PDA

View Full Version : Whose Conscience Should the Government Violate Next?



Elspeth
01-13-2014, 10:41 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/whose_conscience_should_the_government_violate_nex t.html

Many of you have heard about the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns providing care for the elderly, who are now taking on the Obama Administration over the Affordable Care Act's (ObamaCare) contraception mandate. Religious exemptions from the ObamaCare contraception mandate are often made for government-approved entities, but the Obama Administration has deemed the nuns, who work exclusively with the elderly, unworthy of an exception....
...

For those who do not understand that the mandate is a violation of religious liberty and conscience or recognize the outrageousness of the Obama Administration's insistence on enforcement, perhaps these Constitution-violating suggestions for possible mandates in the future will be enlightening.

One party's mandate is another group's loss of freedom.

Can you imagine the reaction of these groups if the government forced them to comply with made-up mandates?

• Animal rights activists must hunt and kill animals to make fur coats they will be forced to wear.

• Vegetarians and vegans must eat meat.

• Feminists must promote patriarchy.

• College professors must campaign for Tea Party candidates, earnestly.

• Global warming activists must take a cruise to the Antarctic, get their ship stuck in ice, and have fossil-fuel-burning ships and helicopters rescue them (oh wait...)

• Planned Parenthood affiliates must donate money to crisis pregnancy centers to promote adoption.

• Teachers' unions must pay their dues to charter schools.

• Labor unions must pay union wages and benefits to the homeless they hire to protest businesses that won't unionize.

• U.S. presidents, congressmen, and senators must send their children to D.C. public schools.

• Hollywood stars supporting "climate change" legislation must drive their Priuses cross-country for appearances and premieres; no more flying domestically or internationally.

• Tax-and-spend advocates can no longer take deductions on their tax returns; they will send in more money than is due from them.

• Celebrities advocating for more gun control cannot have armed bodyguards.

• GLAAD activists must denounce marriage for homosexuals and promote heterosexuality in schools.

• All movie and television show producers will espouse conservative principles and ideas, and the bad guys must always be heartless, greedy liberals.

• Greenpeace activists must hunt whales, eat them, and use the blubber to provide heat and light on their ships.

• Occupy Wall Street protestors must get jobs.

• Billionaires decrying the fact they pay a smaller percentage in taxes than their secretaries must declare their investment income as a salary so they pay a higher percentage and take no deductions (see above.)

• Atheists must donate (even tithe?) to a religious institution, weekly.

• MSNBC hosts and anchors must attend re-education classes taught by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

• Abortion advocates have to reconstruct an aborted baby to make sure all the parts are there and not stuck inside the mother.

• "Bro-choicers" will be mandated to become daycare providers.

• Wind farm owners must also be bird and bat breeders to replace all the birds, especially eagles, and bats killed by the wind turbines.

• People opposed to coal-fired power plants will no longer be allowed to charge their electric cars, iPhones, iPads, or coffeemakers with electricity from coal-fired power plants.

Can't you just hear the shouts of outrage that would erupt if these mandate were real? Well, the mandate being forced upon the Little Sisters of the Poor is real. The nuns are fighting for their rights to exercise religious freedom in the United States of America...

coach
01-13-2014, 10:54 PM
the Occs dont need jobs, theyre silver spooners. i thought it was funny that sonja latina put the smackdown on BO over this religious contraception matter. and you know its killing him that he cant throw her under the bus with all the others.

Novaheart
01-14-2014, 02:00 AM
Can you imagine the reaction of these groups if the government forced them to comply with made-up mandates?

• Animal rights activists must hunt and kill animals to make fur coats they will be forced to wear.

False analogy. ACA doesn't force nuns to use contraception. As for the animal rights activists, they already pay taxes which are used to buy, cook, and serve animal food products to military, prisoners, and school children.




• Vegetarians and vegans must eat meat..


See above. Apparently the American Thinker isn't much of one.


Garbage in garbage out.

Elspeth
01-14-2014, 02:29 AM
False analogy. ACA doesn't force nuns to use contraception. As for the animal rights activists, they already pay taxes which are used to buy, cook, and serve animal food products to military, prisoners, and school children.

You're being disingenuous here, Nova.

The ACA is forcing the nuns to do an immoral act: to pay for contraception for its use by others.

One's responsibility as a practicing Christian involves not enabling the sins of others, not to lead others into sin. If someone is murdered and you didn't pull the trigger but you intentionally got a third party angry enough to pull the trigger (and you knew there was a good chance he would do it), then you are morally guilty of the act as well. This is how Christian morality works.

In the case of the nuns, you are asking them to lead others into what they consider to be a sin. Recall that at least 4 of the 20 FDA-approved "contraceptives" are really abortifacient: Ella, Plan B, and 2 types of IUDs. The other 16 are also disallowed by the Church. This is why the nuns cannot and will not sign that paper. It is an act of conscience, like all the other acts listed in the American Thinker article.

Your quips almost always hide your lack of knowledge, and I think you have gotten away with knowing very little in life because you can throw out a quick one-liner. But when you come up against people who really know what they are talking about, your one-liners don't work.

SaintLouieWoman
01-14-2014, 02:42 AM
You're being disingenuous here, Nova.

The ACA is forcing the nuns to do an immoral act: to pay for contraception for its use by others.

One's responsibility as a practicing Christian involves not enabling the sins of others, not to lead others into sin. If someone is murdered and you didn't pull the trigger but you intentionally got a third party angry enough to pull the trigger (and you knew there was a good chance he would do it), then you are morally guilty of the act as well. This is how Christian morality works.

In the case of the nuns, you are asking them to lead others into what they consider to be a sin. Recall that at least 4 of the 20 FDA-approved "contraceptives" are really abortifacient: Ella, Plan B, and 2 types of IUDs. The other 16 are also disallowed by the Church. This is why the nuns cannot and will not sign that paper. It is an act of conscience, like all the other acts listed in the American Thinker article.

Your quips almost always hide your lack of knowledge, and I think you have gotten away with knowing very little in life because you can throw out a quick one-liner. But when you come up against people who really know what they are talking about, your one-liners don't work.

His one liner shows that he did not read the article or comprehend it. A family member is the same. When I talked on the phone with her last night about this very matter, she did not comprehend the fine points of the discussion. After I explained it, hopefully she began to understand it a bit more. As always, the devil is in the details.

Novaheart
01-14-2014, 02:47 AM
You're being disingenuous here, Nova.

The ACA is forcing the nuns to do an immoral act: to pay for contraception for its use by others.

So do their taxes, your taxes, my taxes. Our taxes also go to finance wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Novaheart
01-14-2014, 02:54 AM
His one liner shows that he did not read the article or comprehend it. A family member is the same. When I talked on the phone with her last night about this very matter, she did not comprehend the fine points of the discussion. After I explained it, hopefully she began to understand it a bit more. As always, the devil is in the details.

I understand it just fine thank you. I think it's bunk.

The Catholic Church objects to contraception and thus would like to be a monkey wrench in the ACA. Of course, they have no problem keeping the conniving Bishop of St Petersburg in a posh waterfront pool home and using their tax free income to pay out settlements to his sexual harassment victims…. but that's different color money, right?

One could argue that by accepting tax free status, the church is therefore subsidized by all manner of things to which they would object.

Elspeth
01-14-2014, 03:20 AM
So do their taxes, your taxes, my taxes. Our taxes also go to finance wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Not as deliberate, codified law. Our taxes, for example, support unemployment which, for some people, leads them into sloth. However, for others, it is a temporary measure until their next job. If I have an objection as to how some are using the program, I can lobby my lawmakers for changes or restrictions. This has, of course, been done before and groups continue to lobby Congress for changes.

Obamacare, on the other hand, has it written into its very code, and deliberately so, that contraception and 4 abortifacients must be paid for. This is not a by-product of the law (as your 7 Deadlies are above) but the actual intent and consequence of the law as it is written. In addition, I can lobby my lawmakers with the utmost diligence, but Obama is intransigent in his unwillingness to bend on this issue for anyone. There is no way for me--or anyone else--to reduce the moral evil of this law, as written. The nuns are trying because morals are at stake here.

Novaheart
01-14-2014, 03:26 AM
Not as deliberate, codified law. Our taxes, for example, support unemployment which, for some people, leads them into sloth. However, for others, it is a temporary measure until their next job. If I have an objection as to how some are using the program, I can lobby my lawmakers for changes or restrictions. This has, of course, been done before and groups continue to lobby Congress for changes.

Obamacare, on the other hand, has it written into its very code, and deliberately so, that contraception and 4 abortifacients must be paid for. This is not a by-product of the law (as your 7 Deadlies are above) but the actual intent and consequence of the law as it is written. In addition, I can lobby my lawmakers with the utmost diligence, but Obama is intransigent in his unwillingness to bend on this issue for anyone. There is no way for me--or anyone else--to reduce the moral evil of this law, as written. The nuns are trying because morals are at stake here.

Do not confuse Roman church doctrine with morality.

RobJohnson
01-14-2014, 03:31 AM
False analogy. ACA doesn't force nuns to use contraception. As for the animal rights activists, they already pay taxes which are used to buy, cook, and serve animal food products to military, prisoners, and school children.

Can you prove that all animal rights activists pay taxes? What about children, students and those on welfare?

Novaheart
01-14-2014, 03:48 AM
Can you prove that all animal rights activists pay taxes? What about children, students and those on welfare?

Surely there is a nit somewhere demanding your attention.

Elspeth
01-14-2014, 04:05 AM
I understand it just fine thank you. I think it's bunk.

Actually, you did not. You would not have cried "false analogy" had you truly understood the moral objections of the nun and objections of conscience in general.


The Catholic Church objects to contraception and thus would like to be a monkey wrench in the ACA.

You are assuming motives completely not in evidence. The Church has not objected to any other element of the law, only the one about contraception/abortifacients. (Compare this to Ted Cruz, who tried to stop the law's entire implementation.) The Church's position is not about American domestic politics; it is about the safeguarding of global Catholicism's moral code and the morality of its flock.



Of course, they have no problem keeping the conniving Bishop of St Petersburg in a posh waterfront pool home and using their tax free income to pay out settlements to his sexual harassment victims…. but that's different color money, right?

Attacks on immoral individuals within the institution have absolutely no bearing on the nuns' case or their motivations. If you want to talk about pedophilia, I have a bunch of stories on the back burner about homosexual males--some adoptive parents--who have sexually abused children. I have not gone there because these articles don't highlight important philosophical or political points. However, if you would like to talk about the sexual abuse of young children, I will be happy to post some of them.


One could argue that by accepting tax free status, the church is therefore subsidized by all manner of things to which they would object.

One could argue anything that suits ones political goals, but that would not mean that any of it would be correct or logical. It also might have some unexpected consequences.

Most Christian churches are now classified as 501 (c)(3)s. Also GLAAD is a 501 (c) (3). (https://secure2.convio.net/glaad/site/Donation2;jsessionid=1842F1C9976B88EC52DD524812F9A C2D.app272b?df_id=1440&1440.donation=form1)


We could also apply your little quote to GLAAD. A & E television, for example, pays taxes and they air "Duck Dynasty". We can argue that GLAAD is being subsidized by those Christian duck hunters who condemn the lifestyle of GLAAD's members since it's Duck Dynasty's big money making capacity that produces the profit for A & E that pays those taxes anyway. Do you think GLAAD thinks it is consistent to be supported by Duck Dynasty?

Elspeth
01-14-2014, 04:11 AM
Do not confuse Roman church doctrine with morality.

The nuns believe there is a moral issue at stake. That is why they are fighting.

What you believe is of no consequence to the law and of no interest to the nuns.

Elspeth
01-14-2014, 04:13 AM
Surely there is a nit somewhere demanding your attention.

Actually, Rob is trying to point out to you that all the little political coffee klatches of which you approve are also non profits--typically 501 (c) (3)s like most churches are.

txradioguy
01-14-2014, 05:48 AM
False analogy. ACA doesn't force nuns to use contraception. As for the animal rights activists, they already pay taxes which are used to buy, cook, and serve animal food products to military, prisoners, and school children.

They are forced to carry health insurance that provides for birth control...against their religious beliefs.

So much for you and your claim of supporting the 1st Amendment.



See above. Apparently the American Thinker isn't much of one.

So it's ok to force people to carry health care coverage if they don't want it...or to have coverage on there for things they don't want...they don't need or violates their personal relgious beliefs?

The only one that's not much of a think here Nova is you.



Garbage in garbage out.

Yup that pretty much sums up your comments.

txradioguy
01-14-2014, 05:49 AM
The nuns believe there is a moral issue at stake. That is why they are fighting.

What you believe is of no consequence to the law and of no interest to the nuns.

You can't argue morals with someone that doesn't have them...or has ones that change to suit their situation at the moment.

Lanie
01-14-2014, 03:27 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/whose_conscience_should_the_government_violate_nex t.html

Many of you have heard about the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns providing care for the elderly, who are now taking on the Obama Administration over the Affordable Care Act's (ObamaCare) contraception mandate. Religious exemptions from the ObamaCare contraception mandate are often made for government-approved entities, but the Obama Administration has deemed the nuns, who work exclusively with the elderly, unworthy of an exception....
...

For those who do not understand that the mandate is a violation of religious liberty and conscience or recognize the outrageousness of the Obama Administration's insistence on enforcement, perhaps these Constitution-violating suggestions for possible mandates in the future will be enlightening.

