Priest Gives Obama's Mandate "The Finger (?)"

reply to post by sirhumperdink

The government should not be able to make anyone comply with an unconstitutional law. Saying something is a law, so we must follow it, leads to some ugly destinations.

Your idea that the Secretary of HHS can make people do anything she wants by issuing a regulation, concerns me. What limits does the government then have? The Constitution. And I, and others, believe this regulation is unconstitutional.

reply to post by charles1952


how is this unconstitutional
please explain how this has ANYTHING to do with the constitution
doctors have agreed that the contraceptive pill is a crucial part of womens healthcare
and for those reasons it has now been made a legal requirement to have it on a healthcare plan

this makes perfect sense
it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion (except for the fact a religious institution has a problem with it... oh well you cant have everything your way)

its not a matter of being ablle to do anything or make anything law this is a public health issue .....im raging soooo hard right now


you are being unreasonable

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by charles1952

 

how is this unconstitutional
please explain how this has ANYTHING to do with the constitution
doctors have agreed that the contraceptive pill is a crucial part of womens healthcare
and for those reasons it has now been made a legal requirement to have it on a healthcare plan

this makes perfect sense
it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion

its not a matter of being bale to do anything this is a public health issue .....im raging soooo hard right now


you are being unreasonable

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...

The amendment prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion

It's a constitutional issue.

reply to post by beezzer


how does this impede the way you exercise your religion?

does this in anyway affect the way you express your faith?

im not posting in this thread anymore
this is a complete waste of my time

you try this # in public ill slap the # out of you

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by beezzer

 

how does this impede the way you exercise your religion?

does this in anyway affect the way you express your faith?

im not posting in this thread anymore
this is a complete waste of my time

you try this # in public ill slap the # out of you

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

A brilliant riposte!
A great debate tactic. Provide a counterpoint and I'll slap the # out of you!

Slow day at mediamatters?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by beezzer

 

how does this impede the way you exercise your religion?

does this in anyway affect the way you express your faith?

im not posting in this thread anymore
this is a complete waste of my time

you try this # in public ill slap the # out of you

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

A brilliant riposte!
A great debate tactic. Provide a counterpoint and I'll slap the # out of you!

Slow day at mediamatters?

you as well i commend your ability to refute my arguments as i did yours.... wait


yeah have a nice day

"
how does this impede the way you exercise your religion?

does this in anyway affect the way you express your faith?"

i will not be responding again unless you provide an answer

(as for the comment about slapping you i apologize however its deserving of nothing but contempt that you would attempt to misuse the constitution in such a way)

reply to post by sirhumperdink

My apologies. I didn't intend to be unreasonable, and I'm not convinced I was. But let me tell you my thinking, then you can tell me where I'm being unreasonable. I'll try to fix it and we can come to an understanding.

This regulation springs from the Obamacare law, and is designed to supplement it. The law has been sucessfully challenged in Federal courts on the grounds of unconstitutionality. It is now before the Supreme Court. The courts which have found it unconstitutional all agree that the requirement that an individual has to buy a health insurance policy, if not otherwise covered, is objectionable.

In the case of the Church institutions (which include things like schools, thrift shops, food kitchens, etc.) the Church is saying "Not only is it unconstitutional to make us buy a policy for our employees (as described above), but it is doubly wrong to make us pay for something fundamentally opposed by our religion. The government has made accomodations for religion in all manner of cases, including serving in the military, there is nothing so crucial involved here."

The Church has no objection to any employee using birth control, but they object to being made to participate in providing it. This is where the First Amendment argument comes in, that the government is interfering with the Church through its institutions.

Women have used birth control for decades, the poor get it free or at reduced cost. There is no crisis involved here.

I could go on at even greater length, but I suspect you're struggling to stay awake as it is. I'm pretty sure you disagree, and I'm happy to discuss it, but as I said, I don't see the "unreasonable" part.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

how does this impede the way you exercise your religion?

Obama's mandates would dictate measures that go against religious tenents.

does this in anyway affect the way you express your faith?"

If government (HHS) mandates dictate measures that go against religious tenents, then yes.

i will not be responding again unless you provide an answer

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

I almost didn't respond, just hoping you'd go away.

reply to post by beezzer


no it does not
they do not force YOU or ANYONE to use birth control
do they?
its merely allowing for the CHOICE to go against these tenents

it is not a "dictate" against these tenents

it does not in anyway hinder the way you to express your faith
however it does hinder your ability to push these tenents on others that may not agree with them

"just hoping youd go away"
yeah i know how that is
im not going away though so pull your head out of the sand

@charles i understand and thank you for taking the time to argue properly (looking at you Beezzer)

however the first ammendment protects your rights to practice your religion
and this in no way affects how YOU practice

if the employee took the money they were given to buy contraceptives the church would be just as responsible as if it was on the healthcare the fact is
the women have to get it regardless of where its coming from
so its not fair for the church to not allow something that has been determined a requirement for healthcare on their plan its ridiculous

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by beezzer

 

no it does not
they do not force YOU or ANYONE to use birth control
do they?
its merely allowing for the CHOICE to go against these tenents

it is not a "dictate" against these tenents

it does not in anyway hinder the way you to express your faith
however it does hinder your ability to push these tenents on others that may not agree with them

"just hoping youd go away"
yeah i know how that is
im not going away though so pull your head out of the sand

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

The mandates would force catholic churches to purchase birth control.

