“We must obey God rather than men!”—Acts 5:29.
Now that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied Hobby Lobby’s application for an emergency injunction protecting them from Obamacare’s HHS Mandate on abortion and birth control, Hobby Lobby has decided to defy the federal government to remain true to their religious beliefs, at enormous risk and financial cost.
Hobby Lobby is wholly owned and controlled by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians. The Greens are committed to running their business in accordance with their Christian faith, believing that God wants them to conduct their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible. Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”
The HHS Mandate goes into effect for Hobby Lobby on Jan. 1, 2013. The Greens correctly understand that some of the drugs the HHS Mandate requires them to cover at no cost in their healthcare plans cause abortions.
Today Hobby Lobby announced that they will not comply with this mandate to become complicit in abortion, which the Greens believe ends an innocent human life. Given Hobby Lobby’s size (it has 572 stores employing more than 13,000 people), by violating the HHS Mandate, it will be subject to over $1.3 million in fines per day. That means over $40 million in fines in January alone. If their case takes another ten months to get before the Supreme Court—which would be the earliest it could get there under the normal order of business—the company would incur almost a half-billion dollars in fines. And then of course the Supreme Court would have to write an opinion in what would likely be a split decision with dissenters, which could easily take four or six months and include hundreds of millions of dollars in additional penalties.
This is civil disobedience, consistent with America’s highest traditions when moral issues are at stake. The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government. But as the Founders launched the American Revolution because they believed the British government was violating their rights, the Greens believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are commanding the Greens to sin against God, and that no government has the lawful authority to do so.
The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity. When the apostles were ordered not to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone, the Book of Acts records: “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”
Eleven of the twelve apostles—including Peter—would lose their lives for the sake of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ; only the apostle John died of old age. They were determined to obey God’s will at all costs.
This issue of civil disobedience is never to be undertaken lightly. The Bible teaches Christians to submit to all legitimate governmental authority (e.g., Romans 13:1), and so a person can only disobey the government when there is no other way to obey God.
But here in America, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and in its First Amendment it protects against a government establishment of an official religion and separately protects the free exercise of religion. On top of that, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to specifically add an additional layer of protection against government actions that violate a person’s religious beliefs.
The HHS Mandate is a gross violation of the religious beliefs of the Green family. The issue before the courts here is whether the Greens religious-liberty rights include running their secular, for-profit business consistent with their religious beliefs. In other words, is religious liberty just what you do in church on a Sunday morning, or does it include what you do during the week at your job?
The Greens are now putting their fortunes on the line to do what they believe is right. The courts should side with them, affirming a broad scope of religious liberty under the Constitution and RFRA. And the Supreme Court should resolve this matter with dispatch in their favor.
Millions of Christians across the country feel exactly the same way as the Greens. The Obama administration has issued a statist command that is a declaration of war on people of faith who object to abortion, and civil disobedience could break out all over the country unless the courts set this matter right—and quickly.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.
rockerbikie wrote: So, some nutjob wants us to obey a magic skybeing and his zombie son more than decent human beings. No offense christians.
There are decent human beings in the US government!?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: I don't remember "law-breaking" as a part of my catechism teachings.
From CRCC:
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.
I guess they missed that whole "Render unto Caesar..." part.
And the entire 13th chapter of Romans.
If they want to disobey the laws as they stand now in the hopes that they might change, they're free to do so.
Maybe they'll win; if so, congratulations.
But even though I like Hobby Lobby as a store, I hope they hang.
Following a decision by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denying Hobby Lobby’s request for an exemption from the Obama administration’s HHS mandate, the Christian retail company said it will defy the mandate.
As LifeNews reported, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has refused to act favorably on an emergency appeal Hobby Lobby stores filed to stop enforcement of the HHS mandate against it.
After a federal court denied a request to temporarily stop enforcement of the abortion pill mandate against the Christian-operated business Hobby Lobby, it took its HHS mandate lawsuit to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor denied its request to block the mandate and the millions of dollars in fines it will be subjected to starting January 1 for not complying…
…Now, an attorney for Hobby Lobby says it will defy the mandate and potentially risk potential fines of up to $1.3 million per day.
