View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 3rd, 2014, 1:30 am



Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom 
Author Message
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo - it's still telling the Church that they have to support something that they're totally against. This "compromise" isn't a compromise at all, it's just stating that "you're not paying for it, the person you're paying is paying for it." It's ridiculous. It's like taking a recovered alcoholic to the bar that's against drinking and telling him "you're not going to pay for the booze, we're just going to split the tab equally and I'll pay for the booze." It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


All organizations are required to offer health plans and those plans must offer contraception, etc. This might make the leaders of the church angry, but when you look at the actions of their members it wouldn't make sense not to offer this sort of coverage when they are in fact, in great numbers, practicing many different forms of ccontraception.

So you forgot to mention in your analogy the recovered alcoholic might not be drinking a six pack every day, he is just downing four beers each night at the bar. Since he is still drinking, he should chip in on the bar tab.


Bullsh!t! The alcoholic, much like many of these practicing Catholics, aren't partaking in the behavior being paid for anymore. Just because an alleged 98% of these people (which I don't believe is accurate) tried SOME form of "contraception" at one time (it has been said that this number is grossly inflated, and unjustly inflated due to women receiving hormonal treatments during their teenage years) it doesn't mean that they're currently receiving any form of contraception.

What's more, this forces older women that have undergone menopause, or younger women that have undergone serialization procedures and women that want to bear kids and have families (also not needing contraception) to keep paying for "contraception," a care that they no longer need.

It's ridiculous.


February 15th, 2012, 5:21 pm
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
Blueskies wrote:
This is a subject that could be discussed intelligently.

But calling us "Obamabots" and referencing the Nazis? I'm really (seriously) beginning to wonder if Sly's persona on the off topic forums has become a big joke. Like Stephen Colbert or something.


Why don't you just ignore the insults and discuss it intelligently then?


February 15th, 2012, 5:23 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9401
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo - it's still telling the Church that they have to support something that they're totally against. This "compromise" isn't a compromise at all, it's just stating that "you're not paying for it, the person you're paying is paying for it." It's ridiculous. It's like taking a recovered alcoholic to the bar that's against drinking and telling him "you're not going to pay for the booze, we're just going to split the tab equally and I'll pay for the booze." It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


All organizations are required to offer health plans and those plans must offer contraception, etc. This might make the leaders of the church angry, but when you look at the actions of their members it wouldn't make sense not to offer this sort of coverage when they are in fact, in great numbers, practicing many different forms of ccontraception.

So you forgot to mention in your analogy the recovered alcoholic might not be drinking a six pack every day, he is just downing four beers each night at the bar. Since he is still drinking, he should chip in on the bar tab.


Bullsh!t! The alcoholic, much like many of these practicing Catholics, aren't partaking in the behavior being paid for anymore. Just because an alleged 98% of these people (which I don't believe is accurate) tried SOME form of "contraception" at one time (it has been said that this number is grossly inflated, and unjustly inflated due to women receiving hormonal treatments during their teenage years) it doesn't mean that they're currently receiving any form of contraception.

What's more, this forces older women that have undergone menopause, or younger women that have undergone serialization procedures and women that want to bear kids and have families (also not needing contraception) to keep paying for "contraception," a care that they no longer need.

It's ridiculous.


I guess older people should no longer pay property taxes which pays for schools since they aren't going to school and their kids are long since graduated. I could give tons of examples like this. Once you start making exceptions, you are going down a very dangerous path.

Listen, I'm a Libertarian at heart, I'd rather we pay for exactly what we use but that is a different discussion and I've gotta realize that as long as Reps/Dems are running the country that aint' going to happen. That said, once rules/laws are in place if you start exempting groups and making exceptions due to "X" you have a big problem on your hands. Let's say I want to start a new Faith and it is against our beliefs to pay taxes (of course as a faith org I'm exempt to some degree so I'm off to a good start), and to stop at stop signs, and to treat cancer, and to educate kids before the age of 15, and that every girl must pop her ... by the time they start school, and, well you get the picture.

I'm not for Obamacare but if it is going to be enacted I don't think there should be exceptions either.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


February 15th, 2012, 7:00 pm
Profile WWW
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2631
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
I hate Obamacare. I hate all government involvement in healthcare.

But, like Pablo has said, the arguments presented (particularly in this topic) have been very intellectually weak.

The whole push behind insurance is to spread costs. With my health insurance premiums, I pay for people to get cancer treatments. Yet I don't have cancer. With my car insurance premiums, I pay for people who wreck their cars, yet I haven't had an accident in 6 years. Etc. etc.

Likewise, making exceptions for specific religious beliefs is a dangerous slippery slope. If I go convert to Quakerism, can I get my income taxes refunded? After all, a huge chunk goes towards war. And Quakerism predates the Articles of Confederation.

Conservatives taking up this argument are stupid. You can't win. Most people in society use birth control. The real issue is government involvement in healthcare. That's where the argument needs to come from and stay focused on.


February 15th, 2012, 8:58 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
Blueskies wrote:
This is a subject that could be discussed intelligently.

But calling us "Obamabots" and referencing the Nazis? I'm really (seriously) beginning to wonder if Sly's persona on the off topic forums has become a big joke. Like Stephen Colbert or something.


C'mon now, I'm actually kinda tame on this forum. You should see me in real life when I get into libtard's faces and let the rhetoric spew forth with as many f-bombs as possible. My own friends usually greet me with, "What did he do this time?" or decide to run in the other direction if it looks like I'm gonna blow up. The fact of the matter is that I hate libtards and don't even attempt to hide it here or anywhere else.

_________________
Image


February 17th, 2012, 6:51 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
Pablo wrote:
First, I'm not an Obama supporter. Second, this isn't an issue of "separation of church and state" as far as I'm concerned and that phrase does not exist in the Constitution anyways (which you obviously know as a strong supporter of said document). The government is not telling people what they can or cannot believe.

Third, it does matter if you like it or not (and I for one don't), but abortion is legal (Roe v Wade 1973) and has been for a long time. Fourth, as I've pointed out the vast majority of Catholics don't follow the Church's edict towards birth control anyways.

Finally, exempting churches from certain aspects of national laws is in itself a very slippery slope. Some belief systems don't favor medical treatment, yet the government will step in and force treatment of a child who would die otherwise. I could go on and on about acceptable things in the Bible that modern society eschews.


Yea, I know the "separation of church and state" only exists in the Federalist Papers, not the Constitution, but since the libtards like throwing that phrase out there so much when it suits their purposes, I enjoy returning the favor. Turnabout is fair play. Now, if UK Lion wants to call that hypocrisy on my part, he would actually be correct this time around since I enjoy using libtard tactics against them on occasion.

And why is it a slippery slope for religions to be exempted from a sole provision, but it's not for the 1231 companies or entities who received waivers from the entire law? I'm not saying you are claiming this, Pablo, just that the lamestream media has an issue with one, but not the other. They always cry about fairness. Well, there ya go.

Furthermore, no where in Obamacare, as it was passed by Congress, does it say that all insurance policies must cover contraceptives. Most of these specific insurance mandates are written as, "The Secretary of HHS shall determine....". There has never been a law in the US that states all contraceptives must be covered by insurance, so this is a first as determined by a bureaucrat, but not by our elected representatives. I call bullshit. This is nothing more than a massive over reach by the Obama Regime and a war on religious freedom.

_________________
Image


February 17th, 2012, 7:25 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
As I've been saying, it's all about religious freedom, not contraceptives, health care, or anything else:
Yahoo wrote:
Not just a Catholic controversy: Protestant colleges threaten to drop student health care over contraceptive mandate
.By Chris Moody

On a chilly winter day earlier this month, 120 college presidents--mostly of Protestant schools--from around the country met in Washington for an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a group that represents 136 American schools and more than 400,000 students. One topic kept coming up in the discussions: How to combat President Barack Obama's proposed mandate for religious employers to provide health insurance that offers free contraception, a decision that would affect all of their institutions--and could violate some of their deepest-held beliefs.

During the conference, 25 of the presidents held a separate policy meeting to discuss the proposed directive, which was first established in the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and was upheld this year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate, later softened by the Obama administration, would have required non-church religious institutions like schools and hospitals to offer health insurance plans that include free access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Many of these presidents made trips to the offices of their representatives to urge them to fight against the decision.

Much of the news coverage of the battle over the contraception mandate focused on the outcry from the Catholic Church, but employers affiliated with Protestant denominations--especially religious colleges who offer insurance plans to students--waged an equally outspoken crusade against the decision. A coalition of more than 60 faith-based groups co-signed a letter to President Obama in December urging him to broaden exemptions to the mandate, and the council's president, Paul Corts, twice sent letters to the administration urging them to reconsider.

