quote:

First Hannity's ridiculous "sausage fest"

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Your link has expanded my vocab:

As of now, Collins and Snowe appear to be the only Republicans behind this massively bi-partisan compromise on Obama’s part, whereas the teahadist elements that are today’s GOP remain reliably rancorous and recalcitrant.

A combination of Teabagger and Jihadist, a Teahadist is a domestic terrorist masquerading as a "patriot" in the US. The Teabagger feels that the only way to uphold truth, justice and the Constitution is to violently attack and threaten those who happen to disagree with said Teabagger's views. Phrases such as "defend the Constitution", and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" are often heard from Teahadists, although how much they actually understand what those mean is in debate.

quote:

teahadist

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

One could say that laws "enforcing" monogamy would be the government, forcing a religious practice on us because it was from religion that the idea of monogamy (as a hard-and-fast rule) came.

You can say "what if ... ?" all you like and there are ridiculous examples that, obviously, shouldn't be allowed but, like it or not; if a religion says: "Our God tells us that birth control is a sin", they're whacky and a little ecologically irresponsible but who are they hurting ?

Yes, as a society, we have a right to say: "You can practice your religion, all you want but human sacrifice is out" (I would like to say, however that I think I could even make a case for voluntary sacrificees). We have a right to say that because it affect us.

How does it affect us if a Morman chooses to have 20 wives? Now, the bleeding heart types will say: "Nineteen of them are going to end up on welfare" Good call! Wrong argument. It's completely constitutional for the government to say: "For tax purposes and social welfare purposes, we will only recognize the first wife." Problem solved. We have no right to go fucking around with peoples' belief system when it doesn't put the public-at-large in danger. We have no right to say: "You can only love/live with/make children with one person"

Edwynn, that blurb in red is so wrong, in so many ways. It is a complete "opposition safari" from what the words say. The words are pretty clear. In fact, one could argue that the words, as written, do not completely rule out the idea religious principles, influencing the laws. People need to stop calling that the "seperation of church and state clause" and start calling it the "protection for religion from government clause" because that is all it says. It's written pretty plainly. The government can't establish a religion (tell us what we must believe) and can't stop us from worshipping how we wish (tell us how to believe). Yes, we can't grab people off the street for involuntary human sacrifice but, surely, we can tell our followers that they are forbidden from wearing purple on Tuesdays?

Jefferson wrote the first part because he (at the time) was an Atheist and didn't want fundementalism shoved down his (or anyone's) throat by mandate of law. That's what the first part is about.

Of course society has a right to keep itself from from religious zealotry taking over but it does not have the right to prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit as long as they are not harming others. A church ... any church, refusing to condone the use of birth control is not harming anyone. To ask them to indulge in the very thing they denounce is preposterous and that flies in the face of the first amendment.

What's after government enforced monogamy? Do we say: "Forget marriage. You can't have more than one lady in your bed? You can't have more than one lady in your life, ever?". How about the fact that some religions don't recognize re-marriage after divorce? Should the government say: "Ooooops! You've already been married, once. You've used up all your options. Sorry."

So where does it end? Do we make a law, telling Muslims they can't bring their prayer mats to the county park with them, when they're out for a picnic with their family? Do we insist that Jewish Bingo halls or the YWHA put deli ham out as part of their menu?

It's all well and good to say: "I don't believe as you believe and I won't have your beliefs thrusted upon me" but you cannot add: "So, therefore, I am going to enact a law to force you to conform to my beliefs (or lack thereof)."



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

So in your world we should not outlaw polygamy on the basis that it is part of a religious belief?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Nothing at all. And there is nothing to preclude you from having those wives in our sociey currently. Two won't be recognizied by law. Hence, the reasoning for covering contraception by Insurance Plans. A Company may hold that it doesn't believe that there should be contraception and are against it. However, it can't keep its employees from access to that medical coverage.

We live in a pluralistic society. My tax dollars were taken by Bush to go bomb innocent people in Iraq. I didn't like it one bit but he and congress were within the law to declare war and do that......

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I think you are missing things here.

The Catholic Church has no problem with contraception as long as "no act" is done. That is, Natrural Family Planning is ok. No act is done. Similarly with offering a Medical Plan with the rider of having contraception drugs covered is a "no act" position. It is up to the church to teach its employees and counsel them that it is morally wrong to take the drug. If they aren't doing this. ....the lack of action is on their inability to teach the flock.