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Well... we'll see what happens then.
All of this is that the SC (Sotomeyer) denied the request for immediate injunction. This suit will still be heard in the SC later this year.
As a Christian let me say this. These people are defying god by defying the government.
I remember one passage that said, in essence, since god created all god created the govt, and therefore the government is an extension of gods will.
These people are not getting force to get abrtions, just providing people with the option(Which i know from first hand, very few take)
I remember one passage that said, in essence, since god created all god created the govt, and therefore the government is an extension of gods will.
Most likely this:
Romans 13: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”
The HHS Mandate goes into effect for Hobby Lobby on Jan. 1, 2013. The Greens correctly understand that some of the drugs the HHS Mandate requires them to cover at no cost in their healthcare plans cause abortions. ... Today Hobby Lobby announced that they will not comply with this mandate to become complicit in abortion, which the Greens believe ends an innocent human life.
This is civil disobedience, consistent with America’s highest traditions when moral issues are at stake. The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government. But as the Founders launched the American Revolution because they believed the British government was violating their rights, the Greens believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are commanding the Greens to sin against God, and that no government has the lawful authority to do so.
As an interesting note, I don't believe the Bible actually says anything about abortion... the entire anti-abortion sentiment was something that began amongst the "new wave" of Evangelical Christians sometime in the late 1970s. In fact, it almost shifted overnight. Prior to Jerry Falwell & friends, the Evangelicals didn't seem to have the objections that they do now.
Personally I agree with what they are doing despite my pro-abortion/choice stance. If it violates their personal and religious beliefs they shouldn't be required to provide it. Imagine instead that the government required them to provide assisted suicide benefits to any employee that chose to end their own life and they were objecting for the same reason, would you still be against them? I realize this is a potentially poor example, but it was the best that I could do on short notice.
The argument that you can find no explicit reference in a holy text is irrelevant, faith evolves. There is no explicit mention in the Koran that women should cover their faces yet we make legal allowances for women of the islamic faith in certain instances. Religious texts are not a GW publication open to RAW/RAI debate.
I remember one passage that said, in essence, since god created all god created the govt, and therefore the government is an extension of gods will.
Most likely this:
Romans 13:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
However, if the Government is doing something that is morally wrong you are to oppose it on that ground.
If the government was sponsoring genocide you would not support them.
The Bible does not tell you to blindly follow the government.
chaos0xomega wrote:Personally I agree with what they are doing despite my pro-abortion/choice stance. If it violates their personal and religious beliefs they shouldn't be required to provide it. Imagine instead that the government required them to provide assisted suicide benefits to any employee that chose to end their own life and they were objecting for the same reason, would you still be against them? I realize this is a potentially poor example, but it was the best that I could do on short notice.
Sure. Religious Freedom means you don't have to participate in anyone else's faith; but you must tolerate the other faiths. Someone's right to die is their own choice, and your personal religious beliefs must tolerate that right to die. However, you do not need to personally believe in your own right to die.
chaos0xomega wrote:The argument that you can find no explicit reference in a holy text is irrelevant, faith evolves. There is no explicit mention in the Koran that women should cover their faces yet we make legal allowances for women of the islamic faith in certain instances. Religious texts are not a GW publication open to RAW/RAI debate.
Unfortunately, this argument renders all religions to be irrelevant. if you can claim you have a religious belief and is protected, and then be allowed to change that belief to anything you want whenever you want, then either there cannot be any laws whatsoever, or else you cannot have your religion. It's like a contract; you cannot change the terms after the signing.
A quick example: "my religion has just now evolved to allow me to kill you. No government shall impede me religious freedom." I know this argument isn't reasonable, but that's kinda the point.
Hobby Lobby's owners need to wake up and join the 21st century. Their tax dollars have already paid for birth control and abortions and about a dozen other things evangelicals are opposed to. Just because the health care offers it, doesn't mean their employees have to use it, on the contrary, its a greater show of faith that its available and they don't use it.
Either way, they're stupid if they think paying $1.5 million a day is going to make a difference. It may help dent the deficit if they can last a while...
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Hobby Lobby's owners need to wake up and join the 21st century. Their tax dollars have already paid for birth control and abortions and about a dozen other things evangelicals are opposed to. Just because the health care offers it, doesn't mean their employees have to use it, on the contrary, its a greater show of faith that its available and they don't use it.
Either way, they're stupid if they think paying $1.5 million a day is going to make a difference. It may help dent the deficit if they can last a while...
So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
The argument that you can find no explicit reference in a holy text is irrelevant, faith evolves.
That's not strictly true. Even under the Sherbert test the Court is obligated to determine whether or not a given claim is based on a sincere religious belief, and further whether or not state action imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of that belief. It is the second component which will most likely be the deciding factor in any SC decision. That, or proof of a compelling state interest in the mandate of such coverage.
Indeed, I suspect this act of civil disobedience has as much to do with proving the sincerity of the claim with respect to a future decision as it does explicitly moral choice.
There is no explicit mention in the Koran that women should cover their faces yet we make legal allowances for women of the islamic faith in certain instances.
No, but it is explicitly stated that men and women should dress modestly.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Hobby Lobby's owners need to wake up and join the 21st century. Their tax dollars have already paid for birth control and abortions and about a dozen other things evangelicals are opposed to. Just because the health care offers it, doesn't mean their employees have to use it, on the contrary, its a greater show of faith that its available and they don't use it.
Either way, they're stupid if they think paying $1.5 million a day is going to make a difference. It may help dent the deficit if they can last a while...
So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
Didn't say they shouldn't be heard. I did say that it is pointless. The Affordable Healthcare Act has been passed by Congress and approved by judicial review by the Supreme Court. If they refuse to take part, they can't whine about being punished, nor should they punish individual employees who take advantage of the healthcare provided or the employees as a whole by denying them their due benefits.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Hobby Lobby's owners need to wake up and join the 21st century. Their tax dollars have already paid for birth control and abortions and about a dozen other things evangelicals are opposed to. Just because the health care offers it, doesn't mean their employees have to use it, on the contrary, its a greater show of faith that its available and they don't use it.
Either way, they're stupid if they think paying $1.5 million a day is going to make a difference. It may help dent the deficit if they can last a while...
So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
Didn't say they shouldn't be heard. I did say that it is pointless. The Affordable Healthcare Act has been passed by Congress and approved by judicial review by the Supreme Court. If they refuse to take part, they can't whine about being punished, nor should they punish individual employees who take advantage of the healthcare provided or the employees as a whole by denying them their due benefits.
Well... they could simply NOT offer the employer based insurance and force the employees to the state exchange, as it would theoretically be cheaper for the company.
Interestingly, they chose to fight it.
Keep in mind, this isn't the SC saying they don't have a chance... the SC will hear their case later on this year.
rockerbikie wrote: So, some nutjob wants us to obey a magic skybeing and his zombie son more than decent human beings. No offense christians.
I'd sling an equal insult at you but it's so hard to keep track of which totalitarian despot you diefy week to week.
No offense whatever you are today.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: Hobby Lobby's owners need to wake up and join the 21st century. Their tax dollars have already paid for birth control and abortions and about a dozen other things evangelicals are opposed to. Just because the health care offers it, doesn't mean their employees have to use it, on the contrary, its a greater show of faith that its available and they don't use it.
Either way, they're stupid if they think paying $1.5 million a day is going to make a difference. It may help dent the deficit if they can last a while...
So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
Didn't say they shouldn't be heard. I did say that it is pointless. The Affordable Healthcare Act has been passed by Congress and approved by judicial review by the Supreme Court. If they refuse to take part, they can't whine about being punished, nor should they punish individual employees who take advantage of the healthcare provided or the employees as a whole by denying them their due benefits.
Well... they could simply NOT offer the employer based insurance and force the employees to the state exchange, as it would theoretically be cheaper for the company.
Interestingly, they chose to fight it.
Keep in mind, this isn't the SC saying they don't have a chance... the SC will hear their case later on this year.
I thought the ACA forced employers with more than 50 employees to offer insurance to their employees... As it has been pointed out, Hobby Lobby has 13,000 employees nationwide.
I thought the ACA forced employers with more than 50 employees to offer insurance to their employees... As it has been pointed out, Hobby Lobby has 13,000 employees nationwide.
They are. What Hobby Lobby is doing is continuing to offer its present insurance plan, which does not meet the minimum requirements of ACA, as opposed to offering no insurance plan at all. As such, they are paying for the current plan, and the fines associated with not offering a qualifying plan.
whembly wrote:
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
I thought the ACA forced employers with more than 50 employees to offer insurance to their employees... As it has been pointed out, Hobby Lobby has 13,000 employees nationwide.
They are. What Hobby Lobby is doing is continuing to offer its present insurance plan, which does not meet the minimum requirements of ACA, as opposed to offering no insurance plan at all. As such, they are paying for the current plan, and the fines associated with not offering a qualifying plan.
Seaward should be coming in now to tell us an employer should be able to do whatever they want with no governmental repercussions.
whembly wrote:
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
No there's not.
Just saying...
Yes there is. Its being forced to violate your beliefs.
I thought the ACA forced employers with more than 50 employees to offer insurance to their employees... As it has been pointed out, Hobby Lobby has 13,000 employees nationwide.
By "forced" meaning that they'll incur a fine, yes that's true.
However, if they chose NOT to offer a plan, they'll have to pay a fine to the IRS per employee (I think it's $1700/per). The fine is cheaper than actually providing their own plan... but I'd say it's interesting in that they're choosing to fight this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I suppose they will have to enjoy their martyrdom, or sell up the business and move to Zimbabwe or somewhere that doesn't allow abortion.
It's really all about perspective.
If a Christian company is providing Health Insurance for their employees... they have to manage it and they're given a choice as to what to cover. Therefore, they're free to offer whichever benefits for their employees that fits their religious beliefs. Anyone working for Hobby Lobby would know this and if they object to this, they're free to look for employment elsewhere.
Contrast this to the Canadian or UK model... the state manage the plan and thus, religious institutions are more insulated from this because they pay taxes to a general state fund.
The Company is NOT Christian, the owners are. A Company is not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. it is only a legal mask and has no inherent belief system to protect or support.
Easy E wrote: The Company is NOT Christian, the owners are. A Company is not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. it is only a legal mask and has no inherent belief system to protect or support.
??
So, the owners don't have rights to run their own company?
Easy E wrote: The Company is NOT Christian, the owners are. A Company is not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. it is only a legal mask and has no inherent belief system to protect or support.
??
So, the owners don't have rights to run their own company?
Nope, they work in an At-Will state, and as such can be terminated by themselves at any moment without reason
What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?
What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?
All those are major points points brought up by pro-choice advocates. MAny are countered by "You can always put the child up for adoption"
What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?
They usually come out with some pious nonsense about protecting life instead of dealing with the practicalities of these situation and the harm done to people living through the stress of it. There's a common contradiction with right wing pro-lifers in particular, they fight for the rights of the unborn to 'protect life' but are opposed to a lot of social and health care that protect the ongoing welfare of those already born.
whembly wrote: There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control... vs Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
No there's not.
Just saying...
Yes there is. Its being forced to violate your beliefs.
Well where do you draw the line with this? The state decides what comes under healthcare, individual companies should not pick and choose what healthcare your insurance should give you access to, otherwise they chould just veto anything a bit expensive. Some religious groups are opposed to organ donation. Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions. Should these people prevent their employees having access to these medical services because they are 'against their religious beliefs'?
Again you have a situation where employers want control over issues in the lives of their employees unrelated to work, here imposing their religious beliefs upon the employee's access to medical care, irrespective of the employee's religious beliefs. The employee's medical needs should be confidential, the concern of the employer should be that staff return to work in a healthy condition as soon as possible.
What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?
All those are major points points brought up by pro-choice advocates. Many are countered by "You can always put the child up for adoption"
But surely that doesn't deal with the psychiatric problems that may well remain, or bring either person physical health? Adoption is only a last resort, a safeguard to stop children suffering. People shouldn't lean heavily on it to make sure that a child that clearly cannot be sustained by their family or will possibly have trauma as they grow up or suffer from depression can be taken care of. I believe that just the ability to make the choice, as you are able to make with all medical procedures save emergency treatment, is all that is required by the company. To allow people the chance. Refusing to allow people the opportunity is, quite frankly, a very ignorant, suppressive action. Saying that the faith of the owners overrides what a person is allowed to decide to do with their own bodies because of insurance is ultimately very much a violation of the human right to proper medical care laid out in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.
Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their beliefs and I am happy that they are.
Of course it's not their Christian belief that they are being forced to violate. Instead they are being forced to violate their belief that these drugs cause abortions, and that is what makes me happy. Tired of folks like the Greens using pseudo-science and making up their own reality with things like this and using that as an excuse for this. I might even halfway understand if they were actually required to cover real abortion.
But should they be able to deny something because "I know medicine says that it's not abortion and science says it's not abortion, but I think it is and therefore I won't cover it". You can't make up your own facts, if we let that slide then what is next? No wonder people think that some of us Christians are dumb hillbillies...
So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
Hobby Lobby is not a religious organisation. It's a for-profit company that's intended to, y'know, make money. If they were, your argument would have some validity.
It's owners are Christians. They should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on their 13,000 employees, and their company should follow the law, the hard way if need be.
That's really all there is to it. Hobby Lobby is not church, therefore it's not exempt from a lot of laws, this one included.
why oh why do humans think "God" has human emotions? Like a "being" so powerful it can create with a thought has bad days, is vengeful, hates anything that doesn't bow to it?
I asked my religion teacher in 3rd grade if a boy who grew up somewhere that had never heard of Jesus lived a full life helping others and never did anything wrong dies what happens.
he said if you don't take Jesus as your savior then you go to hell
I told him he was wrong and I renounced my Christianity. "God" doesn't give two gaks about a name, actions speak louder than words
Yes there is. Its being forced to violate your beliefs.
I seriously doubt that any person who objects to birth control holds an emotive belief that specifically delineates between indirect support by way of an insurance policy, and indirect support by way of taxation.
DIDM wrote: the thing that boggles my mind is this
why oh why do humans think "God" has human emotions? Like a "being" so powerful it can create with a thought has bad days, is vengeful, hates anything that doesn't bow to it?
I asked my religion teacher in 3rd grade if a boy who grew up somewhere that had never heard of Jesus lived a full life helping others and never did anything wrong dies what happens.
he said if you don't take Jesus as your savior then you go to hell
I told him he was wrong and I renounced my Christianity. "God" doesn't give two gaks about a name, actions speak louder than words
I had a similar conversation after I met a Buddhist monk for the first time. It boggled my mind that such a good, kind and pious man would be sent to hell or any such punishment by any deity that claimed to be just and benevolent.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:I have one point to make, one major point:
What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?
Surely, it's human nature to stop suffering?
If you're a Christian, suffering is perfectly fine so long as it's the correct type of suffering.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
DIDM wrote: the thing that boggles my mind is this
why oh why do humans think "God" has human emotions? Like a "being" so powerful it can create with a thought has bad days, is vengeful, hates anything that doesn't bow to it?
I asked my religion teacher in 3rd grade if a boy who grew up somewhere that had never heard of Jesus lived a full life helping others and never did anything wrong dies what happens.
he said if you don't take Jesus as your savior then you go to hell
I told him he was wrong and I renounced my Christianity. "God" doesn't give two gaks about a name, actions speak louder than words
I had a similar conversation after I met a Buddhist monk for the first time. It boggled my mind that such a good, kind and pious man would be sent to hell or any such punishment by any deity that claimed to be just and benevolent.
That's perhaps why Buddhists do not recognize concepts like "Hell" or "evil". If you're a dick, then you just get to wait outside until it's your turn again.
I sure wish we had NHS-style insurance in this country, is all I can say about this. Single payer, anyway. This linking insurance to your employer is dumb all around.
So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.
Just saying...
Hobby Lobby is not a religious organisation. It's a for-profit company that's intended to, y'know, make money. If they were, your argument would have some validity.
It's owners are Christians. They should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on their 13,000 employees, and their company should follow the law, the hard way if need be.
That's really all there is to it. Hobby Lobby is not church, therefore it's not exempt from a lot of laws, this one included.
So the owners of a company shouldn't be allowed to run their company in accordance with their beliefs, nor should they be allowed to "force" their beliefs on their employees, but the government/president obama can dictate to them his own beliefs and his employees can force upon them their own beliefs (or lack thereof) as they see fit?? The amount of double standard in your (and others with similar thoughts) thinking is frankly appalling and reeks of logical fallacy and thinly-veiled anti-religious sentiment.
Birth control is a luxury (and also forbidden by the bible) if you cant afford to practice safe sex then dont have sex, its really that simple
If I trip in Hobby Lobby and I can sue the owner personally for all his money, then you might have a case.
But if I trip in Hobby Lobby I cannot sue the owner, I can only sue the company. Because the legal structure of the company protects the owner, Hobby Lobby is not the Greens and the Greens are not Hobby Lobby.
If the legal structure of the company protects the owners from actions against the company, then the legal structure of the company should also protect employees from the owners. You make a company to separate yourself from the liabilities, then you can't claim that the company is still you.
Whats obnoxious or stupid about it, the fact that its true? I actually meant to put non-procreational sex is a luxury, but the statement is still true by extension. Know how many times I had to turn down sex because I didnt have a condom on me? The options are accept the risks or play it safe. If you can't play it safe, and don't want to accept the risks then don't do it. The world won't end because you have to keep it in your pants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If I trip in Hobby Lobby and I can sue the owner personally for all his money, then you might have a case.
But if I trip in Hobby Lobby I cannot sue the owner, I can only sue the company. Because the legal structure of the company protects the owner, Hobby Lobby is not the Greens and the Greens are not Hobby Lobby.
If the legal structure of the company protects the owners from actions against the company, then the legal structure of the company should also protect employees from the owners. You make a company to separate yourself from the liabilities, then you can't claim that the company is still you.
I disagree with this analysis, while you are correct that there is a seperation, most companies subscribe to a moral and ethical code of conduct that may or may not be explicitly stated. From Hobby Lobbys mission statement it is pretty clear that the company follows a Christian moral/ethical code and ergo would be operating under the Christian belief system of its owners.
Ouze wrote: I sure wish we had NHS-style insurance in this country, is all I can say about this. Single payer, anyway. This linking insurance to your employer is dumb all around.
Agreed.
What does that make me?
The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.
So... before ya'll jump on my case, when has access to birth control pills and Plan B been really difficult?
It seems like we all have our priorities out of whack here...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Whats obnoxious or stupid about it, the fact that its true? I actually meant to put non-procreational sex is a luxury, but the statement is still true by extension. Know how many times I had to turn down sex because I didnt have a condom on me? The options are accept the risks or play it safe. If you can't play it safe, and don't want to accept the risks then don't do it. The world won't end because you have to keep it in your pants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If I trip in Hobby Lobby and I can sue the owner personally for all his money, then you might have a case.
But if I trip in Hobby Lobby I cannot sue the owner, I can only sue the company. Because the legal structure of the company protects the owner, Hobby Lobby is not the Greens and the Greens are not Hobby Lobby.
