obama caves again

[del]

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

You are obviously a catholic hater, so your opinions on this are meaningless... not to mention inaccurate.

Three generations of my family have worked for the corrupt, evil Church. It's a business. It's always about a business, about separating stupid people from their money. Really, all religions are. The Catholics have been at it longer, so they are better at it.

Just because you wrap your greed in vestments doesn't make it less greedy.

They should be treated like every other business. Taxed, regulated and subject to fraud laws.

good thing you told us you're not a bigot, joe, because you do an excellent imitation of one.

 

[JoeB131]

The libs are dead wrong on this. Yes, it is a 1st Amendment issue, and the issue outweights any rights concerning reproduction for women. Harsh, yes. But the mandate was wrong, period.

No one is forcing the church to run a business.

The church runs "charities". It is a business like endevor, they use budgets (unlike the dems), planning and management to keep it running smoothly. Are you really, really suggesting that all the Christian charities just stop? And the left is always telling conservatives how they really care about the poor. The reaction to the church on this is very telling to exactly how the left FEELS about the poor.

The Church runs businesses.

Catholic Schools are a business. When my neice went to her Catholic High School, she said that about one third of the students there weren't even Catholic. One girl was actually a Muslim. Head scarf and everything. Her daddy figured she'd get in less trouble in an all girl's school. My sister's complaint was that they were soft-selling the Catholicism to attract a wider clientelle.

Now, these kids parents were all able to pony up $6000.00 to send their kids there. It wasn't a charity. And for all the Protestant and Muslim kids who went there, there was probably a Catholic kid who would have liked to have gone there but their parents couldn't come up with 6 Large.

So it was about the money, not the whackadoodle religion at that point...

And once it stops being about the religion and about the money, you don't get to plead religion when you see a law you don't like.

 

[JoeB131]

good thing you told us you're not a bigot, joe, because you do an excellent imitation of one.

Just because you don't know what a word means, it doesn't allow you to apply it wherever you want.

I don't dislike Catholicism because they are who they are, but because of the silly, evil things they believe.

Silly things don't become less silly because you dress them up in vestments and mumble them in Latin.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Actually, it's been found that offering family planning services are revenue nuetral. This was the case when the Government mandated that their carriers include it. The costs of paying the minimal amount for birth control is offset by the savings of not paying for unplanned pregnancies.

This was never a "cost" issue. The insurance companies aren't complaining about the cost and even the Church wasn't complaining about the cost aspects.

This was a "I want to impose my religious beliefs on you because I sign your paycheck" kind of issue. Last time I checked, Massa Lincoln freed the slaves.

I don't buy that line of thinking.

An employer should be able to set the terms of his own benefits package. If that benefit package is unacceptable to an applicant they don't have to take the job.

It's none of the government's business.

 

[logical4u]

You mean the Church is very good at separating stupid people from their money? Well, they should be, they've been at it for 2000 years.

As is the left talented at seperating people from their liberty, and they use similar techniques. The same ones that bash 'institutionalized religion' bow down, low to the alter of 'institutionalized bureaucracy'.

Really? I haven't met any of these people who "worship" government.

Can you point them out to me, please.

There are people who think that government should do certain things. They are called "Democrats" and "Republicans".

Sorry, the "you do it, too" argument doesn't work here. We have a process. A law was passed and signed. If you don't like the law, go to Congress and get it changed.

The people that worship gov't: look in the mirror.

The "you do it, too" argument: one is VOLUNTARY, the other is thru FORCE.


vol·un·tar·y
   [vol-uhn-ter-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -tar·ies.

adjective
1.
done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.

2.
of, pertaining to, or acting in accord with the will: voluntary cooperation.

3.
of, pertaining to, or depending on voluntary action: voluntary hospitals.

4.
Law .
a.
acting or done without compulsion or obligation.

b.
done by intention, and not by accident: voluntary manslaughter.

c.
made without valuable consideration: a voluntary settlement.

5.
Physiology . subject to or controlled by the will.


force
   [fawrs, fohrs] Show IPA noun, verb, forced, forc·ing.

noun
1.
physical power or strength possessed by a living being: He used all his force in opening the window.

2.
strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person.

3.
strength; energy; power; intensity: a personality of great force.

4.
power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.

5.
Law . unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property.

from: Force | Define Force at Dictionary.com



I think those definitions demonstrate gov't and religion are NOT the same thing. But as a family member that benefited from generations of "church" money, why bother with the truth now. BTW: if the church was sooo corrupt, why did your family continue to work for them, why didn't they report what was being done? Isn't that like sleeping with someone of the same sex, and when confronted, accuse your partner of being a homosexual?