In your case a deli would have to directy ACT to get the non kosher food.

Two different things entirely. The Papacy doesn't want to admit its defeat in this matter with the members of its church who overwhelmingly use contraception. And, not talking only of the US. Many othe countries follow the same path as well. They simply want to have the Gov't to do its job of religious teaching rather than their own. Its pretty sad altogether.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Faith healing? I know very little about. I am un-sure of what my opinion may be but, at first blush, I question the parenting skills of a person who won't go to any lengths to protect their child. Likewise, I question the parenting skills of any parent that would remain in a church that teaches that going to a doctor is sinful but I don't get to make their choices for them . It's their conscience and beliefs.

I would point out that in the case of polygamy, assuming all people are of legal consent age, no one is being harmed. In your faith healing example, a child is dead. I have no memory of any such case but, I'll take your word for it.

There aren't a lot of such cases, but even one child dead for lack of appropriate medical would be one too many. Unless perhaps, sociobiologial Darwinist Auto-Eugenics is the philosophoidal paradigm involved; the kid died because his parents/community weren't fit enough to propagate. (And that is a consistent worldview, just not one I'd prefer to exercise.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

There have been at least three cases of faith healing in Oregon where parents have gone to prison for allowing their children (from infants to a teenager) die for lack of medical care, often from easily treatable conditions. They haven't been able to convince a court yet that this was a valid religious tenet.
I can see you are dogmatic on this, and your views are so extreme that they are hardly worth discussing. One big reason I disagree with you though that churches should somehow be exempt from the laws of this country is because they are so willing to take advantage of secular laws when it suits them. Like the wave of Catholic dioces that went bankrupt rather than pay judgments awarded their sexual abuse victims. Not very Christian, in my view, but what do I know? I'm not a Christian.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat
Mormons, regardless of what they say, or their internal dupes believe about their 'religion', set up their polygamy/child-bride cults because they wanted to sire dozens of Mormon brats from women bullied into ignorant codependency. It's not a 'religion', unless every other sociopathic scheme to justify spreading male seed because its biological-imperative counts as religion too. What if the religion 'believes' in kidnapping nubile women, keeping 'em caffled and bred like cattle for ten years, then sacrificed to the great god Porn?

Sure, the Mormons have a twisted narrative they tell themselves, but motives behind it are clearly evident to any objective analysis.

Where does the line get drawn between 'freedom-of-religion' and psychosocial pathologies?

First, the Mormons are as much a religion as any and you are not appointed to decide. Polygamy throughout history has been a state sanctioned practice for millenia and had nothing whatsoever to do with procreation except by choice. Monogamy on the other hand is only a few centuries old.

You merely conjure up some insulting, rhetorical rant to justify this legal regime forced upon people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

The OP: So the issue is social and not constitutional, is it?

Let's see, Cummings wants to talk about it from a social perspective and Issa from a constitutional one.

What's the hearing about?

The hearing is entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

Yeah I can see why the socially conscious / emotionally driven might be upset about that, the constitution being an impediment to progressive reforms.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. The President and his Administration actually didn't "do" anything. One department of the gov't interpreted a law passed by Congress. If Mr. Issa is upset with this his time would be better spent rewriting the law.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Ordering it wouldn't be the issue for a jew, using and handling it would. Not the same with the vatican where one would hope that they had a flock that didn't mortally sin on such a regular basis wilfully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Its a stupid argument from stupid old men. If this was to hold water then they should eliminate any coverage that might be for venereal disease or any other sexually transmitted disease. Add to this any drug treatment for sexually blood borne diseases. But, no, that isn't done cause Father Patrick might have to worry about which alter boy he is going to rape this week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

There was no birth control shortage, people who want birth control can get birth control. There is no issue here, other than the one Democrats dreamed up in a fantasy of tyranny as they force their will upon the people.

In what universe is there a shortage of birth control? this isnt about the shortage of birth control, this is about the tyranny of the catholic church trying to make all women, not just catholic women, abide by their beliefs.
Please feel free to rejoin reality when you learn the facts

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Libya did no violence to the U.S. Constitution. 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc

to this list offhand I would add Marquette, Catholic Charities of Buffalo, St. Bonaventure....