Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[julybaby04]

Actually, it’s not. With all due respect to anyone afflicted with that incurable condition known as the deeply held religious belief, I think we can defer to the medical community here to define birth control (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthcontrol.html) and abortion (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/abortion.html). Please note that the emergency contraceptives Hobby Lobby rejects--IUDs, Plan B, and ella--are all classified as birth control. The only link to abortion is the effect of affordable birth control on the rate of unplanned pregnancies. In that regard, the preventive care regulations could be considered a policy attempt to lower the abortion rate.

Hobby Lobby believes through their religious beliefs, that those can cause abortions. (Actually IUDs can as an embryo can be attached and the IUD can cause a miscarriage...but that is beside the point). If those who started/have funded/own Hobby Lobby believe it is abortion, then it is their right to try to be exempt OR it is their right to close down. It really is up to them what they want to do. If they choose to close, then for a single fight by the left over making sure every possible way to prevent pregnancy is available to them, it could cause thousands to be out of a job.........over a small issue. It is completely up to Hobby Lobby! Their business, their choice.

If you are going to acknowledge the flaws and administrative difficulties plaguing the Affordable Care Act, you should also acknowledge the lamentable compromises its proponents were forced to make in response to fierce opposition from partisan interests. The result is not ideal, but it’s also not the arbitrary whim of a single politician. At the very least, the rules and regulations concerning preventive care cite published studies and cater to criticisms and recommendations from myriad sources. Moreover, the analysts and advisors at the Department of Health and Human Services are arguably more qualified to evaluate health plans and certainly subject to greater oversight than the owners of arts and crafts stores.

I really do not see any comprises the liberals made. They forced this through without ANY republican support. They had the Supreme Court pull a ridiculous "tax" out of their rear end to make it legal (even though obama said multiple times it WAS NOT A TAX). Funny how people have managed to live through all of these generations without FORCED healthcare. Does not matter what DHHS says about HObby Lobby....they are free to make their own decision. Perhaps if they lose, they will decide to continue on in business....perhaps they will not. Fortunately, at least at THIS point......the government cannot, as of yet, FORCE a company to stay in business.

The fate of health insurance depends on the young and healthy. That’s how risk pools work.

I am very aware how risk pools work. Funny though, it all comes down to those young/healthy being able to afford to pay for the insurance. When kids come out of college with a lot of debt, maybe a job, maybe not, I would image the LAST thing on their minds is to purchase insurance. Now that they are being FORCED.....they are now MORE in debt thanks to our daddy-state of a government who thinks they can make decisions better than individuals in their own lives.

Let’s examine this draconian fine, shall we?

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-dont-have-health-coverage/

If you are uninsured and your household income is below $19,650, you will pay $95 when you file your tax return this year. Otherwise, you will pay 1% of your annual household income. If the fee is unaffordable, you may qualify for Medicaid, Medicare, or an exemption. My health insurance costs much more than that, but it’s a mandatory expense. Don’t let the young idiots fool you; everyone needs health insurance. As John Cleese opined, “Life is a terminal disease, and it is sexually transmitted.”

Ahh yes, this fine and the ability to qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. I hate to burst your liberal colored bubble, but not everyone can QUALIFY for this. There are many who were perfectly happy paying for their own insurance, but after the kindness of obamacare, were priced out of purchasing insurance for their own families and fell in the sweet spot where they can't get Medicaid either.

So, those people, who are working, have been to provide for their families just fine are not left with the option of either paying the fine....STILL with no insurance or going to cost-sharing plans (which most of those I know have...including me).

It is completely ridiculous and sad that this country is doing what it is. There was NO reason to turn EVERYTHING upside down to provide a way for those who are uninsured to be insured. Yes, I think there were other ways to do this without punishing those who have done nothing but try to provide for their own families all these years.

Yes, I think it is punishment to take away insurance that was working for an individual family....whether daddy-state thought the insurance was not any good or not. It is NOT ANY OF THEIR CONCERN! Insurance is insurance....PERIOD!

This whole thing was simply about CONTROL.....the daddy-state wants control of everything and everyone in this country. Healthcare was a MAJOR piece of this. People are so scared to not have it.....and the liberals knew this.

Anyway, makes no difference at this point. People had to buy whatever they had to buy......they are then left trying to pay for their other bills with what is left over (of course, NOT speaking of those who are getting it for free (taxpayers are paying that ) or those who are getting subsidies (taxpayers are paying that). .......I am speakin of those who are actually paying premiums, those people will carry the burden of this nightmare.

Good luck to them. We chose a different route and am THANKFUL to not be a part of this completely stupid liberal process of keeping people living off the government.

