Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 101
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    When my daughter is old enough, I'll ask my her, if she wants to go great, because many, many studies show that girls who go to church are a lot less likely to have premarital sex, do drugs, drop out of school, get divorced etc.

    Now I can't speak for the individual girls you have coming in to your office, but if they have shitty dads or parents church won't help them. Church can provide guidance but it won't replace or make up for bad parenting.
    The question wasn't about going to church. The question was do you give your teenage daugther birth control when you realize her boyfriend is already high fiving his bros?








  2. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,171

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    As for this thread, I started this to talk about how it is unconstitutional for the Government to mandate a religious organization provide something that directly goes against their beliefs (no matter how outdated they may be).
    Bull. While the free exercise clause in the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to worship as they choose, and prohibits the Congress from passing any law prohibiting the "free exercise thereof" it SHOULD NOT be interpreted to mean absolute right to a course of conduct just because it is permitted by one's religion.

    The Supreme Court has held that religious freedom must give way to reasonable restrictions that have been adopted to protect the health, safety and convenience of the entire community.

    It is a well established precedent that the state can limit a religion's ability to exercise their faith if there is a compelling reason to do so. The benefits of providing birth control to a community that overwhelming supports access to it are fairly compelling compared to the benefits of allowing a religious order to not meet it's obligations to it's employees SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CHURCH OPERATING AS A SECULAR BUSINESS LIKE A HOSPITAL.
    My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron




  3. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,343

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Actually I don't so feel free to fill me in.
    You tell me that I have rigid views, basically saying I am incapable of thinking outside of such and such, then to go on and think that, I can't think outside of certain thoughts because I may be conservative.

    So you are doing EXACTLY what you're accusing me of, thus the irony.




  4. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,343

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Bull. While the free exercise clause in the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to worship as they choose, and prohibits the Congress from passing any law prohibiting the "free exercise thereof" it SHOULD NOT be interpreted to mean absolute right to a course of conduct just because it is permitted by one's religion.

    I am not saying it does in all cases, I am saying in this case. If you want to bring up another scenario we can discuss that. As for this one your opinion is it should not be.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    The Supreme Court has held that religious freedom must give way to reasonable restrictions that have been adopted to protect the health, safety and convenience of the entire community.

    It is a well established precedent that the state can limit a religion's ability to exercise their faith if there is a compelling reason to do so. The benefits of providing birth control to a community that overwhelming supports access to it are fairly compelling compared to the benefits of allowing a religious order to not meet it's obligations to it's employees SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CHURCH OPERATING AS A SECULAR BUSINESS LIKE A HOSPITAL.
    Do you see the difference in what you're saying and what I am????

    You seem to be a smart fellow so I guess that you can see, that telling them to STOP doing something to protect the health and safety of the community (which is what you're saying). And telling they START doing something, are two entirely different things.

    If they were telling them to stop X because even though it's part of your faith it's putting the community in danger, I'd agree with you.

    Telling them they have to provide contraception (which I believe includes abortion inducing drugs) has nothing to do with the protecting the community.




  5. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You tell me that I have rigid views, basically saying I am incapable of thinking outside of such and such, then to go on and think that, I can't think outside of certain thoughts because I may be conservative.

    So you are doing EXACTLY what you're accusing me of, thus the irony.
    So then give me a reason, outside of the framework of either a 200 year old document or a 2000 year old document, why providing birth control benefits (not forcing people to use it) to everyone is a negative policy.

    Yes, I do think people who don't take the time to understand social challenges specific to their own place in time and space but instead force them into constitutional or biblical frameworks are a bit limited in their studies. That is not denying the importance of either document just questioning your own willingness to study an issue.

    Its like that brain teaser where you have to connect all the dots that exist in a box with three lines or something like that but you must go out of the box to do it. People get stuck because they try to stay in the box although there are no directions specifying that exactly. If you only see social issues through century old documents you are missing a lot other solutions.

    And yes that is how most conservatives think. It appears to be the way you think based soley on what you say here. So if a=b and b=c then a=c too.








  6. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,343

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    So then give me a reason, outside of the framework of either a 200 year old document or a 2000 year old document, why providing birth control benefits (not forcing people to use it) to everyone is a negative policy
    Tell ya what, I will happily do so, if you can acknowledge that it is unconstitutional for the government mandate a religious organization START doing something that goes against their beliefs.




  7. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Tell ya what, I will happily do so, if you can acknowledge that it is unconstitutional for the government mandate a religious organization START doing something that goes against their beliefs.
    I am truly not concerned about the constitutionality of the policy. I will say that I respect Barack Obama as a scholar of the constitution and am quite confident that he has studied the constitutionality of it prior to advancing it. His understanding of the constitutionality of it far exceeds any understanding I can possibly gain in the near future. So therefore, I won't acknowledge your belief that it is unconstitutional since you have shown little to make me think you really know what you are talking about and really seem to have a hatred for anything Obama tries to do.

    My point is this: Birth control is good social policy so therefore that trumps any issues with constitutionality in my approach. You have nothing to say about it as bad social policy. You only argue against it through the construct of the constitution with apparently no questioning of whether the constitution is able to address social policy in 2012. How many of the writers of the constitution dealt daily with the effects of teenage pregnancy? Im sorry but that type of thinking is scary to me. It is very rigid and very small. I find it very characteristic of conservative thinking.

    You can go on and accuse me of thinking you into a box and I will not argue that I am not doing just that. I am, but it is you that is putting yourself into that box with what you write. You can't demonstrate a thought that exist outside of a framework of a 200 year old document. Its almost as if that document told you to go jump off a bridge, you would probably do it.

    You still haven't answered what you will do with your teenage daughter in regards to birth control. The truth is a responsible parent would put their kid on the pill of which you probably know. This is what exactly what proves the point of it being good social policy. You will continue to argue some constitutional framework that is only being contorted, at this point, by conservative leaders trying to change election strategy from a now recoverying economy to more of their byzantine culture wars. I question why Obama even gave them this opportunity when he had political winds at his back.








  8. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,343

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Galen, I am not sure if you're aware, but when discussing, debating or arguing and someone (i.e. you) ignore a point or tries to change the subject, that says the other person (i.e. me) is winning said discussion.

    I will be more than happy to address your other topics, like I said I'd prefer to do it in another thread since this one is about the constitutionality of what HHS has told religious organizations they have to provide.




  9. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,171
    There is no fundamental difference between stopping a group from doing something and requiring them to start doing something. In either case the government is requiring a religious group to alter their behavior to bring it into line with what society requires.

    If my religion requires me to strangle a chicken every morning with my bare hands then feed the raw meat to my kids, the government can step in and stop me from doing it.

    If my religion forbids me from feeding my children anything at all between Monday and Saturday, the government can step in a force me start doing so.

    But all of this is beside the point. The churches themselves aren't being required to do anything against their religion. The secretary at your local catholic church still has to buy her pills out of pocket. What is required is that all SECULAR companies, even those who are funded by churches, meet the same minimum standard of coverage. If a church doesn't want to buy birth control, they can simply stop operating companies for which doing so is a condition of staying in business.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369126,-76.761144
    My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron




  10. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,343

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    There is no fundamental difference between stopping a group from doing something and requiring them to start doing something. In either case the government is requiring a religious group to alter their behavior to bring it into line with what society requires.

    If my religion requires me to strangle a chicken every morning with my bare hands then feed the raw meat to my kids, the government can step in and stop me from doing it.

    If my religion forbids me from feeding my children anything at all between Monday and Saturday, the government can step in a force me start doing so.

    But all of this is beside the point. The churches themselves aren't being required to do anything against their religion. The secretary at your local catholic church still has to buy her pills out of pocket. What is required is that all SECULAR companies, even those who are funded by churches, meet the same minimum standard of coverage. If a church doesn't want to buy birth control, they can simply stop operating companies for which doing so is a condition of staying in business.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369126,-76.761144
    Well, I thought you were smart enough to see the difference between stopping someone from doing something and forcing them to start. I stand corrected.




  11. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,171
    Don't smugly assert there is a difference without explaining it. In either case, the government is acting to alter the religiously motivated behavior of a group because it can be demonstrated that there is a compelling interest to do so.

    You're irrational hair splitting between making someone stop doing something vs making them start doing something has no basis in law.

    Real world example. The government has required that Amish families START placing neon placards on their buggies to meet a compelling safety requirement. Totally acceptable exception to the establishment clause.

    Or are safety placards an unconstitutional injustice?


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369098,-76.761203
    My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging. -Hank Aaron




  12. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,343

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Don't smugly assert there is a difference without explaining it.
    Your example in both cases were basically the same. BOTH were to STOP abusing your kids.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland