Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[Quantum Windbag]

Most of America who is older than 35 realizes that we are decidedly worse off than we have been in anyone's experience or memory.

With the jaunty tam on his head and a playful cartoonish animal on his shoulder, is your avatar image the picture Michael Jackson kept on his mirror of what he wanted to look like after all his plastic surgeries were completed?

And they are starting to fight back, not simply pretending that the water is perfectly comfortable. Same thing happens with a frog, it will stay in the gradually warmed water until it reaches a point where the internal temperature of the frog is too hot. At that point the frog will jump out of the water unless it is prevented from doing so.

So, please, stop pretending you are smarter than everyone else. The comfort levels vary, but most people will fight back long before we reach the point of no return. The secret is getting them to see what is making the water hot, not complaining because they got the wrong idea of the source of the problem.

I'm saying the time to get serious is now, not later. And if you merely assume that America will wake up before we reach that point of no return I ask what makes you so certain? How do you know now isn't already too late?

Basically, your position is, 'Nevermind about YOUR line in the sand, we should use MY line in the sand to know when the time has come to take action.'

That doesn't make your line is any better than mine.

It only means you are allowing less time to do what needs to be done to save America.

If that's all you got you should sit the fizzuck down, Jacko.

We ain't in a pissing match!

The time to get serious was 236 years ago.

 

[dblack]

It annoys me when people repeat stupid arguments simply because they have nothing else to support their position, especially when I already pointed out that hey are right and that the purpose of the Constitution is to define, and limit, government.

You are partially right, the point of freedom of religion is partially that government stays out of religion. The part you don't get is that that is the lesser purpose of the restriction, even if it is mentioned first.

Lets look at the clause we are discussing.

​

We agree on the first part, so you can stop bringing it up, the part that has your panties all in a wad is the second part. This prohibits Congress from making even a general purpose law that restricts anyone's free exercise of their religion. Religion, in this case, means more than simply believing, or even not believing, in God.

Courts have always recognized that this part of the Constitution actually empowers individuals, like you, to refuse to obey the government if their personal beliefs were sincerely held, even if they aren't based on a religious text. This is why it is legal for atheist to register as conscientious objectors to the draft, and to refuse to serve in any capacity that promotes war.

You, solely because you refuse to see just how powerful this makes you, see this as an expansion of government power. This is not England, the government does not have the power to define what is, and is not, a religion, you do. You are perfectly free to stand up and argue that your personal beliefs prohibit you from doing the same thing, it you chose to do so. There are currently 70 separate challenges to the mandate working their way through the courts, and hundreds of different parties involved in the challenge, including a few government entities.

The mandate is a challenge to your personal freedom, and it is exceedingly stupid to close your eyes to that fact, and to argue that you oppose limiting the government simply because you don't like some of the people who are challenging it.

I don't have anything against religious people, so please stop suggesting that's my motivation here. This is about corporatist government and the corrosive way it expands government power, even when it pretends to be giving us a break.

I think we agree that the mandates of ACA are wrong because they violate the fundamental freedom think and make financial decisions for ourselves. You seem to be of the opinion that letting some people skip out of a bad law is better than making everyone follow it and it's that notion I'm taking exception to. Every group that's exempted from Obamacare is just another block of voters who will be more willing to give into it, and diminishes resistance to a really bad trend in government.

And, yes, granting exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs does put government in the powerful position of deciding what represents a legitimate religious belief - and raises the question of why that should even matter. Why should a religious belief that being forced to buy insurance is wrong be any more of an excuse than simply believing insurance is a really bad way to finance health care? Does the mystical nature of the religious belief make it more worthy of protection than a rational analysis? Why?

I forgot, you hate everyone who gets together to real with their common interests.

Let me try typing this really slow.

Giving individuals, not groups, more power does not empower the government, even if the individuals have to form groups in order to get their point across. Corporatism, in and of itself, is not bad. What is bad is when we give the government the power. Anything, repeat anything, that restricts the power of the government is good for everyone.

I have no interest in typing slowly, so I'll give up trying to convince you. But I'll leave you, and anyone else who cares about the cause of liberty, with a plea to look closely at what's going on. This 'divide and conquer'strategy its exactly how they defeat us. They peel off one group after another with special favors, exemptions, deductions, incentives and carve outs until we can no longer mount meaningful political opposition. Then they move on to their next conquest. We won't win until we stop letting them get away with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't have anything against religious people, so please stop suggesting that's my motivation here. This is about corporatist government and the corrosive way it expands government power, even when it pretends to be giving us a break.

I think we agree that the mandates of ACA are wrong because they violate the fundamental freedom think and make financial decisions for ourselves. You seem to be of the opinion that letting some people skip out of a bad law is better than making everyone follow it and it's that notion I'm taking exception to. Every group that's exempted from Obamacare is just another block of voters who will be more willing to give into it, and diminishes resistance to a really bad trend in government.

And, yes, granting exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs does put government in the powerful position of deciding what represents a legitimate religious belief - and raises the question of why that should even matter. Why should a religious belief that being forced to buy insurance is wrong be any more of an excuse than simply believing insurance is a really bad way to finance health care? Does the mystical nature of the religious belief make it more worthy of protection than a rational analysis? Why?

I forgot, you hate everyone who gets together to real with their common interests.

Let me try typing this really slow.

Giving individuals, not groups, more power does not empower the government, even if the individuals have to form groups in order to get their point across. Corporatism, in and of itself, is not bad. What is bad is when we give the government the power. Anything, repeat anything, that restricts the power of the government is good for everyone.

I have no interest in typing slowly, so I'll give up trying to convince you. But I'll leave you, and anyone else who cares about the cause of liberty, with a plea to look closely at what's going on. This 'divide and conquer'strategy its exactly how they defeat us. They peel off one group after another with special favors, exemptions, deductions, incentives and carve outs until we can no longer mount meaningful political opposition. Then they move on to their next conquest. We won't win until we stop letting them get away with it.

If there is a divide and conquer strategy being employed by the government, which is arguable, you are the one that is making it successful by insisting that the only legitimate challenge to a law can be based on your principles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control. It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.

They object to paying for it.

They aren't paying for it. They are providing compensation for work performed by their employees, that might possibly be used for birth control.

The employee can use the cash in their paycheck to purchase birth control, or an abortion.

Does that mean Hobby Lobby is being forced to pay for abortions because it gives its employees money?

 

[Drake_Roberts]

The right wing will slowly turn muslim without a shot being fired. They won't even realize they became what they used to hate. Might take a few years though.

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that right-wingers and the like will start reciting passages from the Quran, celebrating Ramadan, going on pilgrimages to Mecca, etc.? I'm fairly certain nearly every American would notice the change. For example, the U.S. would probably get a regime change every other week followed by days of executions and rebellions. Seems pretty noticeable to me.

Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.

If that sad day comes, I'll vouch for this: there will be something or someone who needs to be shot at, and this is one American who will gladly do it.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It also means that government cannot force churches to submit to laws that require them to act contrary to their stated belief.

Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?

Your argument is invalid.


Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice. Regardless, we're talking about Hobby Lobby, Christianity, and contraceptives, not human sacrifice.

Just a thought, some people view the use of contraceptives or having abortions as murder. Are you allowed to force them to permit and encourage what is, in their minds, human sacrifice?

 

[dblack]

It also means that government cannot force churches to submit to laws that require them to act contrary to their stated belief.

Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?

Your argument is invalid.


Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice. Regardless, we're talking about Hobby Lobby, Christianity, and contraceptives, not human sacrifice.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical? It's a proposition to test the general application of a principle, usually to show that it doesn't hold in all cases. The point here is to illustrate that the first amendment doesn't afford an unlimited right to practice religious beliefs. The point of the first is to prohibit government from co-opting religion, not to grant unlimited freedom to religious interests.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Most of America who is older than 35 realizes that we are decidedly worse off than we have been in anyone's experience or memory.

With the jaunty tam on his head and a playful cartoonish animal on his shoulder, is your avatar image the picture Michael Jackson kept on his mirror of what he wanted to look like after all his plastic surgeries were completed?

And they are starting to fight back, not simply pretending that the water is perfectly comfortable. Same thing happens with a frog, it will stay in the gradually warmed water until it reaches a point where the internal temperature of the frog is too hot. At that point the frog will jump out of the water unless it is prevented from doing so.

So, please, stop pretending you are smarter than everyone else. The comfort levels vary, but most people will fight back long before we reach the point of no return. The secret is getting them to see what is making the water hot, not complaining because they got the wrong idea of the source of the problem.

I'm saying the time to get serious is now, not later. And if you merely assume that America will wake up before we reach that point of no return I ask what makes you so certain? How do you know now isn't already too late?

Basically, your position is, 'Nevermind about YOUR line in the sand, we should use MY line in the sand to know when the time has come to take action.'

That doesn't make your line is any better than mine.

It only means you are allowing less time to do what needs to be done to save America.

If that's all you got you should sit the fizzuck down, Jacko.

We ain't in a pissing match!

Ah, but QuantumWindbag has a point there. If you try to spring out to early, the other metaphorical frogs won't follow you. They don't see or believe the water is getting warmer. Only when things reach the literal boiling point will people... I mean frogs, act for the good of everyone and the preservation of the current order.

The only way to resist a hypothetical Muslim onslaught is to wait until all of America stands at your back, party lines finally forgotten, ready to stand up for your rights. The boiling water, ironically, is what causes things to be better. For example, this nation wouldn't have been founded and the revolution never fought if not for Britain denying representation, taxing, closing Boston Harbor, quartering, etc. If you go back further, Boston, the place where the revolution began, would not have been founded if not for the boiling pot religious intolerance in Britain forcing the Puritans to leave for the New World.

Maybe this boiling pot will help usher in the next great power of justness. And judging by the warring history of our nation, it certainly won't be a Muslim power.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?

Your argument is invalid.


Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice. Regardless, we're talking about Hobby Lobby, Christianity, and contraceptives, not human sacrifice.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical? It's a proposition to test the general application of a principle, usually to show that it doesn't hold in all cases. The point here is to illustrate that the first amendment doesn't afford an unlimited right to practice religious beliefs. The point of the first is to prohibit government from co-opting religion, not to grant unlimited freedom to religious interests.

I am familiar with hypotheticals, just not ones that are ignorant and fail to help support my argument. You obviously chose not to quote the second half of my statement, proved your point idiotic didn't it?

 

[daveman]

People always want the government out of their bedrooms unless the government comes knocking with "free" sponges, viagra, spermicide and day after pills.

 

[daveman]

Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice.

The progressive god Choice:

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice.

The progressive god Choice:

I apologize. I stand corrected. The God of the Liberals completely slipped my mind. Sorry, let me rephrase my question, why should babies be allowed to be murdered on the altar of Choice instead of allowing them to be saved on the altar of God?

 

[Mojo2]

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that right-wingers and the like will start reciting passages from the Quran, celebrating Ramadan, going on pilgrimages to Mecca, etc.? I'm fairly certain nearly every American would notice the change. For example, the U.S. would probably get a regime change every other week followed by days of executions and rebellions. Seems pretty noticeable to me.

Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.

If that sad day comes, I'll vouch for this: there will be something or someone who needs to be shot at, and this is one American who will gladly do it.

Watch this video and maybe you'll understand how all of us waiting for the shooting to start may end up with our guns hanging limp at our sides and Mosques sprouting like mushrooms.



The protests will all be academic.

The issue has already been decided in Europe. No one to shoot at. Nothing to do. No one to protest to.

Their frogs are all boiled.

Whether they know it or not.

We are next.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.

If that sad day comes, I'll vouch for this: there will be something or someone who needs to be shot at, and this is one American who will gladly do it.

Watch this video and maybe you'll understand how all of us waiting for the shooting to start may end up with our guns hanging limp at our sides and Mosques sprouting like mushrooms.



The protests will all be academic.

The issue has already been decided in Europe. No one to shoot at. Nothing to do. No one to protest to.

Their frogs are all boiled.

Whether they know it or not.

We are next.

If everything I say is hopelessly wrong, then what do you suggest? Should we start massacring Muslims in the streets? Do you want us to forbid Muslims from immigrating here? Is your suggestion that we ban Islam? This America, the land of the free and all that stuff. If you ban a religion, you might as well void the first amendment, then the constitution. Hell, we might as well not even have a government in that case. And where would that take us?

Ah yes...

Anarchy!

 

[Katzndogz]

Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start. Denmark did it. Some countries have just stopped building mosques. Stop passing sharia compliant laws. Stop making buildings sharia compliant. Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start. Denmark did it. Some countries have just stopped building mosques. Stop passing sharia compliant laws. Stop making buildings sharia compliant. Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.

Ah, but you can't do that under the 1st amendment. Besides, Supreme Court would automatically gun down lol any legislation that proposes such a thing as "unconstitutional". It would never work with this government, no matter the party. Under a new government with new rules, however...

 

[Mojo2]

If that sad day comes, I'll vouch for this: there will be something or someone who needs to be shot at, and this is one American who will gladly do it.

Watch this video and maybe you'll understand how all of us waiting for the shooting to start may end up with our guns hanging limp at our sides and Mosques sprouting like mushrooms.



The protests will all be academic.

The issue has already been decided in Europe. No one to shoot at. Nothing to do. No one to protest to.

Their frogs are all boiled.

Whether they know it or not.

We are next.

If everything I say is hopelessly wrong, then what do you suggest? Should we start massacring Muslims in the streets? Do you want us to forbid Muslims from immigrating here? Is your suggestion that we ban Islam? This America, the land of the free and all that stuff. If you ban a religion, you might as well void the first amendment, then the constitution. Hell, we might as well not even have a government in that case. And where would that take us?

Ah yes...

Anarchy!

I don't have a prescription. All I know is that no matter what anyone does, a sizable minority of Muslims (maybe less than 20% worldwide) take the Koran seriously and literally and are actively seeking to establish Islamic dominance over all religions and governments using any means necessary...violent or non.

When/if we reach the "Fifth Stage of Islam" point here in the USA they will control and maybe deny you of your religious worship.

Would you die to defend their religious rights even though they would deprive you of your religious rights?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.

I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?

On the face of it, I agree.

But, do we really want to allow employers to decide what medical treatment your insurance pays for? In the past, we have allowed insurance companies to dictate health care. Both are wrong and should not be ignored. And, the ACA should not allow exemptions.

Remember, being "good christians" and all, HL actually pays very little in health insurance benefits. Like WalMart, they fill their stores with shit from China, they screw over their store help with crappy pay and pay very little in the way of any benefits at all. Only the top execs get decent pay and bennies.

This is not about HL paying for birth control. This is is never about any company paying for birth control. lushbo used that asssinine excuse to get the rws all up in their usual hating so they wouldn't notice what is really happening. All the screeching lies about Sandra Fluke was the perfect smoke screen to hide behind and, amazingly, the rw's STILL believe those lies.

I can't believe people really didn't see this coming when Lord Romney made his gaffe with "corporations are people too, my friend".

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.

I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.

IF a working definition of Sharia law is law based on religious beliefs, then yes, it is doing quite well in the US. This thread is about Hobby Lobby trying to use religious beliefs to force their will on the entire country. Same with screeching about abortion.

The right doesn't care about fetuses. They care about power.

They can get power by stirring up the rw's who can't think for themselves.

rw's are happy with a Muslim running Fox but they get crazy if a woman's pay includes health insurance that includes birth control.

THAT is the belief in Sharia Law, Repub style and if they could, women would be wearing chastity belts and their preacher would hold the key.