[tomder55]

Under that definition it's a safe assumption... according to the Gospel of Obama... religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” properly rendered up unto Caesar. . . .
Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they're doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.
Charles Krauthammer: The gospel according to Obama

[paraclete]

Well we all know what happened to leviathan don't we. It doesn't pay to test God

[TUT317]

Yes Steve is right . What you call prescriptive. ;I call audacious ,unconstitutional chutzpa .

Hi Tom,

Yes, But it may well end up being legal chutzpa. By redifing what the word religion means for insurance purposes may result in it being constitutional. Your not worried about that?

Tut

[TUT317]

Hi again Tom,

Let me run this past you (or anyone else) again but in a slightly different way.

In the link you provided earlier you show how SCOTUS came to the decision that an individual doesn't lose their rights by becoming part of a corporation,

Whay can't this administration, or any future administration for that matter, argue along the same lines? That is to say, a person doesn't lose their religious rights by becoming part of an insurance company.

Tut

[paraclete]

Tut

You are asking the legal profession to use logic, now that is a stretch too far, they would just say it's a hypothetical

[tomder55]

person doesn't lose their religious rights by becoming part of an insurance company.

This goes back to the mandates . To date if a person did or didn't want contraceptive coverage due to moral objections they could opt out of their employer's provided plan and seek their own . If a religious institution did not want such coverage they could pool with other like minded organizations and craft their own policies.
It is mandates that are really the issue here .

[TUT317]

This goes back to the mandates . To date if a person did or didn't want contraceptive coverage due to moral objections they could opt out of their employer's provided plan and seek their own . If a religious institution did not want such coverage they could pool with other like minded organizations and craft their own policies.
It is mandates that are really the issue here .

Hi Tom,

I think Ex was right when he said you guys have won the discussion. I also think this was especially true of the moral aspect. However, if it all boils down to mandates then unfortunately it is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Tut

[paraclete]

Tom as far as I'm aware no one has made contraception mandatory, so if those wanting the service simply make the appropriate arrangements in respect of insurance and payment, as reasonable people do, there is no need for anyone to get their knickers in a knot

[tomder55]

Clearly you intentionally are distorting what I wrote. I did not say contraception was mandatory .I said coverage for "free " contraception was made mandatory . (To date if a person did or didn't want contraceptive coverage..... )

[paraclete]

As I said Tom there is no reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot

[speechlesstx]

as i said Tom there is no reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot

Yes there is, I will not be forced to pay for abortifacients and watch my religious rights be undermined without a fight.

[paraclete]

As I said before Tom these things are not mandatory. When you take out health insurance Tom you use it in a manner which is pertinent to your circumstance. I don't doubt they offer many benefits you would not avail yourself of. You are objecting to your government regulating the range of benefits and yes certain procedures performed by the medical profession are anathema but that argument was lost long ago. We do not live in a world regulated by church doctrine

This is the same tired argument that taxation pays for loafers, just hung on a different hook. Isn't it time you grew up and became part of society