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.

 

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

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Whenever someone says "In other words" ... I think there should be a macro running that replaces that with "Now I'm going to totally rephrase what you said to better fit my argument."

Wouldn't that be cool?




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
well gee put it that way, and well I guess they can just pay the danged penalty for not following the law!!
let me ask you something. let's say that we have a women who is working, anywhere, doesn't matter, but well the gov't says that the family needs healthcare for the family, and hubby is unemployed. she also has medical problems that means getting pregnant will endanger her health, so obviously she doesn't want to get pregnant..
her employer does provide an affordable plan for herself and her family with the employer paying most of the cost of those plans. because her employer provides this plan she is unable to go onto the healthexchange and chose a different plan and have it subsidized. but the plan that the employer provides coverage for viagra and she feels that providing that coverage to her husband that will turn him into a little horney toad and increase the risk of her getting pregnant isn't in her best interest and therefore, is against her beliefs..
where's her nice, simple, easy to understand form for her to fill out to get her exempt from having to provide coverage for her husband for the viagra?
the supreme court messed up when they restricted this just to birth control!! why is the belief that birth control is wrong held at a higher esteem than the belief that blood transfusions are wrong? and, the supreme court specifically said that their judgement would not carry over to that one if I am remembering right? so, isn't the gov't in fact deciding just what beliefs are worthy and what aren't on this one?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Signing a form is tantamount to saying, "Yes, government, we admit we must ask your permission to practice and live our faith."

Is that clear enough for you?

Do you think they should have to ask the government for permission to have freedom of religion?

I'm getting the sense you think so.



Nope. They should ask the government for permission to NOT FOLLOW A LAW that everyone else is following. The REASON they are being given an exception happens to be religious. This isn't about religion, however, really it isn't. It's about the rule of law, the enforcement of law, and someone, for some reason, being able to request an exemption from a law. Take the religious aspect out of it, and its cut and dry, no?

Why should getting an exemption from a law entitle someone to have to do nothing to obtain it? *sigh* I could turn this into an argument about "religious entitlement" couldn't I? I haven't, but I certainly could. I don't see the Amish complaining that they have to fill out a special form to get out of part of the tax code, which they feel goes against their faith. It's a legality. A formality in the form of a form, if you will, but a wound to one's ability to practice their religion??? Hardly. Your argument sounds like they aren't getting enough special treatment because they are religious, rather than they are being imposed upon.

How many forms do the lawyers have to fill out to handle their case, I wonder? Should they not have to file all those burdensome forms because the case is regarding a religious matter???

Sigh.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Your point is lost in willful ignorence.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
But, they're not being required to sign anything in order to "live their faith" ... they're signing an exemption form so they can duck providing health insurance for their employees.


...they're signing an exemption form so they can follow their religion.


I'm sure that's the point.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Can you quote the part of the bible that says "Thou shalt not sign government forms?"

Come On!


"Government Forms" is a product of government jealousies and failures.




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: ketsuko

Your point is lost in willful ignorence.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
But, they're not being required to sign anything in order to "live their faith" ... they're signing an exemption form so they can duck providing health insurance for their employees.


...they're signing an exemption form so they can follow their religion.


I'm sure that's the point.


This is NOT really the point. There IS separation between church and state in the COTUS? Correct? So if a federal law is passed, it is passed for EVERYONE in the US. Correct? So, because there is a separation between church and state, laws that may impose a burden on people of a particular religion have this wonderful mechanism called "an exemption" to allow them to practice their faith. Since they are asking for an exemption, the government is saying "okay, here, tell us you want the exemption on this form so we won't bother you with this particular law and you won't get in trouble for not following it and no one can accuse you of an illegal action or inaction." How is that hard to understand?

I think the willful blindness is coming from those who see a form as some sort of government permission slip, rather than a practical way to prevent someone being prosecuted for not following a law. Geez!



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Should churches have to sign a form to be exempt from performing gay marriages?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

No, that's not what they're doing.

Refusing to provide insurance is not part of anyone's "religion."



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace
does the catholic church has to sign a form to keep from hiring women as priests??
churches are different, and are pretty much left to run their own affairs unless they get too out of the norm.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: AboveBoard

Should churches have to sign a form to be exempt from performing gay marriages?


No church has to perform marriages that don't conform to their "beliefs."

Did you say something about being willfully ignorant?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Same principle behind it regardless of the organization or entity.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Can you quote the part of the bible that says "Thou shalt not sign government forms?"

Come On!


"Government Forms" is a product of government jealousies and failures.





I can't speak to your greater experience with jealousies and failures, X.

I don't see how "government forms" has anything to do with that though.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I think the willful blindness is coming from those who see a form as some sort of government permission slip, rather than a practical way to prevent someone being prosecuted for not following a law. Geez!


Shouldn't the burden be on the government to prove they aren't following the law? I thought the practical way to prevent prosecution was innocent until guilty.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: AboveBoard

Should churches have to sign a form to be exempt from performing gay marriages?


They do. It's called tax-free status Form 501c3 / Non-Profit



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Shouldn't the burden be on the government to prove they aren't following the law?


The sisters SUED the government! They didn't even give the government a chance to NOTICE that they weren't following the law!



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
"He [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16:15)

So, according to the same logic I see presented here, the religious shouldn't have to have passports to leave and get back in country?

And at least there's a bible verse for that!

Ludicrous.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Right, so it makes more sense to spend our tax dollars on the government having to investigate each employer who isn't providing birth control coverage, as opposed to keeping a single-page form on file instead.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Shouldn't the burden be on the government to prove they aren't following the law?


The sisters SUED the government! They didn't even give the government a chance to NOTICE that they weren't following the law!


That they did. But if they didn't draw attention to it, it could be said they were intentionally trying to hide that they weren't following the law... which is usually what criminals try to do.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   


Extremism of Ideology, like Banning Big Gulp Sodas?


You all that an extreme ideology?

While religious people (including Americans) are killing people in droves around the world?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
I wonder just how many businesses they would find that had filled out the form claiming a religious exemption and well, it's found out that they are about as religious as the rock out in my garden!



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join