If the legal structure of the company protects the owners from actions against the company, then the legal structure of the company should also protect employees from the owners. You make a company to separate yourself from the liabilities, then you can't claim that the company is still you.
I disagree with this analysis, while you are correct that there is a seperation, most companies subscribe to a moral and ethical code of conduct that may or may not be explicitly stated. From Hobby Lobbys mission statement it is pretty clear that the company follows a Christian moral/ethical code and ergo would be operating under the Christian belief system of its owners.
ditto...
But I gotta say... sometimes, MY WORLD will crash if I don't let it out my pants... at least, that's what I tell the chicks.
You're basically saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed access to a healthy sex life. Your response (seeing as you see the challenge being that you don't always have condoms on you person when the opportunity arises) also seems to imply that you have more casual sex in mind, but even responsible married couples use contraception. Maybe coming from a £250k household you don't appreciate how even a small charge on medical things can be difficult over a long time.
Telling them they have to pay to have sex if they are not currently trying for children is just stupid. For a start, having sex for reasons other than procreation is healthy for a relationship. Telling people they just shouldn't, doesn't work, abstinence sex education never works either. Then unwanted children are a burden on parents and the state in the long run. It's just cheaper to supply contraception.
Then there's the total fail of thinking that people using contraception simply can't end up pregnant anyway. Which does happen if something interferes with the pill, or a condom splits.
So yes, your statement is obnoxious and illl informed.
And if a moral code is agains the law, then it is against the law.
Maybe part of what annoys me is that Hobby Lobby is based in a state that has already made it illegal to take your religious laws into consideration if you are Muslim. But this is okay, because they are wanting to pretend that a company can go to heaven and should follow a different religious law.
Also worth noting that birth control != safe sex, some STD/STIs are still transmittable regardless. We still need better sex ed in this country, I personally feel that popular misconception about what constitutes safe sex and proper birth control usage ("Oh, you mean if I don't take the pill every day it stops working?" has been said by one too many people that I know.personally...) combined with free birth control will result in an upswing of stupid behavior...
Howard A Treesong wrote: You're basically saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed access to a healthy sex life. Your response (seeing as you see the challenge being that you don't always have condoms on you person when the opportunity arises) also seems to imply that you have more casual sex in mind, but even responsible married couples use contraception. Maybe coming from a £250k household you don't appreciate how even a small charge on medical things can be difficult over a long time.
Telling them they have to pay to have sex if they are not currently trying for children is just stupid. For a start, having sex for reasons other than procreation is healthy for a relationship. Telling people they just shouldn't, doesn't work, abstinence sex education never works either. Then unwanted children are a burden on parents and the state in the long run. It's just cheaper to supply contraception.
Then there's the total fail of thinking that people using contraception simply can't end up pregnant anyway. Which does happen if something interferes with the pill, or a condom splits.
So yes, your statement is obnoxious and illl informed.
Um... how hard/easy is contraceptive (pills/condoms) is it to get in UK?
Here (the wimminz tell me dis ), it ain't that hard. Shoot, condoms are handed out in High School/Colleges.
d-usa wrote: And if a moral code is agains the law, then it is against the law.
Maybe part of what annoys me is that Hobby Lobby is based in a state that has already made it illegal to take your religious laws into consideration if you are Muslim. But this is okay, because they are wanting to pretend that a company can go to heaven and should follow a different religious law.
Not sure what the second half of that is in reference to,bt in regards to the first, by law of transmutive property you just said that christian beliefs are against the law...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: You're basically saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed access to a healthy sex life. Your response (seeing as you see the challenge being that you don't always have condoms on you person when the opportunity arises) also seems to imply that you have more casual sex in mind, but even responsible married couples use contraception. Maybe coming from a £250k household you don't appreciate how even a small charge on medical things can be difficult over a long time.
