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: 17
30
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by beezzer
 

You know what blows me away? Going back to the quote I posted first, taken from a Non-Political legal reporting service on court filings and cases, they ARE compromising as it is.

As the filing indicates, they're willing to allow all manner of contraceptives ... and that's a BIG deal to compromise, whatever the anti-religion crowds consider it. They just won't budge on one main thing. The Morning After or Abortion Pill...and that IS precisely how Christian Faith sees that little pill.

Typical Government compromise offered in return tho. You do everything ..EVERYTHING we say and we'll compromise by not fining you into ruin. Yeah.... Sounds about right for the times. Even the courts aren't helpful anymore.
(TEMPORARY injunction..that would have just ruined everything or what? Sheesh)

The "morning after" pill DOES NOT prevent implantation, it simply DELAYS ovulation.





posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Simian
*snip*
It can NOT say that one group is exempt and another is not. It MUST take the position that, barring the violation of basic civil rights, it must take no position and leave the decision to do or not do so in the hands of the individual citizen. AND, that is EXACTLY the position it has taken in this case. It is NOT forcing any particular person to make the decision but is simply allowing the right to the choice.
*snip*


Actually, they ARE stating that some groups are exempt, on religious grounds, but that Christians cannot be. Apparently, you didn't read enough to see the issue.

They are NOT allowing a choice at all.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Not that I agree with the Christian dogmatic tripe of the OP (so annoying that I couldn't help but make a comment on it), but a basic staple and an intrinsic facet of democracy is allowing people to choose for themselves how they want to live.

No one has the right to determine for another person how they should live. This applies both ways: conservatives towards liberals, and liberals towards conservatives. But in historical and ideological currents, it seems to always be the liberals (the left) who are striving to undermine the democratic rights of conservatives.

This could be due to the Liberal penchant for radical idealism. To just show this through an example: women and men are interchangeable. Is this true? It's obviously counter-intutuive. Something a 5 year recognizes as baseless, but it has reached a prestige in modern society simply because we've been bludgeoned by the mainstream media to assume that it is so. Radical feminists are responsible for this exaggeration. While women certainly deserved liberation from the shackles of the pre-modern era, it is patently absurd and opposed to all scientific evidence to insist that woman and man are "the same". It's quite the opposite, actually. In democratic countries, where men and women have the individual freedoms to pursue whatever their heart desires, it just so happens that it is in these countries where there is the largest gender gaps; men seek careers in computer science, mathematics, chemistry, physics at a rate far greater than woman. Conversely, women tend to prefer professions that meet their own biologically determined psychological needs: education, psychology, sociology, etc; in short, women prefer dealing with people, while men have a greater tolerance for dealing with "things". To sum it up: women are different from men. As Susan Pinker shows in "the sexual paradox", to force women to like all the things men like is to reduce women to a standard that was devised by men, which suited men's interests. She calls this the "vanilla male" that modern feminism strives to attain. But, it just doesn't work out that way. While women make up an astounding number of university graduates in "male" programs like law (in Canada, for example, 62% of law degrees are earned by women), the vast majority of working lawyers continue to be men: the message? Women may be able to compete with men at an intellectual level, but they by no means enjoy the same things men enjoy. I think Anne Marie Slaughter demonstrated this by giving up her post as under-secretary of state. Unlike men, who very easily allow themselves to become immersed in their careers (and so away from their families), working women with children feel a greater urge, thanks to their biology, to be with their children. A microcosm of this can be seen in the effect breastfeeding has on a mother; not only does the baby receive important nutriment, but while breastfeeding the mother produces oxytocin, a biochemical responsible for feelings of euphoria: in short, a mother reacts differently to children than a father does because of the differences in body chemistry, the result of hundreds of thousands of years of biological evolution.

Of course, all of this is simple generalization based on statistical differences. Some men, such as myself, are profoundly empathic and sensitive to the needs of other people, while there are a minority of women who are enough "man like" to compete in the corporate and science worlds.

I mentioned all this to highlight the differences between men and women because ultimately, life is expressed by "two"; as Woody Allen said "I am two with the universe". Theres a left and theres a right; there are people inclined towards a more conservative, Judeo-Christian ethic, and there are other's drawn towards a more free, unrestrained, pagan ethic. It may simply be a quirk in character, or the consequence of life experiences; whatever it is, there's an underlying assumption beneath this pluralistic tome: none of us truly knows what the truth is. What we do know is reality. We know that we exist in a determined world with determined beings; but we also have a profound sense of self transcendence. These are two conflicting states; the conservative, being bound by reality, tries to reconcile them by working both into a workable reality. The extremist liberal on the other hand is obsessed with his "truth". It's no coincidence that radical leftists are so drawn to Buddhism, Hinduism, taoism, gnosticism etc. It merely meets their ideological moorings. But implied in their universalistic eureka, is the need to change the beliefs of the vast masses who disagree with them. While the normally balanced person puts people before ideas, the radical leftist allows his mystic fury to bulldoze any human being who gets in his way. Result? 100 million dead thanks to Marxism.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This is NO surprise to many of us, who have known, since before he was elected the first time, how anti-Christian this person is.

He claims he is a Christian, but he also has shown this to be a lie, in many ways:

1. He vowed to "stand with the Muslims" if things went bad
2. He attended a Muslim school as a child, and was stated to be (by a teacher) an excellent student of Islam.
3. He wears a ring stating that "there is no god but allah".
4. He mocks Christians and the Bible.
5. He holds positions on issues that are not Biblical, such as supporting abortion and homosexuality.
6. He refuses to reference God when it comes to Christian holidays, such as Thanksgiving and Christmas.
7. He spent over twenty years in a church that preached hate.
8. He has stated that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth".
9. He stated, before the United Nations, that, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.", yet he has no issues with Muslims and others (including himself) slandering Jesus and Christians.
10. His favorite book - Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky - was dedicated to Lucifer: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” That quote is on the opening page.

So, considering all the facts, it's no real surprise that he's doing this. Since he took office, the push to criminalize any public Christian activity has increased by leaps and bounds.

I can't help but noting, right on the first page, how some, instead of discussing the topic from the OP, want to come in and criticize Christians and Christianity, instead. The hypocrisy is astounding.


So what? No where in the Constitution does it state the president must be a "christian";


Where did I state that it did? Oh, wait, I didn't! I said that he claims to be Christian, and proves that he is anything but, and that, because of this, it's no surprise that he is discriminating against Christians. Try rereading what I posted.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Link To Website

That's not what their website says.


Plan B One-Step® (levonorgestrel) is intended to prevent pregnancy after known or suspected contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


What "abortion pill"? The "morning after" pill only delays ovulation; It DOES NOT stop implantation.



Get the facts:


The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

source



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
It's sad to see Christianity under attack. Muslims can pray in the White House. Homosexuals are allowed to flip the bird at the founding fathers, and other president's pictures in the White House. Yet, Obama removed all mentions of Christ from the Christmas cards and other correspondences from the White House. Christians aren't allowed to put manger scenes in town squares, or sing carols that mention Christ. Yet, atheists are allowed to place ant-Christian billboards in Times Square. I fear for the future of Christianity.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Abortion is legal in the United States. The radical Christians have to get over it and move on. That war was fought and lost. There are no more battles.

But the radical Christians will just keep re-opening the abortion debate until they get their way. That's what I mean when I say they are intent on imposing their beliefs on others. It's all they think about. They can't accept the fact that abortions are legal.


As usual, you pro-aborts have it all backwards and upside down. This thread isn't about whether abortion is legal or not. This thread is about whether the government should be able to FORCE a Christian-owned company to PAY for abortions for their employees. It's about the government forcing their beliefs on a Christian business owner. This is not complicated, and it amazes me how many can't see the issue through their hate.


It doesn't matter WHO owns the business, it's a business and it has to abide by the law. Other businesses aren't exempt due to the religion of their owners. There was a link given about INDIVIDUAL asking for exemptions and the INDIVIDUALs who own that business can ask for their own exemptions. However, they cannot refuse to give them to their employees. NO business can.
When they make themselves a for-profit business, they lose any exemption based on religion. That's how it works. If not, then every single business in America would claim some type of religious belief and none of them would pay taxes, provide insurance or anything else. The line is drawn between for-profit and not-for-profit. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business and they have to abide by the laws. PERIOD.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Sounds like you are a taoist. lol And, don't take that as an insult, as it is the closest philosophical/religous pov that I identify with.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Timing
reply to post by dogstar23
 


The problem is in your argument the coverage of insulin for Diabetics is perfectly sane because insulin saves a Diabetics life.

There is absolutely no data to back up that a patient will die if not given the morning after pill. Meaning, a person will not die if the Morning After Pill is withheld from being prescribed.


Nah, they may not die if they don't get the insulin. The sugar high may pass or they may just go into a coma or something. It's preventative, so he doesn't have to offer it since it's against his religion.


**not really, but it is along the same line of reasoning being used by the opposition**


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



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by kthxbai
No, "radical christians" are NOT a vast majority of this nation, not even a SLIGHT majority of this nation. If they were a majority, we wouldn't be having this conversation because that "evil obama who is out to destroy everything they believe in" would not have been elected. The people doing this are not Christians, they are not a majority and they will not succeed. They are an extremist group just like the other extremist group that attacks us as a country. They are no different from the jihadists, they are cut from the same cloth.

If they were a "vast majority", then they would have their way, Obama wouldn't be president, all the opposition to them would have been squashed and we'd be living in a theocracy because that's what they want. They are not a majority at all, THANK GOD!


Are you actually claiming that people who don't want to pay for abortion pills for their employees are terrorists? That's sure what it sounds like you are saying.


From your avatar and some of the things you say, I wouldn't rule it out



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Mad Simian
*snip*
It can NOT say that one group is exempt and another is not. It MUST take the position that, barring the violation of basic civil rights, it must take no position and leave the decision to do or not do so in the hands of the individual citizen. AND, that is EXACTLY the position it has taken in this case. It is NOT forcing any particular person to make the decision but is simply allowing the right to the choice.
*snip*


Actually, they ARE stating that some groups are exempt, on religious grounds, but that Christians cannot be. Apparently, you didn't read enough to see the issue.

They are NOT allowing a choice at all.


No, they're not. They're stating that some INDIVIDUAL can be exempt and that goes for Christians as well, but only the INDIVIDUAL, not employees of the company that individual owns. BIG difference.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Abortion is legal in the United States. The radical Christians have to get over it and move on. That war was fought and lost. There are no more battles.



Owning a gun in the U.S. is not only legal, it is my right! Therefore, those private companies and government buildings that do not allow me to carry my gun(s) on their property are impeding my RIGHT to carry.

Funny thing, since THAT is in the constitution! Abortion is not. So, shouldn't I be allowed to carry my gun inside any business that I choose? After all, it is the business owner that needs to get over it, as guns are legal.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
It doesn't matter WHO owns the business, it's a business and it has to abide by the law. Other businesses aren't exempt due to the religion of their owners. There was a link given about INDIVIDUAL asking for exemptions and the INDIVIDUALs who own that business can ask for their own exemptions. However, they cannot refuse to give them to their employees. NO business can.
When they make themselves a for-profit business, they lose any exemption based on religion. That's how it works. If not, then every single business in America would claim some type of religious belief and none of them would pay taxes, provide insurance or anything else. The line is drawn between for-profit and not-for-profit. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business and they have to abide by the laws. PERIOD.


First off, businesses should not be forced to provide insurance. Second, they should not be forced to provide drugs that go against their religious beliefs. These are not doctors, or drug companies. There should be no government involvement in whether or not they offer insurance or not.

Plus, when SOME businesses are given religious exemptions, and others are not, that's clear bias. This is not complicated.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Abortion is legal in the United States. The radical Christians have to get over it and move on. That war was fought and lost. There are no more battles.

But the radical Christians will just keep re-opening the abortion debate until they get their way. That's what I mean when I say they are intent on imposing their beliefs on others. It's all they think about. They can't accept the fact that abortions are legal.


As usual, you pro-aborts have it all backwards and upside down. This thread isn't about whether abortion is legal or not. This thread is about whether the government should be able to FORCE a Christian-owned company to PAY for abortions for their employees. It's about the government forcing their beliefs on a Christian business owner. This is not complicated, and it amazes me how many can't see the issue through their hate.


Are you for real? It amazes me you don't see the difference. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm actually against it personally. I just don't impose my beliefs on others like you seem to want to do. The abortion question has been debated, a decision has been rendered and it has been held up by the Supreme Court of the land. The anti-abortionists lost. It's a simple question of law.

Abortions are to be made available. That is the law. No business owner, Christian or not, can take that away from a citizen. It's so simple I'm shocked you radicals are clouded by your own hate and can't see the obvious.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by kthxbai
It doesn't matter WHO owns the business, it's a business and it has to abide by the law. Other businesses aren't exempt due to the religion of their owners. There was a link given about INDIVIDUAL asking for exemptions and the INDIVIDUALs who own that business can ask for their own exemptions. However, they cannot refuse to give them to their employees. NO business can.
When they make themselves a for-profit business, they lose any exemption based on religion. That's how it works. If not, then every single business in America would claim some type of religious belief and none of them would pay taxes, provide insurance or anything else. The line is drawn between for-profit and not-for-profit. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business and they have to abide by the laws. PERIOD.


First off, businesses should not be forced to provide insurance. Second, they should not be forced to provide drugs that go against their religious beliefs. These are not doctors, or drug companies. There should be no government involvement in whether or not they offer insurance or not.

Plus, when SOME businesses are given religious exemptions, and others are not, that's clear bias. This is not complicated.


Yes, they should be forced to provide insurance and they will be forced to provide insurance. You may not like it, but it's the law. Second, they don't provide the drugs, the doctor and pharmacy does. However, the insurance they provide will pay for the drugs. You may not like it, but it's the law.
Insurance is not a medical diagnosis nor is it a prescription, it is a right of employment as defined by the law. You may not like it, bu tit's the law.

And no, businesses aren't given exemptions. Individuals yes, businesses no. Provide evidence of any business that is given an exemption that doesn't meet the guidelines set forth for all businesses to support this claim of yours.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


From this point forward, do not expect a reply from me on anything you post.

You crossed the line.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by kthxbai
 


From this point forward, do not expect a reply from me on anything you post.

You crossed the line.


Of course I did, I asked for proof of the claims you make. How dare me.

If you can't provide proof that COMPANIES are given exemption based on religion (not due to size that's open to all companies), the withraw your false claim that they exist. It's quite simple.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by TheComte
Abortion is legal in the United States. The radical Christians have to get over it and move on. That war was fought and lost. There are no more battles.



Owning a gun in the U.S. is not only legal, it is my right! Therefore, those private companies and government buildings that do not allow me to carry my gun(s) on their property are impeding my RIGHT to carry.

Funny thing, since THAT is in the constitution! Abortion is not. So, shouldn't I be allowed to carry my gun inside any business that I choose? After all, it is the business owner that needs to get over it, as guns are legal.



Sure, in a state that allows open or concealed carry go ahead and bring it anywhere you like. I don't see how that has any bearing on this subject at all.

Getting an abortion is not the same as owning a gun. Not by a long shot. Kind of a ridiculous comparison, if you ask me.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Are you for real? It amazes me you don't see the difference. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm actually against it personally. I just don't impose my beliefs on others like you seem to want to do. The abortion question has been debated, a decision has been rendered and it has been held up by the Supreme Court of the land. The anti-abortionists lost. It's a simple question of law.

Abortions are to be made available. That is the law. No business owner, Christian or not, can take that away from a citizen. It's so simple I'm shocked you radicals are clouded by your own hate and can't see the obvious.


Apologies, then, seemed from the comments that was your position.

Yes, abortion is legal. However, since when is it legal to force one person to pay for an abortion for another person? THAT is what making a business owner pay for "morning after" pills does. THAT is the issue here. A business owner not paying for those pills for an employee doesn't prevent that employee from getting, or using those pills. It simply means the employee has other insurance, or pays themselves. I don't pay for abortions, and that doesn't prevent people from getting them. That is my point.
edit on 31-12-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: quote issue



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join