Contraception Coverage Mandate

Besides the obvious point that, despite all the complaints the religious have about contraceptives being included in their insurance, and the FACT that those whiners are not being forced to actually use the contraceptives, there is another point I want to make, that the religious want their version of Sharia Law here in America. The religious want laws that validate their beliefs, and forcing others to accept those beliefs, as a matter of law, is the consequence when we allow the religious to get their way.

One problem with the religious dictating our laws is that there is more than one religion, so no law can be created that satisfies all religious beliefs. Creating laws that serve the beliefs of one religion almost certainly violates the beliefs of another. The solution is to allow individual religious beliefs as long as they abide by basic laws (no virgin sacrifices, as an example) while refusing to submit to the demands from groups of the religious.

The idea is to keep religion from influencing law, because no person's religious beliefs should be favored over another person's beliefs. That means this bs by SOME religious people over the new law's inclusion of contraceptives should be called for what it is: The religious attempting to force their beliefs onto others.

 

Or from the other point of view, it's gov't trying to force social values that are contrary to Church teachings upon the Church.

 

Those of you who still feel that it is the governments job to mandate contraception coverage might find the video at the end of this article most interesting. Kathleen Sebelius did not come off very well, but then facts often make people with opinions like hers sound a bit off. Be sure to listen to the video at the end
http://www.christianpost.com/news/h...reedom-issues-in-birth-control-mandate-74170/

 

It's clear that some people wish to cite "religious freedom" as an excuse to not follow the mandate that contraception be covered by their insurance, however, does anyone here believe those people are speaking for every person in their faith? I do not. In fact, I have no doubt what-so-ever that there is a significant portion of the faith's members, if not a majority portion, that use contraceptives themselves.

This controversy, created by some, but not all, of the religious members relies on the ignorant belief that they alone speak for everyone.

I suggest that those who don't believe this could be true ask everyone at their church cast silent votes on whether or not any of them use contraceptives, and publish the totals for all to see. Do this throughout the country and post the totals online. Until that is done, no one has the authority to claim they speak for all of their faith, not even the freakin' pope lol

 

How very obvious that you did not listen to the video! Answer me this; do you believe that animal sacrifice is a constitutionally protected religious freedom (believed or not by the majority of any religion)? Or maybe even better, is gender discrimination a constitutionally protected religious freedom?

 

What the morons here are missing is that the people still have the freedom to choose to use or not use birth control. No one is contesting that one.

 

THEY feel that if the government does not pay for it, then the people cannot choose it.

 

True, I try not to watch videos posted by anyone here for a couple of different reasons: One is that my computer is old and somewhat limited in ability to run video programs and another is that I've discovered that the software used to view some of those videos has code embedded within it that is malicious in nature.

As to your questions:

I'm not a constitutional anything, as such I can only give my opinion on whether or not I personally believe such acts should be allowed. My opinon therefore is that yes, animal sacrfice should be constitutionally allowed... within reason. I would not agree that all animal sacrifice should be protected under any law for the simple reason that humans are animals themselves, therefore there should be limits in place to say which animals are allowed to be sacrificed and which are not. It should also be clarified as to how they are slaughtered as well as where and when. I for one wouldn't want to look outside my window at midnight and have to endure three hours of screaming from some animal as it was slowly being slaughtered on my lawn.

As before, asking me if it's constitutionally protected is pointless, as I am not fluent in it. Am I to assume the video you posted contains some gender-based discrimination by religion? To that I would say it's true some religions discriminate against women, in fact I can't think of any one in particular that treats both sexes equally, though I'm sure there's some small religious group out there in the World that makes the attempt, but they would very likely be in the extreme minority as most (but not all) religious beliefs I'm aware of treat women as second best or less in relation to men.

Now, would I consider gender-bias in religions to be allowable under the law, if I wrote the law? That's a tough one, but I'd have to say yes, despite the victimisation of women that such a law would inherently create.

The reason is the women's belief. If it's their belief that they are less than a man, or a goat, that's a belief I have to abide by... again under certain conditions of course. If the belief says the women must be beaten daily, I'd have a problem with that, no matter the women's own belief, I'd interfere with that practice.

Then there's the typical religious belief to "educate" others, to "bring them into the faith." That has it's own unique limits.

If one woman doesn't wish to join the faith, or wishes to leave the faith, she no longer should be considered bound by that faith's belief that she is less than a man, or a goat, and should not be harmed further from the other people still in that faith, no matter if their faith says she can't leave the faith or must be punished physically for leaving. (see Afghani Law)

A similar principle should be applied to those not of the faith, that they are not bound to the beliefs of the faith, even if the faith states that they are. In other words, people of faith have no right, or shouldn't have the right anyway, to dictate to others a belief not of their own.

So, in my opinion, religious beliefs should have limits under the law.

 

Well, you proved me correct that you did not watch the video and that you have no idea what the debate is about. What on earth the rest of your rant is about is nothing but meaningless.

 

What the marooons here fail to understand is that there are members of their religion who support the mandate. Those supporters have the right to want the mandate included, despite any other's personal objections to it.

I suggest you religious nut-wads around the country perform a census of the issue in your churches and make the results public for all to see. Until then, you're just bellowing from your podium without any proof to your claim.

 

I answered your questions didn't I? You just proved my point that you are a dumbass by making such an idiotic comment.

 

Didn't I say I hadn't watched the video? Didn't you acknowledge that and then ask me two specific questions regarding constitutional law? Didn't I answer those two questions? And now you say I have no idea about the debate? That's totally idiotic!

 

Just to be clear here, while you certainly can listen to a video if it also contains audio, it's typically described as viewing video. Glad to see you caught that error of yours in a later comment.

 

Typical posts by you. Lots of insults, some idiotic opinions, and absolutely zero facts. This time you even included your aversion to learning anything about the topic.

 

Well, just let me stand up and clap then! Nah, your bs isn't worth it. You asked a question and I answered with my opinion, then you whine about it. Talk about the typical behavior of a nut!

Now I'll pose some questions of my own:

What if a religious belief states that everyone must have contraception methods covered by insurance? Ridiculous? Maybe so, but aren't all religions ridiculous in one way or another?

What happens when two opposing religious beliefs demand their beliefs be respected, as in one that requires contraception be covered by insurance, and one that requires it's absence? Which of the two religious beliefs is more legal?

What legally happens when two religious beliefs have opposing beliefs?

If you want to get at the heart of the argument you have to answer these types of questions.

 

...just summing up your post.

 

Way to ignore the point there David. Are you experiencing the appropriate amount of bliss?

 

Really? Did you sleep through this class in elementary school (I guess that is a rhetorical question)? OK, those that are pro follow pro. Those that are con follow con. No religion can mandate anything for the rest of the world - only for those who choose to follow that religion.

 

BTW, just in case you missed it, your hypothetical is exactly what we are trying to keep from happening. The Catholics do not believe in contraception. You (and Obamacare) do believe in contraception. Yet, somehow, you feel that your beliefs trump the Catholic's beliefs and you further feel that everyone should believe as you do. Now when you really think about it that is exactly what the Constitution is trying to prevent and exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening. On the other side of the coin, I have no knowledge of any Catholic trying to say that no insurance should be allowed to cover contraception. They are only trying to make sure that they and their agencies are not involved with contraception.

 

Well said.
What the far left won't admit is that the Church only wants it's beliefs administered to the Church environment while the lefties want their views forced upon everyone.