Would you force a mosque to purchase bacon?

reply to post by beezzer


if there were people working for them that for some reason absolutely had to have bacon
and lunch was a requirement by law
then yes i absolutely would
thats a terrible argument

youre comparing healthcare and medicing to a pork taboo
i dont even know where to begin

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by beezzer

 

if there were people working for them that for some reason absolutely had to have bacon
and lunch was a requirement by law
then yes i absolutely would
thats a terrible argument

youre comparing healthcare and medicing to a pork taboo
i dont even know where to begin

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

But religious institutions can disciminate, based on religion. You can't force a religious organization to do something that goes against their tenents.

Might as well live in a dictatorship if you side with government on this issue.

reply to post by beezzer


but only your religion correct?

islamic tennants must be subject to law right?

you most definitely can
just because you believe something does not make you exempt from the law that binds the rest of us

hell ill make a religion right now that allows me to just take anything thats not nailed down
and whos going to stop my its my right
any attempt to stop me is discrimination against my religion

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by beezzer

 

but only your religion correct?

islamic tennants must be subject to law right?

you most definitely can
just because you believe something does not make you exempt from the law that binds the rest of us

hell ill make a religion right now that allows me to just take anything thats not nailed down
and whos going to stop my its my right
any attempt to stop me is discrimination against my religion

edit on 25-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

Hyperbole much?

Just face it. Obama, is in violation of the Constitution. You can try to reword anything you want, but in the end, his intent is a direct violation of the 1st Ammendment.

reply to post by beezzer


is not and you have failed on every level to prove so
i will not be responding to you in this thread anymore
i wish you no ill will its just extremely upsetting you cant be more logical about things
have a good night

A couple of things you might want to consider.

A very recent Supreme Court decision ruled 9-0 that a church did not have to follow a federal law that said hiring had to be done without regard to religion. It upheld the idea that a church could choose its own ministers in its own way without paying any attention to equal employment laws.

Your example of starting a religion requiring theft is a faulty one. The difference is that in this case the government is requiring a religion to do something it is opposed to. In your case, the government would be stopping you from doing something hurtful to society. Entirely different.

reply to post by charles1952


look i dont entirely dislike you
mostly because youre older and i know youre more settled in how you do things
but i really im done arguing tonight im at wits end
(really thank you for not resorting to ad hominem or cheap word play i do respect that)

suffice it to say the world is changing
you guys are in the minority and time will do the world justice

reply to post by sirhumperdink

OK, I can understand that. I would enjoy further conversation with you, if you'd like, when you're more rested.

Sleep well.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

Normally, I love reframing questions. It gives us a new way to look at a problem and that's normally what's needed in resolving confusion. At any rate, I hope you can resolve my confusion.

The difficulty I have with your reframing is that the Church isn't forbidding any of it's employees to use contraceptives, or even have an abortion if they want to. The employees have been, and will continue to be, free to take any medical action they may choose. In fact, a Catholic hospital will perform an abortion in a life threatening situation.

The Church is simply saying don't order us to start paying for it. Don't force us to take a step that revolts our conscience. It's not like we are doing something illegal and you want us to stop, that's one thing. But to force us to start doing something that is clearly abhorrent, unconstitutional, and violates every principle of religious freedom, nope, we're not going there.

If I've missed your point, please try again. Note my signature.

I'm really trying to figure out what the Church is so upset about. The truth is, the Church was always paying for their employees' contraception. If an employee uses their own money to pay for the contraception which was paid to them by the Church, then the Church, in essence, was directly involved in the purchase of contraception.

If the Insurance company pays for the contraception, they will indeed do so out of premiums paid to them, but who is to say that they are getting that money directly from premiums from the Church? It could be money pulled from a "pot" of premiums that may or may not be directly related to the Church. We do know for a fact that the Insurance Company will not be able to charge the Church directly for the cost of the contraception.

As far as I see it, the Church has a much less direct involvement with their employees' purchase of contraception if the insurance company pays for it, then if their salaries paid for it directly. So, what is the Church upset about?

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
how does this impede the way you exercise your religion?
does this in anyway affect the way you express your faith?

ALREADY ANSWERED that on page one. Don't you read the thread? :shk:

Catholics are not allowed to participate IN ANY MANNER in birth control. That includes the fact that they cannot help others participate in it. If they do, they are considered to be guilty of GRAVE SIN and hellfire. Therefore... Catholic Church hospitals, which are a part of the Catholic church and which operate with a Catholic identity, cannot ever contribute to anyone partaking in artificial birth control.

im not posting in this thread anymore ... this is a complete waste of my time

I'm glad you aren't posting anymore. Since you don't bother to read what people post and
then you just continue to post and post without reading .. you are indeed making a waste of our time.

Originally posted by Unity_99
birth control is a right under the pursuit of happiness,

Free birth control is NOT a 'right'. It's a commodity.
The First Amendment is a 'right'.

But I don't really need a constitution to tell me that,

Apparently you do. I suggest you go read it.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
doctors have agreed that the contraceptive pill is a crucial part of womens healthcare

That is simply untrue. Getting free birth control pills is NOT a crucial part of healthcare.
BTW .. 'the pill' isn't just a contraceptive .. many times it's an abortificant as well.