 

[del]

good thing you told us you're not a bigot, joe, because you do an excellent imitation of one.

Just because you don't know what a word means, it doesn't allow you to apply it wherever you want.

I don't dislike Catholicism because they are who they are, but because of the silly, evil things they believe.

Silly things don't become less silly because you dress them up in vestments and mumble them in Latin.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

 

[del]

good thing you told us you're not a bigot, joe, because you do an excellent imitation of one.

Just because you don't know what a word means, it doesn't allow you to apply it wherever you want.

I don't dislike Catholicism because they are who they are, but because of the silly, evil things they believe.

Silly things don't become less silly because you dress them up in vestments and mumble them in Latin.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[The T]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Actually, it's been found that offering family planning services are revenue nuetral. This was the case when the Government mandated that their carriers include it. The costs of paying the minimal amount for birth control is offset by the savings of not paying for unplanned pregnancies.

This was never a "cost" issue. The insurance companies aren't complaining about the cost and even the Church wasn't complaining about the cost aspects.

This was a "I want to impose my religious beliefs on you because I sign your paycheck" kind of issue. Last time I checked, Massa Lincoln freed the slaves.

I don't buy that line of thinking.

An employer should be able to set the terms of his own benefits package. If that benefit package is unacceptable to an applicant they don't have to take the job.

It's none of the government's business.

^^This.

Too many fear thier own liberty.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't buy that line of thinking.

An employer should be able to set the terms of his own benefits package. If that benefit package is unacceptable to an applicant they don't have to take the job.

It's none of the government's business.

Have you ever worked a job where the full parameters of everything that was going to happen to you was set down in the orientation? I haven't. Usually, it's how many things they lied to me about.

If those people go to Congress and say,"Hey, we think that insurance plans SHOULD include coverage for X", then Congress has the power to regulate that.

 

[JoeB131]

good thing you told us you're not a bigot, joe, because you do an excellent imitation of one.

Just because you don't know what a word means, it doesn't allow you to apply it wherever you want.

I don't dislike Catholicism because they are who they are, but because of the silly, evil things they believe.

Silly things don't become less silly because you dress them up in vestments and mumble them in Latin.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Oh, then everyone's a bigot, then. Thanks for pointing that out.

Because if you have a belief, you reject any opposing beliefs.

It's a pretty wide definition, I guess. It applies to ANYONE who has an opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

I think those definitions demonstrate gov't and religion are NOT the same thing. But as a family member that benefited from generations of "church" money, why bother with the truth now. BTW: if the church was sooo corrupt, why did your family continue to work for them, why didn't they report what was being done? Isn't that like sleeping with someone of the same sex, and when confronted, accuse your partner of being a homosexual?

Well, no, not really.

They were paid to do a job. They did that job.

I'm paid to do a job. I think some of the things my company does are absolutely retarded. But I pick my battles judiciously.

And that's the point here. If you are paying me to do a job, I'll do it. Nothing says I have to share your beliefs if I think they are silly.

 

[del]

Just because you don't know what a word means, it doesn't allow you to apply it wherever you want.

I don't dislike Catholicism because they are who they are, but because of the silly, evil things they believe.

Silly things don't become less silly because you dress them up in vestments and mumble them in Latin.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Oh, then everyone's a bigot, then. Thanks for pointing that out.

Because if you have a belief, you reject any opposing beliefs.

It's a pretty wide definition, I guess. It applies to ANYONE who has an opinion.

no, it doesn't, but you keep telling yourself it does if it makes you feel better, joey.

one can prefer vanilla without ridiculing chocolate and those who prefer it.

shocker, i know




bigot

 

[JoeB131]

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Oh, then everyone's a bigot, then. Thanks for pointing that out.

Because if you have a belief, you reject any opposing beliefs.

It's a pretty wide definition, I guess. It applies to ANYONE who has an opinion.

no, it doesn't, but you keep telling yourself it does if it makes you feel better, joey.

one can prefer vanilla without ridiculing chocolate and those who prefer it.

shocker, i know




bigot

MOre sophistry...

Nope, it's not "preferring". It's claiming that shit is chocalate because they are both brownish, and if you say, "Hey, this tastes like shit", scream "bigot" at him for pointing it out.

I don't criticize religions for the hell of it. I criticize them for VERY SPECIFIC THINGS. And your response is never, "Well, I think you are getting that aspect of their beliefs wrong", it's acting all hurt because someone pointed out the silliness.

 

[del]

Oh, then everyone's a bigot, then. Thanks for pointing that out.

Because if you have a belief, you reject any opposing beliefs.

It's a pretty wide definition, I guess. It applies to ANYONE who has an opinion.

no, it doesn't, but you keep telling yourself it does if it makes you feel better, joey.

one can prefer vanilla without ridiculing chocolate and those who prefer it.

shocker, i know




bigot

MOre sophistry...

Nope, it's not "preferring". It's claiming that shit is chocalate because they are both brownish, and if you say, "Hey, this tastes like shit", scream "bigot" at him for pointing it out.

I don't criticize religions for the hell of it. I criticize them for VERY SPECIFIC THINGS. And your response is never, "Well, I think you are getting that aspect of their beliefs wrong", it's acting all hurt because someone pointed out the silliness.

no, you criticize them because you're a hater.

at least have the balls to own it, joey the bigot, you're safe behind your keyboard.

 

[JoeB131]

no, you criticize them because you're a hater.

at least have the balls to own it, joey the bigot, you're safe behind your keyboard.

I've said the same things direcly to religious people... Except they usually don't have the masochism to come back for more.

Here's the thing. If you keep your stupid, silly superstitions in the church where they belong, I don't have a problem with you.

It's when you try to impose them on the rest of us we are going to throw down.

 

[logical4u]

I think those definitions demonstrate gov't and religion are NOT the same thing. But as a family member that benefited from generations of "church" money, why bother with the truth now. BTW: if the church was sooo corrupt, why did your family continue to work for them, why didn't they report what was being done? Isn't that like sleeping with someone of the same sex, and when confronted, accuse your partner of being a homosexual?

Well, no, not really.

They were paid to do a job. They did that job.

I'm paid to do a job. I think some of the things my company does are absolutely retarded. But I pick my battles judiciously.

And that's the point here. If you are paying me to do a job, I'll do it. Nothing says I have to share your beliefs if I think they are silly.

so its okay when you and yours do it? kinda like calling the kettle, black, pot

 

[Liability]

no, you criticize them because you're a hater.

at least have the balls to own it, joey the bigot, you're safe behind your keyboard.

I've said the same things direcly to religious people... Except they usually don't have the masochism to come back for more.

Here's the thing. If you keep your stupid, silly superstitions in the church where they belong, I don't have a problem with you.

It's when you try to impose them on the rest of us we are going to throw down.

I happen not to be particularly religious. And I don't care to have someone impose their religious views on me.

But I also don't believe the country has the right to IMPOSE their rigid secularism on the religious, either.

Therefore, I maintain that "argument" is often completely off the rails. What the First Amendment PROHIBITS is the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion. (i.e., the government cannot require me to be a Roman catholic or a Methodist or a Jew or a Muslim, etc., etc.). What the First Amendment PROHIBITS is a state bar to my FREE EXERCISE of my own religion (i.e., they may not prevent me from attending my church or mosque or synagogue, etc).

The argument over the ObamaCare birth control and abortifacient pill controversy is that by seeking to force "churches" (or any employer whose religious views make it unacceptable) to PROVIDE for those items (allegedly free of cost to the end user, but really PAID for by the churches or the employers), the Government is stepping on the toes of the religious beliefs.

It is not the President's right to do so. It is our right not to be compelled to pay for such things if our religion forbids it.

The discussion gets much more technical and complex, of course. Oh well. Such is life.

But that is the essence of it.

In this matter, it is emphatically NOT the case that you would need to "throw down." They aren't imposing on you. The government is imposing on them. And they do so with no right to do so, either.

Worse yet, even putting the religious aspect to the side, the underlying proposition is that the President (or Congress) can TELL/DIRECT/ORDER/COMPEL private companies or industries not only WHAT they are obligated to make or provide, but also to set the prices. Whatever else that might be, it aint American.

 

[saveliberty]

I've said the same things direcly to religious people... Except they usually don't have the masochism to come back for more.

Here's the thing. If you keep your stupid, silly superstitions in the church where they belong, I don't have a problem with you.

It's when you try to impose them on the rest of us we are going to throw down.

You'd piss your pants in the first ten seconds.

 

[saveliberty]

God has warriors too Joey. This one picked up the new washer yesterday and carried it up the stairs into the house. Today, I'm picking up the old one and tossing it in the pickup.

 

[Ravi]

Obama just showed more of his idiocy here.

He says the church won't be required to pay for birth control or abortion but the insurance companies must still offer those services for "free" to women who are not offered those services through their employer provided insurance.

We all know there is no such thing as "free" why doesn't Obama the supposedly smartest president ever know that?

Did he say free? I thought he said with no copay. Do you have the same objections to the other things that insurances must offer without copay?

And if so, why? If you must have insurance to receive decent medical care why is it wrong to make insurance companies cover preventative care without copay?