Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I pay the priests to follow you.
Biatch! And here i thought it was my mother!!!
I'm not one to gossip, as you know... but she and I have spoken... a deal was struck. Masses are said for your soul, and priests are following you everywhere... with Holy Water!
And so do I, that's why I comment on your posts.
As a 'thank you' for supporting idiots? That's sweet of you. I'm sure Quantum will be thrilled that you're so moved by his support for you.
I too support your right to be an idiot.
We're gooooood people, we conservatives.
Dead.
Biatch! And here i thought it was my mother!!!
I'm not one to gossip, as you know... but she and I have spoken... a deal was struck. Masses are said for your soul, and priests are following you everywhere... with Holy Water!
i get the water part...as i will burst into flames when crossing the threshold.....
Yet here I sit, typing away.
Like I said, I support the rights of idiots.
And so do I, that's why I comment on your posts.
Morality is a choice, or has that never occurred to you?There's no reason religions should get a pass from these intrusive laws. Freedom of religion isn't about religions getting special treatment - it's about keeping government out of the business of endorsing, or condemning, any particular religions. It doesn't mean churches don't have to follow the law.
A very good hospital here is St Marys... top rate catholic hospital. I dont go there becasue i dont want priests or nuns coming and condoling with me. Granted they are doing a nice thing... but i dont want it. I go somewhere else and check dont send anyone on "religion." My choice of where i want to go.
Seaton is another catholic hospital here.... again top rate. They refused to do a sex change surgery. Why would you demand a hospital that does not agree with sex change do one?
Its about choice. You know what you are walking into when you go in.... a religious institution.
Invoking 'choice' in defense of the Catholic Church? You win ironic comment of the month.
There are all kinds of court decisions I don't agree with. I don't really have time to examine that one in detail, but if follows the same general principles as this case, I'd probably disagree with it as well.
To be clear, I think you know how vehemently opposed to this requirement I am, but I think it's patently unfair that some people should get a pass on it just because they follow a certain religion. In principle, why can't I start my own religion that believes insurance is the work of the devil, and get out of these mandates altogether?
The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. Obama tried to argue that this does not actually mean churches don't have to follow whatever rules he thinks are appropriate, and that the government could tell churches which of their employees are ministers by insisting that ministers have to devote 100% of their time to ministerial duties. I don't know if you know anything about ministers, but I have never met anyone that devotes 100% of their time to their job. Just because a church runs a school, or a hospital, does not mean the government gets to interfere with their doctrine.
I'm not one to gossip, as you know... but she and I have spoken... a deal was struck. Masses are said for your soul, and priests are following you everywhere... with Holy Water!
i get the water part...as i will burst into flames when crossing the threshold.....
Can I make you my '+1' in Heaven?
You're a garden slug and not relevant at all.You are right and if you hit my car and I find out you are uninsured I should be within my rights to take repayment out of your hide.
That's not in the Constitution... nor is it relevant to the topic. But thanks for proving what a real hard ass you are. We are all most impressed.
No really. We are.
We are not laughing at you.
You're white. What you think is about as relevant as the thoughts of a wet dog.
There are all kinds of court decisions I don't agree with. I don't really have time to examine that one in detail, but if follows the same general principles as this case, I'd probably disagree with it as well.
To be clear, I think you know how vehemently opposed to this requirement I am, but I think it's patently unfair that some people should get a pass on it just because they follow a certain religion. In principle, why can't I start my own religion that believes insurance is the work of the devil, and get out of these mandates altogether?
The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. Obama tried to argue that this does not actually mean churches don't have to follow whatever rules he thinks are appropriate, and that the government could tell churches which of their employees are ministers by insisting that ministers have to devote 100% of their time to ministerial duties. I don't know if you know anything about ministers, but I have never met anyone that devotes 100% of their time to their job. Just because a church runs a school, or a hospital, does not mean the government gets to interfere with their doctrine.
