial contraception.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 05:22 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    the word shall leaves little wiggle room . Congress SHALL make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

    Not only does this violate the free exercise clause ;but by telling religion what it MUST do ;it breaches the establishment clause. Let's call it the Church of the Almighty Obama .

    Further ;by mandating councilling on contraception ,it goes against the freedom of speech. That mandate doesn't say they can speak of their opposition to artificial contraception . Instead it is to council on the availability of artificial contraception.




    OK, So I'll take that to be a yes to both my questions?
  • Feb 11, 2012, 06:19 AM
    tomder55
    Glad that's established because as you can see from my conversation with WG , the broader issue that is being overlooked by this is the individuals right of religious exemption from paying for insurance ,or being required by law to obtain insurance that includes funding of so called "free " artificial contraception. Their right to have sex without natural consequences or as they like to call it ,free “reproductive services”(if there is such a right ) does not supercede my free exercise rights .

    So it is not just mandates on insurance with carved out exemptions to religious institutions that is on the table. It goes further to the power of the government to require any individual to purchase medical insurance at all.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 06:35 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    I mean if the bishops are satisfied, which we will find out about soon
    Well here's your answer about the Bishops .
    Quote:

    Dear Brother Bishops, As you have heard, today President Obama announced an upcoming change in the federal rule requiring most private health plans in the U.S. to include coverage for contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can induce abortions.
    The Administration’s stated intent is to protect a broader class of religious employers from being forced to pay directly for objectionable coverage or to list it in the plans they offer their own employees. But it does not meet our standard of respecting the religious liberty and moral convictions of all stakeholders in the health coverage transaction. Therefore we remain committed to rigorous legislative guarantees of religious freedom.

    We remain fully committed to the defense of our religious liberty and we strongly protest the violation of our freedom of religion that has not been addressed. We continue to work for the repeal of the mandate. We have grave reservations that the government is intruding in the definition of who is and who is not a religious employer. Upon further study we are very concerned that serious issues still remain and we have found numerous problems which we will raise in this letter.

    We heard of the change this morning. President Obama called our USCCB president, Cardinal-Designate Dolan, to tell him that significant changes would be made in the final federal rule in an effort to accommodate our concerns about the religious freedom of our institutions. He outlined these changes, and said the Administration would be in further dialogue with religious organizations to work out the questions that remain unanswered. He said White House officials were willing to meet with us to discuss the issue further. Later in the morning, senior White House staff came to our Conference headquarters to do so and to answer questions. Shortly after the announcement by President Obama, Conference staff held a conference call with staff from Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, USA, Catholic Health Association, the University of Notre Dame and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

    At present our understanding of the new final rule, at least part of which is expected to appear in the Federal Register next week, is as follows.

    The Administration has indicated it is retaining the narrow, four-pronged exemption for “religious employers” such as churches and houses of worship. There is a serious concern that the four-pronged exemption would become a precedent for other regulations. However, it will also offer a new policy covering “non-exempt” religious organizations such as charities and hospitals. Our concern remains strong that the government is creating its own definitions of who is “religious enough” for full protection. Secular employers must provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs. Non-exempt religious organizations that object to these services may offer a health plan without them – that is, they do not list the services in their plan and they do not pay directly for them. But the insurance issuer selling this plan must offer to add these services for each of the organization’s employees free of charge (that is, no additional premium and no co-pay or out-of-pocket expenses). We are told that this is not to be seen as a “rider” – rather, these items will simply be covered, but without the employer endorsing or directly providing them. However, it remains unclear as to how insurers will be compensated for the cost of these items, with some commentators suggesting that such compensation will ultimately be derived from the premiums paid by the religious employer. This lack of clarity is a grave concern. These latter (religious but non-exempt) employers will have a year (up to August 2013) to work out final details of this, with a further rule to be issued by the Administration before the end of that period. The advantage is that we can take part in this dialogue; the down side is that we may not know the final actual details of some aspects of the policy until well into the New Year. All insurers without exception are covered by the mandate to provide these services without charge. At this point it does not seem that a religiously affiliated health plan (e.g. one run by a Catholic health system) can be offered to the general public and exclude the objectionable services, since most of the public is supposed to have these services included by their insurers automatically. We are presented with a serious dilemma regarding self-insured plans, where a religious organization is both employer and insurer, and regarding student health plans offered by religious colleges and universities. It appears that such plans will be required to offer the objectionable coverage. It seems clear there is no exemption for Catholic and other individuals who work for secular employers; for such individuals who own or operate a business; or for employers who have a moral (not religious) objection to some procedures such as the abortifacient drug Ella. This presents a grave moral problem that must be addressed, and it is unclear whether this combination of policies creates a mandate for contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs covering more of the U.S. population than originally proposed. The indication from the Administration that this process will be worked out into the coming year is of grave concern. Prolonging the process of the protection of religious liberty over multiple months is not beneficial or effective for the clear principle of religious liberty and freedom from coercion. In particular, the clear assertion of religious liberty is a matter of justice for our employees.

    As you can see we have a great deal of work ahead of us. We need to study the proposal quickly, carefully and with all legitimate viewpoints represented in order to come to firmer conclusions. The Catholic Church has been the leading voice for religious freedom and moral conviction on this issue, and we want to commend all the bishops for the good work that has been done to bring this urgent issue to the very peak of public awareness. Our task is far from over. We remain fully determined to work strenuously with our many partners in service to the full exercise of the right to religious liberty in our country.

    Our brother bishops permit us to repeat the principles that are guiding us:

    First, there is the respect for religious liberty. No government has the right to intrude into the affairs of the Church, much less coerce, the Church faithful individuals to engage in or cooperate in any way with immoral practices.

    Second, it is the place of the Church, not of government to define its religious identity and ministry.

    Third, we continue to oppose the underlying policy of a government mandate for purchase or promotion of contraception, sterilization or abortion inducing drugs.

    Thank you, brothers, for your commitment to work with everyone concerned about religious freedom in our society and to advance our principled goals. We will continue to keep you informed as we study this issue and learn more about this policy and our opportunities for its correction. We heartily welcome your observations and continued prayers and support.

    Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan Archbishop of New York President

    Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo Chairman Committee on Pro-Life Activities

    Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl Chairman Committee on Doctrine

    Most Reverend William E. Lori Chairman Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty

    Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire Chairman Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
    Right on!!
  • Feb 11, 2012, 06:39 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I know the real issue here for the left because I've seen it for years. The left doesn't like religious liberty .

    Hello tom:

    BS!

    I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY?? It's NOT me!!

    This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

    excon
  • Feb 11, 2012, 06:58 AM
    talaniman
    So the churches right to advocate its position supersedes a persons right to make there own decisions? I don't think so, and think your idea of the counseling mandate is way off. Actually this comes down to the individual, and the insurance company. Now whether the costs are passed to the church is the free market practice that goes on with any service, or product you buy, and its not just the church who have this costs passed to them exclusively, but all the customers of the insurance company.

    Just like churches must follow the law of the land, ie; labor laws, and minimum wage, working conditions, etc, they must also follow the rules and regulations of the industries they contract with. That includes the insurance companies. What churches don't and shouldn't be able to do is force people, catholic or NOT, to obey the tenants they put down, as in America, we still make our choices on the individual, free will basis. Religion should be voluntary, not mandated.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 07:13 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello tom:

    BS!

    I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY??? It's NOT me!!!!

    This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

    excon

    No it isn't, it's Caeser dictating what is and what isn't religious. I think you know that. If Obama redefines what qualifies as religious he feels he can avoid first amendment difficulties which is precisely what you're attempting to do, redefine religion.

    The chutzpah in that is breathtaking. Preach your gospel of tolerance, diversity, inclusion, community service and then assault and insult us for doing just that. If a Catholic (or Baptist, Jewish or combinations thereof) institution serves the physical as opposed to the spiritual only needs of the community it no longer qualifies as 'religious' according to Obama. Yet that is the very essence of religiosity, to meet the physical needs of my brother without regard to race, faith, gender, age etc. even according to Obama's gospel.

