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.

 

Nancy Pelosi: A Cathollic Says What?? Vows to stand against her Church...Stands with Satan/Obama

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

How does this idea impede the free exercise of Catholicism?

Isn't it the Catholic's prerogative to not use all of the benefits under any particular health plan? The law requires it's purchase, not it's use, if I am understanding it correctly.

So I am still not understanding the problem.

The Obama administration is mandating that abortion, and contraceptives to be provided by catholic hospitals.
Something that goes against (impedes) their beliefs.

I use the same examples as I used earlier.
It'd be like forcing muslims to eat bacon at islamic schools in America, because those schools receive government funding.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
The man hell bent on dividing the nation
No he's not.

promoting class warfare
No.

racial tensions
No.

secularizing the country
True, but secularizing the country is really only bad to theocrats (whom America would be far, far more better without) anyway, so that really doesn't belong among those things.

while spending us into catastrophic debt.
So you got 2 out of 5 right.

As for the actual subject, yeah it's probably a violation of the first amendment..



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
separation of church and state
if pelosi wants to go against that, charge her with treason, sentence her to death and hang the bithc



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


Obama the most polarizing president. Ever.


President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But each of his first three years in office has marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving.


great article
www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 3-2-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Furbs

How does this idea impede the free exercise of Catholicism?

Isn't it the Catholic's prerogative to not use all of the benefits under any particular health plan? The law requires it's purchase, not it's use, if I am understanding it correctly.

So I am still not understanding the problem.

The Obama administration is mandating that abortion, and contraceptives to be provided by catholic hospitals.
Something that goes against (impedes) their beliefs.

I use the same examples as I used earlier.
It'd be like forcing muslims to eat bacon at islamic schools in America, because those schools receive government funding.


I understand your view, but this is a very poor analogy. The administration is requiring to provide these options at the catholic hospitals, so that a non-religious person has access to them. No one is forced to utilize them if it goes against their beliefs. Now vice versa that for your school analogy....muslims would not be forced to eat bacon, but it would be available to a non-muslims who wished to attend that school for whatever reason.

If any institution receives government funding, then yes it must allow for all beliefs, since that is the make up of the tax base.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

I understand your view, but this is a very poor analogy. The administration is requiring to provide these options at the catholic hospitals, so that a non-religious person has access to them. No one is forced to utilize them if it goes against their beliefs. Now vice versa that for your school analogy....muslims would not be forced to eat bacon, but it would be available to a non-muslims who wished to attend that school for whatever reason.

If any institution receives government funding, then yes it must allow for all beliefs, since that is the make up of the tax base.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)


No-one is forced to [use them but catholics will be forced to provide them.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

I understand your view, but this is a very poor analogy. The administration is requiring to provide these options at the catholic hospitals, so that a non-religious person has access to them. No one is forced to utilize them if it goes against their beliefs. Now vice versa that for your school analogy....muslims would not be forced to eat bacon, but it would be available to a non-muslims who wished to attend that school for whatever reason.

If any institution receives government funding, then yes it must allow for all beliefs, since that is the make up of the tax base.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)


No-one is forced to [use them but catholics will be forced to provide them.


Are they receiving federal funding? If so, then they become an arm of the state and ergo, cannot deny, withhold or force services that pertain to their specific beliefs. Separation of state and church. If they don't like it, don't take federal funding, privatize and provide the services they want...simple.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by abovesecret
separation of church and state
if pelosi wants to go against that, charge her with treason, sentence her to death and hang the bithc


It's hard to tell if someone is being facetious across the inter-webs. If your not, see my post above. You have it backwards.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 
Since Islamic schools receive the same funding in the states, then I can teach alternate religious ideologies, serve BLT's at lunch, have the ladies wear short skirts then.

Right?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Connector
 
Since Islamic schools receive the same funding in the states, then I can teach alternate religious ideologies, serve BLT's at lunch, have the ladies wear short skirts then.


Right?


I haven't done any research on muslim schools receiving federal funds, but if some are, then yes, you are correct. Any arm of the feds must encompass all beliefs. It's the constitution.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Connector
 
Since Islamic schools receive the same funding in the states, then I can teach alternate religious ideologies, serve BLT's at lunch, have the ladies wear short skirts then.


Right?


I haven't done any research on muslim schools receiving federal funds, but if some are, then yes, you are correct. Any arm of the feds must encompass all beliefs. It's the constitution.

Then why aren't they? Why is an islamic religion given precedence over a christian religion?

Funding comes from TEA, DHS, DE, No Child Left Behind, SAT's, ACT's.

If they get one red cent! thern they should have their religious freedoms abused as much as christian religions.

But they aren't.

Only catholics, fundies, christians.

Pathetic!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Connector
 
Since Islamic schools receive the same funding in the states, then I can teach alternate religious ideologies, serve BLT's at lunch, have the ladies wear short skirts then.


