It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?
So, if I happen to run across a hospital owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions, that's OK with you? Or how about a hospital owned by Muslims that refuses to treat infidels, I'll bet that would go over good.
What you people need to realize is that just because a business is owned by a religious interest, doesn't mean that the business now qualifies as a religion and/or entitled to special treatment. It's still a business that must adhere to the same rules as anyone else in the business.
Originally posted by dizzie56
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?
So, if I happen to run across a hospital owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions, that's OK with you? Or how about a hospital owned by Muslims that refuses to treat infidels, I'll bet that would go over good.
What you people need to realize is that just because a business is owned by a religious interest, doesn't mean that the business now qualifies as a religion and/or entitled to special treatment. It's still a business that must adhere to the same rules as anyone else in the business.
Actually, id be fine with those other groups opening up their own hospitals, I just wouldnt go there. You do have an option as to where you go.
What you people need to realize is that the governnment can not dictate faith or doctrine. If something goes against the doctrine of the religion it doesnt give you the right to force people to change, just like its not our right to force you to change and accept our religion.
Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?
Originally posted by Flatfish
They plan on filming their instructions and sending the film to the IRS in defiance of constitutional statutes prohibiting such political activity in hopes of instigating and winning an IRS legal challenge and reversing the statutes.
Originally posted by Flatfish
You only have a choice up until that religious organization buys up all the hospitals in your area. Where I live we have 4 hospitals and 3 of them are catholic owned, go figure! On top of that, more often than not, it's your doctor that chooses the hospital you will be treated in and not you.
I really don't care what kind of delusional crap someone decides to believe in, just don't push your beliefs off on me and quit trying to turn our hospitals into churches.
The last thing I need is a religious organization deciding what medical treatment I should be privy to. No thanks!
Originally posted by dizzie56
Actually, when its an emergency they just take you to the nearest hospital that has room. Its not like the ambulance calls your doc and asks him where he wants you.
Originally posted by dizzie56
Having a Church owned hospital isnt someone pushing their beliefs on you, nor are they trying to change hospitals into churches. Actually, more times then not, they are better hospitals AFTER they are taken over due to that whole unglodly act of Charity that the left seems to despise.
Originally posted by dizzie56
The only thing they are dening is allowing abortions at their hospitals...if you dont like it then just go down the road to the abortion clinic. Its not that hard to do nor understand. Its actually quite the opposite of who is pushing on whos beliefs then what you believe.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Not where I live, unless of course you're in such a state that you and/or your next of kin are incapable of making a choice between hospitals, then the EMTs decide. I don't know where you live but here in Texas, they ask you where you want to be taken for treatment but in my area, 3 of the 4 available hospitals are catholic owned.
I kinda half-assed agree with this statement except for the fact that I don't believe that religious beliefs should have any bearing on my medical treatment. Also, we don't despise charity in any way and we're actually quite giving people.
They're not just denying abortions at their hospitals. They're also refusing to provide insurance coverage for birth control to anyone who may be an employee of the hospital they own, whether they are catholic or not and despite the fact that the coverage is cost-neutral. The business of a hospital should be to provide medical treatment for illness and/or injury of the patient and not for the promotion and/or enforcement of the hospital owner's religious beliefs.
The first time religious organizations were given an exemption from paying taxes was with The Wilson Tariff Act of 1894. The next year this act was overturned by the Supreme Court, but every tax code since has allowed the exemption to be part of the tax code. However, up until 1954 religious organizations still had the freedom to participate in political and lobbying activities. That is when, then Senator Lyndon B Johnson, introduced amendment 501(c)(3) to the tax code during a Senate floor debate on the 1954 Internal Revenue Code.
Sadly, the big negative they refuse to see is the way the American churches have chosen Caesar over God by quietly accepting their tax free status wile keeping their mouth shut about which candidates or initiatives their flock should support at election time. Below is the 501(c)3 section of the United States tax code and language that LBJ put into the tax code in 1954.
Originally posted by dizzie56
And those evil Catholic run hospitals still treat you in an emergency correct? Is there some sort of emergency where you would call an ambulance to take you to a hospital to be prescribed plan B or birth control or an abortion?
Originally posted by dizzie56
How is wanting birth control and illness? It really isnt an "illness" so to speak. Also, what the hell are people doing going to hospitals for birth control of any type when there are plenty of clinics and doctors that are willing to supply those? Why should the government mandate free handouts of birth control and require hospitals to cover the expense of those handouts, regardless of religious status?
The Pill isn't just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you.
Pill perk #1: Lower cancer risk
Pill perk #2: Clearer skin
Pill perk #3: Lighter, less painful periods
Pill perk #4: PMS relief
Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief
Pill perk #6: Fewer periods
Pill perk #7: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) relief
Originally posted by dizzie56
What I see is that the government is pushing mainstream beliefs on the Church when there are allready enough places that take care of these practices. Hell, you can go to planned parenthood and receive all the stuff that you are complaining about for a low cost or even free. Taking a blanket approach and saying "everyone must now provide...." knowing that it goes against somebody's beliefs is ignorant at best and a smack in the face if not due to ignorance.
Originally posted by Flatfish
Originally posted by dizzie56
The only thing they are dening is allowing abortions at their hospitals...if you dont like it then just go down the road to the abortion clinic. Its not that hard to do nor understand. Its actually quite the opposite of who is pushing on whos beliefs then what you believe.
They're not just denying abortions at their hospitals. They're also refusing to provide insurance coverage for birth control to anyone who may be an employee of the hospital they own, whether they are catholic or not and despite the fact that the coverage is cost-neutral. The business of a hospital should be to provide medical treatment for illness and/or injury of the patient and not for the promotion and/or enforcement of the hospital owner's religious beliefs.
Sorry but IMO, they are indeed taking advantage of their ownership position to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees. Hypothetically speaking, if the catholic church was to continue expanding their business investments into other realms, it would only be a matter of time before you couldn't get the coverage you want at any job and all because your employer didn't believe the same as you.
Funny that the catholic church has no problem providing coverage for Viagra. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the entire hierarchy of the church is composed of men? Hmmmmmm?
Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy." Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached ...