Religous Freedom is so dead

[emilynghiem]

The ACA doesn't 'force' anyone to do or buy anything, consequently there's no 'discrimination.'

The ACA doesn't 'exclude' anyone from buying health insurance, consequently there's no 'discrimination.'

The ACA doesn't 'single-out' a suspect or particular class of persons for 'exclusion,' nor 'compel' a suspect or particular class of persons to buy health insurance, consequently there's no 'discrimination.'

What part of no discrimination do you not understand.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
A. The above is boldface is backwards, the opposite of what I'm saying.
I'm saying it is EXCLUDING *Alternatives* to health insurance: it is taxing and regulating those in an exclusive and punitive manner. It is making insurance (or select religious groups) the ONLY choices to qualify for exemption. So it is ANTI-CHOICE and penalizing other choices by EXCLUDING them from the approved list of exemptions.

We don't have to REQUIRE health insurance in order to get people to pay for their own health care.
We could have simply passed a law requiring people to pay their own costs and quit imposing costs on the public.
We didn't have to DICTATE and micromanage how that was to be paid, because that could be done by people and states.
All the federal exchanges and insurance changes could have remained OPTIONAL to opt into if they are proven to work well.

So all the choices would remain EQUAL, not penalizing some and exempting others.

B. Note: what I mean by taking away liberty and choices: BEFORE ACA was passed people had free choice whether or not to buy insurance. Now it is required to avoid an added tax. So that is adding a financial requirement that wasn't required before. In order to avoid this, the ACA should have been OPTIONAL, like a public option that you can choose to participate in.
Nobody is fined for not paying to take the bus to work, while people who pay are exempted. it is a public choice added but not required. the ACA could have done that to avoid this conflict. Made it optional to participate, and then for those who USE the services they can be required to follow the requirements for paying that way. And let other people have their own systems and choices so nobody is discriminated against for how they believe in managing health care choices.

C. What if were set up this way, is this more clear what it feels like to be discriminated against:

What if you were NOT Christian, NOT prolife, and NOT Conservative, but you are prochoice liberal and don't believe in funding prolife programs that exclude the free choice of abortion. What if the federal programs regulate the choice of abortion to make it restrictive and reduce that choice to a minimum, or even penalize it.

And the health plans set up were all PROLIFE, where the money went into programs set up by Christians and Conservatives under regulations THEY approved. And clearly they DON'T approve abortion or the choice of abortion as a choice, so that is not exempt but fined with taxes.

Then what if the mandates required you to either buy plans that MEET PROLIFE regulations, and are APPROVED by PROLIFE ADMINISTRATIONS, or be fined 1% of your salary that went into PROLIFE programs through this network.

But if you WANTED to fund PROCHOICE programs to pay for your health care "according to your beliefs" then this was TAXED, while the PROLIFE programs and funders get TAX EXEMPTIONS and aren't penalized. The PROCHOICE programs you believe in are NOT on the list of exemptions, and the money you pay does NOT go there, but only to the PROLIFE networks and programs approved by PROLIFE people who wrote and endorse the bill.

Does this make sense? Where even if you pay the EQUIVALENT amount of money into PROCHOICE programs, you cannot claim or deduct that from the amount you are required by law to pay into PROLIFE programs. So you would have to pay double. You are required by law to buy PROLIFE plans, or the fine/tax you pay goes into PROLIFE programs anyway. So you are forced to fund that, either way, by govt.

Wouldn't you feel discriminated against,
if the shoe was on the other foot?

 

[boilermaker55]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm! No you didn't.
Rambling is not making a point.

When you really have something to complain about,make a real statement.
Until then, your religious crybaby attitude does nothing to making a point about the subject matter.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Then explain to us the last time someone was prohibited in speaking about their religion.
That is quite different that putting religious epitaphs in a public institution.

Ignorant, ridiculous nonsense.

What people on an internet message board might say has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting religious expression. No one is being 'discriminated against' for openly embracing his religion; nor are theists forced to discuss their religion 'behind closed doors,' and theists are certainly not subject to 'reprisals' – the notion is unfounded, delusional, and paranoid.

No one is seeking to enact any kind of 'law' to disallow theists from embracing their religion because it might make others 'uncomfortable,' and school children are now and have always been at liberty to read a bible or practice their faith while attending school – provided such actions are not disruptive; and should religious expression be disallowed because it is disruptive, such a prohibition in no way constitutes 'religious oppression.'

As with the other poster, your ignorance of the law is no excuse – Establishment Clause jurisprudence does not in any way infringe on religious liberty, as the First Amendment applies solely to government, limiting its unwarranted and un-Constitutional entanglement with religion, not private persons or organizations.

If only you made sense.

But you don't.

As I tell Schlep on a regular basis..just because you don't understand doesn't mean I didn't make my point.

I did, and always do, make my point. In spades.

 

[Taz]

There is no such thing as religious freedom, if you belong to a religion, you have to obey what they say or you're out.

 

[boilermaker55]

They make things up. They want the government and the rest of the country to recognize Christianity as the only true religion.
No one, or nothing, is preventing them from practicing their religion.
They can pray anywhere they want at anytime. But they feel the rest of us need to pray with them to their deities.
Personally, I have seen many people pray in public or private settings.
But it is of their own volition.

In which institution they are giving a speech in, yes, if that institution has a religious. If it is a public one. NO.
If one has the right to preach their religion then all others must have the right to preach theirs. It has to be stopped at some point.
Stop it at the beginning.
No one is ever going to have them not practice their religion at their place of worship or in their homes.

Then you are okay with the valedictorians speaking about God and faith during graduation exercises? If a judge wants to hang a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, not a problem? What about, upon hearing of the death of a student a teacher says, "Let's say a prayer..." and several students get on their knees and bow towards Mecca?

Does freedom extend this far in our country?

We have the right to reference and speak about our religion, in public. To say otherwise is to advocate a restriction on freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Your application for martyrdom is denied on the grounds that such shrill, melodramatic whining has all the dogs in my neighborhood barking.

good post

What is OP whining about that he can't pray at the DMV or the Post Office?

But he can.

I don't know of any place or time where a person can't pray.

What's stopping them? Hell, most of us would think he was just talking on his phone!

The OP and other thumpers just get all bent because they can't force others to join them in whatever hocus pocus they choose for themselves.

 

[boilermaker55]

No, because no one has ever taken your right to pray or worship in your own faith.
Never.

Most of the statements you make do not apply at all to fact of being religiously persecuted.

Why, because you don't agree or understand my beliefs?
So you think they don't count as being violated?

1. I believe in consensus on laws to prevent religious imposition by govt on such issues of beliefs as: (a) marriage, in particular gay marriage (b) health care now that the "right to health care through govt" has been imposed by federal law as a belief that all people must comply with or face penalties (c) the death penalty (d) abortion (e) immigration and earned amnesty (f) spiritual healing and solutions to mental health and marijuana policies, along with criminal justice reform

2. so as long as legislatures and courts are used to impose one side over another,
my beliefs in equality, in isonomy and Constitutional equal protection of the laws
are abridged and denied. I am forced to pay taxes spent on lawsuits and more political infighting and deadlocking
because the govt did not require a consensus on these issues. Meanwhile, causes such as saving environmental
and historic landmarks, and creating jobs and campuses for Veterans to reform the VA and health care
GO UNFUNDED while resources are wasted on conflicts that I have argued and believe should be resolved by consensus.

So it is wasting taxpayer money, and depriving this from being invested in solutions I believe in funding that everyone agrees on, such as helping veterans. it violated the Code of Ethics for Govt Service which calls for federal employees
to find and employ the most efficient means of getting tasks accomplished. I believe in enforcing those principles.
So these are violated by wasting resources on conflicts that are better resolved by consensus to protect beliefs on all sides.

3. I believe in solving the issue over health care by giving taxpayers the choice of what systems to fund.
Those who believe in free market solutions should have equal choice to invest tax dollars there.
Those who believe in lending into medical education and hospital/campus development should be able to invest there.
Those who believe in insurance coops and the ACA system of exchanges should pay for that if that's their beliefs.

So until the ACA is reformed to allow equal choice to opt in and fund or finance whichever means people believe in,
then my beliefs in "equal protection of the laws" are violated. The fines and regulations only exempt those people are groups that the govt approves; and this does not include the choice of free market methods of providing and paying for health care;
it doesn't involve the choice of spiritual healing to reduce costs of crime and disease so state funds can go into health care that are currently wasted on ineffective prisons and mental wards in the billions of dollars.

So the choices and solutions I believe in as more effective -- in covering more people with the same resources instead of charging taxpayers more and losing our liberties -- are discriminated against and fined by this bill that doesn't recognize that as an option.

4. And I could also add that any voters or govt officials, whether legislators or judges in court,
who do not recognize my beliefs as equally protected by law, but continue to endorse and abuse govt to
enforce the current mandates that violate my beliefs in inequality
are part of the oppression, you are basically participating in "violating my civil rights" by enforcing unconstitutional laws.

I can protest all I want, but if that doesn't change the unlawful enforcement of onesided laws that establish a hostile belief,
while penalizing me for believing in other options that are not criminal but actually more cost effective,
then something is wrong with the system, and koshergrl and others are right.

If all these means are used to attack and punish Constitutionalist and Christians who believe in free choice,
this is a violation of our equal civil rights, our right to petition for redress of grievances, and for equal
protection and representation instead of discrimination by creed by abusing govt and laws to impose hostile beliefs.

 

[guno]

No one is stopping you from braying to your man god, That's why your churches are tax free, but the christian doesn't just want to bray but put on a show and proselytize.

Public schools are for everyone and are there to teach, not promote superstitions

why don't You take your godmans advice
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

 

[emilynghiem]

No, because no one has ever taken your right to pray or worship in your own faith.
Never.

That's not the only meaning of the First or Fourteenth Amendments.

A1. "Free Exercise of Religion" includes things like the right to preserve one's community and family history, as part of one's spiritual belief,
but I saw that violated and denied in my own neighborhood. Public tax money was given to private developers to buy land to DESTROY historic property but when nonprofits asked for help to PRESERVE the history, they were always denied support.
Tax money went to destruction, but not to preservation; and the preservation was part of the BELIEFS of the community to preserve their identity, history and plans that represent their BELIEFS and interest. Many of the people are only still there today because of their faith in God.

So how can their BELIEF in preserving historic churches as part of God's purpose
be EXERCISED if public tax money was used to TEAR DOWN the churches and houses and REMOVE the graves.

These landmarks are no longer there. So how can religious freedom in preserving history be exercised?

It has effectively been CENSORED, permanently by demolishing the structures the community asked to preserve

A2. Hobby Lobby case. Their BELIEF in not providing abortifacient drugs was UPHELD
by court. This was NOT about "prayer or worship," but a BELIEF in PROLIFE convictions, and that the 4 drugs objected to, were not for contraception before pregnancy but used to terminate afterwards which was outside the limits of the company owners' BELIEFS.

A3. Spiritual healing. This is a practice equally protected under the First Amendment and religious freedom, and the BELIEF that it can reduce public costs better than just insurance
is a CREED equal to the BELIEF that insurance or govt mandates are better for providing health care. Neither is PROVEN so both are BELIEFS. And the 14th Amendment protects
against discrimination on the basis of CREED.

Instead of buying insurance as the only exemption, why can't I invest in building public outreach, facilities and free services in natural healing to reduce the cost to the public of disease, crime, health care WITHOUT being fined a tax as if I didn't invest in health care.

Why does any other "state alternative" have to be PROVEN first, but the insurance method didn't have to PROVE to work BEFORE being required by law.

So this is regulating and putting an unfair burden on people with different BELIEFS how to fund health care.

That is discrimination.

B1. About discrimination by creed.

This does not SPECIFY that creed is only about praying or worship.

If the Govt goes around ONLY protecting beliefs involving "prayer or worship"
THAT IS DISCRIMINATING BY BELIEF OR CREED

It would be protecting ONE practice over another.

So if Christians pray, they are protected? But if Atheists don't they are not?

That is RIDICULOUS

if you are going to protect the BELIEFS or CREEDS of ALL people: Atheists, Christians,
Liberals. Conservatives, theists or nontheists EQUALLY UNDER LAW,
you CANNOT define "religious freedom" or "CREED" to be SO RESTRICTIVE
that it only protects ONE class or type of person but not another person's beliefs.

????

Is that more clear?

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is stopping you from braying to your man god, That's why your churches are tax free, but the christian doesn't just want to bray but put on a show and proselytize.

Public schools are for everyone and are there to teach, not promote superstitions

why don't You take your godmans advice
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Dear guno:
But until Hobby Lobby sued and won, the federal govt was forcing them to include provisions
for drugs that were against their beliefs.

Business owners had to receive help from a prominent enough law firm in order to go through
Federal Courts to SUE to defend their religious freedom.

They won. But the fact remains that these rights were not inalienable.
Had they not sued, they would have lost their rights that were supposed to be inviolate.

A CONDITION was added to their religious freedom, that they had to sue and WIN,
which other people don't have on their religious freedom who aren't affected by advocates of this bill that didn't consider the discriminatory effect it has to be unfair or unlawful.
To them it is just politics, and it does not matter if someone's religious or civil liberty
is abridged because they expect people to have to fight for it. Like bullying a person
and expecting them to fight back if they want the bullying to stop. the bullying is still wrongful.

Such laws put an UNFAIR burden, discriminating against Christians who have
to SUE to exercise their religious freedom.

Before the law was passed, they didn't have to sue and win to exercise their freedom NOT to include drugs against their beliefs. They had religious freedom to choose.

After Congress passed this law, the same people have to spend energy and resources
going through court to GAIN BACK the freedom they had lost.

Now, guno, if you compare with other citizens who didn't have these beliefs, that were discriminated against, they DIDN'T have to sue to exercise their freedom.

So the citizens who had to sue to try to restore their religious freedom
were discriminated against. They did not have the same level of freedom
as other people who didn't have to sue to exercise their religious freedom.

NOTE: If this goes over your head, I apologize!

I understand Democrats and liberals aren't taught what religious freedom means,
and have trouble understanding how this affects other people with beliefs they don't understand or agree with.

 

[boilermaker55]

One more time, what is clear is...........NO one is taking the right, of so-called Christians, ability or right to pray or worship.
No One.
It is absolutely ludicrous to make any statement of the kind,
If you think it is about where your rights are being trampled on with ACA etc, then don't let anyone stop there with tax money and their religious belief.
It goes on and on and on.
But no one has taken the right of worship from anyone.
It is sickening to listen to the so-called Christians cry to vehemently on their rights being discarded.

No, because no one has ever taken your right to pray or worship in your own faith.
Never.

That's not the only meaning of the First or Fourteenth Amendments.

A1. "Free Exercise of Religion" includes things like the right to preserve one's community and family history, as part of one's spiritual belief,
but I saw that violated and denied in my own neighborhood. Public tax money was given to private developers to buy land to DESTROY historic property but when nonprofits asked for help to PRESERVE the history, they were always denied support.
Tax money went to destruction, but not to preservation; and the preservation was part of the BELIEFS of the community to preserve their identity, history and plans that represent their BELIEFS and interest. Many of the people are only still there today because of their faith in God.

So how can their BELIEF in preserving historic churches as part of God's purpose
be EXERCISED if public tax money was used to TEAR DOWN the churches and houses and REMOVE the graves.

These landmarks are no longer there. So how can religious freedom in preserving history be exercised?

It has effectively been CENSORED, permanently by demolishing the structures the community asked to preserve

A2. Hobby Lobby case. Their BELIEF in not providing abortifacient drugs was UPHELD
by court. This was NOT about "prayer or worship," but a BELIEF in PROLIFE convictions, and that the 4 drugs objected to, were not for contraception before pregnancy but used to terminate afterwards which was outside the limits of the company owners' BELIEFS.

A3. Spiritual healing. This is a practice equally protected under the First Amendment and religious freedom, and the BELIEF that it can reduce public costs better than just insurance
is a CREED equal to the BELIEF that insurance or govt mandates are better for providing health care. Neither is PROVEN so both are BELIEFS. And the 14th Amendment protects
against discrimination on the basis of CREED.

Instead of buying insurance as the only exemption, why can't I invest in building public outreach, facilities and free services in natural healing to reduce the cost to the public of disease, crime, health care WITHOUT being fined a tax as if I didn't invest in health care.

Why does any other "state alternative" have to be PROVEN first, but the insurance method didn't have to PROVE to work BEFORE being required by law.

So this is regulating and putting an unfair burden on people with different BELIEFS how to fund health care.

That is discrimination.

B1. About discrimination by creed.

This does not SPECIFY that creed is only about praying or worship.

If the Govt goes around ONLY protecting beliefs involving "prayer or worship"
THAT IS DISCRIMINATING BY BELIEF OR CREED

It would be protecting ONE practice over another.

So if Christians pray, they are protected? But if Atheists don't they are not?

That is RIDICULOUS

if you are going to protect the BELIEFS or CREEDS of ALL people: Atheists, Christians,
Liberals. Conservatives, theists or nontheists EQUALLY UNDER LAW,
you CANNOT define "religious freedom" or "CREED" to be SO RESTRICTIVE
that it only protects ONE class or type of person but not another person's beliefs.

????

Is that more clear?

 

[hortysir]

Talk and posting a symbol of a religious belief are two entirely different entities.
Nice try.

Again, how is it repressing your freedom of speech?
One cannot make up false charges.
I hesitated to say this but you really are whining about nothing.

There is certainly a large difference between you practicing your faith/religion to taking your faith/religion to a public square/building and putting up a symbol.
Perhaps one day you will recognize the difference.
Not once did you make a statement that someone keeps you from praying or practicing your faith.
All you seem to care about is putting a religious symbol out in a public arena.
These are two(2) totally different situations.

Religious freedom is NOT just about being able to speak about religion, or about being able to put a cross on the public square.

It's about not being DISCRIMINATED against for openly embracing your religion, and not being forced to discuss your religion only behind closed doors, for fear of reprisal.

People on this site have argued repeatedly that Christians should not be allowed to participate in politics, or teach in schools, or send their children to school. People on this site maintain that openly christian people should be labeled as mentally ill, and incarcerated, and that if they send their children to church, they should be charged with child abuse.

People have a right to embrace their religion. If that means bringing Christ into every conversation they have they have the right to do so..there should never be a law that says they can't do that because it might make someone uncomfortable. There should never be a law or an action that prohibits school children from witnessing, reading the bible, or openly embracing their religion in school.

But the fascists on the left don't understand that, and never will.

Freedom of speech.

Progressives hate it.

I may talk about my religion anywhere I please.

That includes in the public square.

Free Exercise Thereof



simple really

 

[guno]

No one is stopping you from braying to your man god, That's why your churches are tax free, but the christian doesn't just want to bray but put on a show and proselytize.

Public schools are for everyone and are there to teach, not promote superstitions

why don't You take your godmans advice
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Dear guno:
But until Hobby Lobby sued and won, the federal govt was forcing them to include provisions
for drugs that were against their beliefs.

Business owners had to receive help from a prominent enough law firm in order to go through
Federal Courts to SUE to defend their religious freedom.

They won. But the fact remains that these rights were not inalienable.
Had they not sued, they would have lost their rights that were supposed to be inviolate.

A CONDITION was added to their religious freedom, that they had to sue and WIN,
which other people don't have on their religious freedom who aren't affected by advocates of this bill that didn't consider the discriminatory effect it has to be unfair or unlawful.
To them it is just politics, and it does not matter if someone's religious or civil liberty
is abridged because they expect people to have to fight for it. Like bullying a person
and expecting them to fight back if they want the bullying to stop. the bullying is still wrongful.

Such laws put an UNFAIR burden, discriminating against Christians who have
to SUE to exercise their religious freedom.

Before the law was passed, they didn't have to sue and win to exercise their freedom NOT to include drugs against their beliefs. They had religious freedom to choose.

After Congress passed this law, the same people have to spend energy and resources
going through court to GAIN BACK the freedom they had lost.

Now, guno, if you compare with other citizens who didn't have these beliefs, that were discriminated against, they DIDN'T have to sue to exercise their freedom.

So the citizens who had to sue to try to restore their religious freedom
were discriminated against. They did not have the same level of freedom
as other people who didn't have to sue to exercise their religious freedom.

NOTE: If this goes over your head, I apologize!

I understand Democrats and liberals aren't taught what religious freedom means,
and have trouble understanding how this affects other people with beliefs they don't understand or agree with.

another uneducated whining christer

 

[emilynghiem]

another uneducated whining christer

Sorry guno I'm into SOLVING the problems of both church and state.
Including correcting problems on ALL sides
both prochoice and prolife where they violate each other's equal rights to protection of beliefs
both liberal and conservative
both christian and nonchristian, theist and nontheist where they impose on each other

problems pointed out by ALL parties and people from ALL beliefs, religious political or secular.

Can you find me ONE problem I am "whining" about
where I haven't promoted a SOLUTION and/or invested my
own time energy and resources into resolving.

Thank you.

 

[hortysir]

No one is stopping you from braying to your man god, That's why your churches are tax free, but the christian doesn't just want to bray but put on a show and proselytize.

Public schools are for everyone and are there to teach, not promote superstitions

why don't You take your godmans advice
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

Dear guno:
But until Hobby Lobby sued and won, the federal govt was forcing them to include provisions
for drugs that were against their beliefs.

Business owners had to receive help from a prominent enough law firm in order to go through
Federal Courts to SUE to defend their religious freedom.

They won. But the fact remains that these rights were not inalienable.
Had they not sued, they would have lost their rights that were supposed to be inviolate.

A CONDITION was added to their religious freedom, that they had to sue and WIN,
which other people don't have on their religious freedom who aren't affected by advocates of this bill that didn't consider the discriminatory effect it has to be unfair or unlawful.
To them it is just politics, and it does not matter if someone's religious or civil liberty
is abridged because they expect people to have to fight for it. Like bullying a person
and expecting them to fight back if they want the bullying to stop. the bullying is still wrongful.

Such laws put an UNFAIR burden, discriminating against Christians who have
to SUE to exercise their religious freedom.

Before the law was passed, they didn't have to sue and win to exercise their freedom NOT to include drugs against their beliefs. They had religious freedom to choose.

After Congress passed this law, the same people have to spend energy and resources
going through court to GAIN BACK the freedom they had lost.

Now, guno, if you compare with other citizens who didn't have these beliefs, that were discriminated against, they DIDN'T have to sue to exercise their freedom.

So the citizens who had to sue to try to restore their religious freedom
were discriminated against. They did not have the same level of freedom
as other people who didn't have to sue to exercise their religious freedom.

NOTE: If this goes over your head, I apologize!

I understand Democrats and liberals aren't taught what religious freedom means,
and have trouble understanding how this affects other people with beliefs they don't understand or agree with.

another uneducated whining christer

Well thought out retort