After the Obama administration first announced the mandate, colleges associated with Protestant churches and schools founded as expressly Christian institutions fought for exemptions, warning that the mandate could force them to deny health insurance to students who rely on the school's health care plans.

These critics say that many of the students who attend the schools are unmarried, so covering even preventive products would violate their religious teachings. Similarly, because some within the faith consider drugs like Plan B and Ella--which reduce the chance of pregnancy when taken after intercourse--to be abortion-inducing, the mandate caused problems even for coverage of married students and employees.

"You'd be teaching your students one thing and then providing services that you're teaching are wrong," Shapri LoMaglio, the director of government relations and executive programs at the council, told Yahoo News.

To quell concerns like these, Obama announced on Feb. 10 an "accommodation" for religious employers that would allow those employed by religious institutions to obtain free contraception as part of their employer health insurance, but said that the insurance companies would be required to pay for it, not the religious institutions.

In a statement after Obama's announcement, Paul Corts, the council's president, expressed skepticism that the accommodation plan would resolve the issue.

"Without seeing the final rule it is impossible to tell from the President's general statement if our specific religious liberty issues have been addressed," Corts said. "Therefore, we remain unaware of whether the religious exemption will encompass our schools and their student plans and eliminate all of the violations of conscience issues. We are anxious to get the details and will continue to work with the Administration to try to ensure that the religious liberty of our institutions is protected."

While the Obama administration was still considering how to apply the health care law's mandate to religious groups, several presidents from Protestant colleges sent letters to their representatives and posted them on Regulations.gov, a government site that gathers public comments on rules before they are implemented. Of the schools in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, at least 12 submitted comments urging the administration to expand the mandate or eliminate it all together. If churches were exempt, they argued, why aren't institutions that base their bylaws on the same faith-based principles?

"The Department of Health and Human Services hardly seems like the appropriate place for such a determination to be made," wrote Mark Benedetto, the president of the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota, a school founded by Baptists in 1872. "I am concerned that the regulations as written will violate the conscience of our institution as it relates to the health care plan that we offer to our students--the exemption is for employer plans, as written it does not appear to also include the student plans. Not only would this force our institution to violate our religious convictions by offering emergency contraceptives to our students, it would put us in the awkward position of offering a health care plan to our employees that is consistent with their religious convictions while offering another to our students that violates their religious convictions."

Some schools have already made the decision to revoke insurance to students not covered by their parents. A spokesman from Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational school in Denver that has filed a lawsuit opposing the rule, said students will be forced to seek insurance options elsewhere if the administration does not change course.

"This plan will not be offered in the future if it must be compliant with the administration's mandate thereby forcing American citizens to either compromise their beliefs or go without," said Ron Benton, the school's assistant vice president for administrative services.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/

_________________
Image


February 22nd, 2012, 12:01 am
Profile
Post Re: Obama's Assault on Religious Freedom
Blueskies wrote:
I hate Obamacare. I hate all government involvement in healthcare.

But, like Pablo has said, the arguments presented (particularly in this topic) have been very intellectually weak.

The whole push behind insurance is to spread costs. With my health insurance premiums, I pay for people to get cancer treatments. Yet I don't have cancer. With my car insurance premiums, I pay for people who wreck their cars, yet I haven't had an accident in 6 years. Etc. etc.

Likewise, making exceptions for specific religious beliefs is a dangerous slippery slope. If I go convert to Quakerism, can I get my income taxes refunded? After all, a huge chunk goes towards war. And Quakerism predates the Articles of Confederation.

Conservatives taking up this argument are stupid. You can't win. Most people in society use birth control. The real issue is government involvement in healthcare. That's where the argument needs to come from and stay focused on.


You still pay less than someone that's been in an accident for your car insurance. You get a "break" for being a safe driver. You shouldn't be paying for people that are getting cancer treatments, aside from care that has been received and not paid on (those costs are born by society), or unless you're in a cost savings pool and someone in your pool has cancer. In that case your premiums would go up, but it would still be cheaper and safer than getting insurance on your own.

Property taxes cover Police, Fire, rubbish removal, etc. Not just schools, and, the old person once went to a school at some time, thus they have reaped the benefit of the school. This is something entirely different.

Further, a new religion can't come along and circumvent old law, and an old law should come along and fly in the face of an old religion. There is no slippery slope on my side of the argument, no "new religion" arguments, but there is one on yours. This would very likely open the door to Plan B being covered, and then abortions being covered down the road.


February 22nd, 2012, 3:00 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.