Is religious liberty an absolute right?

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Is freedom of the press an absolute right?

 

[Ravi]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

No, of course not. If some religion decided they didn't want insurance companies to cover prostrate exams they'd be laughed right out of the room.

 

[alan1]

But wait.
The government can force me to purchase health insurance, what is to stop them from forcing me to buy "healthy" foods or participate in some form of "healthy" religion?

The government forces no one to buy health insurance. The rest of the post is idiocy.

Really?
Hazards of the Individual Health Care Mandate

The latest fad in health care reform is the "individual mandate" — a law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance and threatens punishment for those who don't.

Also, then why are courts making rulings on it?

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds the Supreme Court will choose to review the law.

Read more: 11th Circuit says mandate unconstitutional - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And what, pray tell, constitutes a "compelling reason" for the government to interfere in a Constitutional right? Hmmm. That would be when the exercise of it infringes on someone else's rights, wouldn't it? So basically, you haven't contradicted a single fucking thing I said, have you?

An example of a compelling reason with regard to the First Amendment right of the people peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances would be a city’s desire to keep its parks and public areas accessible. In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984), the Court ruled that a ‘sleep-in’ demonstration in Washington, DC, was not protected under the First Amendment.

Child pornography, obscenity, and defamation/libel are other examples of limits on free-expression.

Consequently, no civil right is ‘absolute.’

If you’d like to educate yourself with regard to First Amendment restrictions, the link below is a good place to start.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

The government is going to force us to buy health insurance, and you know it, so stop with the disingenuous pretense that they won't just because the law hasn't taken effect yet.

Cite in the ACA what criminal or civil penalty one would sustain if he fails to purchase health insurance. How many years in prison? What’s the maximum allowable civil penalty?

It’s not there, of course, but you’ll ignore that fact along with all others which don’t conform to your subjective dogma.

 

[Synthaholic]

We all know that there ARE some things which a person cannot do -- even for true reasons of religious faith. Like, if your religious belief says you must kill a Jew, fuck yourself. You are properly and validly denied that "right" by the government.

Murder is against the law. Try again. This time with an example that is legal.

 

[Synthaholic]

What right does not providing birth control infringe on?

A right to birth control, obviously. Duh!

Why? Because if I don't buy the slut her birth control, she's incapable of getting it at all? Christ, the bitch has a job, or she wouldn't have health insurance. So you can't tell me she doesn't have any income with which to buy her own damned birth control!

Are women who use birth control 'sluts'?

 

[Synthaholic]

This is a political issue, not a religious issue.

 

[Synthaholic]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Politically motivated, religiously motivated or morally motivated?

Politically motivated.

None of this is about upholding the moral code of the Catholic Church.

If it was, the GOP would be out there trying to end capital punishment.

Regardless of the reason, does the parent of a minor child have the right to enforce or restrict contraception for their minor child? I damn sure know the government shouldn't be granted that authority over minor children much less adults.

The issue isn't contraceptives for minors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is a political issue, not a religious issue.

 

[Synthaholic]

This is a political issue, not a religious issue.

Well, that's 2 useless CrusaderFrank posts.

Anything intelligent to add, Frank? If not, then just go with your opinion.

 

[Cuyo]

Of course not. There are no absolute rights. Rights exist only with the proviso that they not be exercised so as to infringe the rights of others.

That is what I was going to post, nearly verbatim. Spooky really.

 

[jillian]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another example regarding religious freedom not being an absolute right can be found in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), where the University argued it should retain its tax-exempt status although it practiced racial discrimination as part of its religious dogma.

[T]he Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education -- discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden [is] place[d] on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest.

Bob Jones Univ. v. United States

 

[Synthaholic]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

Women in burkas do not have the right to enter government buildings while covered.

The Catholic Church wants special considerations carved out of U.S. law, based on their religion. Which sounds remarkably similar to Sharia Law.

Not everyone working at Catholic institutions is Catholic, or even religious, so if the gov't allows you to impose your religious beliefs on your employees, that's more or less establishing religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not everyone working at Catholic institutions is Catholic, or even religious, so if the gov't allows you to impose your religious beliefs on your employees, that's more or less establishing religion.

Employers paying for health insurance is compensation, employers have no right to dictate to employees how they’ll use their compensation, even if the employer has some sort of religious motive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Depends, If your religion dictates you sacrifice humans no it is not. So long as the religion is not a threat to anyone or the Government then yes it is a protected right, and YES believing that one should not practice any form of contraceptive short of absteniance is a protected right of said religions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Their right to use or not use contraception is 100% protected by the First Amendment. My right to use or not use contraception depending on my own beliefs is 100% protected by the constitution. The court has already dealt with that issue in Griswold v Connecticut.

However, religious freedom isn't limitless. There are cases where kids are taken away from their parents if certain religious practices are followed. (like santaria cutting crosses into their kids to "cure" them). There have been cases brought against people who let their kids stay sick and/or die by refusing to treat them. These decisions are usually based on an infant's inability to consent and a parent's obligation to protect.

What is guaranteed is that the religious extremists have zero right to impose their belif system on the rest of us....

But Obama can FORCE religion to break their beliefs that are not a threat to anyone? That is what he tried and is still doing.

 

[alan1]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Politically motivated, religiously motivated or morally motivated?

Politically motivated.

None of this is about upholding the moral code of the Catholic Church.

If it was, the GOP would be out there trying to end capital punishment.

Regardless of the reason, does the parent of a minor child have the right to enforce or restrict contraception for their minor child? I damn sure know the government shouldn't be granted that authority over minor children much less adults.

The issue isn't contraceptives for minors.

I think it is hard to claim that issues about contraception are strictly political. For many it also encompasses their morals and/or religious beliefs.

This issue is about contraception, which includes contraception for minors as a subset.

 

[alan1]

Seems to be what the politically motivated Rightwing believes, on this contraceptive issue.

Anyone?

Politically motivated, religiously motivated or morally motivated? Regardless of the reason, does the parent of a minor child have the right to enforce or restrict contraception for their minor child? I damn sure know the government shouldn't be granted that authority over minor children much less adults.

Who are you and what have you done with alan~?

alan~ is hanging out with MountainMan and BatBoy.

 

[Liability]

We all know that there ARE some things which a person cannot do -- even for true reasons of religious faith. Like, if your religious belief says you must kill a Jew, fuck yourself. You are properly and validly denied that "right" by the government.

Murder is against the law. Try again. This time with an example that is legal.

No kidding idiot. But it's still a RESTRICTION. And where there exists a restriction, then the "right" cannot be said to be absolute.

No.

I'll stick with the correct answer, your bellyaching and whining notwithstanding, stupid.