I'm aware that the first amendment has been interpreted in this way, but I don't think it's logically consistent, nor in line with the intent of the amendment in the first place. These issues are blatant violations of everyone's right to their own personal convictions - not just religions. As NYcarbineer pointed out, giving religions special status, giving them special rights that the rest of us don't have IS, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of the first amendment. The point of freedom of religion was to keep government out of endorsing and discouraging any particular religions not to give religious people special rights the rest of us don't enjoy.
It's often said tongue in cheek, but I think it points out the illogic of the view: why can't I just pick out all the laws I don't want to follow and then write their contradictions up as "commandments" in my religion. Would that fly? Why not?
Another self appointed genius completely missing the point.
The point is, I don't care about supporters of a organization that gives aid and comfort to child molesters ie the catholic church.
Ruh oh! Somebody needs a waaaaabulance!
I'll call whine-one-one... and I'll specify that they not take you to an evil Catholic Hospital.
The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. Obama tried to argue that this does not actually mean churches don't have to follow whatever rules he thinks are appropriate, and that the government could tell churches which of their employees are ministers by insisting that ministers have to devote 100% of their time to ministerial duties. I don't know if you know anything about ministers, but I have never met anyone that devotes 100% of their time to their job. Just because a church runs a school, or a hospital, does not mean the government gets to interfere with their doctrine.
I'm aware that the first amendment has been interpreted in this way, but I don't think it's logically consistent, nor in line with the intent of the amendment in the first place. These issues are blatant violations of everyone's right to their own personal convictions - not just religions. As NYcarbineer pointed out, giving religions special status, giving them special rights that the rest of us don't have IS, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of the first amendment. The point of freedom of religion was to keep government out of endorsing and discouraging any particular religions not to give religious people special rights the rest of us don't enjoy.
It's often said tongue in cheek, but I think it points out the illogic of the view: why can't I just pick out all the laws I don't want to follow and then write their contradictions up as "commandments" in my religion. Would that fly? Why not?
Absurd. You cannot dictate matters of Conscience without first being a Tyrant. Natural Rights come from God, not Government. Government is not God. Churches have no special privilege in matters of Conscience, They have Rights, just like you and I. This is a Power Play, nothing more. Government thinks it owns all of the marbles. Bottom line, when it comes to morality, Government doesn't know Jack Shit. If it did, we would not be arguing this point.
Joe was "read" this morning when he was told the church is exempt and always has been. He said all wide eyed, "But I didn't know that". Hospitals that receive government funding aren't exempt. And that this same policy has existed in 28 states for years with 8 states mandating that even the church has to pay.
This is all about Obama.
Oh, right... so is it because Catholics 'hate' him because he's black? Or because he's liberal? And does that include the 54% (I know how much you looooove statistics - And I do apologize that this one is actually accurate) of Catholics that voted for Obama?
You're an idiot.
There are all kinds of court decisions I don't agree with. I don't really have time to examine that one in detail, but if follows the same general principles as this case, I'd probably disagree with it as well.
To be clear, I think you know how vehemently opposed to this requirement I am, but I think it's patently unfair that some people should get a pass on it just because they follow a certain religion. In principle, why can't I start my own religion that believes insurance is the work of the devil, and get out of these mandates altogether?
The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. Obama tried to argue that this does not actually mean churches don't have to follow whatever rules he thinks are appropriate, and that the government could tell churches which of their employees are ministers by insisting that ministers have to devote 100% of their time to ministerial duties. I don't know if you know anything about ministers, but I have never met anyone that devotes 100% of their time to their job. Just because a church runs a school, or a hospital, does not mean the government gets to interfere with their doctrine.
I'm aware that the first amendment has been interpreted in this way, but I don't think it's logically consistent, nor in line with the intent of the amendment in the first place. These issues are blatant violations of everyone's right to their own personal convictions - not just religions. As NYcarbineer pointed out, giving religions special status, giving them special rights that the rest of us don't have IS, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of the first amendment. The point of freedom of religion was to keep government out of endorsing and discouraging any particular religions not to give religious people special rights the rest of us don't enjoy.
It's often said tongue in cheek, but I think it points out the illogic of the view: why can't I just pick out all the laws I don't want to follow and then write their contradictions up as "commandments" in my religion. Would that fly? Why not?
The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress cannot make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. Obama tried to argue that this does not actually mean churches don't have to follow whatever rules he thinks are appropriate, and that the government could tell churches which of their employees are ministers by insisting that ministers have to devote 100% of their time to ministerial duties. I don't know if you know anything about ministers, but I have never met anyone that devotes 100% of their time to their job. Just because a church runs a school, or a hospital, does not mean the government gets to interfere with their doctrine.
I'm aware that the first amendment has been interpreted in this way, but I don't think it's logically consistent, nor in line with the intent of the amendment in the first place. These issues are blatant violations of everyone's right to their own personal convictions - not just religions. As NYcarbineer pointed out, giving religions special status, giving them special rights that the rest of us don't have IS, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of the first amendment. The point of freedom of religion was to keep government out of endorsing and discouraging any particular religions not to give religious people special rights the rest of us don't enjoy.
It's often said tongue in cheek, but I think it points out the illogic of the view: why can't I just pick out all the laws I don't want to follow and then write their contradictions up as "commandments" in my religion. Would that fly? Why not?
The thing is, without a special status for religion, the government would have no constraints on making groups of people do things that they personally disagree with.
I'm aware that the first amendment has been interpreted in this way, but I don't think it's logically consistent, nor in line with the intent of the amendment in the first place. These issues are blatant violations of everyone's right to their own personal convictions - not just religions. As NYcarbineer pointed out, giving religions special status, giving them special rights that the rest of us don't have IS, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of the first amendment. The point of freedom of religion was to keep government out of endorsing and discouraging any particular religions not to give religious people special rights the rest of us don't enjoy.
It's often said tongue in cheek, but I think it points out the illogic of the view: why can't I just pick out all the laws I don't want to follow and then write their contradictions up as "commandments" in my religion. Would that fly? Why not?
The thing is, without a special status for religion, the government would have no constraints on making groups of people do things that they personally disagree with.
Eh? Not sure I follow.
In any case, what about my question. What, in principle, would invalidate creating my own religion based on my convictions that conflict with the federal government's?
Lets try Baby Steps.
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)
Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.
This goes for both sides.
Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.
I'm aware that the first amendment has been interpreted in this way, but I don't think it's logically consistent, nor in line with the intent of the amendment in the first place. These issues are blatant violations of everyone's right to their own personal convictions - not just religions. As NYcarbineer pointed out, giving religions special status, giving them special rights that the rest of us don't have IS, in my opinion, a fundamental violation of the first amendment. The point of freedom of religion was to keep government out of endorsing and discouraging any particular religions not to give religious people special rights the rest of us don't enjoy.
It's often said tongue in cheek, but I think it points out the illogic of the view: why can't I just pick out all the laws I don't want to follow and then write their contradictions up as "commandments" in my religion. Would that fly? Why not?
The thing is, without a special status for religion, the government would have no constraints on making groups of people do things that they personally disagree with.
Eh? Not sure I follow.
In any case, what about my question. What, in principle, would invalidate creating my own religion based on my convictions that conflict with the federal government's?
Obama obviously does not need any outside help with his New Commandments. Who does he remind me of again? ..... It's on the tip of my tongue. ...... Something about Buying and selling and trading....The thing is, without a special status for religion, the government would have no constraints on making groups of people do things that they personally disagree with. Obama handed the Amish an exception to Obamacare because their religious practices specifically forbid insurance.
As for your question, as I said the laws are a bit tricky. It is legal for the government to fire you if they find out you use peyote even if your religion says it is necessary, It is not, however, legal for them to arrest you for using peyote. One involves your rights as an individual, the other involves your rights as a believer.
