Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Obama vs. religious freedom

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/11/2012, 7:48 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
And to equate this with a woman's right to vote totally demeans the struggles of the people who made that possible.

The same people upset over this contraception issue are the same people who were fighting against women and civil rights. Religious freedom is religious freedom. My point was that they eventually got over whatever violation of their faith that it was. I have faith that the same will happen here, considering it's such a minor issue compared to the former.

happy jack wrote:
But to make the case that it is a human right to force someone else to pay for your contraceptives is ridiculous.

We prosecute Christian Scientists when they kill their kid. Is withholding access to preventative healthcare for cancer any different? And sure, they weren't saying we couldn't have it, just that they weren't going to pay for it. Maybe you're lucky enough not to know, but it wasn't cheap. You know what organization did help us out? Planned Parenthood, which Republicans are dying to defund. So, yeah... sorry I can't rally behind Republicans on this one, 'cause they're certainly not looking out for my family. The health of my family > some asshole feeling uncomfortable. Let's be honest, that's all it is. There's nothing in religious doctrine actually holding employers cosmically responsible; their soul's not in jeopardy. That still lies with the individual actually using the contraception. Free will and all.

And it's all hypocritical horseshit to begin with. All these asshole complaining about contraception seem to have no problem participating in an economic system predicted on a violation of an actual commandment. They pick and choose every day of the week. They'll be fine with this, too.
Wow.
You’ve managed to put a lot more words in my mouth than I thought would fit.



Heretic wrote:

And you've avoided my question twice now. Where does the line end when it comes to using religious freedom as justification?
I’m not sure, but this situation is certainly not where the line ends. As I said, when you screw with the 1st amendment, you’d better choose your battles more wisely than this one was chosen.
I have a question for you:
Where does the line begin?


Heretic wrote:

I'm willing to bet you wouldn't rally to the cause were it a bunch of Muslims feeling uncomfortable affording healthcare to the heathens.
Huh?
(See 'words in mouth'.)



Last edited by happy jack on 2/11/2012, 7:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/11/2012, 7:52 pm

Heretic wrote:
So, yeah... sorry I can't rally behind Republicans on this one ....
No one is expecting that you rally behind the Republicans, just that you rally around the Constitution.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/12/2012, 12:29 pm

happy jack wrote:
Where does the line begin?

Creating victims. Or forcing religious beliefs and policies on employees. The wife and I aren't Catholic, but we were forced to follow their archaic policies, even when it came to preventing cancer.

Now your turn:

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be allowed to exempt blood transfusions in their policies for their employees?

happy jack wrote:
No one is expecting that you rally behind the Republicans, just that you rally around the Constitution.

Did you (or Republicans) when they wanted to build a mosque near ground zero? Remind me.
Back to top Go down
KarenT



Posts : 1328

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/12/2012, 5:29 pm

No. I believe the religious freedom should be for an individual, not an institution. Of course, I probably wouldn't work for someone who I disagreed with on matters like this.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/12/2012, 11:54 pm

Heretic wrote:
The wife and I aren't Catholic, but we were forced to follow their archaic policies, even when it came to preventing cancer.
You were not “forced to follow” anyone’s “archaic policies”. The church did not prevent you from getting treatment – they just didn’t pay for it, and that’s a big difference.

Heretic wrote:
Should Jehovah's Witnesses be allowed to exempt blood transfusions in their policies for their employees?
From a practical and moral standpoint, I would say no.
From a constitutional standpoint, I would say yes.

I happen to think that it would be a good thing if the Catholic Church supported contraception and would allow it as part of their insurance coverage. If the Church’s goal is to reduce the prevalence of abortion, then banning one of the best methods available to prevent abortions seems to me to be short-sighted and counter-productive. However, I have absolutely no right to dictate to a 2000 year-old religious institution that which it may or may not approve.
And the Prince and Princess of Arrogance, Obama and Sebelius, acting as agents of the government, most certainly do not have that right.


happy jack wrote:
No one is expecting that you rally behind the Republicans, just that you rally around the Constitution.

Heretic wrote:
Did you (or Republicans) when they wanted to build a mosque near ground zero? Remind me.

I can’t and won’t speak for Republicans, but I most certainly rallied around the Constitution on that issue.

happy jack wrote:
And to equate this with a woman's right to vote totally demeans the struggles of the people who made that possible.

Heretic wrote:
The same people upset over this contraception issue are the same people who were fighting against women and civil rights.

Really?
They must be awfully old by now.
Where do they find the energy?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/14/2012, 9:23 am

happy jack wrote:
You were not “forced to follow” anyone’s “archaic policies”. The church did not prevent you from getting treatment – they just didn’t pay for it, and that’s a big difference.

Not if you can't afford uninsured medical costs, as I'm sure you know most Americans can't right now. The birth control had to be a high enough dose to curb the growth of abnormal cells, as well as high enough to stop the excessive bleeding and clotting she has during her normal cycle thanks to a ridiculous genetic disorder she has. That put it at the very expensive end of available pills. And the tests, multiple, were full blown medical procedures, not a "stop by your doctor for a checkup" thing. She's already trying to pay off a hospital stay thanks to a blown ovarian cyst that unfortunately ruptured after she'd lost her job that had insurance (she was working at the time, but waitressing didn't offer insurance). Like I said, the only reason she was able to get the healthcare she needed was because Planned Parenthood hadn't been defunded yet. Meaty.

And let's be honest, the Church or it's members are not the victim here. This isn't having any measurable effect on them anymore than same sex marriage ruins heterosexual ones. Those objecting to funding these things didn't know me, my wife, weren't familiar with our situation at all. They're not involved at all in the lives of the people who might actually need this. No, they slept like fucking babies in their ivory towers (despite their trauma and rights violation. Oh, woe is them.) while we were up nights hoping she wasn't developing cancer and trying to figure out how to afford the healthcare that could stop it from happening.

It's a horrific situation to be in, let alone here in America. If our first amendment is for protecting their feelings rather than the physical well-being of my wife, yeah... fuck that. We as a free and rational society should do better; should want to do better.

Two thousand year old magical incantations of someone's invisible sky wizard < health and safety of an American citizen. That shouldn't even need pointing out.

happy jack wrote:
However, I have absolutely no right to dictate to a 2000 year-old religious institution that which it may or may not approve. And the Prince and Princess of Arrogance, Obama and Sebelius, acting as agents of the government, most certainly do not have that right.

Don't we? We trample all over first amendment rights when we protect children from their Christian Scientist parents. We trample all over first amendment rights when we force employers to offer healthcare to women (mostly anyway) and both members of interracial and same sex couples. We trample all over first amendment rights when we force Catholic hospitals to treat homosexuals. We trample all over first amendment rights when we use tax money from Catholics to fund the death penalty, torture, and the Iraq war. We certainly can trample all over the first amendment rights of a few rich pedophiles to protect my wife from cancer. I don't see how someone can "rally around the Constitution" for the latter but not any of the former without recognizing that by doing so they clearly demonstrate that we do have that right; that there are limits to freedom of religion, as even the Supreme Court agrees:

Quote :
"Laws," we said, "are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Id., at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

We've done it before, I see no compelling reason to think my wife can't be afforded the same.

And in this whole fiasco, the fact that these retarded halfwits, from the clergy to the Republican muppets in office and on TV, the fact that they don't know that birth control is sometimes medically necessary and not just elective contraception highlights quite clearly why religion should stay the fuck away from healthcare and leave it to the professionals.


Last edited by Heretic on 2/14/2012, 9:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/14/2012, 9:24 am

happy jack wrote:
I can’t and won’t speak for Republicans, but I most certainly rallied around the Constitution on that issue.

Well that's uselessly vague. Does that mean you supported the building of the community center or no?

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
The same people upset over this contraception issue are the same people who were fighting against women and civil rights.

Really?
They must be awfully old by now. Where do they find the energy?

I know, right? Republicans made a poor choice trying to restart the culture wars. The only people who'd respond to this were already voting Republican rather than the scary black man; it's not going to swing independents and young voters who are more than comfortable with minorities, rock music, and dancing.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/14/2012, 4:17 pm

Heretic wrote:

I know, right? Republicans made a poor choice trying to restart the culture wars. The only people who'd respond to this were already voting Republican rather than the scary black man; it's not going to swing independents and young voters who are more than comfortable with minorities, rock music, and dancing.
It's already starting to bear fruit as far as Romney is concerned...
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/14/2012, 5:16 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
You were not “forced to follow” anyone’s “archaic policies”. The church did not prevent you from getting treatment – they just didn’t pay for it, and that’s a big difference.

Like I said, the only reason she was able to get the healthcare she needed was because Planned Parenthood hadn't been defunded yet.

So you got the health care you needed, and you will continue to be able to get that same care without needing to involve the Catholic Church; I'm very glad your problem was solved.
So why the anger?
Are you just upset because you couldn't force "a few rich pedophiles" to pay for it?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/14/2012, 5:17 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I can’t and won’t speak for Republicans, but I most certainly rallied around the Constitution on that issue.

Well that's uselessly vague. Does that mean you supported the building of the community center or no?