Right?


I haven't done any research on muslim schools receiving federal funds, but if some are, then yes, you are correct. Any arm of the feds must encompass all beliefs. It's the constitution.

Then why aren't they? Why is an islamic religion given precedence over a christian religion?

Funding comes from TEA, DHS, DE, No Child Left Behind, SAT's, ACT's.

If they get one red cent! thern they should have their religious freedoms abused as much as christian religions.

But they aren't.

Only catholics, fundies, christians.

Pathetic!


My posts weren't to debate abortion or religious belief. Notice how I didn't take any side except for the side of law, the constitution and separation of church and state. Don't like it? Then expose this info and champion against the examples you gave above, but don't whine just because you feel your beliefs are persecuted. It is the Law.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

My posts weren't to debate abortion or religious belief. Notice how I didn't take any side except for the side of law, the constitution and separation of church and state. Don't like it? Then expose this info and champion against the examples you gave above, but don't whine just because you feel your beliefs are persecuted. It is the Law.


It's not the law. It's an abuse of the law. Constitution is a trump card. This is a violation, something ven you would have to agree with. Regardless of what government moneysare spent on a item, the Constitution can't be over-ruled by simple bovernment spending.

You have proved my and the OP's point!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

I understand your view, but this is a very poor analogy. The administration is requiring to provide these options at the catholic hospitals, so that a non-religious person has access to them. No one is forced to utilize them if it goes against their beliefs. Now vice versa that for your school analogy....muslims would not be forced to eat bacon, but it would be available to a non-muslims who wished to attend that school for whatever reason.

If any institution receives government funding, then yes it must allow for all beliefs, since that is the make up of the tax base.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)


No-one is forced to [use them but catholics will be forced to provide them.


Are they receiving federal funding? If so, then they become an arm of the state and ergo, cannot deny, withhold or force services that pertain to their specific beliefs. Separation of state and church. If they don't like it, don't take federal funding, privatize and provide the services they want...simple.




Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by abovesecret
separation of church and state
if pelosi wants to go against that, charge her with treason, sentence her to death and hang the bithc


It's hard to tell if someone is being facetious across the inter-webs. If your not, see my post above. You have it backwards.



lol slightly colorful with my rhetoric sounds better then facetious but i was slightly kidding and slightly not, the argument can go both ways and be argued forever, however, thats another day

as to your post and me having it backwards, not entirely

you state "if they are recieving federal funds"

as citizen of the usa, you are considered the public, as public you have the right to use public services and goods

you are not expected to give up your religion in public as that is considered religious discrimination

today, the federal govt funds tons of things from park land to even some roads

under your criteria, if one was to go to the park, or use the certain federally funded road, they now have to suspend their religious freedom as they are receiving benefits from the federal govt

essentially that criteria would end up eliminating many churches and would open a whole pandoras box





now as far as my personal beliefs go, i dont have a problem with stopping muslims from wearing veils, i understand not only the danger it causes from people being able to walk around unidentifiable, but i also understand the sexism involved and the oppression of women in veils

so when it comes to legit safety concern its one thing to demand a change while in public, but if one was to try to regulate which way a muslim could pray to, that in my opinion would be going to far

theres a delicate balance clearly and i think its clear pelosi is overstepping that line, plus im willing to see her hang for whatever we can get her hung for, its like going after capone for taxes



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
*warning*








edit on 3/2/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)
Jimmy Carr one the new wave unfunny comedians ,"go on Jimmy always go for the floor filler populist joke,the lazy economical joke"play safe you cretin funy how little Jimmy doesnt play the muslim card joke mmmmm wonder why?well theres a whole dearth of material o c'mon Jimmy put your money were your fat mouth is and go near to the bone with a good old muslim joke?no? thought you post modernists were good at touchin a raw nerve and being anti pcWell little Jimmy mustnt be all hes cracked up to be his comical sardonic repotoire must want to upset the sensibilities of his muslim uk bretheren so have a pop at catholics Jimmy go ooon easy target.Because he hasnt got the balls because hes not funny at all in fact hes the least funny brit comedian ever and to use him to mock catholics is very sad believe me



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Furbs

How does this idea impede the free exercise of Catholicism?

Isn't it the Catholic's prerogative to not use all of the benefits under any particular health plan? The law requires it's purchase, not it's use, if I am understanding it correctly.

So I am still not understanding the problem.

The Obama administration is mandating that abortion, and contraceptives to be provided by catholic hospitals.
Something that goes against (impedes) their beliefs.

I use the same examples as I used earlier.
It'd be like forcing muslims to eat bacon at islamic schools in America, because those schools receive government funding.


So which is it, are we talking about a 'hospital' or a 'church'? If the Catholic Church doesn't like a law regarding -HOSPITALS- than the -CHURCH- can get out of the -HOSPITAL- game. It would be different if the law was forcing the catholic church to have a hospital, and then imposing the rules on them.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

My posts weren't to debate abortion or religious belief. Notice how I didn't take any side except for the side of law, the constitution and separation of church and state. Don't like it? Then expose this info and champion against the examples you gave above, but don't whine just because you feel your beliefs are persecuted. It is the Law.


It's not the law. It's an abuse of the law. Constitution is a trump card. This is a violation, something ven you would have to agree with. Regardless of what government moneysare spent on a item, the Constitution can't be over-ruled by simple bovernment spending.

You have proved my and the OP's point!


lol.....OK....even though I agreed with you about muslim schools that receive federal funding should be held to the same account and reviewed.
If the hospital (or muslim school) receives funding then yes, they have to adhere to the constitution...separation of church and state, regardless of ANY religion. They must provide services that include the entire populace of the US. Privatize if you don't want to be held to that law. It's that simple.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by theBigToe

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by theBigToe
Why would anybody want to side with people who harbor pedophiles and advocates against safe sex?


What a broad brush! Are all muslims, terrorists then?

And the safest sex is abstinence.


I think the real question is - are all terrorists Muslim?
just an aside there are more peadophiles in the protestant sector (im pretty sure along with Catholics 99.9% are not) just thought i'd add that in



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

My posts weren't to debate abortion or religious belief. Notice how I didn't take any side except for the side of law, the constitution and separation of church and state. Don't like it? Then expose this info and champion against the examples you gave above, but don't whine just because you feel your beliefs are persecuted. It is the Law.


It's not the law. It's an abuse of the law. Constitution is a trump card. This is a violation, something ven you would have to agree with. Regardless of what government moneysare spent on a item, the Constitution can't be over-ruled by simple bovernment spending.

You have proved my and the OP's point!


lol.....OK....even though I agreed with you about muslim schools that receive federal funding should be held to the same account and reviewed.
If the hospital (or muslim school) receives funding then yes, they have to adhere to the constitution...separation of church and state, regardless of ANY religion. They must provide services that include the entire populace of the US. Privatize if you don't want to be held to that law. It's that simple.


If you don't want to go to a catholic church, you don't have to. Freedom, remember? Same with an islamic school.

The point is, that government is making that decision. Not you or I. It is taking away the freedom of the catholic church to self-determine.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by abovesecret

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

I understand your view, but this is a very poor analogy. The administration is requiring to provide these options at the catholic hospitals, so that a non-religious person has access to them. No one is forced to utilize them if it goes against their beliefs. Now vice versa that for your school analogy....muslims would not be forced to eat bacon, but it would be available to a non-muslims who wished to attend that school for whatever reason.

If any institution receives government funding, then yes it must allow for all beliefs, since that is the make up of the tax base.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)


No-one is forced to [use them but catholics will be forced to provide them.


Are they receiving federal funding? If so, then they become an arm of the state and ergo, cannot deny, withhold or force services that pertain to their specific beliefs. Separation of state and church. If they don't like it, don't take federal funding, privatize and provide the services they want...simple.




Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by abovesecret
separation of church and state
if pelosi wants to go against that, charge her with treason, sentence her to death and hang the bithc


It's hard to tell if someone is being facetious across the inter-webs. If your not, see my post above. You have it backwards.



lol slightly colorful with my rhetoric sounds better then facetious but i was slightly kidding and slightly not, the argument can go both ways and be argued forever, however, thats another day

as to your post and me having it backwards, not entirely

you state "if they are recieving federal funds"

as citizen of the usa, you are considered the public, as public you have the right to use public services and goods

you are not expected to give up your religion in public as that is considered religious discrimination

today, the federal govt funds tons of things from park land to even some roads

under your criteria, if one was to go to the park, or use the certain federally funded road, they now have to suspend their religious freedom as they are receiving benefits from the federal govt

essentially that criteria would end up eliminating many churches and would open a whole pandoras box





now as far as my personal beliefs go, i dont have a problem with stopping muslims from wearing veils, i understand not only the danger it causes from people being able to walk around unidentifiable, but i also understand the sexism involved and the oppression of women in veils

so when it comes to legit safety concern its one thing to demand a change while in public, but if one was to try to regulate which way a muslim could pray to, that in my opinion would be going to far

theres a delicate balance clearly and i think its clear pelosi is overstepping that line, plus im willing to see her hang for whatever we can get her hung for, its like going after capone for taxes


I appreciate your thought out response.

All I can say, without getting into a religious debate, is that, any institution that receives federal funding, must not discriminate i.e open[/] to everyone. If you don't like the services they provide, don't go there. If someone that believes in contraception goes to a federally subsidized hospital, then they have the right to get it because that is the current federal law. That doesn't mean giving up or suspending your religious belief....it's choices for all.

OK...tired and time to cook supper....nite all.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join