Active Users:98 Time:22/09/2014 11:12:52 AM
And actions are different from both—until others are expected to pay for ones actions. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/02/2012 12:53:40 AM
No religion says, "don't give money that might be used by other people to do something that conflicts with our teachiings." Everything is about PERSONAL actions and personal responsibility.

PERSONAL actions and responsibility are precisely the problem here: The "public" healthcare law requires Catholic schools pay for an employee action Catholic doctrine forbids (use of birth control.) That is the particular issue in this case, but a Jehovahs Witness school could raise the same objection to paying for blood transfusions, too. Any religious institution could raise a valid First Amendment objection to paying for any form of healthcare that conflicts with its doctrine.

It is one thing when the entire public pays taxes to a federal government with discretion to use it for various public services, various ones of which are opposed by various sections of the public. It is an entirely different thing when federal law makes one of those sections directly responsible for financing things they oppose on religious grounds. The latter does and the former does not conflict with the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

The difference is great enough opposing federally funded healthcare that includes abortion is ridiculous to me, but requiring churches pay for employees violating church doctrine equally so. Again, this is why we should have created a public healthcare system that is just that instead of the travesty we created instead.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Democrats bailing on Obama - War against the Catholic Church heats up - 09/02/2012 04:03:35 AM 664 Views
This is not a war on Catholics, it is Obama being an idiot again. - 09/02/2012 04:52:01 AM 104 Views
For someone who used to be a Con Law professor - 10/02/2012 08:23:34 PM 65 Views
Also, kudos for linking to a source, and a fairly non-partisan one as well. - 09/02/2012 01:33:07 PM 116 Views
I am a non-partisan guy, so I only use unbiased sources! *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:02:50 PM 32 Views
Is there really such a thing? *NM* - 09/02/2012 04:11:30 PM 30 Views
You lost all credibility in the first line of your post. - 09/02/2012 04:49:23 PM 110 Views
The subject line didn't help. *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:04:11 PM 32 Views
But it added some flair to the discussion! *NM* - 09/02/2012 07:46:47 PM 30 Views
You actually think any of us has 'credibility' anymore in regards to neutrality? *NM* - 09/02/2012 06:46:13 PM 28 Views
It's one thing to have a bias. - 09/02/2012 07:28:51 PM 86 Views
Some would say putting a spotlight on it is more honest. *NM* - 09/02/2012 09:34:17 PM 32 Views
Ah, the Rupert Murdoch School of Objectivity. - 09/02/2012 10:15:57 PM 52 Views
Wow, talk about making a supernova out of a couple hydrogen atoms. - 09/02/2012 08:41:44 PM 78 Views
I'm somewhat suprised that Obama blundered this badly. - 10/02/2012 01:40:14 AM 75 Views
Why? Have you not been paying attention? - 10/02/2012 02:03:43 AM 67 Views
If I am not satisfied with Romney then my Plan B is to not vote. - 10/02/2012 10:58:34 PM 62 Views
How does that help anything? Except Romneys election chances, of course. - 11/02/2012 01:08:22 AM 52 Views
Bullshit. - 11/02/2012 04:29:31 AM 65 Views
A vote for no one is a vote for more BS. - 11/02/2012 05:55:11 AM 62 Views
Obama doing this actually impresses me to no end. - 10/02/2012 02:21:10 AM 155 Views
He is already preparing to cave. - 10/02/2012 02:42:32 AM 80 Views
Why are you even replying to me? What you said has little meaning to what I said. - 10/02/2012 03:33:27 AM 67 Views
"And here I thought he was just another politician." - 10/02/2012 01:29:36 PM 63 Views
So Jehovah Witness employers should not have to pay for blood transfusions? - 10/02/2012 03:57:47 AM 81 Views
Not if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. - 10/02/2012 04:20:32 PM 81 Views
Money is not the same as speech! - 10/02/2012 07:20:56 PM 65 Views
And actions are different from both—until others are expected to pay for ones actions. - 11/02/2012 12:53:40 AM 65 Views
One last point - 10/02/2012 11:35:25 PM 55 Views
The federal government forcing private groups to facilitate without committing sin also infringes. - 11/02/2012 01:03:30 AM 53 Views
You argument does not make sense - 11/02/2012 01:26:57 AM 84 Views
It was an analogy, not an equivalency. - 11/02/2012 01:48:14 AM 58 Views
Lets enhance your analogy making it closer to reality - 11/02/2012 02:19:41 AM 66 Views
Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 03:46:33 AM 60 Views
Re: Why could I not buy it with my own money? - 11/02/2012 04:17:17 AM 50 Views
In other words, I could. - 11/02/2012 04:21:05 AM 39 Views
Some more points - 11/02/2012 02:30:27 AM 61 Views
Sex is not a necessity either. - 11/02/2012 03:56:51 AM 56 Views
I can't believe you just said that - 11/02/2012 04:30:12 AM 49 Views
The widespread inability to believe that is deeply worrisome. - 11/02/2012 06:33:01 AM 62 Views
LMAO due to Obama's compromise (the word compromise should have a in it ) - 11/02/2012 12:12:57 AM 82 Views
Obama just got two weeks of being portrayed as "anti-church" to the point even Dems complained. - 11/02/2012 02:00:28 AM 58 Views
The polls disagree with you. - 11/02/2012 02:32:59 AM 64 Views
It is an interesting article, but not for the polls. - 11/02/2012 04:18:17 AM 56 Views
I wouldn't put too much into that poll anyway - 11/02/2012 05:37:05 AM 93 Views
I don't think it's quite the laughing matter you think it is - 11/02/2012 12:31:23 PM 78 Views
Nossy that was not Joel, that was me - 11/02/2012 01:56:39 PM 111 Views
I know that. - 11/02/2012 03:23:32 PM 107 Views
Understood. - 11/02/2012 07:51:14 PM 64 Views
mmm... - 11/02/2012 08:20:26 PM 55 Views

Reply to Message