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: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Absolutely if it upholds the whole principle behind our justice system. Also, it might prevent frivolous investigations.




posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: AboveBoard

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


Nope. Know why? The law does not apply to them to begin with, it only applies to the State. It is not a universal law in the same way the ACA is, and so the comparison falls short.

Incidentally, churches and houses of worship are already exempt from the ACA Birth Control Mandate. Closely held for-profits can ask for an exemption based on religion no matter the religion of the employee. Hospitals and Educational Institutions can ask for an exemption based on religion no matter the religion of the employee or student.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
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!



Haven't you noticed that for extremists, there is very little need to consult actual fact or reasonable understandings?

Freedom of religion means that anything the religious say, do, believe, or want is "covered."

It's ... a travesty of what the Constitution actually says and means.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The left is not saving us. In many cases, they are complicit! This isn't about left vs right. It's about secular vs theocratic. And if you don't think it's the religious right that is pushing these "religious freedom" laws and religious exemption challenges to health care law, you haven't been paying attention.



My understanding was that it was that the religious exemption was pushed by religions that objected to insurance, primarily the Jewish religion, which has a lot of clout on both sides of the aisle.

All I'm saying is, I've seen some real Christians in my time. Not your average TV preacher asking for money or "Reverend" looking to line their pockets at the expense of others. But people who believe in Jesus Christ and try to follow His teachings. Real Christians are virtually non-existent in American politics. Both Bush and Obama claimed to be Christians, but their actions proved otherwise. The last thing we have to worry about is a Christian Theocratic government in America.

If we should worry about any theocracy in American government, we should worry about those people that go to Bohemian Grove to sacrifice their cares to a burning owl statue once a year.

Again, those people are on both sides of the aisle.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

and just how does one prove another's "belief"?
can you prove to me that you believe what you state? can I prove that you don't?
ya, let's investigate!! that way we can have the gov't bringing people in front of them to pry into their belief system and judge weather or not it's a valid claim!!
just what in hades name do you want to investigate?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

No one is worried about the "real Christians" you're talking about starting a Theocracy.

It's the ones already involved in Government that we're worried about.

And those that want to be.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: AboveBoard

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


Nope. Know why? The law does not apply to them to begin with, it only applies to the State. It is not a universal law in the same way the ACA is, and so the comparison falls short.

Incidentally, churches and houses of worship are already exempt from the ACA Birth Control Mandate. Closely held for-profits can ask for an exemption based on religion no matter the religion of the employee. Hospitals and Educational Institutions can ask for an exemption based on religion no matter the religion of the employee or student.


I'm almost on the same page with you. However I still have an issue. Even though marriage is issued on a state level, it's recognized on the federal level. I would have thought that the supreme court ruling made gay marriage universal. I see states issuing health insurance with federal subsidies on the same level as states issuing equal marriages that allow federal benefits. They both seem universal to me.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: kaylaluv

Absolutely if it upholds the whole principle behind our justice system. Also, it might prevent frivolous investigations.


You're kidding, right? Imagine the billions of dollars spent investigating all these companies who just decide on their own not to provide birth control, when a simple mass-produced form costing less than a penny a piece could have been turned in. I would rather those billions of dollars get spent on things that would benefit all of us, like bridges and roads, or maybe programs to help the poor.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace
and yet I have known heterosexual couples get denied by churches, because they are divorce, or because, believe it or not, one was arab...
sorry, churches can do as they like, if the church you pick doesn't want to marry you, for whatever reason, well, try another one, or if all else fails, you don't really need a religious ceremony to be married.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Marriage, at the State level, is a contract between two individuals.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, States cannot prejudicially enforce the sexes of those who can enter into a contract.

Thus, you see some States trying to do away with marriage contracts altogether.

And they said we were the ones trying to destroy marriage.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

What did I say that even led you to believe I wanted anyone to investigate anything? You can't prove your belief. Just as I can't disprove it.

Why should the sisters have to sign a paper to prove their faith to anyone? They shouldn't have to sign anything to prove their faith let alone practice it.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

and I still say it would open the door for gov't to come in and start prying into your beliefs, just to make sure they are genuine, and well, the next step after that would be to decide just which beliefs are justified and which aren't....which would go against the constitution because then they would be placing one set of beliefs on a pedestal above others...
which has already happened when the supreme court decided the hobby lobby case, but well, we definately don't need the gov't prying like that.

a simple form, my god, what is it one page or two, most of it white space. and well, you want to sacrifice a forest worth of paper to do the same thing as that simple little form would do...



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace
and yet I have known heterosexual couples get denied by churches, because they are divorce, or because, believe it or not, one was arab...
sorry, churches can do as they like, if the church you pick doesn't want to marry you, for whatever reason, well, try another one, or if all else fails, you don't really need a religious ceremony to be married.


I'm kind of at a loss at what you're driving at. I can't tell if you're mistaken on my opinion or I'm mistaken on what you're meaning.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Hate to get all conspiratorial and all...

But it seems to me that Catholics have been embroiled in a lot of controversies over time.

Has anyone thought of the revenue stream catholic churches would lose if they were to offer contraception in the many orphanages they run? Something about what these nuns are doing doesn't sit right. Could there be a tie in?

What if they are trying to protect something along those lines.

Ahhh... maybe I should just go to sleep.. lol



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: AboveBoard

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


Nope. Know why? The law does not apply to them to begin with, it only applies to the State. It is not a universal law in the same way the ACA is, and so the comparison falls short.

Incidentally, churches and houses of worship are already exempt from the ACA Birth Control Mandate. Closely held for-profits can ask for an exemption based on religion no matter the religion of the employee. Hospitals and Educational Institutions can ask for an exemption based on religion no matter the religion of the employee or student.


I'm almost on the same page with you. However I still have an issue. Even though marriage is issued on a state level, it's recognized on the federal level. I would have thought that the supreme court ruling made gay marriage universal. I see states issuing health insurance with federal subsidies on the same level as states issuing equal marriages that allow federal benefits. They both seem universal to me.


In regards to gay marriage (which is off topic), it is NOT universal in terms of being applied to RELIGIONS or CHURCHES / HOUSES OF WORSHIP. It is only "universal" as applied to States. It is not meant to be a religious law, but one that ensures equal protection under the law on a federal level.

The ACA applies to insurance companies and what they must offer in their plans on a national level. (With the exception, again, for churches and houses of worship - "church plans" DO NOT REQUIRE the mandate for birth control already.) When people saw the Birth Control Mandate and felt it was against their religion, you had the Hobby Lobby ruling which stated that closely-held for-profit companies could ask for an exemption to the law. That snowballed into the massive religiously owned hospitals and educational institutions (who also do not rely on people of their own faith to be employees) requesting the same exemption. They now have that exemption.

This is about NOT WANTING TO FILL OUT A FORM that says "I'm exempt." All Hospitals, all closely-held for profit businesses and all educational institutions ARE AUTOMATICALLY NOT EXEMPT unless they fill out a form saying "yes, we are taking that exemption from the law."

I'm flabbergasted that this is even a big deal. o_0

peace,
AB



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't think that investigators are so dense that they can't look at the organization name "Little Sisters of the Poor", go to their website Little Sisters of the Poor, and not tell that they're catholic.

A little investigation and common sense goes a long way. That's why I said it might cut down on frivolous investigations that make it look like they're doing something important.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Or ... we could admit finally that Obamacare is bad law. If it's going to cause this many problems. Look at how many times it's been to the SCOTUS already since it was passed for various issues.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
what would have been better would have been just to add a line on both the employer's insurance application and the individual's application simply asking if they wished to have birth control coverage. and well, that would have did the job quit nicely, let the insurance companies handle it from there.
after all what good is it if the churches, the non-profits, the religious businesses can get exemptions if the people themselves are still stuck having to accept it in their health insurance?



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Or ... we could admit finally that Obamacare is bad law. If it's going to cause this many problems. Look at how many times it's been to the SCOTUS already since it was passed for various issues.


Of course it's a "bad law" ... it was mostly modeled after previous Republican legislation.

As far as any law being challenged before the Supreme Court, I beg to disagree. That is every American's right.

As many times as it takes.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There never was any Republican legislation.





top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join