Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101
  1. #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.








  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    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.




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,268
    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




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    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.




  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,268
    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




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    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.




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,268
    Ha! Clever response to your baseless hair split.

    This rule is designed to STOP the Catholic Church from denying its employees a basic medical treatment that should be covered by insurance! So now you're cool with it right? Since its stopping something instead of starting?

    Also, show me any sort of legal precedent differentiating between stopping a behavior being acceptable while expecting a group to start doing something isn't acceptable.


    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369100,-76.761210
    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




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,268

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Your example in both cases were basically the same. BOTH were to STOP abusing your kids.
    Well yes, but the operative action in each case was different. In one it was to STOP inflicting harm on them. In the other it was to START providing them with the minimal level of care.

    What about the Amish placards? How is that not forcing someone to START using technology their religion prohibits?

    And once again, what legal precedent are you basing your insistence that their is a fundamental difference between compelling someone stop doing something compared to compelling someone start doing something?
    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




  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Well yes, but the operative action in each case was different. In one it was to STOP inflicting harm on them. In the other it was to START providing them with the minimal level of care.
    Lets be honest, you're examples were a little extreme, ridiculous, highly hypothetical and so unlikely to happen I shouldn't even address them. But sometimes I can't help myself. The operative action was different but the reason for the action was the same, to STOP abusing the kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    What about the Amish placards? How is that not forcing someone to START using technology their religion prohibits?
    How is a placard technology?

    But the reason it's okay, is because they don't HAVE to drive on the roads, but if the are going to than as to not harm others, they have to be visible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    And once again, what legal precedent are you basing your insistence that their is a fundamental difference between compelling someone stop doing something compared to compelling someone start doing something?
    You said it yourself: "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 compelling reason in your example would be to stop you from abusing your kids by starving.

    I apologize earlier for saying you were not smart for not seeing the difference in stopping and starting, I'm smartass by nature. However, you do seem fairly intelligent, so I am unsure if you're playing ignorant so that you can pretend not to see the issue or if you really don't see how it's different.

    The difference is simple. Stopping someone from doing something that affects people in a negative way as result of your actions is the one of the reasons for the government. Can inaction be harmful to the others? - Sure. But in the case of not offering insurance that covers contraception (and abortion inducing pills) no. The people who work for the organizations are not forbade to buy or use them. But forcing a religious org to start offering something that goes against their faith is flat out wrong.

    Let me ask you this to see if you can see my point. Do think that the mandate in "Obamacare" that requires people to purchase insurance is constitutional?




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pikesville
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    How is a placard technology?
    It is manufactured material that the Amish only use because a law was passed requiring them to do so against their religious belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    But the reason it's okay, is because they don't HAVE to drive on the roads, but if the are going to than as to not harm others, they have to be visible.
    And churches don't have to operate businesses, but when they choose to they are required to play by the rules. One rule is that business must include birth control in their insurance plans. If they don't want to do that then they can go back to just being churches and let purely secular organizations run businesses.



    ---
    I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.369158,-76.761209
    Last edited by ActualSpamBot; 02-09-2012 at 10:16 PM.
    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




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,735

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    And churches don't have to operate businesses, but when they choose to they are required to play by the rules. One rule is that business must include birth control in their insurance plans. If they don't want to do that then they can go back to just being churches and let purely secular organizations run businesses.
    Actually, they're not businesses, they are non-profit, faith based organizations. If you want to argue that they should not be non-profit if they're are going to operate by different rules, I'd be on your side.

    BTW - You forgot to address the below...

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I am unsure if you're playing ignorant so that you can pretend not to see the issue or if you really don't see how it's different.

    The difference is simple. Stopping someone from doing something that affects people in a negative way as result of your actions is the one of the reasons for the government. Can inaction be harmful to the others? - Sure. But in the case of not offering insurance that covers contraception (and abortion inducing pills) no. The people who work for the organizations are not forbade to buy or use them. But forcing a religious org to start offering something that goes against their faith is flat out wrong.

