Muslims Are Exempt From Obamacare

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
well then, cheers to snopes for providing it, boooo to you for not understanding it.

do tell, as muslims join "health care ministries", what is preventing them from claiming an "exemption" at that point ??



Well, fine. Now we are talking about "Health Care Ministries", which fall under specific guidelines. We are no longer talking about "Muslims" in general, because ANY person/group can join a Health Care Ministry, provided the groups religious beliefs have historically fallen under the concept of the "Religious Conscience Exemption".

The Muslim faith in general does NOT necessarily qualify for this exemption, but some Muslim sects may qualify -- as would some other religious sects in the United States, such as Mennonites. HOWEVER, those sects would need to show that they have refused acceptance of Social Security benefits (and exempt from paying SS tax) as per the IRS Federal Code. But, like I said, most American Muslims in general do NOT qualify for this exemption.

So, A Muslim would not be exempt from Obama care simply because they are a Muslim. However, if a person (Muslim or otherwise) qualifies for a Health Care Ministry under the provisions of the Religious Conscience Exemption (qualifications that are much more detailed than simply, say, "Being Muslim"), they can be exempt on religious grounds....

...I mean, the title of this thread could very well be "People named 'Tom' Exempt from Obama-care", simply because people named Tom can join a Health care ministry, as long as those people named Tom qualified for the "Religious Conscience Exemption".

edit on 10/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
oh no, there is no historic qualifier, try again.

HCMs have NEVER existed in the USA ... so, why now ?
ah, that's right ... so they CAN claim an exemption.

and no, not "any person can join a HCM" ... that is a lie.

in general, muslim, is not a "faith", it is the adjective used to describe persons who practice a particular religious "faith". just like the term "jew" is not a "faith" either.

actually, most American muslims DO qualify as many of them aren't old enough to claim SS benefits. their payments may be "withdrawn" via payroll but that doesn't mean they collect said benefits.

and, btw, collecting SS benefits due to any reason other than retirement, doesn't nullify their exemption. (ie ... disability, suplemental, dependant, blah, blah, blah)

no one claimed ... "A Muslim would not be exempt from Obama care simply because they are a Muslim", but nice of you to assume such.

see, now that the truth is out ... you have to concede, don't you ?

they can be exempt on religious grounds
but, you said that wasn't true, so which is it ??

semantics ... don't get very far 'round these parts.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
...and no, not "any person can join a HCM" ... that is a lie.

I didn't say "anyone" -- period. I did say anyone who qualifies for the IRS tax Codes "Religious Conscience Exemption" may qualify to join an HCM.

Again, not all Muslims qualify, so the assertion that "Muslims Are Exempt From Obamacare" is a false assertion.




in general, muslim, is not a "faith", it is the adjective used to describe persons who practice a particular religious "faith". just like the term "jew" is not a "faith" either.

Fine. That's why I said not all Muslims in general qualify, but some people who practice certain muslim Sects CAN qualify -- just like some Amish and Mennonites can qualify, as long as they also fall under the IRS Tax Codes criteria of "Religious Conscience Exemption".




actually, most American muslims DO qualify as many of them aren't old enough to claim SS benefits. their payments may be "withdrawn" via payroll but that doesn't mean they collect said benefits.

and, btw, collecting SS benefits due to any reason other than retirement, doesn't nullify their exemption. (ie ... disability, suplemental, dependant, blah, blah, blah)

The refusal of Social Security benefits are only one criteria for the Religious Conscience Exemption. The tax code includes a lot more detail than that to qualify for the exemption....

...read paragraph (g) "Members of certain religious faiths", section (1) "Exemption", subparagraphs A through E, link here:
Internal Revenue Code: Section 1402

They did not make it as easy to qualify for this exemption as you seem to claim.




no one claimed ... "A Muslim would not be exempt from Obama care simply because they are a Muslim", but nice of you to assume such.

I assumed the OP was claiming this based on the title of this thread, which reads:
Muslims Are Exempt From Obamacare

Considering your reply, I think maybe a better title would be:
SOME Muslims Are Exempt From Obamacare .
But that goes back to what I said before. It isn't ONLY some Muslims that could qualify for this exemption. ANYONE who qualifies for the Religious Conscience Exemption in the IRS code (which has a relatively strict set of guidelines to qualify for this exemption) can also possibly join an HCM and be exempt from Obamacare.

So, I suppose the most accurate title woud be:
Some PEOPLE Are Exempt From Obamacare,
as long as those people qualify under the strict guidelines of the IRS Tax Code for "religious Conscience Exemption".

edit on 10/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

then, you shouldn't have said this ...

because ANY person/group can join a Health Care Ministry
simply because it is not true.

in an abbreviated world, perhaps, but you did say it and it's quoted above.

so, since Mennonites already qualify for the exemption, i guess it would be equally wrong to say "Christians are exempt from Obamacare" too, right ????
(cause not "all" of them are
)

like i said, semantics don't go real far around here.

actually, since the USA never had any such ministries previously, NONE Of them should qualify, period.
however, what we do have here, is selective favoritism, again.

no HCM can qualify under the historic IRS code because they've never existed before, remember?
but let's not get into the special exemptions they've legislated for themselves.

easy or not, previously, it DID NOT EXIST.
it's as wrong now as it ever was ... it is favoritism, nothing more, nothing less.

so, aside from your admitted assumption, and considering the title, some muslims are exempt so what's the problem ??
i can agree with altering the title but it isn't mine to do so, is it ??

and this is where you are mistaken ...

ANYONE who qualifies for the Religious Conscience Exemption in the IRS code (which has a relatively strict set of guidelines to qualify for this exemption) can also possibly join an HCM and be exempt from Obamacare.
not anyone can join an HCM, although, many who do not will qualify anyway under the RCE code.
there exists two separate qualifing conditions, not one.

and no, your supposition would still be wrong considering the verbiage of the PPACA itself.

ETA: oh, and btw, an individual mandate that is enforced with exceptions is no longer an individual mandate, is it ??

and, let's not forget that a unapportioned tax applied as this will be is UnConstitutional, isn't it ??
edit on 4-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA
edit on 4-10-2012 by Honor93 because: add more text



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

then, you shouldn't have said this ...

because ANY person/group can join a Health Care Ministry
simply because it is not true.

in an abbreviated world, perhaps, but you did say it and it's quoted above.


Yeah -- but you abbreviated my quote.

What I said in full was this (including the part you left out):

because ANY person/group can join a Health Care Ministry, provided the groups religious beliefs have historically fallen under the concept of the "Religious Conscience Exemption".


I may have oversimplified it for brevity -- The Religious Conscience Exemption in the IRS is only one of the criteria (albeit a major one) a group must meet to qualify for the Health Care Ministry provision of Obamacare...

...HOWEVER, the fact that my description was oversimplified lends MORE credence to what I said about the OP's claims...and that is that the OP's claim that "Muslims are Exempt from Obamacare" is a false claim, and is not supported by the wording of the provision.

Muslims are NOT exempt from Obamacare. Muslims who meet the criteria for Heath Care Ministries, including the IRS Tax Code's "Religious Conscience Exemption" can be exempt from Obamacare, but that is a different thing altogether.

Simply "Being Muslim" does not exempt them. PLUS there are other non-muslim groups that can qualify to be exempt.


edit on 10/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

yes, i left that part out on purpose.
it doesn't negate your previous comment (preceding the comma) or does it prove to be true either.

psssst ... you typed it with a comma, i didn't add one.

and no, members of the new HCMs do not have to fall under the historic RCE.

again, this is BS ...

The Religious Conscience Exemption in the IRS is only one of the criteria (albeit a major one) a group must meet to qualify for the Health Care Ministry provision of Obamacare.
as in, a NEW group cannot qualify under existing code, [color=amber]new code must accompany the new exemption, hence HCMs.

you can claim the title is misleading and i would agree.
however, i am not addressing the title, solely, rather the info included in the OP.
(which, btw, specifically indicates the "group" aspect of some do, some don't qualify)

tis a shame that you seem to cling on to a "concept" (the title) that is less than complete.
then again, most religious types do that daily, so i am not surprised.


Simply "Being Muslim" does not exempt them.
and today, your statement is correct ... however ... these deciding factors have yet to be decided, don't they ?
{see the PPACA for confirmation}


PLUS there are other non-muslim groups that can qualify to be exempt.
and this applies to the "title", how exactly ??