    This is the thanks we get? You are not going to like when the church gets out of the business of serving the community because putting our faith into practice no longer qualifies as a 'religious' activity. How utterly insulting and pathetically stupid.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 08:13 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    he feels he can avoid first amendment difficulties which is precisely what you're attempting to do, redefine religion.

    Hello again, Steve:

    Frankly, I think it's YOU who is trying to redefine the term HOSPITAL to mean a CHURCH! I ain't buying it.

    You DO know that I "owned" (if anybody can own), a church. I KNOW about religious liberty and used it to MAXIMIZE my fortunes, and those of my clients. But, I didn't try to fool myself into thinking I was doing something religious.

    Medicine is NOT religion.

    excon
  • Feb 11, 2012, 08:14 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Yet that is the very essence of religiosity, to meet the physical needs of my brother...

    Nope, that's not what religiosity means at all. Here, try to find your made up definition: https://www.google.com/search?source...624l1.7.2l10l0
  • Feb 11, 2012, 08:54 AM
    speechlesstx
    Nk, I'm using Obama's definitions. He defined it, now he's penalizing the church for putting it into practice.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 09:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Frankly, I think it's YOU who is trying to redefine the term HOSPITAL to mean a CHURCH! I ain't buying it.

    Not so at all, ex. I have said time and again that it is an extension, a ministry of the church meant to meet physical needs as we are commanded to do. What, now all of a sudden going out into the world and caring for others isn't really what we're supposed to be doing after all? You preach it, ever liberal on here has preached it over and over.

    Every time abortion comes up someone inevitably argues "who is going to take care of all the unwanted children?" Who does? The church does.

    You preach "feed the hungry". Who does? The church does.

    You preach "shelter the homeless". Who does? The church does.

    You preach "take care of the sick". Who does? The church does. The church built that hospital, the church funded that hospital, the church, staffed that hospital, the church purchased the equipment, the medicine and quite often the school that educated the doctors and nurses.

    And now, unbelievably you tell us it's not really the church and you tie the very hands you've demanded serve the community for doing so, under the pretense of "women's health". Unbelievable. You are willing to entirely dismantle the first amendment, destroy the church's outreach to the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the abused to make us buy condoms and birth control pills. I'm sorry, but that's unbelievably insulting and stupid and I will not watch my first amendment rights go quietly.

    Quote:

    You DO know that I "owned" (if anybody can own), a church. I KNOW about religious liberty and used it to MAXIMIZE my fortunes, and those of my clients. But, I didn't try to fool myself into thinking I was doing something religious.
    I agree, you were taking, the church is giving. Tremendous difference.

    Quote:

    Medicine is NOT religion.
    And AGW is not science. What's your point? You don't believe religion has a place in medicine? You tell that to Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word who endured a great deal of hardship and rejection to bring medical care to my city.

    P.S. "Family planning" and "reproductive freedom" isn't medicine either. How convenient to change your terms to suit you.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 09:34 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    This is the thanks we get? You are not going to like when the church gets out of the business of serving the community because putting our faith into practice no longer qualifies as a 'religious' activity. How utterly insulting and pathetically stupid.
    Get off it, you are hardly a victim, and nobody has stopped you from doing any thing except discriminate against female health care access. Its bad enough you tell woman they have to have children and pain, and there is case for that, but you cannot dictate to the private sector if they want to offer the care that's particular to females.

    It's a debate, so lets have it, because the church cannot impose its will on the people. Plain and simple and that's why we are having the debate in the first place. So don't play victim, because the real victims, are the ones whose freedoms the church takes away that are granted under the constitution.

    What's pathetic and stupid is the church making public policy for others, especially those who are not part of the church. That's hypocritical to even think that conversion is the price for charity, because that's not charity. Nice try, but this isn't IRAN, and equal protection under the LAW is what the constitution is about. Not carve outs for the religious right to make the people who go to church follow their doctrines. That should be completely voluntary.

    So do your charity, under the law, and may God reward you. And I thank you for your giving. But your charity gives you no right to come between me and my doctor, or me and MY God. And no church is the final arbiter of the relationship between ME and my God.

