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.

 

Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
What religious practice or expression is the government denying?

Since when is denying certain kinds of health care to employees considered a religious expression or a "right"? I don't know of anywhere in the bible or anywhere in religious teachings (and I am well-educated in both) or anywhere in the Constitution where it says a Christian is permitted or bound to make others behave according to their beliefs...

If Hobby Lobby (or any business) should decide to deny Colonoscopy coverage to their employees because of their religious beliefs, should the government allow that? What if they want to deny prescription coverage because they don't believe in taking drugs? Should the government allow that?

Seems Hobby Lobby wants to IMPOSE their beliefs on their employees, not the other way around...




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by kthxbai
 





Although the morning after pill is very controversial, right now it is included in what is accepted and has to be covered by the health plans. If they wish to challenge the legality of the medication and win, it can be removed, but they can't just refuse to allow it to be provided.


Hobby Lobby doesn't want to exclude the "Morning After Pill" only. There really is no need for added concern over this medication, it is no different than most oral contraceptives or an IUD, which Hobby Lobby also wants the right to withhold from their female employees' medical packages.

Oral contraceptives don't always prevent conception. They prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, just like the morning after pill does. Since it can take up to 5 days for conception to occur, there is virtually no difference between the two. And since some women can't take the pill, for health reasons, the morning after pill, in cases of emergencies, seems like a good compromise.

These Hobby Lobby people have no right to step between a woman and her doctor.



edit on 31-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


I'm in complete agreement with you. They do not have that right and they are required to provide the health coverage as is stated by law.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pavelivanov22
 


You are a part of a society if you dont like helping pay for poor peoples medical care then get out.

There are plenty if other places you could live.

Helping to prevent unwanted pregnancy will cut deep into the number of stupid emotionally damaged children your religion needs to perpetuate your deluded beleifs in a magic sky daddy. Someday circumcision will be child abuse.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


It's wonderful that you cherish your family. May you have a wonderful 2013 with them. But that has little to do with what federally mandated health care a company has to offer to it's workers. Chances are, if you were employed by them, you would never use that particular coverage, but someone else who was employed by them might. It's not up to you or me to take that away from them since it is legislated and required that it be available to them.


I'm not too big on those experts in law either(not all of them btw some are great).... Jesus said a few things about them. He talked about bankers too but Matthew was one. Things are not black and white.

IDK, hard topic for me. My wife uses them - but that puts her in a state of sin. Maybe not mortal, that's only for God to know I guess.


Matthew 22:17-21

17 Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? 19 Show Me the tax money.”

So they brought Him a denarius.

20 And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”

21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”


This isn't about what we, as individual Christians do or don't do, this is about what is required by the government. If you do not believe in birth control, don't use birth control, but do not tell others they also can't use it. If the owner of Hobby Lobby does not want the government mandated health insurance, he can get a waiver for his own personal possession of it or not. This isn't about him and his beliefs, it's about the rights of his workers according to the law of the country they are in.

HE isn't required to have the health insurance and can get a waiver for himself based on religious beliefs, but he cannot get a waiver saying he doesn't have to provide it for his employees, nor can anyone of any other religion.

There is nothing unfair being done here nor is it anything against one religion and in favor of another.



Forcing a Christian to enable sin is a sin. Woe to the one who causes others to sin. Contraception is a sin, and my family is guilty.



That passage you mention has two different valid interpretations. You also took it our of context. There was a political context to that situation. If he said yes, he would lose support of the Jews (it was the Jews that were against Romans at that point if I remember correctly). If he said no, he would be outlawed.

Anyways, to me, that passage means let the rich have their money and do God's work. God does not need you to have money to do his work. He actually talks quite a bit about that...seems many ignore it. Many would disagree. I do not know why, defies logic to me.


edit on 31-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 





Helping to prevent unwanted pregnancy will cut deep into the number of stupid emotionally damaged children your religion needs to perpetuate your deluded beleifs in a magic sky daddy. Someday circumcision will be child abuse.