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I think it's funny how my thread was moved to the hoax forum, when you specifically just added more information that says this is true, that along with Muslims being exempt, there are other religious exemptions as well. Almost just what my first link explains.

I don't even care about this subject anymore, and didn't really in the first place. I posted this story because I thought others might find it interesting. I personally don't think Obamacare is going to last long. That is my opinion, but I don't feel I'm alone in believing this way.

Anyway, there's no reason to fight. People will believe what they want to, and some will refuse to believe anything, no matter the evidence, or proof. Life is too short though.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
yes, i left that part out on purpose.
it doesn't negate your previous comment (preceding the comma) or does it prove to be true either.

psssst ... you typed it with a comma, i didn't add one.

I have no idea what you are babbling about. Of course the second part of my post (the part you left out) does not NEGATE the first part, but it obviously is a QUALIFIER. Other groups besides Muslims may be able claim the exemption, HOWEVER, they must qualify for it.

I mean, leaving out the second part of my sentence changes the sentence, since it was qualifying what I said in the first part.



you can claim the title is misleading and i would agree.
however, i am not addressing the title, solely, rather the info included in the OP.
(which, btw, specifically indicates the "group" aspect of some do, some don't qualify)

tis a shame that you seem to cling on to a "concept" (the title) that is less than complete.
then again, most religious types do that daily, so i am not surprised.

Trust me -- I'm far from being a religious type.

I am, however, a rather strict constitutionalist, and the first amendment of the bill of rights protects religions from the government prohibiting free expression of religion - i.e., basically the government can't pass a law the stops a religion from doing its thing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


With that first amendment in mind, the government should not be allowed to force certain religious sects to buy government-run health insurance -- provided that religious sect has adheres to all of the other rules of the IRS Code's "Religious Conscience Exemption".

Obviously, a group shouldn't be able to "cherry pick" what exemptions they claim under the guise of "religious autonomy" -- they either need to be willing to adhere to ALL of the exemption rules, or none at all.



"Simply "Being Muslim" does not exempt them.
and today, your statement is correct ... however ... these deciding factors have yet to be decided, don't they ?

Each Muslim sect will still need to qualify for the Religious Conscience Exemption, which -- as the way I see it -- most would not qualify for (although some sects may).

But that's fine with me if those sects can show real religious conscience and real autonomy from accepting other federal entitlements. Like the constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Again, if a religious sect (such as Christian Mennonite sect or some Muslim sect) refuses to accept Obamacare insurance, they should not be forced to. HOWEVER, if they give that up, they need to be prepared to also give up other federal entitlements.

It is NOT that easy to just refuse Obamacare on religious grounds, but I think the constitution DOES require the opt-out.




PLUS there are other non-muslim groups that can qualify to be exempt.
and this applies to the "title", how exactly ??

This doesn't apply to the OP's title. Why do you think I say it does? The only reason I mentioned the title of this thread was in response to what you said earlier, here:

no one claimed ... "A Muslim would not be exempt from Obama care simply because they are a Muslim", but nice of you to assume such.

My response was that the OP seemed to be making that claim in the thread title.
And in reply to something you wrote in an earlier post, where you said:


so, since Mennonites already qualify for the exemption, i guess it would be equally wrong to say "Christians are exempt from Obamacare" too, right ????
(cause not "all" of them are )

It would be equally misleading to say "Christians are exempt from Obamacare" as it would to say "Muslims are exempt from Obamacare", because the way it is written, it sounds like ALL Christians are exempt.

For example, I could write the following:
"Humans have six fingers"

One could argue that there ARE some humans with six fingers, so this is a valid statement, but the statement is still misleading, because the way it is written implies that all humans have six fingers.

"Christians are exempt from Obamacare" is equally misleading, because not all Christians are exempt, although some sects (such as Mennonites) may be.

"Muslims are exempt from Obamacare" is equally misleading, because not all Muslims are exempt, although some sects may be.

We already know that NOT all Muslims will qualify for the Obamacare exemption, because not all Muslims qualify for the IRS Religious Conscience Exemption...
...and that is the bottom line argument in this thread.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBeatMasta
 

probably because at this moment in time, the title is misleading/false as stated.
at least, that would be my best guess.

you are correct that muslims as well as other religious groups are/will be eligible for an exemption. and what's worse, that particular field of exemption is still wide open.

HCMs are being developed as we speak.
see AIGs advances in the global market for more insight.


but I don't feel I'm alone in believing this way
good, cause you're not ... you are in good company all over this nation.


Anyway, there's no reason to fight. People will believe what they want to, and some will refuse to believe anything, no matter the evidence, or proof. Life is too short though.
some battles are worthy the effort, others, not so much.
it is my hope that ppl seek the truth rather believe what they want to.

life is too short but this monstrosity aims to lessen it further.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

it was only a qualifier because you said so, not for any other reason.
which is exactly why i left it out ... it doesn't apply as you stated (kinda like the title of this thread)

what you continue failing to admit is that the qualifier does not/can not apply to most muslims, period. again, you cannot apply a historic qualifier to a NEW group of claimants.

but, as the OP pointed out, ppl will believe what they want, regardless of truth before them.


I am, however, a rather strict constitutionalist, and the first amendment of the bill of rights protects religions from the government prohibiting free expression of religion - i.e., basically the government can't pass a law the stops a religion from doing its thing.
no offense intended here, but you are either confused or deluded, you decide.

you are absolutely mistaken and do not understand the 1st amendment or its directive.
i would strongly suggest you start there.

if you believe what you typed, please, inform all where is the nearest public sacrifice alter ?
or maybe, the public forum for prostelyzing. (churches are not public entities)
or better yet, the publicly accessible alter employed in tantric sensualities.
what ?? no Buddah at the public square ?? why not ? it is a religious expression is it not ?

when you can apply the 1st correctly, then we'll talk, ok ?

what i would like you to explain is how or why you think the 1st applies to HCMs, religous exemptions provided by the IRS (not Congress), or health insurance at all.

the IRS involvement in this program is debatable as the USSC has already emphasized.
as for the government forcing any group to buy anything, that, is most assuredly unconstitutional, as is indicated repeatedly by many USSCs.

what you are missing is that the HCMs are being developed specifically to subvert the IRS RCE code.

no, those sects who can qualify will apply.
those who cannot will join or develop their own HCMs so they can.
do ya get it now ??

again, how does the "free exercise" clause apply to Federal taxes or health insurance ??
my friend, if you think it does, you'd be sadly mistaken or that's one convoluted argument i'd be interested in hearing/reading.


but I think the constitution DOES require the opt-out.
i would love to see a link that proves the above comment, otherwise i call BS.

oh whaaaaa, you've been whining about the title since we began this exchange.
why would i think anything different ??

this thread is not about a language lesson but thanks for trying.
actually, the bottom line is ... many muslims will qualify for the exemption whether or not they meet RCE requirements.
that is exacly why HCMs are coming to a neighborhood near you.

ETA: it just dawned on me that you might be extending the 1st in relation to the Catholic fury over contraceptives ... in that, the 1st does apply.
that involves Congress mandating them to participate in that which they deem abhorrent to their religious philosophy and practice.
in such, Congress is specifically restricted by the 1st.
edit on 5-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I'm saying this because snopes actually provided a copy of the legislation for me to read -- that's something the OP did NOT do.

So it is the OP who wants me to blindly believe something just because he says so, NOT snopes.
edit on 10/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Agreed, this is why in my first post I said this:


"do you happen to have any real evidence / real reporting on this claim? If so, please put up a link"


All I was asking for was something which would confirm the truth of what the OP was stating in this thread, which you are correct in saying he did not do, hence my reason for asking for it. I was not blindly believing what he said either.
edit on 5-10-2012 by CthulhuMythos because: grammer error



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

but I think the constitution DOES require the opt-out.
i would love to see a link that proves the above comment, otherwise i call BS.


My link would be to the U.S. Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights:
The Constitution of the United States: Bill of Rights


Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


If you don't understand the ENTIRETY of religious provisions in the First Amendment, then it is you who are confused about what it says (or at least your knowledge in incomplete). The religious provision serves TWO purposes -- the Constitution protects the government from religion AND it protects religion from government.

1. The often-mention "separation of church and state", which is covered by the words:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Yes -- this means that towns should not put Buddhas in their town square (on public land).


2. However, the second part of that first amendment reads:
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

To paraphrase the amendment to make it more clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion "

or
"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion"


This means that government CAN NOT pass laws which prohibit a religious group from practicing their religion in the manner they want to (provided that practice does not go against other provisions of the Constitution, of course).

It is true the founding fathers wanted to separate religion from government. However, those same founding fathers were trying to protect people who wanted to freely exercise their religious beliefs. They wanted to protect them against a government who may step in to stop certain religious beliefs from being practiced.


That's where federal codes such as the IRS's "Religious Conscience Exemption" (and others) steps in. If a certain religious group (such as some Amish sects and Mennonites) can prove it is a violation of their religious beliefs to take Government Money and Government assistance, then the government CAN NOT force that assistance on those people...

...or else that would go against the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[, or to paraphrase "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise or religion"

So it could be unconstitutional for the government to force government funded assistance on certain religious groups. For example, the government cannot force self-employed Mennonites (or Mennonites working for Mennonite-owned companies) to pay into social security -- OR they cannot force them to collect social security benefits.

In that same vein, The constitution says the government also cant force those Mennonites to accept health care benefits paid for by the government -- i.e.m Mennonites do NOT need to accept Obamacare, and they are allowed to opt out.

However, having a religious group qualify to fall under this constitutional protection is not an easy task, and only a handful of religious sects in the U.S. fall under this constitutional protection. There may very well be a Muslim sect that CAN qualify, but Muslims in general will not qualify.


The bottom line here is this:
Certain Amish sects and Mennonites feel it is unconstitutional for the government to force Obamacare on them. Those sects point to the first amendment to the Constitution in support of this. Mennonites feel that forcing them to accept Obamacare is "the government prohibiting their free exercise of religion".

The question stands as to whether any Muslim sects qualify the same way Mennonites do, but definitely most Muslim sects in general DO NOT qualify.



edit on 10/5/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Nancy Pelosi's district received 20% of the waivers for Obamacare. Looks like cronyism to me. Here is a link to the facts.

theweek.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
Nancy Pelosi's district received 20% of the waivers for Obamacare. Looks like cronyism to me. Here is a link to the facts.

theweek.com...


I'm sure there will be corruption and abuse involved with Obamacare waivers -- whether the waver be for religious purposes or other purposes.

However, my point is that the first amendment gives certain protection to religion, protecting them from a government that could prohibit the free exercise of that religion. There are some religious sects who can truly show Obamacare prohibits their free exercise of religion under the constitution.

As always though, the detailed manner in which the constitution is enacted and enforced is rife for abuse and corruption. However, even with that abuse and corruption, that does not negate that there are actually people who have a constitutional right to an Obamacare waiver.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

i understand the 1st just fine, you however, need a few lessons.

you said ... "i think the constitution DOES require the opt-out"
i asked you to show me don't tell me.

still waiting for any "opt-out requirement" or any phrasing similar.

Congress is not establishing any religion or prohibiting the free exercise of said religions.
please, show us otherwise.

don't see anything about legislating an obstacle to an "individual mandate" either.
matter of fact, it is the whole "individual mandate" concept that the USSC struck down as unconstitutional.

yes, the amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but i don't follow how you think it applies to health care or health insurance.
most, if not all, religious folk partake in one or the other.

if you are suggesting that those groups who claim an exemption will not use the public/private hospitals, will not use any form of insurance, will not employ the services of drs who serve the public at large, will not burden the pharmaceutical supply chain, then, perhaps maybe, they should be exempt.

however, if those who claim to be exempt, also expect to benefit from the services provided to the public at large, then they should contribute equally, period.
healthcare in general is not a religious practice, neither is insurance.

there is no mention anywhere in the entirety of the Constituion about separation of church and state. it does not exist. what that concept is, is political folly.

since it wouldn't be Congress erecting or legislating the Buddah in a town square, there would be no Constitutional conflict.

