squishyx Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Squishy, I see you use mockery as part of your argument. Offensive. No mockery at all, I was proving an anecdote to illustrate a point that such exemptions could be used for anything. ghdi's organ donation one was much better imo but I didn't see it until he posted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 So does an apple. Ok, something about mockery? w/e if you don't want to have a discussion why respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 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. NO ONE is forcing anyone to take contraception. Insurance has rules that all companies have to follow. Why should a religiously motivated company get a pass? They dont have to use it. How is the option just being available so detrimental to religious freedom? I know that if I dont want onions on my burger, I can leave them off. If the rules for State Farm and Allstate are the same, why does St. Whoever's Insurance not have to follow that? Because they dont believe in it? What if a company doesnt believe in pain medication, should it not be covered? Antibiotics? Surgery? Whats to stop a crook from starting an insurance company and not covering certain things and using religion as the excuse? Are you really this regressive? Contraception can be very expensive, especially for lower income families. It being covered allows people who can't afford it out of pocket to get it. So because you're poor you shouldnt be able to have a healthy sex life? This affects everything from hospitals (you need beds to cover people having babies) to other social services (welfare, education, etc). Contraception has a clear cut benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Not only is contraception a right, as you describe it, it's a right to get it subsidized by insurance. I disagree. If you work for a Catholic hospital, what is wrong with going out and getting it on your own? It is not that expensive to get the pill. If you really want it, you will pay $100 per month, and get your boyfriend to pay half. If a Catholic church- associated organization doesn't want to make it available even in the health insurance coverage they buy, they shouldn't have to. To force a compromise of principles is soft tyranny. That is what I believe. Basic freedom of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Not only is contraception a right, as you describe it, it's a right to get it subsidized by insurance. I disagree. If you work for a Catholic hospital, what is wrong with going out and getting it on your own? It is not that expensive to get the pill. If you really want it, you will pay $100 per month, and get your boyfriend to pay half. If a Catholic church- associated organization doesn't want to make it available even in the health insurance coverage they buy, they shouldn't have to. To force a compromise of principles is soft tyranny. That is what I believe. Basic freedom of religion. "If you really want it" - You don't get it. There are people in this country that cannot afford even that. Not everyone lives comfortably enough to afford even $100 bucks a month. How is having it available, tyranny? They're not being forced to use it. If they dont believe in it, just dont use that aspect of the coverage! Its not rocket science. I see absolutely nothing tyrannical about having an option available. That is one of the silliest things Ive ever read in this section. However, I see a lot of potential problems with making concessions to religious organizations in this sense. You allow the Catholic organization to omit things from coverage, that creates an opening for a shady organization to create an insurance company on religious grounds. No one is saying they cant buy insurance from a Catholic organization. However, if the rules governing insurance companies states that certain things must be covered to be able to sell insurance, then thats the breaks. Insurance companies, moreso than most companies, have to be regulated and leveled. If a Muslim doesnt want to eat pork they dont order it off the menu. If a Catholic insurer or customer of Catholic insurance doesnt want contraception, dont use it! The option being available does not hinder a Catholics ability to worship freely AT ALL. Your argument is that the option being available alone is tyrannical. That makes NO sense! If I see an option I dont want, I dont check the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Forcing Catholic organizations to buy insurance that covers contraception is wrong. It is anti- freedom. Their right to not offer it trumps your "right" to have it at the price you want to pay. It's a pretty simple principle. It is their insurance plan, not yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghdi Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Forcing Catholic organizations to buy insurance that covers contraception is wrong. It is anti- freedom. Their right to not offer it trumps your "right" to have it at the price you want to pay. It's a pretty simple principle. It is their insurance plan, not yours. Except ALL insurance companies have rules given to them to sell insurance. So because one is religious based they should be able to do what they want? Where were these Catholics buying insurance before Catholicinsure or whatever its called? This is stupid. We're arguing something that is not going to be changing and something that the President has no power to change without the Congress. And we're just going to go in circles. Back to the race. Tomorrow night should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Forcing Catholic organizations to buy insurance that covers contraception is wrong. It is anti- freedom. Their right to not offer it trumps your "right" to have it at the price you want to pay. It's a pretty simple principle. It is their insurance plan, not yours. No, they are forcing catholic-associated organisations insurance plans to cover the same things as non-catholic associated organizations insurance plans will cover. They are not giving special treatment to a religious group, that's not "anti-freedom" that's called consistency, also a pretty simple principle. Maybe pacifists can stop paying taxes because their money goes to fund wars they don't approve based on religious grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The community center would "desecrate the ground of those who were murdered by people who practice the faith, or at least an element of the faith, that is being represented by that mosque." "Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political doctrine," Santorum said. Yeah... Rick Santorum couldn't give two sh!ts about religous freedom, what a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvoc8 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Yeah... Rick Santorum couldn't give two sh!ts about religous freedom, what a hypocrite. I agree. Since he wants to bring HIS religion more in to play in our government, he is simply the pot calling the kettle black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 We're arguing something that is not going to be changing and something that the President has no power to change without the Congress. And we're just going to go in circles. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Maybe pacifists can stop paying taxes because their money goes to fund wars they don't approve based on religious grounds. Just tell those pacificists that their tax money will go to all the statist programs they worship. That'll satisfy 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Just tell those pacificists that their tax money will go to all the statist programs they worship. That'll satisfy 'em. Just tell those Catholics that their tax money... oh wait they are tax free institutions. That'll probably satisfy them... oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Just tell those Catholics that their tax money... oh wait they are tax free institutions. That'll probably satisfy them... oh wait... I don't care for the implication that an organization's tax-free status means they no longer have the right to object to government dictates that violate their religious beliefs. You really, really hate religion, don't you? This is the kind of intolerance that liberals say they hate. I find it disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Just tell those pacificists that their tax money will go to all the statist programs they worship. That'll satisfy 'em. You're being so narrow minded. Ron Paul is anti-War. Pacifists are more often than not conservative. You selecting '60s Flower children. I'll tell you what your current Polical rhetoric has turned into Jerry - You're omitting / refusing to acknowledge things these republican candidates support that you do not. You're talking yourself into supporting one of these a$$holes. Supporting these jackwagons is not going to create change. You're just supporting a move deeper and deeper into smoke screen territory so we truly have a one party system. That's why Republicans are so out of touch. They want to win the argument at whatever cost to their actual principals. Democrats were never in touch (never forget the old advertisers adage - always sell your weaknesses - if a car is unsafe, tout it's safety in your ads. If your car breaks down, tout it's reliability, If you're taking money away from the truly needy tout all the social services you provide. if you're morally bankrupt stress your deep and abiding values). Neither party has any principals any more is the bottom line. and all this stupid talk isn't helping. it solves nothing and you're voting for people who are blabbing the same rhetoric - and that's all it is. There is no goal in American politics beyond politicians lining their own pockets -- end of story. Legislation is created to bring in money - money that is not going toward the betterment of the American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepperkorn Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Also -- I believe it is our responsibility to decrease the surplus population. Obviously it's not something you can mandate without trashing people's rights. Making birth control affordable and easily accessible to all is a priority for me. Because of the state of global over-population birth control is not merely a right, it is a necessity for all of society. I really hate ignorance. I think the Catholic stance on birth control is ignorant and I hate it. If traffic is clear why do you have to stop at a red light? Isn't that infringing on people's rights? If I want to walk in front of traffic it is my right - and yet jaywalking is against the law - a ticket-able offense. Not controlling population endangers the lives of others equally. Some rights have to be forfeited for the good of others. This is the most equitable population control you can put into place. SUCK IT UP! Edited February 28, 2012 by Pepperkorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I don't care for the implication that an organization's tax-free status means they no longer have the right to object to government dictates that violate their religious beliefs. You really, really hate religion, don't you? This is the kind of intolerance that liberals say they hate. I find it disturbing. I don't hate religion at all, they play a vital role in our society not only in terms of donations but especially putting man power into action. But I also don't think Catholic organizations should be whining that their insurance plan has to cover birth control just like every other insurance plan especially when 98% of sexually active catholic women admit to using birth control at one point in their life, and especially when the Catholic church receives billions in the form of tax free status. If you don't want to use birth control, mazel-tov!, don't use it. But (soon) just like every other American your prescription drugs (and that's exactly what birth control is) should be covered regardless if your hospital or school considers itself to be a Catholic institution. That you think that is intolerance just shows how desperate you are to grasp at straws and distract from whats really at play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Some rights have to be forfeited for the good of others. This is the most equitable population control you can put into place. SUCK IT UP! I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever believe this. I find your belief extremely dangerous. "I'm right about overpopulation being a threat to the earth, so we're taking your God-given rights away." You like China's one-child policy? I don't. IT'S TWISTED! Pepperkorn, I see that overpopulation and global warming are your dogma, and you will foist those beliefs on others because you think they're just causes. This stuff is the seed of dictatorship. You think your causes will lead to more freedom for humans, but they won't. They will enslave them. But we disagree, c'est la vie. I can live with it. I like your posts. Edited February 28, 2012 by Jerrydevil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I don't hate religion at all, they play a vital role in our society not only in terms of donations but especially putting man power into action. But I also don't think Catholic organizations should be whining that their insurance plan has to cover birth control just like every other insurance plan especially when 98% of sexually active catholic women admit to using birth control at one point in their life, and especially when the Catholic church receives billions in the form of tax free status. If you don't want to use birth control, mazel-tov!, don't use it. But (soon) just like every other American your prescription drugs (and that's exactly what birth control is) should be covered regardless if your hospital or school considers itself to be a Catholic institution. That you think that is intolerance just shows how desperate you are to grasp at straws and distract from whats really at play here. You are telling the Catholic Church "to change with the times," and I don't think they should be forced to do so. They have their beliefs and they should be respected, no matter what 98% of women want. Those 98% of women are free to buy the pill. They are free to work for a non-Catholic organization or buy their own health insurance. They are free to get an abortion. But it is wrong to make the catholic Church subsidize it. You are demanding conformity no matter what. I don't like it and believe it is anti-freedom. I see where you are coming from and you make a good argument, I just don't agree ideologically. Edited February 28, 2012 by Jerrydevil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 You're being so narrow minded. Ron Paul is anti-War. Pacifists are more often than not conservative. You selecting '60s Flower children. I'll tell you what your current Polical rhetoric has turned into Jerry - You're omitting / refusing to acknowledge things these republican candidates support that you do not. You're talking yourself into supporting one of these a$$holes. Supporting these jackwagons is not going to create change. You're just supporting a move deeper and deeper into smoke screen territory so we truly have a one party system. That's why Republicans are so out of touch. They want to win the argument at whatever cost to their actual principals. Democrats were never in touch (never forget the old advertisers adage - always sell your weaknesses - if a car is unsafe, tout it's safety in your ads. If your car breaks down, tout it's reliability, If you're taking money away from the truly needy tout all the social services you provide. if you're morally bankrupt stress your deep and abiding values). Neither party has any principals any more is the bottom line. and all this stupid talk isn't helping. it solves nothing and you're voting for people who are blabbing the same rhetoric - and that's all it is. There is no goal in American politics beyond politicians lining their own pockets -- end of story. Legislation is created to bring in money - money that is not going toward the betterment of the American people. I believe that change is possible. And the Tea Party freshmen in Congress did a pretty good job shaking things up in Congress. They made their presence felt and received tremendous pushback from establishment Republicans, Democrats and (surprise, surprise) the left-leaning mainstream media. I support them and their goal of bringing back fiscal sanity to America, and I hope some blue states can eventually get like-minded politicians elected to Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 You are telling the Catholic Church "to change with the times," and I don't think they should be forced to do so. They have their beliefs and they should be respected, no matter what 98% of women want. Those 98% of women are free to buy the pill. They are free to work for a non-Catholic organization or buy their own health insurance. They are free to get an abortion. But it is wrong to make the catholic Church subsidize it. You are demanding conformity no matter what. I don't like it and believe it is anti-freedom. I see where you are coming from and you make a good argument, I just don't agree ideologically. Well if you are a Catholic in the last few decades you are well aware the church is already changing with the times all by itself, the pope now has a twitter feed. I just don't see why you don't get the hypocrisy of it all, we have listed several examples that you seemingly refuse to respond too. For example, if my religious belief says killing is wrong is the government not "demanding conformity" by making me pay taxes? My tax dollars help subsidize Catholic churches that I might not agree with ideologically, is that not also an example of "demanding conformity"? What about ghdi's example of a religious group that doesn't want an insurance plan that covers organ transplants, should they get a waiver as well or are they getting "demanded conformity" too? We don't live in a black and white world where everything is nice and clear cut, we have shades of gray and sometimes you don't get your way. It's known as compromise and not oppression, or intolerance, or religious persecution. We should be making decisions that are best for our society and not for a particular religious group doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 We should be making decisions that are best for our society. Who gets to decide that? The intolerant left, that's who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 We don't live in a black and white world where everything is nice and clear cut, we have shades of gray and sometimes you don't get your way. So stop trying to force your way on religious individuals who don't want to go against their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Who gets to decide that? The intolerant left, that's who. The voting population actually, some of which are the "intolerant" left, some of which are the "intolerant" right. It's known as a democracy, where were you going with this? Are you mad that you didn't get your way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So stop trying to force your way on religious individuals who don't want to go against their faith. Jehovah's Witnesse's don't believe in organ donations. Is it ok to "force" their provided insurance to cover the operation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts