Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ghdi

Lets talk 2012.

390 posts in this topic

Santorum isn't saying thats how its been, he's saying he doesn't believe in it. which yea, he should be criticized for hinting that there should be no separation between church and state

This. I think Kennedy had it best, also, a Catholic....

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him..

Santorum believes the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently this speech almost makes Santorum throw up.

I'm not sure what Republicans see in Rick, but man is he going to get destroyed in a general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching that Kennedy video should remind all of us that Barack Obama takes a whiz on religious liberty. He is more dangerous to America than Rick Santorum ever could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching that Kennedy video should remind all of us that Barack Obama takes a whiz on religious liberty. He is more dangerous to America than Rick Santorum ever could be.

JD, I am not a fan of Obama by any stretch of the imagination but I do not think it is that clear cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching that Kennedy video should remind all of us that Barack Obama takes a whiz on religious liberty. He is more dangerous to America than Rick Santorum ever could be.

This sort of sh!t just makes me laugh. How does Obama piss on "religious liberty"?

Rick Santorum wants it to be 1952. No thanks.

Oh, and four more years. Get ready.

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of sh!t just makes me laugh. How does Obama piss on "religious liberty"?

Rick Santorum wants it to be 1952. No thanks.

Oh, and four more years. Get ready.

When a government dictates that a Catholic organization's insurance company must cover contraceptives, that is a rejection of religious liberty. In 1952, 1792 and 2012.

I have no doubt that there are enough sheep in America to get Obama reelected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a government dictates that a Catholic organization's insurance company must cover contraceptives, that is a rejection of religious liberty. In 1952, 1792 and 2012.

I have no doubt that there are enough sheep in America to get Obama reelected.

I think thats a good thing. Its insurance. I also think that all churches should be taxed unless they provide something tangible to the community, i.e. shelter for the homeless, etc.

And not enough sheep to elect a backwards wackjob!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching that Kennedy video should remind all of us that Barack Obama takes a whiz on religious liberty. He is more dangerous to America than Rick Santorum ever could be.

Rick Santorum "almost throws up" from watching a (imo historically great) speech by JFK on how a president should govern, and you want to spin it to something about Obama? Come on. You are basically glossing over his pretty dramatic statements and saying "no no look at Obama instead!" which puts you more in the "Anyone but Obama" camp not the Santorum supporter one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Santorum "almost throws up" from watching a (imo historically great) speech by JFK on how a president should govern, and you want to spin it to something about Obama? Come on. You are basically glossing over his pretty dramatic statements and saying "no no look at Obama instead!" which puts you more in the "Anyone but Obama" camp not the Santorum supporter one.

It was a very good speech ... one that Obama has not heeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a government dictates that a Catholic organization's insurance company must cover contraceptives, that is a rejection of religious liberty. In 1952, 1792 and 2012.

I have no doubt that there are enough sheep in America to get Obama reelected.

26 States already mandate this coverage, and 5 don't provide any exemptions for religious organizations. Src

I have no doubt that there are enough sheep to turn any non-issue into one when it's something Obama supports.

It was a very good speech ... one that Obama has not heeded.

And that has what to do with Rick Santorum throwing up while watching it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats a good thing. Its insurance. I also think that all churches should be taxed unless they provide something tangible to the community, i.e. shelter for the homeless, etc.

You think it's OK for the government to force an organization to buy something that they don't believe in. That's not America. Well, it IS left-wing America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think it's OK for the government to force an organization to buy something that they don't believe in. That's not America. Well, it IS left-wing America.

Insurance rules should be the same for all organizations that provide insurance. Regardless of where you're buying it. Religion should not come into play AT ALL.

If they dont believe in it, then the individual doesnt have to use the insurance for contraception, but the option should be the same across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance rules should be the same for all organizations that provide insurance. Regardless of where you're buying it. Religion should not come into play AT ALL.

If they dont believe in it, then the individual doesnt have to use the insurance for contraception, but the option should be the same across the board.

You have it backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think it's OK for the government to force an organization to buy something that they don't believe in. That's not America. Well, it IS left-wing America.

Why is it ok for the State government to force something down Americas throat, but not ok for the Federal government? By this logic government should just not exist as their will always exist some small more localized "level" that "should" do the tinkering.

As ghdi said, this is about evening out the playing field. To be honest I am disappointed their are exceptions at all. No one is forcing anyone to use anything in their insurance, but the choice should be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have it backwards.

Not at all. You do. The same rules should apply across the board for something as essential as insurance. If an individual decides to use a Catholic organization for their insurance, more power to them, but the options/rules should be the same whether from buying from St. Peter or Jim Peter on Main St. The choice to use my insurance coverage on contraception is a choice that is protected by the gov't. You would rather have it where companies can mandate their own rules based on religious beliefs. If someone is such a believer, they wont even bother with contraception, but the rules should be the same for all companies that provide something like insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it ok for the State government to force something down Americas throat, but not ok for the Federal government? By this logic government should just not exist as their will always exist some small more localized "level" that "should" do the tinkering.

As ghdi said, this is about evening out the playing field. To be honest I am disappointed their are exceptions at all. No one is forcing anyone to use anything in their insurance, but the choice should be there.

It's not OK for state governments to do this. I'm not defending what some states have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not OK for state governments to do this. I'm not defending what some states have done.

Indirectly, you are defending them.

What is the harm with the rules for insurance companies being the same across the board? If someone doesnt believe in contraception, they dont have to use contraception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. You do. The same rules should apply across the board for something as essential as insurance. If an individual decides to use a Catholic organization for their insurance, more power to them, but the options/rules should be the same whether from buying from St. Peter or Jim Peter on Main St. The choice to use my insurance coverage on contraception is a choice that is protected by the gov't. You would rather have it where companies can mandate their own rules based on religious beliefs. If someone is such a believer, they wont even bother with contraception, but the rules should be the same for all companies that provide something like insurance.

I believe the conscience clause is a good thing for religious organizations. If they don't want to offer insurance that covers contraception and abortion drugs because it is against their beliefs, then they shouldn't have to. That's religious freedom, and you don't believe in it. That's OK. Obama doesn't either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the conscience clause is a good thing for religious organizations. If they don't want to offer insurance that covers contraception and abortion drugs because it is against their beliefs, then they shouldn't have to. That's religious freedom, and you don't believe in it. That's OK. Obama doesn't either.

Well then why not extend that "freedom" to every religious orginization? I have a small company of 50 people, but I personally believe in the FSM and part of my relgious teachings tell me that covering non believers is against everything that my religion stands for. Therefore I want an exemption that allows me to only cover those who also believe in the FSM way other wise you don't understand religious freedom.

As Jon Stewart said, Christians are confusing "not getting their way all the time with oppression".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the conscience clause is a good thing for religious organizations. If they don't want to offer insurance that covers contraception and abortion drugs because it is against their beliefs, then they shouldn't have to. That's religious freedom, and you don't believe in it. That's OK. Obama doesn't either.

How is that religious freedom? That's using religion to create your own rules only because of religious beliefs. This rule doesnt impede on anyone's beliefs. Coverage doesnt mean use. If any organization wants to offer insurance, theres standards that they have to follow in respect to coverage.

Companies should not be allowed to pick and choose what they cover based on beliefs. Whats to stop a company blocking organ transplants from being covered because their organization/religion doesn't believe in it? Or a specific drug (which is exactly what their doing with contraception). Its a slippery slope when companies are allowed to set their own rules based on religion. This isn't a theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that religious freedom? That's using religion to create your own rules only because of religious beliefs. This rule doesnt impede on anyone's beliefs. Coverage doesnt mean use. If any organization wants to offer insurance, theres standards that they have to follow in respect to coverage.

Companies should not be allowed to pick and choose what they cover based on beliefs. Whats to stop a company blocking organ transplants from being covered because their organization/religion doesn't believe in it? Or a specific drug (which is exactly what their doing with contraception). Its a slippery slope when companies are allowed to set their own rules based on religion. This isn't a theocracy.

I'm afraid you're on the slippery slope. You have decided what is good for everyone and believe the government should force your beliefs on everyone. Collectivism at its finest ... oops I mean "evening the playing field."

And why should companies have to cover contraception in HEALTH INSURANCE anyway? What does contraception have to do with health? In most cases, nada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you're on the slippery slope. You have decided what is good for everyone and believe the government should force your beliefs on everyone. Collectivism at its finest ... oops I mean "evening the playing field."

Yes, we are forcing people to have the option to take something. You are forcing people to not have the option. Which is the more oppressive version?

And why should companies have to cover contraception in HEALTH INSURANCE anyway? What does contraception have to do with health? In most cases, nada.

You probably opened a can of worms here, suffice to say the pill has a ton of health benefits, you should do a little research on it if you don't know much about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably opened a can of worms here, suffice to say the pill has a ton of health benefits.

So does an apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0