One party's mandate is another group's loss of freedom.

Can you imagine the reaction of these groups if the government forced them to comply with made-up mandates?

• Animal rights activists must hunt and kill animals to make fur coats they will be forced to wear.

• Vegetarians and vegans must eat meat.

• Feminists must promote patriarchy.

• College professors must campaign for Tea Party candidates, earnestly.

• Global warming activists must take a cruise to the Antarctic, get their ship stuck in ice, and have fossil-fuel-burning ships and helicopters rescue them (oh wait...)

• Planned Parenthood affiliates must donate money to crisis pregnancy centers to promote adoption.

• Teachers' unions must pay their dues to charter schools.

• Labor unions must pay union wages and benefits to the homeless they hire to protest businesses that won't unionize.

• U.S. presidents, congressmen, and senators must send their children to D.C. public schools.

• Hollywood stars supporting "climate change" legislation must drive their Priuses cross-country for appearances and premieres; no more flying domestically or internationally.

• Tax-and-spend advocates can no longer take deductions on their tax returns; they will send in more money than is due from them.

• Celebrities advocating for more gun control cannot have armed bodyguards.

• GLAAD activists must denounce marriage for homosexuals and promote heterosexuality in schools.

• All movie and television show producers will espouse conservative principles and ideas, and the bad guys must always be heartless, greedy liberals.

• Greenpeace activists must hunt whales, eat them, and use the blubber to provide heat and light on their ships.

• Occupy Wall Street protestors must get jobs.

• Billionaires decrying the fact they pay a smaller percentage in taxes than their secretaries must declare their investment income as a salary so they pay a higher percentage and take no deductions (see above.)

• Atheists must donate (even tithe?) to a religious institution, weekly.

• MSNBC hosts and anchors must attend re-education classes taught by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

• Abortion advocates have to reconstruct an aborted baby to make sure all the parts are there and not stuck inside the mother.

• "Bro-choicers" will be mandated to become daycare providers.

• Wind farm owners must also be bird and bat breeders to replace all the birds, especially eagles, and bats killed by the wind turbines.

• People opposed to coal-fired power plants will no longer be allowed to charge their electric cars, iPhones, iPads, or coffeemakers with electricity from coal-fired power plants.

Can't you just hear the shouts of outrage that would erupt if these mandate were real? Well, the mandate being forced upon the Little Sisters of the Poor is real. The nuns are fighting for their rights to exercise religious freedom in the United States of America...

Good point.

Lanie
01-14-2014, 03:29 PM
You're being disingenuous here, Nova.

The ACA is forcing the nuns to do an immoral act: to pay for contraception for its use by others.

One's responsibility as a practicing Christian involves not enabling the sins of others, not to lead others into sin. If someone is murdered and you didn't pull the trigger but you intentionally got a third party angry enough to pull the trigger (and you knew there was a good chance he would do it), then you are morally guilty of the act as well. This is how Christian morality works.

In the case of the nuns, you are asking them to lead others into what they consider to be a sin. Recall that at least 4 of the 20 FDA-approved "contraceptives" are really abortifacient: Ella, Plan B, and 2 types of IUDs. The other 16 are also disallowed by the Church. This is why the nuns cannot and will not sign that paper. It is an act of conscience, like all the other acts listed in the American Thinker article.

Your quips almost always hide your lack of knowledge, and I think you have gotten away with knowing very little in life because you can throw out a quick one-liner. But when you come up against people who really know what they are talking about, your one-liners don't work.

Actually, the issue isn't so much the fear of leading one to sin. It's that they're against contraception and abortion. Period. It wouldn't matter if they're married. While their religious beliefs shouldn't be confused with morality, it's still their constitutional right.

NJCardFan
01-14-2014, 03:34 PM
Not as deliberate, codified law. Our taxes, for example, support unemployment which, for some people, leads them into sloth. However, for others, it is a temporary measure until their next job. If I have an objection as to how some are using the program, I can lobby my lawmakers for changes or restrictions. This has, of course, been done before and groups continue to lobby Congress for changes.

Obamacare, on the other hand, has it written into its very code, and deliberately so, that contraception and 4 abortifacients must be paid for. This is not a by-product of the law (as your 7 Deadlies are above) but the actual intent and consequence of the law as it is written. In addition, I can lobby my lawmakers with the utmost diligence, but Obama is intransigent in his unwillingness to bend on this issue for anyone. There is no way for me--or anyone else--to reduce the moral evil of this law, as written. The nuns are trying because morals are at stake here.