I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Hobby Lobby will gladly fork it out for infant circumcision!



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Yet Hobby Lobby is self-insured.


The Affordable Care Act, labeled Obamacare by opponents, requires insurance companies to offer several preventive care services, including contraception, to women at no cost. The rule took effect Aug. 1, and the requirement would kick in with Hobby Lobby, which is self-insured, on Jan. 1.

newsok.com...

Self-Insured

Self-insurance is a way for a business to lower ongoing premium expenditures and to take control of low-level risks within the organization. This is achieved by the business becoming its own insurer. This can be for a certain level of risk or a certain type of risk. The business creates a fund of money and manages the fund and any claims asserted.

businessinsure.about.com...

So they are their own insurers. And that is still not good enough?

(nod to wrabbit for tipping me on this)


It's still part of what is legally required to be covered. Even if they are self-insured, there are certain things that, by law, must be covered. Even if they don't like it, it's part of what is required from them. They don't have to offer the "biggest and the best", but they still have to offer what is required by law.

They're a for-profit organization and they are subject to the laws that apply to them.

I hear they don't serve bacon at their company dinners though




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
This was all predicted by conservatives well before Obama got elected to his first term.

No one listened.

And the same people elected him AGAIN.

American's are dum.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
And the same people elected him AGAIN.


Because the people who agree with him are in the majority.
The majority of people want health coverage to cover pregnancy prevention and other women's health care needs.



American's are dum.


Uh-huh...



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Forcing a Christian to enable sin is a sin. Woe to the one who causes others to sin. Contraception is a sin, and my family is guilty.



That's the same argument used by many to slaughter others during the crusades. If they allowed those terrible people to live, they were permitting sin, so they killed them all. That was NOT Christian nor was it what God intended.

Forcing them to take the medication against their will would be an example, having to provide health insurance for those who want to use it isn't. You are stretching and grasping to try to justify being a "tyrant" to others.

Again, give unto Caesar what is Caesars and unto God what is God's. It's not out of context at all, it IS the context.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


That's the whole point. The government is mandating something that goes against some ones religious beliefs.

There was a big fight earlier about the mandate being forced on churches as well.

Might as well have a bacon-shack at a mosque!

The 1st Amendment is being trashed and ignored on all levels.

Baconbaconbacon

I'm done here.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kthxbai
 


That's the whole point. The government is mandating something that goes against some ones religious beliefs.

There was a big fight earlier about the mandate being forced on churches as well.

Might as well have a bacon-shack at a mosque!

The 1st Amendment is being trashed and ignored on all levels.

Baconbaconbacon

I'm done here.



They aren't mandating that they, personally, have it. They are mandating that they, as a company, have to provide it for their employees. Nobody said that the owner of Hobby Lobby has to personally take birth control pills or do anything else that is against his/her religious beliefs.

However, as an owner of a company that employees other people, he/she isn't allowed to prevent others from having the basic rights given to them by law. That is the big diffrence here.

ETA: It has been a pleasure discussing this with you in a civil manner. That isn't always the case with many people.


edit on 31-12-2012 by kthxbai because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
And the same people elected him AGAIN.


Because the people who agree with him are in the majority.
The majority of people want health coverage to cover pregnancy prevention and other women's health care needs.



American's are dum.


Uh-huh...


Actually, they are not in the majority. Just because Obama was better at voter fraud and deceiving stupid voters does not give him a mandate.

By the way, I do know how to spell and punctuate. Don't believe everything you read on ATS.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Originally posted by beezzer
The government is mandating something that goes against some ones religious beliefs.


So, the government should allow me to do whatever my religion dictates? Isn't that just what Sharia law is? You're advocating a Christian version of Sharia law.


If my religion says it's OK to kill other people, should the government allow it, just because it's my religion?

I suggest some of you read up on the issue of church and state. You're claiming a first amendment violation where there is none.

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

I ask again, since no one answered... what religious expression is the government prohibiting? And...
Since when is denying certain kinds of health care to employees considered a religious expression or a "right"?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I would agree with the idea that the gov't shouldn't be coming up with a standardized healthcare policy that all companies and businesses have to offer...but
it seems that the gov't and supreme court just don't agree with me.
that's fine, I can live with that..
but to leave out birth control in that coverage would be very discriminating to women!!
churches and religions have a history of discrimination. and to a certain extent, our gov't has allowed them to be...freedom of religion and all that...but this issue passes the norm in that it seems the religious are demanding the gov't to do something that they have spend quite awhile combatting....discrimination! those women have just as much right to birth control than any of us have to many of the other healthcare items that the standardized healthcare provides.
maybe the religious should just be happy that they are allowed to teach their women to be submissive and obedient and deny them entry into the priesthood and all that?
my bet that most insurance companies will just go along with the standard healthcare policy and anything extra will cost extra, cut birth control out of it and well, you are penalizing women for having a genuine health need.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance


So the truth comes out- it's not that Obama is favoring non-christians, they are just giving exemptions to religions that think health insurance is against their faith. As usual, conservatives are highly exaggerating to create outrage.


So its ok to exempt those who claim insurance is against their beliefs but not for those who claim abortion is against their beliefs?

Typical liberal double standard!



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Amen to your post about voter fraud.

If I could flag your post I would.






posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Do Americans REALLY not understand what fascism is? Or is it that they don't care? I just don't get the apathy of people to allow executive power grabs like this.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Let's look at another side of this coin.

If each and everything they do has to rely on their religious tenets, it's going to get very complicated.

That means Hobby Lobby has to track whatever yarn they sell and make sure nobody buys two different kinds to make a sweater or they'll be violating my religion (and theirs as well since that came from the bible's teachings)

Hobby Lobby can't sell any kind of razors or scissors that could possibly be used for cutting hair or trimming or shaving beards

Hobby Lobby has to track all purchases then check to see what was made and make sure no sexually suggestive article is given to anyone that may be trying to seduce someone they aren't married to or it could possibly lead to adultry at some point in time.

ok, these are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are millions more to be addressed, but if they are going to demand that each and everything they are involved with follow whatever religious tenets they may have, then they need to address ALL of them, not just pick and choose, otherwise, they'd be hypocrites wouldn't they?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1PLA1

Originally posted by CB328



being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance


So the truth comes out- it's not that Obama is favoring non-christians, they are just giving exemptions to religions that think health insurance is against their faith. As usual, conservatives are highly exaggerating to create outrage.


So its ok to exempt those who claim insurance is against their beliefs but not for those who claim abortion is against their beliefs?

Typical liberal double standard!


??
It's ok to exclude anyone from having insurance for THEMSELF if they say it's against their religous beliefs. However, that same person can't refuse to offer insurance to their employees, that part is required.
If the Hobby Lobby guys want to get a waiver saying they don't have to have insurance for THEMSELVES, fine, but they still have to provide it for their employees. If they want a waiver that doesnt' cover THEM for birth control, that's fine, but they can't refuse to cover it for their employees.

There's a big difference. You can get a waiver for YOURSELF and yourself alone, not for other people.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pavelivanov22
 





In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration is claiming that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs


Ok, let's see how exactly it forces Christians to "violate their religious beliefs"...



Because federal judges—including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—have refused to grant an injunction protecting the owners of Hobby Lobby from being forced to act against their Christian faith, those owners will be subject to federal fines of up to $1.3 million per day starting Tuesday for refusing to include abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plan.


Ok, this is non-sense. This is like a Hindu working at McDonalds refusing to give people burgers because it's against HIS religious beliefs to eat beef.

The key word is "THEIR" religious beliefs. It is personal, it should not be forced upon others so they are not being forced to act against their faith. They are being forced to allow others to believe in thier's (faith and views).



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join