Religious Liberty now allows some to be Above the Law

a reply to: mOjOm
.....once great SECULAR Nation......
Another victim of public indoctrination
There is no "separation of church and state clause".
The Constitution simply states that the government may not establish an official state sponsored religion. It doesn't say that state officials can not practice their faiths, or that they cannot mention faith. They are only prohibited from making such declarations into official government policy
When the government passes laws interfering with the practice of faith, of forcing people of faith to violate their consciences, it is the government that is in violation of the constitution.
From the very beginning America was a place filled with refugees of religious persecution, often in the form of being forced to accept government mandates limiting their faith and observances, or forcing them to submit to officially sanctioned faith or practices.
America was NEVER a secular country. From day one all of the founding fathers continuously praised and invoked God in their speeches and writings.
The Secular American Republic is a lie created by those looking to justify their driving of faith from government, and eventually public life.
Even the shortest of searches into the history books shows what men of great faith the founders were, how routinely they invoked their faith while holding public offices, and that the intent of the constitution was for the protection of religious faiths.
....."shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise...."
No where does it say that government is godless or faithless, or that its officials cannot express their opinions on the matter, only that it may not use its power to advocate one religion over another. The hobby lobby ruling was a clear upholding of the second portion of the law. If government can progressively pass laws that bar all forms of practice of faith, or to force persons of faith to violate their principles, then that clause holds no meaning at all.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Yeah, I mean, one of them (FLDS) actively practices polygamy, sells young girls into pre-arranged marriages, and doesn't believe in most of the scriptures written by their common founding prophet (irony)? Meanwhile the other (LDS) doesn't practice polygamy or sell young girls into pre-arranged marriages, and does believe in the scriptures written by their common founding prophet. But yeah, they're basically the same. Deny ignorance?

Both born from the same alleged Prophet Joseph Smith who practiced Polygamy as well. Just another Cult of supposed Divine Truth without any Credible Evidence to support it. AKA: Religion.

Close enough to being the same thing as far as I'm concerned and I don't care to debate the otherwise. It's just your opinion and mine, so let's leave it at that.

As for god on currency, that was brought up in the discussion by Krazysh0t. If you're not going to follow the discussion you probably shouldn't talk to people about being on topic.

Well I'm happy for both you and Krazysh0t, however it's still off topic. BTW, before you decide to tell me about how I shouldn't be part of the discussion and all that horsesh*t, I just want to inform you that I am the one who created this thread so I fail to recognize why you seem to think YOU of all people get to decide who should and shouldn't be part of the discussion. NOW GET BACK ON TOPIC.

The bill maher portion was an example of a prominent atheist acknowledging a fact that many in this thread would like to (and have expressly) deny.

I'm thrilled you pointed that out. Yet, it has no point in being said as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I suggest you make your own thread about prominent atheists who you like to disagree with and put it there instead.

The last part was off topic, I'll give you that one, I mostly just put it in there to ruffle your feathers. Mission accomplished.

Fine. So yo admit you're trolling and you intention is simply to ruffle some feathers. Glad you decided to come clean about that for us all to know. Are you finished playing games now or do you want to continue derailing this thread???

OT: But let me tell you what I see when I read your response; a lack of substance. But it pains you too much to see the facts I posted (FLDS vs. LDS, Christianity vs. Islam, Founders putting God references on the great seal) go unchallenged so you came up with a response that you felt would slide by, hopefully without anyone seeing through the smoke screen. But hey, that's just what I see when I look at it.

My lack of response is because you don't merit anything more than the very least I have to give. As for the discussion about the mormon church and God on Money, the truth is I don't care what your thoughts are about them. I'm more than happy to discuss them if you'd like to but again this is not the thread to do it in. Lastly, I assure you I most definitely am not someone who makes a response in the hopes that it "slides by" without notice. You obviously either don't know me very well or have me confused with another member.