kinda like the school banners with biblical phrases.
it was not sponsored by the public school, hence there is no conflict.
{it is an expression of the students freely exercising their religion}
~~ if the school had sponsored the banners, it would be a conflict ~~

contrary to most interpretations, so long as your religious exercise does not infringe upon
my right to ignore you, there is no conflict.
you can practice and parade your religion all you want, but, you cannot take from others (non-participants) to support your religious activities.
{especially if that religious activity (ie. healthcare) is provided by the public of non-participants}


This means that government CAN NOT pass laws which prohibit a religious group from practicing their religion in the manner they want to (provided that practice does not go against other provisions of the Constitution, of course)

BS, BS and more BS ... ask the Druids for confirmation.
ask those who practice Naturalism, Wicca, Santaria, Voodoo and a plethora of others.


yeah, yeah, blah, blah ... you still have not indicated what or how healthcare or health insurance is a "religious practice" in any form.

you're confused ... the purpose of the RCE is to exempt Churches not members of them.
show me any religious follower who is exempt from Fed taxes specifically due to their religion.
even the Mennonites and Amish file tax returns with the IRS. linky


then the government CAN NOT force that assistance on those people

what ??? the government does not and cannot Force government assistance upon anyone.
where in the world did you get that idea ?

ummm, the government cannot force anyone to pay into or collect from SS.
that, along with the persistent pilfering over the years is exactly how we got here.

you keep saying that but it just isn't true or they wouldn't be developing HCMs to avert the requirement.

don't get me wrong, i am not in support of Obamacare and would prefer it be de-funded and dismissed. however, as it currently stands, this field of exemptions is changing every moment.

and no, they are not complaining that Obamacare itself is against their religious principles, rather, paying for it is against their religious principles. that's a huge difference in "theory", don't ya think ??

ETA: since i won't be voluntarily participating and am not a member of any organized religion, what is my punishment ??
since i don't pay taxes, i don't have a "refund" for them to abscond.
they will not receive a "voluntary" payment from me or anyone in my neighborhood.
so, what's changed ??
edit on 6-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBeatMasta
 


Hey, maybe if the title of the thread reflected the tone of the OP, it might not be in the HOAX bin.
Like you said, some religions are not forced to get health care such as Christian Scientists.
Too bad that title was so far off.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Andcoulter
 


Reading the title peaked your curiosity, did it not? You read it, so in my eyes, the title worked just fine. It made you comment on the matter. I win.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

then the government CAN NOT force that assistance on those people

what ??? the government does not and cannot Force government assistance upon anyone.
where in the world did you get that idea ?

The government could pass laws forcing people to do things they normally may not want to do. For example, wear a seat belt.

Another example, receive government-paid health care rather than privately funded health care.

If a religious sect (such as some Amish sects) could prove that receiving government-funded healthcare prohibits their free exercise of their religion, then that goes against their first amendment rights [i.e., "the governemnt shall pass no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion"

An Amish person who is being covered under government-paid health insurance may feel that they are breaking their religious laws. Whether they ever use that insurance or not is irrelevant; just being covered by the government's health plan may be the issue.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBeatMasta
reply to post by Andcoulter
 


Reading the title peaked your curiosity, did it not? You read it, so in my eyes, the title worked just fine. It made you comment on the matter. I win.


What did you win?
The only thing you got from me was called out on your BS.
Is that a prize or a trophy?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

passing a law doesn't mean ppl will ahere to it, re: seatbelts, i simply refuse.

the government does not Force me to DO anything except give them money that i would prefer not. do tell, what do you think the government forces ppl to do ??

heck, they can't even force ppl to pickup after themselves in public



Another example, receive government-paid health care rather than privately funded health care
you must be seriously deluded ... how is the government forcing the receipt of healthcare ??

i already get "government-paid health care" by my choice when i need it at a rural clinic.
how is the government forcing me to do so again ??

you are failing to explain how "healthcare" or any form of it is a religious activity of any kind.
please try harder.

besides, the government isn't forcing anyone to buy healthCARE, they are demanding health INSURANCE.
there is a distinct difference between the two.

actually, because the Amish would be exempt via the existing RCE laws, your point is moot.
and, because ANY group can be exempted, the law is seriously fractured before it's even implemented.

which renders the bottom-line as the thread established ... {some} Muslims are exempt from Obamacare.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join