I supported their right to build it.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/14/2012, 10:55 pm

happy jack wrote:
So why the anger?

Because our situation was neither unique nor uncommon. Again:

Quote :
We as a free and rational society should do better; should want to do better.

Republicans, who are fighting against both Obama's decision and Planned Parenthood, don't seem to think so.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/15/2012, 7:54 am

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/17/2012, 9:19 am

Yes, this is what's getting lost in the debate... "pro-life" my fucking ass...

Obama's Contraception Rule A Matter Of Life-Altering Care For Some

Quote :
The debate over President Barack Obama's new contraception-coverage rule has been largely been considered through the frame of religious liberties, federal authorities and electoral consequences.

For Kimberly Dudley, however, there is a significant, often delicate, medical component being lost in the discussion.

Dudley is one of approximately five million women who suffer from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome or PCOS, a complex disorder that is a major cause of female subfertility. The condition affected her mother and her six aunts, all of whom were forced to have hysterectomies before the age of 35.

Dudley, now 35 herself, is threatened with a similar outcome. A hormonal imbalance makes it difficult if not impossible for her body to have normal menstrual cycles. Periods can last weeks if not months. Her most recent one started on October 3, 2011. It ended three weeks ago.

"It almost killed me," she said, "the doctors couldn't stop the bleeding." They tried a number of medications before finding one that worked: a double-dosage of Aygestin, a drug that can be classified as a birth control.

"Had the last one not worked I would have likely had a hysterectomy," she said.

. . .

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that roughly 14 percent of birth control prescriptions are written for non-contraceptive purposes, helping some 1.5 million women with issues like ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, and endometrial cancer. Their stories, filled with difficult details of medical trauma and personal sacrifice, aren't usually the fodder for piqued political conversation, at least not until this week.

My wife's insurance policy covers Viagra/Cialis regardless of their marital status, as most of these types of policies do, yet no outcry from Catholics about violating the same church doctrine as birth control. That demonstrates pretty clearly that this has nothing to do with religious freedom. At all.
Back to top Go down
KarenT



Posts : 1328

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/17/2012, 6:42 pm

The advent of Viagra was when i got really angry over my insurance policy not covering birth control (except tubal ligation). We can pay for men to make whoopee, but not provide protection against unintended pregnancies. Hooray for the rules finally catching up!
Back to top Go down
chuckmo48

avatar

Posts : 284

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/17/2012, 8:31 pm

Heretic wrote:
Being a writer on the Daily Show has to be just about one of the easiest jobs out there right now... These bits practically write themselves.
I saw that show and it was hilarious..that show is one of the funniest things on TV...I think they should have an "unrated" version...even thought we all know what is being said it would still be funny to hear everything in it's correct context/verbage.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/18/2012, 10:45 pm

KarenT wrote:
The advent of Viagra was when i got really angry over my insurance policy not covering birth control (except tubal ligation). We can pay for men to make whoopee, but not provide protection against unintended pregnancies. Hooray for the rules finally catching up!

Yup. Unless Santorum and some of the more retarded members of the conservative party have their way, since they're actively trying (or at least campaigning) to ban all contraception. And happy wonders why I was upset? He must either not be married or have any females in his family, 'cause the idea that a politician could or would want to ban any medically necessary procedure should be a) absolutely enraging to anyone who knows someone who needed (or could need) the procedure, and b) anathema to a "small government" conservative.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/19/2012, 9:29 pm

Heretic wrote:
Yup. Unless Santorum and some of the more retarded members of the conservative party have their way, since they're actively trying (or at least campaigning) to ban all contraception. And happy wonders why I was upset? He must either not be married or have any females in his family, 'cause the idea that a politician could or would want to ban any medically necessary procedure should be a) absolutely enraging to anyone who knows someone who needed (or could need) the procedure, and b) anathema to a "small government" conservative.

Read my first sentence at the beginning of this thread.
I am married, and my wife and daughter use or have used contraception. I wouldn't even bother getting outraged about people attempting to ban contraception. There is no chance in hell that will ever even come close to happening.
This whole thing is a 1st amendment issue to me - no more, no less.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/20/2012, 3:24 am

happy jack wrote:
I wouldn't even bother getting outraged about people attempting to ban contraception. There is no chance in hell that will ever even come close to happening.

So are you against the "personhood" laws, since they would effectively ban hormonal birth control? The fact that the Republican party is spending quite a bit of time and money on this issue doesn't worry you at all? They certainly don't have a record of voting with logic and reason in mind - Palin, creationism, global warming skepticism, Obama's birth certificate, voter IDs, drug testing for welfare recipients, etc.

happy jack wrote:
This whole thing is a 1st amendment issue...

...that wasn't an "issue", until recently, in the 28 or so states where similar legislation has been in place for quite some time now. It's quite telling that there wasn't a fanatical objection when any of that was put into place. And the fact that absolutely none of the idiots worried about first amendment violations have yet to criticize the exact same religious violation when it comes to Viagra or Cialis exposes this whole argument as the usual hypocritical partisan hackery, the "it's only bad 'cause Obama did it", we've come to know and loathe from the Republican party.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/20/2012, 11:39 am

Isn't there a word for that?

Quote :
Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates

Republicans are fighting a birth-control rule in President Obama's healthcare law, but several states have enacted contraceptive mandates with the support of GOP lawmakers and governors.

February 15, 2012|By Kim Geiger and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington — Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.

None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5986

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/20/2012, 11:51 am

Heretic wrote:
The fact that the Republican party is spending quite a bit of time and money on this issue doesn't worry you at all?
Nope.
Ain't gonna happen, so why worry?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/22/2012, 9:27 am

I hope you're right.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/16/2012, 2:23 am

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
The same people upset over this contraception issue are the same people who were fighting against women and civil rights.

Really?
They must be awfully old by now.
Where do they find the energy?

Poll: GOP Voters In Deep South Think Obama Is Muslim, Unsure On Interracial Marriage

Quote :
Interracial marriage laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967, but a significant minority of Mississippi and Alabama apparently still long for their return, or are at least ambivalent about the idea. In Alabama, 67 percent of respondents said interracial marriage should be allowed, but 21 percent said it should be illegal and another 12 percent were not sure. Mississippi Republican voters were even more divided: Only 52 percent said such marriages should be legal, versus 29 percent who said they should be banned and 17 percent who were unsure.

I guess it's only news to you that the people who opposed (and still do) the advancement of civil rights in this country often/nearly always cite the Bible as their justification. Women's rights, African American rights, interracial rights, gay rights, etc. Such ignorance is by no means gone from our culture by any stretch of the imagination. If we're going to give religion a pass, we really have to give religion a pass, right? That was your whole argument. So should any of these backwater rednecks be able to exempt the spouse of an employee in an interracial marriage from health benefits, in part or in whole, based on their "moral objections" to the marriage? And if not, why is not okay to do it to such an employee (trampling all over the first amendment rights of the employer), but perfectly fine to do it to my wife?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/21/2012, 9:19 am

Focus on the Family to push ballot initiative to ban state government interference

Quote :
Focus on the Family will build a coalition to back a constitutional amendment prohibiting state government from interfering with the religious freedom of a person or religious organization.

The draft language states that government may not directly or indirectly burden a person or organization by withholding benefits, assessing penalties or excluding a person or group from government programs or facilities.

Read: they want to stick it to the gays like the South wants to stick it to the blacks. And here's the text of the actual amendment:

Quote :
Section 32. Religious Liberty.
(1) Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty.
(2) The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government prove it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
(3) A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

At least they recognize offering health care services to people they don't like or services they don't like is not a direct violation of their faith, exactly as I stated:

Quote :
There's nothing in religious doctrine actually holding employers cosmically responsible; their soul's not in jeopardy. That still lies with the individual actually using the contraception. Free will and all.

But hey, this is America, "not the Soviet Union", and I'm free to impose my religious beliefs on my employees.



And just how awesome is it that Republicans are paving the way for Sharia law with this "freedom of religion above all else" nonsense?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3100

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/6/2012, 9:58 pm

Doctors With Gay Bias Denied Meds, Man Says

Quote :
A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will."

Joao Simoes sued Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Union County Superior Court. He says that the hospital admitted him in August 2011, but that "requests for his lifesaving medication were not honored," and his sister was denied visitation rights.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and constitutionally protected to me, right? The doc's got religious freedom to watch his patients die as dictated by his magic invisible sky wizard just as pharmacists are able to tell rape victims "no emergency contraception for you!", right?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9366

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/7/2012, 10:50 am

Heretic wrote:
Doctors With Gay Bias Denied Meds, Man Says

Quote :
A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will."

Joao Simoes sued Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Union County Superior Court. He says that the hospital admitted him in August 2011, but that "requests for his lifesaving medication were not honored," and his sister was denied visitation rights.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and constitutionally protected to me, right? The doc's got religious freedom to watch his patients die as dictated by his magic invisible sky wizard just as pharmacists are able to tell rape victims "no emergency contraception for you!", right?
That Dr should lose her license for directly going against the ethic of "Do No Harm".
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   

Back to top Go down
 
Obama vs. religious freedom
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: