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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
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)


Really the best part of this is you make this claim then link an article that shows a chartt with 3 years of Bush polarization numbers crushing Obamas. Granted these numbers have only been kept since 1953 so they do not come close representing ever. However since 53 Bush Jr. is the clear winner. Guess you should start reading things before you link them.


Out of the ten most partisan years in terms of presidential job approval in Gallup data, seven — yes, seven — have come since 2004. Bush had a run between 2004 and 2007 in which the partisan disparity of his job approval was at 70 points or higher. "Obama’s ratings have been consistently among the most polarized for a president in the last 60 years,” concludes Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones in a memo summing up the results. “That may not be a reflection on Obama himself as much as on the current political environment in the United States, because Obama’s immediate predecessor, Bush, had similarly polarized ratings, particularly in the latter stages of his presidency after the rally in support from the 9/11 terror attacks faded.”




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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.


This isn't about a catholic church, it's about a Federally funded hospital. If you can't see that difference, well, guess we'll have to disagree.....the law is the law.....



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
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.

It's a medical service that the church provides.
Government should stay the hell out of church doctrine.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jibeho
 


I have two points.
1. Excommunication for Pelosi. Right now! (can I haz excommunication, nao?)

2. I'll agree to the Obama administrations decision when they make muslims eat BLT's.
-mmmmmmmmmmmm. . . . bacon!
edit on 2-2-2012 by beezzer because: I can't spell "two" next week I'm learning how to potty all by myself!


Beez, another priceless gem from you!!!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connector

This isn't about a catholic church, it's about a Federally funded hospital. If you can't see that difference, well, guess we'll have to disagree.....the law is the law.....


It's about a hospital that receives federal funds. A big difference.

And still an abuse of the 1st Ammendment.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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.


Gee, does the
Catholic church has several competing sects?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


The non-religious person can choose to go to a non-Catholic hospital of her choice.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Furbs
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.

It's a medical service that the church provides.
Government should stay the hell out of church doctrine.


Be that as it may, they are not regulating churches, they are regulating HOSPITALS, and as I said before, if the new rules in place violate the Church's ethics, it is the Church's responsibility to either..

1. Continue to receive Federal funding and accept the mandate.
2. Stop receiving Federal funding and denounce the mandate.
3. Shut down their hospitals.

Nowhere does the mandate state that the Church has to adhere to the rules. It is stating that the -HOSPITAL- needs to comply with the mandate.

No one is telling anyone what to believe or how to worship, they are telling them how to continue to receive federal funding. If they no longer want the money, they are free to end the welfare and go it alone.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Connector
 


The non-religious person can choose to go to a non-Catholic hospital of her choice.


Ya and a Catholic person can decide if they want to "sin" or not...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

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.


Gee, does the
Catholic church has several competing sects?


Who cares????

Religion, ALL religion sould be treated with respect!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
This has less to do with the corrupt outdated Catholic Church than it does about proper healthcare and proper family planning.
The laws and rules that were put in place by this church has caused as much suffering as it has helped.They are no longer valid, and any semi intelligent person should see right through it.

Good for her.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Connector

This isn't about a catholic church, it's about a Federally funded hospital. If you can't see that difference, well, guess we'll have to disagree.....the law is the law.....


It's about a hospital that receives federal funds. A big difference.

And still an abuse of the 1st Ammendment.


Yeah really big difference that tax dollars go to them to save life instead of tax dollars going to planned parenthood and other services and drugs to take it.

If they still have a problem with your view 1st amendment right of freedom of speech.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Thus sayeth an obvious supporter of the world's largest pedophile ring.

Grow up and enter the 21st Century. Religion can not die soon enough.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Furbs
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.

It's a medical service that the church provides.
Government should stay the hell out of church doctrine.


Be that as it may, they are not regulating churches, they are regulating HOSPITALS, and as I said before, if the new rules in place violate the Church's ethics, it is the Church's responsibility to either..

1. Continue to receive Federal funding and accept the mandate.
2. Stop receiving Federal funding and denounce the mandate.
3. Shut down their hospitals.

Nowhere does the mandate state that the Church has to adhere to the rules. It is stating that the -HOSPITAL- needs to comply with the mandate.

No one is telling anyone what to believe or how to worship, they are telling them how to continue to receive federal funding. If they no longer want the money, they are free to end the welfare and go it alone.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)

Since the government refuses to respect the doctrines of a religion, you're right. In order to remain true to their religious tenent, they may have to close.

What a wonderful tyrany we live in.
edit on 3-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
lol One can always tell the Christian haters in threads like this. People make up the most outrageous stuff to justify their opinions.
edit on 3-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
All of you posting do realize that Birth Control is actually used for certain medical issues beyond not wanting to have a baby right? And for many of those conditions there is no other relief. You ok with women suffering from those for Jesus?
edit on 3-2-2012 by antonia because: rawr



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Connector
 


The non-religious person can choose to go to a non-Catholic hospital of her choice.


Ya and a Catholic person can decide if they want to "sin" or not...


In that case, she too can go to a non-Catholic hospital



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
All of you posting do realize that Birth Control is actually used for certain medical issues beyond not wanting to have a baby right? And for many of those conditions there is no other relief. You ok with women suffering from those for Jesus?
edit on 3-2-2012 by antonia because: rawr


Obama wasn't content with covering up religious statues in a Christian University. Now he has to start dictating to Catholic hospitals as well.
edit on 3-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Obama wasn't content with covering up religious statues in a Catholic University. Now he has to start dictating to Catholic hospitals as well.


And what does that have to do with my question?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Furbs
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.

It's a medical service that the church provides.
Government should stay the hell out of church doctrine.


Be that as it may, they are not regulating churches, they are regulating HOSPITALS, and as I said before, if the new rules in place violate the Church's ethics, it is the Church's responsibility to either..

1. Continue to receive Federal funding and accept the mandate.
2. Stop receiving Federal funding and denounce the mandate.
3. Shut down their hospitals.

Nowhere does the mandate state that the Church has to adhere to the rules. It is stating that the -HOSPITAL- needs to comply with the mandate.

No one is telling anyone what to believe or how to worship, they are telling them how to continue to receive federal funding. If they no longer want the money, they are free to end the welfare and go it alone.
edit on 3-2-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)

Since the government refuses to respect the doctrines of a religion, you're right. In order to remain true to their religious tenent, they may have to close.

What a wonderful tyrany we live in.
edit on 3-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


The United States government is actually constitutionally banned from legislation respecting religion. It's in the First Amendment .


The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion..




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join