 

[julybaby04]

"Betty Bowers, one of those rare, highly outspoken Christians who comes from the political left,
has a new chart to share. See it over on the left and click on it to enlarge. The chart shows how
many more people are expected to die in each state that is refusing Medicaid expansion
under the Affordable Care Act, compared to that state's historical deaths every year by guns."

from the same article-

Walker keeps claiming that the people he's removing from Medicaid protection beginning in April can simply go over to the Affordable Care Act web site (which he refused to set up, forcing the feds to do it at the last minute) and get themselves a subsidized health plan. Trouble is, the ACA plans were never intended to cover low-income people.

Only a stupid US Supreme Court decision allowed states to opt out of that system.

In Wisconsin, many of those 83,000 people Walker is casting off simply won't be able to get a subsidy, or afford ACA-approved health plans without a subsidy. Instead, based on the low income they report to the site, they will be told that under ACA rules they are eligible for Medicaid and referred back to the State of Wisconsin, which already ditched them! Talk about your health-care donut hole! Actually, any elected "leader" who would continue to take Walker's stance must have a donut hole for a brain.

http://uppitywis.org/blogarticle/new-chart-shows-predicted-wisconsin-deaths-due-walker-medicaid-p

Sounds like 83,000 were just fine with what they had. I would not blame Walker .......I would blame the Obama, liberals and obmacare!

 

[JohnnySavage]

Sounds like 83,000 were just fine with what they had. I would not blame Walker .......I would blame the Obama, liberals and obmacare!

Thanks for your input, Jen.

 

[Tryharder62]

Aren't you describing quote secular humanism unquote?

The absence of government-sponsored or government-preferred religion does not result in the establishment of any sort of "secular belief" in my opinion (the classic "church" and "state" argument).

My description does sound like secular humanism. I have to be honest I had to look the terminology up. It's just that somewhere, someone, has to have a belief in what is to be done or not done. If it is not a belief in higher power or a God then it has to be, to my thinking, secular which is without religious influence. So who get's to decide whose secular thinking is right and whose secular thinking is wrong? That's scary to me. Do you then have to be an athiest to voice an opinion or thought?

 

[Lorilei]

My description does sound like secular humanism. I have to be honest I had to look the terminology up. It's just that somewhere, someone, has to have a belief in what is to be done or not done. If it is not a belief in higher power or a God then it has to be, to my thinking, secular which is without religious influence. So who get's to decide whose secular thinking is right and whose secular thinking is wrong? That's scary to me. Do you then have to be an athiest to voice an opinion or thought?

You don't think morality and common sense can exist outside the scope of religious doctrine?

 

[julybaby04]

My description does sound like secular humanism. I have to be honest I had to look the terminology up. It's just that somewhere, someone, has to have a belief in what is to be done or not done. If it is not a belief in higher power or a God then it has to be, to my thinking, secular which is without religious influence. So who get's to decide whose secular thinking is right and whose secular thinking is wrong? That's scary to me. Do you then have to be an athiest to voice an opinion or thought?

Silly girl.....it is ALWAYS the Liberal who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong....along with what gets to happen in the country. Isn't that what most here think?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Silly girl.....it is ALWAYS the Liberal who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong....along with what gets to happen in the country. Isn't that what most here think?

Disagree with Julybaby04 and you're persecutin' Christians.

 

[Brollyanna]

My description does sound like secular humanism. I have to be honest I had to look the terminology up. It's just that somewhere, someone, has to have a belief in what is to be done or not done. If it is not a belief in higher power or a God then it has to be, to my thinking, secular which is without religious influence. So who get's to decide whose secular thinking is right and whose secular thinking is wrong? That's scary to me. Do you then have to be an athiest to voice an opinion or thought?

From wiki:

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular; however, a true secular state should steadfastly maintain national governance without influence from religious factions; i.e. Separation of church and state.[2]

The United States does not have an official religion at either the federal or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President of the United States during the oath of office, but neither of these are required by law. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and is held to be applied to the state via the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, Article Six of the United States Constitution prohibits the use of any religious test as qualification for any public office.

 

[Tryharder62]

You don't think morality and common sense can exist outside the scope of religious doctrine?

Yes, I do think that morality and common sense can exist outside the scope of religious doctrine. I also believe that morality and common sense can exist inside the scope of doctrine. Just because I have a faith doesn't mean I don't have morality and common sense either. That is all I worry about.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, I do think that morality and common sense can exist outside the scope of religious doctrine. I also believe that morality and common sense can exist inside the scope of doctrine. Just because I have a faith doesn't mean I don't have morality and common sense either. That is all I worry about.

Ack, I think we're all on the same page here....

"Faith" and "morality and common sense" are NOT mutually exclusive
BUT
"Lack of Faith" and "morality and common sense" are NOT mutually exclusive either!

