Religion

LeftishBrit

(41,520 posts)

48. I do not prefer to 'chew on surmises' so I will ask you questions directly.

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:12 PM

Dec 2012

(1) Do you agree with me that politicians and journalists and other pundits who are morally opposed to social safety nets, or at least consider them to be a moral danger and regard poverty as mainly a problem of 'dependency', are DISGUSTING, INHUMAN individuals, who cannot be regarded as part of decent society? I call them 'monsters' or 'poisonous snakes' (I use the same terms for Thatcher, Reagan, Cheney, Ann Coulter, Melanie Phillips, and many more); you may prefer a different term.

(2) I realize it is from a mainstream newspaper; however, many mainstream newspapers allow right-wing individuals to write commentaries. Do you agree with me that this person is a right-wing individual? And note that I DID look for and find an article on the topic by a seemingly neutral source.

(3) Do you agree with me that it is morally wrong (even if possibly legally OK in some cases) to seek to deny people the right to contraception? I am not referring to abortion, but to contraception.

(4) Do you agree that a good solution to any legal dilemmas would be to have a public option, if not complete 'single-payer', so that healthcare is not entirely in the hands of institutions? I realize this may not be practically possible.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit [View all] rug Dec 2012 OP

Yuck. I don't like this one bit. Laelth Dec 2012 #1

btw, I am morally opposed to war. Laelth Dec 2012 #2

Sorry, colleges and institutions do not HAVE consciences, PEOPLE HAVE THEM! cleanhippie Dec 2012 #3

Tell us, in which way was religious liberty in risk of being infringed? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #4

You'll find it in the Ccourt's order. rug Dec 2012 #5

I'm more interested in your opinion. 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #6

I'm sure you are. rug Dec 2012 #7

The answer to that question is, of course, "none." Do you disagree with that? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #11

That you canot find a fact where the Court of Appeals has does not surprise me in the least. rug Dec 2012 #13

No, the court did not answer that question in the order. eomer Dec 2012 #14

That's not correct. rug Dec 2012 #15

None of those are a finding by the court that a protected liberty was infringed. eomer Dec 2012 #16

Actually it does. rug Dec 2012 #17

There is a distinction you're missing between different types of religious organizations. eomer Dec 2012 #18

Yes a religious college is different from a religion. rug Dec 2012 #20

That safe harbor was granted by HHS (not by the legislation) and was temporary. eomer Dec 2012 #22

The Affordable Care Act amends literally dozens of other statutes. rug Dec 2012 #24

That link is to the regulation I was already referring you to. eomer Dec 2012 #31

The ACA imports the trem "religious employer" as defined in ERISA and the Internl Revenue Code, rug Dec 2012 #36

Not true, the ACA does not import the term "religious employer" or use it in any way. eomer Dec 2012 #39

The definition is in 26 USC � 414. rug Dec 2012 #40

No it's not. eomer Dec 2012 #45

26 USC � 414(e)(3)(D), specifically. rug Dec 2012 #52

That's not a definition of the term "religious employer", which you said would be found there. eomer Dec 2012 #56

It immediately follows 26 USC � 414(e)(3)(C), "Church treated as employer". rug Dec 2012 #57

If you read them together they still have nothing to say about the right claimed by Wheaton College. eomer Dec 2012 #58

And that representation was that HHS will write the regulation implementing the exemption. rug Dec 2012 #59

The court clearly did not decide whether the college *had* to be exempt. eomer Dec 2012 #64

Therefore, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the HHS, without statutory authority, rug Dec 2012 #65

No, the statutory authority is listed right in the regulation and it is the same as I said in #31. eomer Dec 2012 #76

Can we now take it you accept eomer has showed you the court did not rule about religious liberty? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #23

Not if you've been following closely because he hasn't. rug Dec 2012 #25

The title if the piece you chose was "a tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #29

I don't alter headlines. If you have a better article, post it. rug Dec 2012 #37

You've refused to answer the question, again, so there's no point in continuing muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #38

The answer is throughout this thread. rug Dec 2012 #41

Mostly correct but the administration has granted an accommodation, not recognized a right. eomer Dec 2012 #46

I *have* posted a better article - see post 26. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #42

And is *this* aritcile substantially different? rug Dec 2012 #43

It repeats it, but does not endorse it. There's a difference. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #49

Why don't we all take a look at all OTHER things Mr. Wingfield has written on that publcation? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #8

Why don't you take a look at the Court Order? rug Dec 2012 #9

Why do you approvingly relay the words of a Rush wannabe? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #10

Find your own link to this important decision. rug Dec 2012 #12

Here is a link to a report from 'The Hill'.. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #26

I don't believe in monsters. The article is from a mainstream newspaper. rug Dec 2012 #44

I do not prefer to 'chew on surmises' so I will ask you questions directly. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #48

"DISGUSTING, INHUMAN individuals, who cannot be regarded as part of decent society"? rug Dec 2012 #50

Thanks LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #55

Do you have any idea who Kyle Wingfield is, or what his general views are? LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #19

Not really. The piece is from the Atlanta Journal Constitution. rug Dec 2012 #21

Wingfield manages to include his predilections in the article... LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #27

There is of course one solution to the problem of institutions paying for aspects of healthcare that LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #28

WHOSE religious liberty? What about a Protestant student, whose religion allows abortion? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #30

Wheaton College was founded by a Methodist abolitionist. rug Dec 2012 #34

Good choice of cases; the gov is not up against the giant Church. In THIS case. Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #63

The other appellant, Belmont Abbey College, is a Cathoic college and the Becket Fund is behind this. rug Dec 2012 #66

The most important idea: ENFORCING AN ANTI-ABORTION RELIGION, DENIES OTHER RELIGIONS Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #67

Protestants almost uniformly disapproved contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. rug Dec 2012 #69

Most Protestant churches allow contraception today: another important case here; not just labor Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #71

I argued with Archbishop Chaput that bishops are employees of the Vatican, in effect? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #72

Thanks for the link. rug Dec 2012 #73

My argument was never presented; feel free to bring it up with whoever is working on these cases Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #75

There is a win for religious liberty here, just not the one that the article claims. eomer Dec 2012 #32

My religion allows abortion; what happens when my Catholic employer denies my religion? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #78

When you post uses a bullshit title edhopper Dec 2012 #33

I posted the headline, verbatim. rug Dec 2012 #35

Rug? My PhD is in post-poststructuralist semantics; it's clear to me you are equivocating Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #47

An appeal to authority is, as you should know, a fallacy. rug Dec 2012 #51

Unless it is supported by corroborating arguments Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #61

I've been accused of what? rug Dec 2012 #68

Thanks in any case, for your close consideration of the current legal argument Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #62

All religous groups need to get out of the social welfare underthematrix Dec 2012 #53

That is essentially correct. rug Dec 2012 #54

Honestly, unless they are dickheads, I would imagine, they would accept buyouts... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #60

That might be a solution but it is not an easy one. rug Dec 2012 #70

I imagine it would be piecemeal... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #74

Would have to close? Wouldn't there be more dimensions to the question of conscience? eomer Dec 2012 #79

They would continue their charity work, including medical care, as they have for centuries. rug Dec 2012 #80

Catholic doctrine says all artificial methods are evil and will result in eternal damnation. no? eomer Dec 2012 #82

The religious "liberty" to deny liberty. enki23 Dec 2012 #77

What happens when religions conflict? Whose religion gets freedom, over others? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #81