Little Sisters of the Poor Aiding in the Religious Right Wing's Agenda for a Theocratic Government

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

What if the tenet of a religion is to behead non-Christians? You okay with that exception?

What if the tenet was to marry 9 year old girls off to 50 year old men?

Why do you want to compare Christianity to ISIS?

Do you feel ISIS is he same as Christianity?

a reply to: beezzer

At one time Christianity executed its heretics. That's why we have secular laws.

Extremism!

a reply to: dawnstar

Was there an issue before Obamacare?

No.

Is there an issue now?

Yes. Because insurance is mandatory. And birth control is part of insurance. And some religions don't believe in birth control.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

At one time Christianity executed its heretics. That's why we have secular laws.

Extremism!

So you think ISIS is the same as Christianity.

Fine.

Nice chatting with you.

a reply to: beezzer

Yes, I think that at one time, Christianity shared terroristic traits with ISIS. Do you deny that? Do you deny that our secular laws keep radical Christians in check?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Yes, I think that at one time, Christianity shared terroristic traits with ISIS. Do you deny that? Do you deny that our secular laws keep radical Christians in check?

I can't have a rational conversation with someone who just compared me to ISIS.

Have a nice day.

I think people are missing a key point from the OP, if I'm understanding it correctly. Little Sisters of the Poor is not being compelled to provide birth control NOR are they required to sign the waiver to be exempt because they already use a 'church plan' for their insurance and the company they use DOES NOT provide birth control coverage.

There is literally no issue here to be fighting, yet they are. Why?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

They are an example of the "American Taliban."

Yes beause theyve been so violent........what with their violent protests and burning buildings down and killing people in the streets

Maybe not the sisters themelves, but what about the corporate puppetmasters? You know, the ones killing in the Middle East in the name of the U.S for the last decade or so.

ETA: Even the CEO of Blackwater/Xe/WhatTheHell they are now is a Dominionist.

originally posted by: ketsuko
So get this one:

A bunch of nuns who are supposed to be living a celibate life are now being required to buy insurance the covers contraception and, not just any contraception, but forms they feel are deeply offensive to their belief system.

And liberals turn this into a debate on the exception being about wanting to establish theocracy ...

Why do celibate nuns need to buy insurance that covers contraception? Let's stop the hyperbole. And why should they be forced into buying it?

They don't and they are NOT required to purchase it. The insurance plan they have is a "church plan" which already omits birth control. In addition, they can sign a form to be entirely exempt of the contraception requirement. In essence, they have exactly what they want. So why is there a law suit? THAT is the question. That is the reason it seems something else is on the agenda.

a reply to: beezzer

Oh stop with the poor witto Christian me crapfest.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Oh stop with the poor witto Christian me crapfest.

Just don't want to talk to haters of religion, actually. Not in the mood today.

I've made my comments.

Continue your anti-Christian tirades without me.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Again, why are they now forced to sign a form for the government to make it OK to live their faith?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Yes, I think that at one time, Christianity shared terroristic traits with ISIS. Do you deny that? Do you deny that our secular laws keep radical Christians in check?

That whole argument is getting very old. People say the same thing about Islam and muslims and their opinion is torn apart. Why is the same acceptable when discussing Christianity?

The crusaders were no more Christian than ISIS are Muslim.

Talk about a double standard...

a reply to: beezzer
some religions, or some people?? again, who is protected by the constitution?
I agree though, I don't think the problem has anything whatsoever to do with birth control..it's just that obamacare isn't that popular and well they saw this issue as a possible way to know obamacare out of the field!
I mean, if hobby lobby really had a problem with birth control, like they claim, why didn't they have a problem doing business with companies in china that the chinese gov't relied on to play a major role in enforcing their one child policy?

but in the case of the little sisters well, the gov't isn't forcing them to use birth control, they aren't even forcing them to provide it to their employees, heck, they aren't even forcing them to provide coverage to those employees, all they are asking them to do is provide a note stating their belief that it's wrong....
sorry, I don't how that can be against any religious tenet, and well if it is, there's alot of religious followers that seem to be ignoring it! you can find them all over these boards expressing their religious disdain for quite a large number of topics!
but well, there's been one constant through it all, even before obamacare, employees have been financially coerced to accept whatever coverage their employers have decided to offer, and the same people griping about those poor religious businesses and organizations having to include have just said that the employees should just take what they are offered and shut up, be happy you are being offered something!

a reply to: dawnstar

Again, why must they now sign a note stating their beliefs?

No one has addressed this.

Would you find it acceptable if gays had to sign notes in order for the government to allow them to practice their orientation in some way? No. So why is it acceptable for the government to force people of faith to sign notes stating they practice their faith in this manner? It is a mechanism of state control over religion, something that the COTUS should forbid even if none of you think it's a big deal.

Freedom of Religion does not mean "free so long as you ask for permission via a signed form."

Healthcare should never have been employer-based in the first place. It gives employers like this too much power, hence the OP.

a reply to: ketsuko

Again, why must they now sign a note stating their beliefs?

It's a necessary bureaucratic step to ensure that the 14th Amendment is honored.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Healthcare should never have been employer-based in the first place. It gives employers like this too much power, hence the OP.

Well that issue goes back the wage controls instituted by the FDR admin.

a reply to: beezzer

Keep running from the facts in order to maintain your victim status. No one is attacking religion no one is attacking Christianity. The question, again... is:

Why are Little Sisters of the Poor fighting (or maybe it's the creepy law group) signing a waiver that they DON'T have to sign in the first place? They won't have to provide birth control coverage even if they don't sign the waiver.

Is it because they, similarly to many on here... want to place themselves as victims of religious persecution? Why do that?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AboveBoard

Again, why are they now forced to sign a form for the government to make it OK to live their faith?

Why do people have to sign a form for religious exemption from vaccination - an exemption of a federal law? If someone has an issue with the federal law regarding vaccinations, they are usually grateful to have a process whereby they can get out of having the vaccination. See? It's meant to help them practice their faith, because their faith is asking them to do something that is outside Federal law. Federal law now requires birth control be part of what insurance companies are obliged to cover, and signing a form is too much trouble to practice one's faith? Really?

Laws come and go, and sometimes they interfere with faith in such a way that an exemption is appropriate. What a wonderful system of government we have that exemptions for faith can be allowed, even against what is considered the law of the land. It seems there is great respect for religious beliefs and views, once people come forward to legally establish themselves as needing to be exempted.

Filling out a form is not something I consider to be an undue burden...we are required to fill out a lot of forms people don't like. I get that. Tax forms, school forms, license forms, etc. Should we not be required to fill out a marriage license form, birth certificate, death certificate, driver's license form, tax forms, legal waivers, etc. etc. etc.? All of these forms relate to our legal status and/or compliance with the law.

When, in our form-filled culture, did signing a form to protect one's rights become a reason to sue? Not liking the law is one thing, but the "burden" of filling out a form to get a legal exemption? Come on now...

Why would religious people think they should be exempt from forms relating to religious exemption??? Why are they better than anyone else who needs an exemption? Why SHOULDN'T they be willing to fill out a form that gives them exactly what they want, with the small exception of wanting to not have to fill out forms!

- AB

PS: An example...

IRS Form - for Amish/Menonite Religious Exemption of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs

Another example...

Religious Exemption form for Vaccines