Forcing places like Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide something that goes against their religious beliefs and tenets is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. IMO the 1st Amendment and, more generally, the entire Bill of Rights trumps some leftist notion that people are entitled to screw uncontrollably and should force their employers to pay for it.

Arroyo_Doble
01-14-2014, 03:43 PM
Forcing places like Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide something that goes against their religious beliefs and tenets is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. IMO the 1st Amendment and, more generally, the entire Bill of Rights trumps some leftist notion that people are entitled to screw uncontrollably and should force their employers to pay for it.

Hobby Lobby is a company. It cannot have religious beliefs. It is an abstract legal concept.

txradioguy
01-14-2014, 03:52 PM
Hobby Lobby is a company. It cannot have religious beliefs. It is an abstract legal concept.


:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
01-15-2014, 05:57 AM
Hobby Lobby is a company. It cannot have religious beliefs. It is an abstract legal concept.

Bullshit. But, OK, let's go there. Then you believe it was wrong for GLAAD to organize a boycott of Chik-Fil-A in 2012(which failed miserably BTW)? After all, it was the founder, not the company that said they didn't agree with gay marriage. Can't have it both ways. But back on point, yes Hobby Lobby is a company. A private company, not a public company owned by the state. And as such, they are free ti run their company in a way they see fit. If the employees don't like it they can seek employment elsewhere. If they want to provide insurance for their employees that does not grant them access to abortion drugs or contraceptives then that is their choice. Their employees are free to purchase these things on their on dime and there isn't a damned thing you or I can do about it.

NJCardFan
01-15-2014, 05:58 AM
Hobby Lobby is a company. It cannot have religious beliefs. It is an abstract legal concept.

Oh, and I'll remember this the next time I go to an Halal store and demand they start selling pork.

Arroyo_Doble
01-15-2014, 11:21 AM
Bullshit. But, OK, let's go there. Then you believe it was wrong for GLAAD to organize a boycott of Chik-Fil-A in 2012(which failed miserably BTW)? After all, it was the founder, not the company that said they didn't agree with gay marriage. Can't have it both ways. But back on point, yes Hobby Lobby is a company. A private company, not a public company owned by the state. And as such, they are free ti run their company in a way they see fit. If the employees don't like it they can seek employment elsewhere. If they want to provide insurance for their employees that does not grant them access to abortion drugs or contraceptives then that is their choice. Their employees are free to purchase these things on their on dime and there isn't a damned thing you or I can do about it.


Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.


United States v Lee (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=455&invol=252)


The people who own Hobby Lobby (or any business, for that matter) can practice their religion as they see fit. But they voluntarily engage in commercial activity and their religion does not relieve the company they created, or own, from the burden of following the law.

As far as Chik-Fil-A, they make great sandwiches. I go there all the time.

newshutr
01-15-2014, 12:02 PM
Oh, and I'll remember this the next time I go to an Halal store and demand they start selling pork.


+1

Arroyo_Doble
01-15-2014, 12:16 PM
Oh, and I'll remember this the next time I go to an Halal store and demand they start selling pork.

Be sure to rave a bit.

Odysseus
01-16-2014, 11:57 PM
Hobby Lobby is a company. It cannot have religious beliefs. It is an abstract legal concept.

The whole point of the Citizens United case was that individuals don't waive their Constitutional rights when they form corporations. The corporation does not have religious beliefs, but the individual owners do, and it's their rights that are being infringed.

Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
Sent from my android.

Arroyo_Doble
01-17-2014, 11:37 AM
The whole point of the Citizens United case was that individuals don't waive their Constitutional rights when they form corporations. The corporation does not have religious beliefs, but the individual owners do, and it's their rights that are being infringed.

Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
Sent from my android.

It would be interesting to see if Citizens United could be used to overturn several other decisions along with Title II of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't think Kennedy would go for it, though. Scalia might.

Novaheart
01-17-2014, 01:55 PM
The whole point of the Citizens United case was that individuals don't waive their Constitutional rights when they form corporations. The corporation does not have religious beliefs, but the individual owners do, and it's their rights that are being infringed.

Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
Sent from my android.

How do you feel about a corporation making political contributions when part of the ownership of that corporation is foreign?

RobJohnson
01-17-2014, 04:52 PM
Surely there is a nit somewhere demanding your attention.

So you admit your post was dishonest?

RobJohnson
01-17-2014, 04:56 PM
Actually, Rob is trying to point out to you that all the little political coffee klatches of which you approve are also non profits--typically 501 (c) (3)s like most churches are.

He can't back up his dishonest comment so he has to break out the insults. Typical Nova.