 

[Lorilei]

Yes, I do think that morality and common sense can exist outside the scope of religious doctrine. I also believe that morality and common sense can exist inside the scope of doctrine. Just because I have a faith doesn't mean I don't have morality and common sense either. That is all I worry about.

And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when people try to enforce religious doctrine as law. There's a reason the founding fathers fought for a separation of church and state.

 

[Tryharder62]

And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when people try to enforce religious doctrine as law. There's a reason the founding fathers fought for a separation of church and state.

It just seems to be that things that use to be individual choices are now being legislated. More and more laws. Ugg.

 

[Phelia]

Thank you, good people, for dealing with Strange Life's utter bullshit. What a moron.

It just seems to be that things that use to be individual choices are now being legislated. More and more laws. Ugg.

Oh, you mean like laws banning gay marriage, or protecting businesses who wish to discriminate against customers based on their religious beliefs? If you're frustrated with an expanding government, take it up with the religious right.

The point you're trying to make is completely fictional. The whole basis of this thread is that I don't think that laws should be written or altered based on someone's personal beliefs, and I'm bemoaning the fact that religious beliefs, particularly Christian, are afforded a special privilege and reverence. That's not okay.

There have been some disgusting laws that were borne out of what could be classified as a "secular belief," like the Dred Scott decision and the 3/5ths compromise (worth noting that the supporters of this codified racism and dehumanization were largely Christian). Laws should not be based on beliefs. Sure, you can argue that the ACA was written by people who "believe" their solution is better than the alternatives, but it was done with solid research, evidence, and expert input and it was passed with a majority vote and signed into law. That kind of "belief" is not equivalent to "I want to be able to break the law because my God tells me that science is wrong" in any way, shape, or form.

I appreciate that you are trying to engage in discussion, but your arguments are incredibly disingenuous and it's very frustrating. If you're going to keep defending Hobby Lobby and suggesting ludicrous things like "do you then have to be an athiest [sic] to voice an opinion or thought?" you should really start with addressing the fact that Hobby Lobby has previously covered the birth control in question without a peep of protest and their investment in the companies that manufacture the very contraceptives they're refusing to cover. That doesn't strike you as a disgusting display of hypocrisy?

And please kindly also address one of my original questions: would you support an incorporated company run by a scientologist who did not want to cover psychotropic drugs for his employees because it conflicts with his religious belief?

 

[about_average]

Or because they have taken a stand....

That's BS. If they were really taking a stand on religious grounds they wouldn't be investing in the company that makes the very things they are whining about.

edit: OK, Phelia beat me to it.

 

[about_average]

Aren't you describing quote secular humanism unquote?

No, not at all. Humanism isn't anything about who yells the loudest.
Secular Humanism is the religious rights boogman, bandied about by people who have no clue what they are talking about but just know it's evil because it's not Christianity.

 

[Tryharder62]

Thank you, good people, for dealing with Strange Life's utter bullshit. What a moron.



Oh, you mean like laws banning gay marriage, or protecting businesses who wish to discriminate against customers based on their religious beliefs? If you're frustrated with an expanding government, take it up with the religious right.

The point you're trying to make is completely fictional. The whole basis of this thread is that I don't think that laws should be written or altered based on someone's personal beliefs, and I'm bemoaning the fact that religious beliefs, particularly Christian, are afforded a special privilege and reverence. That's not okay.



There have been some disgusting laws that were borne out of what could be classified as a "secular belief," like the Dred Scott decision and the 3/5ths compromise (worth noting that the supporters of this codified racism and dehumanization were largely Christian). Laws should not be based on beliefs. Sure, you can argue that the ACA was written by people who "believe" their solution is better than the alternatives, but it was done with solid research, evidence, and expert input and it was passed with a majority vote and signed into law. That kind of "belief" is not equivalent to "I want to be able to break the law because my God tells me that science is wrong" in any way, shape, or form.

I appreciate that you are trying to engage in discussion, but your arguments are incredibly disingenuous and it's very frustrating. If you're going to keep defending Hobby Lobby and suggesting ludicrous things like "do you then have to be an athiest [sic] to voice an opinion or thought?" you should really start with addressing the fact that Hobby Lobby has previously covered the birth control in question without a peep of protest and their investment in the companies that manufacture the very contraceptives they're refusing to cover. That doesn't strike you as a disgusting display of hypocrisy?

And please kindly also address one of my original questions: would you support an incorporated company run by a scientologist who did not want to cover psychotropic drugs for his employees because it conflicts with his religious belief?

Phelia , what I am arguing is that Hobby Lobby has the right to see if a law that was written is even constitutional. I would not support an incorporated company run by a person that believed in scientology who did not want to cover psychotropic drugs for his employees because it is against their beliefs. I would not work there either, but I would support their right to see if a law that was written was even constitutional. We have our government set up this way so that there are checks and balances.

I did not know until seeing the article I read here about Hobby Lobby's investments and I do see that as hypocritical. That is why I am participating in this discussion because I like to hear different perspectives and what is going on.

Having freedom is not easy. One of my favorite quotes (from a movie) is that freedom is acknowledging a man whose words make your blood boil who is advocating at the top of his voice something that you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. I think that what frustrates you is that I don't agree with you. I don't believe the ACA was as well thought out and scientific as you do.

It really bothers me that you think that I am being disingenuous. I am just sharing my thoughts on the topic.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, not at all. Humanism isn't anything about who yells the loudest.
Secular Humanism is the religious rights boogman, bandied about by people who have no clue what they are talking about but just know it's evil because it's not Christianity.

I think you misunderstood me.

I was pontificatin' (poorly it seems) that the lack of an official organized religious view was not the de facto establishment of "secular humanism".

Put another way the lack of one preferred religion is not the official sanction of an "anti-religion".

 

[julybaby04]

That's BS. If they were really taking a stand on religious grounds they wouldn't be investing in the company that makes the very things they are whining about.

edit: OK, Phelia beat me to it.

That is a PERFECT example of why it is their religious beliefs that is driving this.

Your argument makes not sense. If it were for purely financial reasons, Hobby Lobby would the the FIRST and LOUDEST in support of these drugs and devices....it would benefit them.

But, not caring about the financial benefits, they are opposing on religious ground. You are giving a great example as to how values matter more than money!

 

[eyer]

...the 3/5ths compromise (worth noting that the supporters of this codified racism and dehumanization were largely Christian).

Nice little exhibition of your stark bigotry there, Phelinazi...

...for it's also "worth noting" that opponents of the compromise were "largely Christian", too. And if they weren't "Christian", they were almost exclusively believers in a Creator.

And your subjective analysis of the compromise suggests you also hold at least a bit of ignorance for the subject, too.

The question of how many representatives each State would have in Congress was what the compromise was all about...

...those "Christians" and other God-fearing folk and secularists, too, who had stood for the outright ban of the importation of slaves by Great Britain ever since the Stamp Act, also campaigned for black slaves to be counted as 0/0ths of a person during the representatives debate. Sounds awfully racist and dehumanizing of those bastard "Christians" and Deists (and no doubt some secularists), eh Phelinazi?

It was the "Christian" and secular slave owners who debated that their slaves should be counted as a full person, so that their tyrannical states would then hold more sway in Congress in the form of more representatives.

The slave owners (regardless of their religious or atheist beliefs) wanted each of their slaves to be counted as 1 person...

...opponents of the continued importation of slaves (regardless of their religious or atheist beliefs) wanted each slave to count as 0 person.

As I've habitually stated on this Board, if I were a delegate to the Convention, I would've never compromised my position that slaves shouldn't be counted at all, unless the southern states agreed to the immediate halt of the importation of slaves and immediate freedom granted to all slaves then held in bondage against their will...

...then, of course, 1 would've been the onliest number.

Such an uncompromising position was surrendered during the Convention for an inane 3/5ths solution that only granted the southern states to continue their tyrannical business as usual, a compromise that's proven to be a literal dagger in the heart of America...

...if I remember correctly, only 3 delegates present on the day the Constitution was signed refused to sign it, but none of their reasons matches what would've made me happy to have been the fourth.

But, it's called a compromise for a reason, too, which means that the majority of the delegates (regardless if they were atheist or believer) settled on the 3/5ths resolution...

...thus, that being American historical fact, your "Christian" bigotry is undressed.
.
.

 

[Lorilei]

That is a PERFECT example of why it is their religious beliefs that is driving this.

Your argument makes not sense. If it were for purely financial reasons, Hobby Lobby would the the FIRST and LOUDEST in support of these drugs and devices....it would benefit them.

But, not caring about the financial benefits, they are opposing on religious ground. You are giving a great example as to how values matter more than money!

Not really. They're trying to have it both ways, which makes them hypocrites. It's cute, though, that you're acting all triumphant when you just made the exact opposite of the point you thought you were making.

 

[Saint Peter]

But, not caring about the financial benefits,

A corporation not caring about financial benefits?

No.

 

[John Doe]

I think it means anal. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

I should think so.

 

[John Doe]

A corporation not caring about financial benefits?

No.

Is she for real?

 

[Lorilei]

Is she for real?

Sadly, yes.

 

[John Doe]

Sadly, yes.

My faith in humanity just shrank a bit.