The civility with which I made my post to you, which you have mistaken for something else, is simply my attempt to remain considerate toward other members so as not to derail my own thread. Something I am trying harder to do since I haven't done so well in the past as nothing pleases me more than to argue with some douche who openly challenges me with their half witted theories. I still intend to keep this thread civil, but if you'd like to have an argument elsewhere that would fine with me. Until then however, Pretty Please, with sugar on top, keep to the f*cking topic!!!

originally posted by: robobbob
.....once great SECULAR Nation......
Another victim of public indoctrination
There is no "separation of church and state clause".
The Constitution simply states that the government may not establish an official state sponsored religion. It doesn't say that state officials can not practice their faiths, or that they cannot mention faith. They are only prohibited from making such declarations into official government policy

Fine. I never said they couldn't practice their faiths or mention it either. I agree also that they are prohibited from including it within official government policy.

So far you and I see things pretty much the same. Does that mean you too are a "Victim" here???

BTW, since they can practice their faith but not include such practice in Gov. policy. I think that could be considered a "Separation". That's how it looks to me anyway.

When the government passes laws interfering with the practice of faith, of forcing people of faith to violate their consciences, it is the government that is in violation of the constitution.

Not quite that simple. True, the Gov. is there to Protect the Right of each individual to practice their faith, however, if the practice of one's faith includes infringing upon the Liberty of another, then they most certainly are there to intervene as it is purpose of Gov. to protect the Liberty of ALL People not just the Religious ones. So protecting an individual from another individuals Religious Practices is their responsibility.

America was NEVER a secular country. From day one all of the founding fathers continuously praised and invoked God in their speeches and writings. The Secular American Republic is a lie created by those looking to justify their driving of faith from government, and eventually public life.
Even the shortest of searches into the history books shows what men of great faith the founders were, how routinely they invoked their faith while holding public offices, and that the intent of the constitution was for the protection of religious faiths.

It most certainly was Secular. The Founders, which were of Various Faiths, may very well have practiced their Faith, but made a clear distinction that the Gov. Mandate No Religion, but Protects the Practice of any Religion by it's People.

Protecting Peoples Right to Practice their Faith means the Gov. must be Neutral in it's opinion toward Religion. That's the whole point. The Gov. must remain Neutral toward Religion in order to Protect all of them equally. The Gov. isn't allowed to have a chosen Religion although the members or People with it are allowed to choose any Faith they want. Do you see the difference???

....."shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise...."
No where does it say that government is godless or faithless, or that its officials cannot express their opinions on the matter, only that it may not use its power to advocate one religion over another. The hobby lobby ruling was a clear upholding of the second portion of the law. If government can progressively pass laws that bar all forms of practice of faith, or to force persons of faith to violate their principles, then that clause holds no meaning at all.

You are still confusing the difference between People and their Practice of Religion vs. The Gov. and it's Practice of Religion. People are protected in their Right to Choose and Practice Religion, not the Government. The Government is Controlled By Man, For Man. It was not Created nor Controlled by God. There is a valid and important reason for that too if you'd just take a second to realize it. In fact, it is there to Protect Religion not destroy it. You've been convinced of the opposite and in doing so you are actually contributing to the eventual downfall of those very same Religious Protections. If you try to turn the Gov. into having a Belief of some sort rather than secular, it will do so at the peril of all other Beliefs and Non Beliefs alike. That is a Theocracy. That is not what this Nation is, was or ever meant to be.

a reply to: mOjOm

Under the term dhimmitude muslims are exempt from the ACA.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslin populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presenceAND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam!

ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States!

Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured! Islam considers insurance to be "gambling," "risk-taking," and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

Read more at www.snopes.com...

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: mOjOm

Under the term dhimmitude muslims are exempt from the ACA.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslin populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presenceAND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam!

ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States!

Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured! Islam considers insurance to be "gambling," "risk-taking," and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

Read more at www.snopes.com...

Then I guess that should go on the board with the other rules that violate Equal Protections Under the Law then. Muslims, nor Christians, nor Grand Wizards of the Lodi Clan should be granted Special status based upon their Religion. Once you do that, there is no point in having Laws that are supposed to be applied Equally since depending on the Religion of choice and how it's interpreted every can just start choosing which Laws they want to follow and which ones they don't. So why have any Law at all at that point.

BTW, Just so you know, I don't support ObamaCare either. I understand the idea and I like the idea of Social Healthcare for Everyone, but ObamaCare is a complete Fail IMO at accomplishing that.

a reply to: mOjOm

It was possibly though black mail that ACA was consided a tax and not a law. Are all people taxed the same? no. Should all people be compled to pay this tax? Ask John Roberts.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: mOjOm

It was possibly though black mail that ACA was consided a tax and not a law. Are all people taxed the same? no. Should all people be compled to pay this tax? Ask John Roberts.

I don't really have a lot to say in regard to ACA. Like I said earlier, while I do support the idea of Healthcare for Everyone being a something provided by (possibly) through the Gov. I don't think the ACA was the best way to do it. But that is also not the topic of this thread either and I'm not in a position to debate for or against it either.

This thread is discussing this recent ruling citing RFRA, Hobby Lobby, etc. I'd like to keep the discussion about this ruling, or the RFRA, the Hobby Lobby Ruling or anything dealing with those topics directly.

a reply to: mOjOm

There are more groups than hobby lobby that do not have to adhere to the ACA such as a whole group of people the Muslims. May I ask why you are focusing only on Christian businesses? How many secular groups got wavers from BHO?

What about the 1200 companies that have gotten wavers? I guess they are above the law just like the Muslims. “All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”
When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said. However, what’s slightly unsettling is the fact that the majority of the waivers were handed out to labor unions.

So your bitchen about what one company getting a pass and you have 4 million people got wavers because they were part of a union?


Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS)

a reply to: mOjOm

So lets see, the topic is not about the FLDS practices (which the case is about). It's not about the roles of government and religion (which the article is about). So what exactly is your thread about? You've already been proven wrong about the substance of the case you presented being religion overruling government power.

I'm afraid you don't even know what your own thread is about.

But by all means, continue to go off topic to tell me how off topic I am.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
So your bitchen about what one company getting a pass and you have 4 million people got wavers because they were part of a union?

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS)

You know what. I'm going to say this real clear so that people like you who are too dumb to simply read what the topic is will understand what's going on.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE F*CKING HOBBY LOBBY HEALTH CARE MANDATE OR HOW IT APPLIES TO CERTAIN BUSINESSES!!!

Why don't you try reading the opening post so you know what we are talking about before you start acting like an ass and getting #ty with me. At least if you want to bitch to me about something, make sure you're ON TOPIC when doing so.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

So lets see, the topic is not about the FLDS practices (which the case is about). It's not about the roles of government and religion (which the article is about). So what exactly is your thread about? You've already been proven wrong about the substance of the case you presented being religion overruling government power.

I'm afraid you don't even know what your own thread is about.

But by all means, continue to go off topic to tell me how off topic I am.

Actually, there are 3 pages worth of posts where for the most part everyone was on topic. That is until you started posting in here too.

Yes, this is about the latest ruling dealing with the FLDS, siting the Hobby Lobby Ruling, which is allowing for this one guy to be excused from having to testify in court without penalty.

But since you've been a total ass and rude since you've been here I have no intention of discussing anything with you.

By your own words you admit that you are here only to troll, or as you put it, "ruffle some feathers". I'm not wasting my time with a self admitted TROLL. C ya.

a reply to: mOjOm

Your example was in reguard to Hobby Lobby getting special tretment I only pointed out that over 2000 wavers have been granted to groups mostly unions. so what's your point then if it is not to troll for christian bashers?

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: mOjOm

Your example was in reguard to Hobby Lobby getting special tretment I only pointed out that over 2000 wavers have been granted to groups mostly unions. so what's your point then if it is not to troll for christian bashers?

No. Why don't you just read the opening post??? Is that too much to ask to simply read at the very least the opening argument??

The only reason Hobby Lobby is mentioned is because the court sites it in this case as well since it is added to the RFRA ruling. That's all. Nothing about ACA or even about HL or birth control.

I'm not here Christian Bashing either, so go play captain save a hoe somewhere else and stop accusing me. Although you do make a great example of why someone just might think christian bashing is a good idea. With representatives like you becoming unhinged without even a valid reason to do so, it's not exactly good for their image.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Well here we go. Some of us called it months ago when the Hobby Lobby Verdict and the Religious Freedom Act went through but were told, "Don't worry, it won't leak into other areas.....bla bla bla." But it did, just like we all knew it would. How sad to see this once great SECULAR Nation turn not just into a Corporate Police State but now with touch of a Theocracy thrown in for good measure as well. What a massive fail we are as a nation and a people. We have completely failed in every way to hold on to our Once Great Republic Experiment.

The republic experiment as you call it was mortally wounded in 1861 by Lincoln. You do know that the confederation of the states was not to make one large ruling governmental entity that is what the founding fathers feared. Just like the ruling king of England. This once great experiment of Jefferson and other founding fathers died when the Hamiltonian American system was put in place by Lincoln. Go back and read the state constitutions prior to the declaration of independence. Read the original intent of the federalist papers. Then read how that original idea of federalism was put to death by Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and Nixon to name a few.

Not that anyone cares here at ATS, but I wanted to point out that this is the Fundamentalist LDS Church, not the regular LDS Church.

The Fundamentalist Church is a small sect of about 8,000 members.

The LDS Church has about 14 million worldwide; these are the Mormons everyone knows.

They have no affiliation besides the fact that the Fundamentalist Church branched off when the LDS Church outlawed polygamy and excommunicated any members still practicing.

Also I don't see how this is any different than Lois Lerner not answering any questions regarding her trial. The judge excused the man from testifying against his Church leaders, isn't that similar to being excused to testify against a family member? It may be a stretch to make that comparison, but I don't see it as a big deal.

It's not like religions here in the west are cutting people's heads off for not agreeing with them.

This is nothing new. The Popes, a few hundred years ago would execute people in the thousands daily when people would reject Christ and the trinity. And thats because because somehow a guy that died less then two thousand years spreadin love and peace somehow appointed the title of the Pope 300 years after dying being some kind of messenger for that messenger.



If this the spirituality of the future. God show me and my planet mercy, and end my miserable existence from these idiots.

a reply to: ArnoldNonymous

It's not like religions here in the west are cutting people's heads off for not agreeing with them.

They used to, daily, and being axed/guillotined would be a mercy call, compared to the other things the inquisition would do to people daily. If they really didn't like you, they would burn you at the stake...after years of torture mind you.

Normally it was woman who accused of doing witchcraft, however I think it was just jealous men, that couldn't sleep with a beautiful maiden, that would pray to the trinity...Because they wouldn't sleep with them...Or maybe those guys were crazy.
Sure it a few hundred years ago, but its not that long enough in my opinion.

In the Muslum world, they'd just stone a person, even today.

Beheadings...sounds very european.

Like many things now-days people don't at meanings and where something comes from.

1st Atheism is in fact a religion from every definition of the word. Which I have no issue with at all.


2nd This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. (look at the Northwest Ordinance 1787)

3rd No where in the Constitution does it state separation of church and state (It is in the constitution of the USSR. That make you think?)It also does not say freedom FROM religion; it says freedom OF religion. The statement of separation of church and state come from a letter written by Jefferson. But again the phrase is taken out of context with what he was saying. In fact in the original draft of this letter; He proposed a federal day of feasting and pray. This was taken out of the finial version because he thought it might upset a couple of "eastern" politicians. (How do you get more eastern from where is was?)

Our current problems come from activism of the courts. Afte the 1920's some courts began to reinterpret the 1st Amendment. They started the move from the word OF to the word FROM. The original idea was to stop the growth of a religious group; like the Anglican Church from having a hold over the government as it had in England. It was also to allow people of different faiths to be able to practice their religion without fear. In the truest sense the government should have pushed back against this. The courts do not have the power to change the Constitution only to enforce it. The idea that they can reinterpret what it means is ludicrous. Yes it is a "living" document; but I believe that it is living by the fact that they built in ways to change it. These changes are hard, but they didn't want people tampering with the document without deep though and I sure they didn't want the thought of a mere 5 people to change the meaning. (5 being the # of votes in the Supreme Court currently needed). Look at what happen with the 19th Amendment when it was passed so quickly without the proper time to reflect.


Lastly I have no issue with any religion. Does it really hurt you so much to watch a person pray? We walk by people on the street dying and starving without a second glace, but walking by a person praying stops you in your tracks?

You see porn and graffiti and trash on the streets with no problem, but the cross make you shake with fear?

(You can change the cross to: star of David, crescent moon, the @ sign or any other one you care to use)