    Only the right wing, and the pious would want to trample on the rights of others, or have an ulterior motivation for their charity. Or feel attacked because they realize that the law is for everybody to thrive and survive under.

    So lets be clear, the churches stance on preventing equal access to health care for females is a loser. Its one thing to be against something, but quite another to stand in the way of it. It's a back door way to dictate policy based on doctrine. This whole argument is not about freedom, but control, and the idea the church has more freedom than people do! Now that's pathetic and stupid.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 09:44 AM
    talaniman
    The thing is that most of the ministries in question, just keep there head down, and do what they do despite the obstacles and challenges they face. Those I admire greatly because they truly do great work.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 10:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    The thing is that most of the ministries in question, just keep there head down, and do what they do despite the obstacles and challenges they face. Those I admire greatly because they truly do great work.

    And they have been doing just that which is my point. Now you want them to bow to Caesar and violate their beliefs to do just that? No, this country was founded on religious freedom. Change that and it's no longer America. Your cherished rights are next.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 10:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Get off it, you are hardly a victim, and nobody has stopped you from doing any thing except discriminate against female health care access.

    Show me where anyone is denied access to health care, they aren't.

    Quote:

    Its bad enough you tell woman they have to have children and pain, and there is case for that, but you cannot dictate to the private sector if they want to offer the care that's particular to females.
    As if it's one sided, you know it doesn't work that way. Give men the right to have a say in whether their baby is killed or not and then come talk to me.

    Quote:

    It's a debate, so lets have it, because the church cannot impose its will on the people. Plain and simple and that's why we are having the debate in the first place. So don't play victim, because the real victims, are the ones whose freedoms the church takes away that are granted under the constitution.
    So the government can grant rights or take them away and impose its will on the people? This country was founded on the basis that every man has "inalienable rights" granted by God, among these are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    What is the church imposing? Who is denied the right to walk into a store and buy a condom, they're still in restrooms for fifty cents in some places. Planned Parenthood gives them away, cities give them away. Who is denied access to birth control? When did birth control and abortifacients become a human right? Where is there any constitutional right to taxpayer funded birth control? Until you can answer these questions there is nothing to debate. Religious freedom is clearly enshrined in our constitution, none of those other things are even remotely referred to.

    Quote:

    What's pathetic and stupid is the church making public policy for others, especially those who are not part of the church. That's hypocritical to even think that conversion is the price for charity, because that's not charity.
    Straw man, I said the church provides the services I described without regard to one's religion, sex, race, etc. Requiring conversion is the antithesis of what the church believes and it is NOT required to receive our charity. Conversion is purely a matter of one's own freewill personal decision, period.

    Quote:

    Nice try, but this isn't IRAN, and equal protection under the LAW is what the constitution is about. Not carve outs for the religious right to make the people who go to church follow their doctrines. That should be completely voluntary.
    See above, irrelevant.

    Quote:

    So do your charity, under the law, and may God reward you. And I thank you for your giving. But your charity gives you no right to come between me and my doctor, or me and MY God. And no church is the final arbiter of the relationship between ME and my God.
    No one is coming between either in this. The only imposition is on the church to violate their beliefs.

    Quote:

    Only the right wing, and the pious would want to trample on the rights of others, or have an ulterior motivation for their charity. Or feel attacked because they realize that the law is for everybody to thrive and survive under.
    "An ulterior motivation for their charity"? Ba ha ha ha!! You can't be serious. The only one with an ulterior motive here is the Obama regime and that's to impose his social engineering agenda on this country and get reelected.

    Quote:

    So lets be clear, the churches stance on preventing equal access to health care for females is a loser. Its one thing to be against something, but quite another to stand in the way of it. It's a back door way to dictate policy based on doctrine. This whole argument is not about freedom, but control, and the idea the church has more freedom than people do! Now that's pathetic and stupid.
    Ridiculous. No one is standing in the way of a woman accessing birth control. You just want ME to pay for it in violation of my conscience, and that's just pathetic. If I don't have the freedom to avoid paying for the murder of innocent children then I have no freedom at all. I don't ask you to buy my gas to get to church, I'm not paying for your abortion. It's called CHOICE.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 11:11 AM
    talaniman
    Dude you were already paying for it anyway. We all pay for whatever insurance covers as a collective through our premiums. That's the free market you righties love so well. That's not charity, you have to give them money for their services, and they get to make a profit, and pay taxes. That too is a choice.