    Let me ask you this to see if you can see my point. Do think that the mandate in "Obamacare" that requires people to purchase insurance is constitutional?




  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Back to Spammy's mobiilization or lack thereof, some powerful
    Catholic DEMs in congress have been mobilized and are bailing out on
    OBY who is getting a lot of blow back on this.

    As the link I posted above states, OBY is considering their concerns but
    take it for what it's worth amongst all his lies.

    Powerful DEMs include Tim Kaine, former DNC chairman running for Senate in Virginia, Bob Casey, Senator from Pennsylvania, House Democrat caucus chairman John Larson, those are some of the defectors from Obama.

    Rick Warren of the Saddleback church and a liberal post modernist says
    he will go to prison over non-compliance of this law.

    This is much bigger than the regime ever realized.


    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...tholic_mandate
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 02-10-2012 at 04:31 AM.




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    As far as girls going to church, Galen doesn't have a clue as usual. Just because he has 1 patient or 2 doesn't mean that represents all church girls. Christian parents raise their families in church and have been doing it for 2,000 years but church girls are exposed to the same temptations as
    non Christian girls with some giving in but many not. The Southern Baptists
    have been educating their young women on abstinence with great success. More women are abstaining from sex altogether according to the Center of Disease Control stats.

    Many virtuous women have come from the church as well as pre-church
    days - women like Hannah, Mary, Ruth and Rahab who was a prostitute but
    converted and led a virtuous life afterward. While not publicized, many
    Christian women were martyred with the men during the first Century church. Some were burned at the stake and used a lamps on the way to the
    collesiums. One woman drowned her daughters and herself as soldiers came to feed them to the lions. Some were fed to animals for sex.


    All of the girls I grew up in church married christian men and started their own Christian familes. A gal I dated in hi school became a missionary in
    the Phillipines and now her children are missionaries. A son is a pilot who
    delivers food and medical supplies to villages in Africa. Galen of all people
    should like that.

    Christian parents are supposed to raise their families in the church and all
    the girls I knew in church were virtuous and turned out to be great Christian wives. Im kicking myself now for not marrying some of them but they turned out to be perfect Christian mothers and wives
    and as many as 3rd, 4th or even 5th generations of Christian mothers
    and wives. My mother's family of Christians has been traced back to 1820.
    Her mother was named Elsie after the Elsie books of the 1880s as her mother was a Christian.

    And now my sister is a Christian who married a Godly man and she has two sons that married Christian gals and her daughter is engaged to a Christian boy. It keeps going from generation to generation - all after being raised in the church as God instructed and I didn't even mention my brother's wife who is a Christian and she has 3 sisters that are Christians and they are all married to Christian men.

    In fact, her brother in law is a shrink who doesn't have time to go
    on message boards and neither do any of his colleagues and he'd fire
    his counselors if they did for going on and insulting people with
    immature name calling and acting unprofessionally.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 02-10-2012 at 08:22 AM.




  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Although Obama will today announce another manner in which to ensure all women equal access to healthcare, it won't be because of a conflict with the constitution. I think he is doing this the correct way as birth control is still a sensitive issue to some, a small but loud minority, and it is not worth the political capital he would expend here.

    It looks like the administration was basing the legality of thier initial decision on a Scalia precedent from 1990:


    “One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”

    The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for smoking peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.

    “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,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from an ages old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.








  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: HHS Says Religious-Affiliated Organizations Must Cover Contraception

    Well, Galen, Scalia will be one of the ones who will strike down O BUMMER
    CARE that contains all of this, but it should be safe because another Reagan appointee, Kennedy, will probably vote for it. His vote is always the swing vote as he votes for liberal causes 50% of the time even though he was appointed by Reagan. That's why
    the liberals in Congress confirmed him after denying Borke, a previous nominee and much more conservative.

    Kennedy still might vote against it and if he does all this is a moot point
    because OBY CARE will be ruled unconstitutional as Scalia will vote vs it.




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