    And don't preach to the choir as I am against abortion also, but that's my choice. Contraception is not abortion. Since I am a guy who can't get pregnant, I would look stupid telling a female what to do with her choice wouldn't I? Or yours even.

    Bottom line is that no one can dictate what a private company does because the laws does that. So don't buy insurance, but oh, you have to because you actually employ people don't you, just like a business. Hmm not bad, no taxes and can do what you want with the money.

    Churches have to obey the law of the land. Like every citizen, corporation, or group. So don't worry you will still get what you want, but not at the expense of anyone else. Like the janitor that cleans the church, or the hospital. I know, I am just a heathen like Obama right?
  • Feb 11, 2012, 12:13 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Dude you were already paying for it anyway. We all pay for whatever insurance covers as a collective thru our premiums. Thats the free market you righties love so well. Thats not charity, you have to give them money for their services, and they get to make a profit, and pay taxes. That too is a choice.

    And don't preach to the choir as I am against abortion also, but thats my choice. Contraception is not abortion. Since I am a guy who can't get pregnant, I would look stupid telling a female what to do with her choice wouldn't I? Or yours even.

    Bottom line is that no one can dictate what a private company does because the laws does that. So don't buy insurance, but oh, you have to because you actually employ people don't you, just like a business. Hmm not bad, no taxes and can do what you want with the money.

    Churches have to obey the law of the land. Like every citizen, corporation, or group. So don't worry you will still get what you want, but not at the expense of anyone else. Like the janitor that cleans the church, or the hospital. I know, I am just a heathen like Obama right?

    Contraception is a choice. In most cases, engaging in sexual intercourse is a choice also. It is not health care. You are free to accept our charity or not, it's a choice. And when someone walks into the BSA ER, being Baptist or Catholic is not a prerequisite for treatment. But if they want an elective abortion they can go next door to Northwest Texas Hospital. BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience and murder children. Everyone wins. Why change that?
  • Feb 11, 2012, 12:17 PM
    Wondergirl
    At the end of the day, we can all wrap ourselves in this quote:

    "I don't want to overstate or understate our level of concern," said McQuade, the Catholic bishops' spokesperson. "We consider [birth control] an elective drug. Married women can practice periodic abstinence. Other women can abstain altogether. Not having sex doesn't make you sick." (quote easily found by Googling)

    I hope males will remember that when she [always] says, "No, thanks. I don't want to get pregnant."
  • Feb 11, 2012, 12:28 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience ...

    But yet they advocate birth control. Odd that.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 12:57 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Contraception is a choice. In most cases, engaging in sexual intercourse is a choice also. It is not health care. You are free to accept our charity or not, it's a choice. And when someone walks into the BSA ER, being Baptist or Catholic is not a prerequisite for treatment. But if they want an elective abortion they can go next door to Northwest Texas Hospital. BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience and murder children. Everyone wins. Why change that?
    Nobody changes the services you render to those that needs it, quite to the contrary, only the way you treat your EMPLOYEES!! Nothing to do with patience or clients whatsoever.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 01:37 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello tom:

    BS!

    I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY??? It's NOT me!!!!

    This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

    excon

    OK ,I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt and say that the President tried to strike a balance between religious liberty ,and so called "reproductive rights" ,and again blundered badly . He could easily step down from this decision and have religious exemptions so all he would have is the fight about unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare that SCOTUS will hear without having another one about his blatant violations of the 1st amendment.

    Workers at Catholic institutions will not be denied contraception.The Church isn't stopping them from getting contraception. They won't be fired for taking it. The church just won't provide it . All they need to do is go to one of them Saint Margaret Sanger eugenics clinics to get it. The number of people affected is small . Having freely chosen their employer, they have a dubious case for grievance against institutions that choose not to offer contraception coverage.

    But if he continues on this line then I have no choice but to conclude that he ,and those who support this position indeed do not like religious liberty .Because this violates a very basic fundamental tenent of religious freedom. If they can be forced to pay for the "right " of contraception ,what is to prevent them from being forced to pay for the "right " of snuffing out of the life of babies ?
  • Feb 11, 2012, 01:57 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    what is to prevent them from being "forced " to pay for the "right " of snuffing out of the life of babies ?

    Birth control pills don't do that. They keep the babies from happening in the first place. Like abstinence.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 02:17 PM
    tomder55
    And I asked what is to prevent the government from mandating free abortions if they can consitutionally mandate free contraception ?

    You found a quote on the web before. So here is another one easily found .

    Quote:

    I accepted one branch of this philosophy, but eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands. It could not stand against the furious winds of economic pressure which had buffeted into partial or total helplessness a tremendous proportion of the human race. The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.
    That was Margaret Sanger ,the hero of the women's rights movement .
  • Feb 11, 2012, 02:26 PM
    talaniman
    They would rather you practice abstinence, than have YOUR doctor write a script for the pill. Remember the congress wanted them to have the RIGHT to let a female die if she showed up at their hospital with complications from a pregnancy, planned or not, wanted or NOT, that required them to take an action to terminate the pregnancy.

    They also want to require females to get counseling, and ultra sound before having a LEGAL abortion, and the nuts think its justice to kill someone who performs these abortions. Now if we lived in the perfect world where a female can take some time off, and earn as much as a man, and needed less medical care on average than a man, I might be persuaded, but since that's not the case, it sure seems like discrimination to me, and historically, the government has always stepped in to stop blatant discrimination.

    That's what we have here.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 03:11 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    That was Margaret Sanger ,the hero of the women's rights movement .

    She most certainly is not!!!
    Geez, if you need to make stuff up like this it means you have nothing left to argue.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 03:40 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    And I asked what is to prevent the government from mandating free abortions if they can consitutionally mandate free contraception ?

    Come on, there are no mandates for free abortion. All preventive medical procedures, exams, and medicines are free, with no co pays. That includes regular check ups. At least under my insurance.

    Abortions are LEGAL, and hardly free unless you are poor, and then there is a sliding scale or subsidy from charitable organizations. Rich woman can get one in any state they can get to. Always have, always will. Its just the right is creative in limiting the choices of others, mostly the poor who cannot travel or afford insurance.

    Mostly men, who think they can control the choice of others, because of there principles. That's the part that sucks to me because the ones hollering the loudest about life don't holler for the kids that are molested, but they sure settle those lawsuits to keep it quiet. How about mandating something for those that have suffered abuse, for FREE!

    Hypocrisy?
  • Feb 11, 2012, 03:57 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Mostly men, who think they can control the choice of others

    Others, which includes women. Why not also hand out clean burqas every morning after we shower or bathe?
  • Feb 11, 2012, 05:36 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Come on, there are no mandates for free abortion
    Didn't say there was... I asked what's to prevent the mandate if they can mandate "free " contraceptives ? Answer nothing .
    Quote:

    All preventive medical procedures, exams, and medicines are free, with no co pays.
    I'll take your word that a check up is "free" under the insurance policy you pay for . Others have different terms . But am I reading correctly that you consider the distribution of contraceptive drugs ,and abortifacient drugs (which are also classified as contraceptive aids ),the same as a visit to a GP ? Amazing ! Tell me what other medical device or drug is "free " under your plan ? Bet you can't think of one .
  • Feb 11, 2012, 06:21 PM
    talaniman
    I have 3 devices that cost me nothing out of pocket. They are mine now. But all my union brothers have the same benefits under our contract. Dental, and vision. Discount prescriptions. Don't you have the same thing? No union? Oh that's right, righties don't believe in unions. They are evil creations of liberal bleeding hearts.
  • Feb 11, 2012, 07:03 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I asked what's to prevent the mandate if they can mandate "free " contraceptives ?

    Are these the same "they"s who will eventually take away our small arms if we let them ban AK-47s?
  • Feb 12, 2012, 02:45 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    I have 3 devices that cost me nothing out of pocket. They are mine now. But all my union brothers have the same benefits under our contract. Dental, and vision. Discount prescriptions. Don't you have the same thing? No union? Oh thats right, righties don't believe in unions. They are evil creations of liberal bleeding hearts.

    Oh I get it ! You think because it's called "free" that no one pays for it! No wonder you favor universal "free "care ! If contraception is such a necessary service that it should be "free " then don't you think there are many other services ,products more crucial that should also be "free" ? How about food,shelter and clothing ? Why shouldn't those be "free" too ?

    Sad to inform you that in reality someone pays for all that "free"stuff. The church morally opposes being the one to pay for it . The church correctly believes that being forced to pay for it is a violation of their 1st amendment rights . I'm pretty sure that most of the church will realize that this sleigh of hand compromise where the church pays a 3rd party to cover it does not answer their concern.
    Hope that clears it up for you . Calling it "free " doesn't make it so.
  • Feb 12, 2012, 03:07 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Are these the same "they"s who will eventually take away our small arms if we let them ban AK-47s?

    Not really . It's more like the President's betrayal of Bart Stupak.The problem is not the contraception, it's the unconstitutional dictates. If there were no dictate, this would not have erupted into an issue. If birth control pills are "free", and help prevent cancer, why not require women to take them ? Once the Rubicon is crossed there is no telling where the line is drawn.
  • Feb 12, 2012, 04:03 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).

    I have also argued on this op that this goes well beyond past cases where the government restricted activity to where now the state mandates that the church engage in activity of which it has moral objections .


    Tom, you are saying that you know better than the judges. There is a good chance that you do know better. In fact in some decisions handed down we could say that any idiot can see they have made a mistake.

    But this is not the point. Flexibility is the issue when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause. Historically, the Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted differently depending on the time. Check out Wikipedia on this. Sometimes it has been interpreted in a broad fashion and sometimes its definition has been narrowed.

    Are you ware wanting to say there is only one interpretation of this clause and that said interpretation apples at all times and in all places?
    I hope not because this is an elitist position.

    If you are then you would be saying that it makes no difference whether there are 2 people, 20 people, 200 people 200,000 thousand or 2 million people( whatever the number) who are privy to correct interpretation. We/they understand the 'real' meaning because it is based on, original intent, original meaning, semantics, or whatever.

    This only amounts to saying the interpretation should reflect a particular sections of the political communities views.

    Tut
  • Feb 12, 2012, 04:52 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Oh I get it ! You think because it's called "free" that no one pays for it !! No wonder you favor universal "free "care !

    You don't favour it because, as someone else said, you believe in minimal services and minimal taxes.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder View Post

    If contraception is such a necessary service that it should be "free " then don't you think there are many other services ,products more crucial that should also be "free" ? How about food,shelter and clothing ? Why shouldn't those be "free" too ?

    In a system where everybody pays, there a need to prioritize. Some services are more urgent.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    Sad to inform you that in reality someone pays for all that "free"stuff.

    In your country it is the so called 47% Is this way you object so much? It is possible to learn and adopt ideas from other countries?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    The church morally opposes being the one to pay for it . The church correctly believes that being forced to pay for it is a violation of their 1st amendment rights . I'm pretty sure that most of the church will realize that this sleigh of hand compromise where the church pays a 3rd party to cover it does not answer their concern.

    I'm sure your are right, It doesn't address their concerns. If you believe something violates your rights then it it does.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    Hope that clears it up for you . Calling it "free " doesn't make it so.

    True, but we can always make it equitable.

    Tut
  • Feb 12, 2012, 04:58 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    If you are then you would be saying that it makes no difference whether there are 2 people, 20 people, 200 people 200,000 thousand or 2 million people( whatever the number) who are privy to correct interpretation. We/they understand the 'real' meaning because it is based on, original intent, original meaning, semantics, or whatever
    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.