Telling them they have to pay to have sex if they are not currently trying for children is just stupid. For a start, having sex for reasons other than procreation is healthy for a relationship. Telling people they just shouldn't, doesn't work, abstinence sex education never works either. Then unwanted children are a burden on parents and the state in the long run. It's just cheaper to supply contraception.
Then there's the total fail of thinking that people using contraception simply can't end up pregnant anyway. Which does happen if something interferes with the pill, or a condom splits.
So yes, your statement is obnoxious and illl informed.
Contraception is not so expensive as to be out of reach of the poor, at least in the US. A pack of condoms is cheaper than a trip to mcdonalds, yet our nations poor seem to have no issue flocking to said eatery in droves. And lack of sex wont destroy a relationship, one of the best relationships I've ever seen is between two gay men who have never been sexually involved with eachother (he has AIDS and they dont want to risk infection regardless of protection). Also 250GBP/year? I wish, then I really would qualify as rich. Not that it matters, I pay for my own condoms anyway.
Using your personal religion as a justification to have your separate legal entity break the law is against the law. I never argued that Christianity is against the law.
Are the Hobby Lobby stores going to disappear when the rapture happens?
Nowhere did I say I was Christian. In my opinion it is the government that has broken the law by enacting legislation that infringes upon the reasonable, sane, and safe (implying that this belief doesnt infringe upon the rights of others) religious beliefs of a portion of its constituents.
Exactly. The Greens in no way are being required to violate their own religious strictures. The separate legal entity which they own is being required to provide coverage which enables its employees to use or NOT use contraception as those EMPLOYEES' religious beliefs require or permit. If the government was requiring the Greens personally to use birth control, then that would clearly be a violation of their religious freedom. Instead they are complaining because they are not being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" makes quite clear that Jesus was saying to pay your taxes and obey the law in the temporal world. Yes, the Roman empire clearly did plenty of things with that tax revenue that the Jews and early Christians might not agree with. But what the government did with the tax money wasn't their responsibility.
whembly wrote: The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.
As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.
They seem to feel otherwise, and I understand their point. They are refusing on moral grounds based on their faith (and the code by which their company operates). To them assisting and/or encouraging behavior to which they are religiously opposed constitutes a violation of their faith, you will find that true of many faiths the world over, as every faith has an element of "guilt by association." You generally don't see jewish or muslim owned eateries providing non-kosher/halal meals for example, and I'd imagine if legislation was passed requiring such establishments to serve non-kosher/halal meals there would be a general uproar from many of you opposed to the greens, to which I will snidely say "But it doesn't violate their beliefs if their customers are eating pork."
As for their employees, if they want medical coverage including contraception they are free to seek employment elsewhere. The Greens are not imposing religious beliefs on anyone. Impose implies that the employees have no other option (they can terminate their employment at will) and there is no indication that the Greens are telling their employees that contraception is evil or forcing them to attend sunday service.
They seem to feel otherwise, and I understand their point. They are refusing on moral grounds based on their faith (and the code by which their company operates).
Where is that in the teachings of Christianity? Why don't they refuse to pay their taxes on the basis that those taxes go toward war? War is clearly a much greater violation of Christian principles.
You generally don't see jewish or muslim owned eateries providing non-kosher/halal meals for example, and I'd imagine if legislation was passed requiring such establishments to serve non-kosher/halal meals there would be a general uproar from many of you opposed to the greens, to which I will snidely say "But it doesn't violate their beliefs if their customers are eating pork."
What kind of food a given business offers to customers is in no way comparable to what kind of medical coverage a business provides to its employees. Come on, now. The power/dependence relationship and the degree of free choice available to the employee vs. the customer are not remotely similar.
Assume the employer provides free meals to its employees but only serves halal/kosher, suddenly the situation isn't quite so different.
As for where in Christianity, I'm not Christian and cannot answer that. In the case of Catholocism however the Pope is clear that abortion is sin, and his word is Gods word as per Catholic dogma.
Because Abortion is the ending of a Human life it is held to be Murder by many people.
War is not against Christian principles in and of itself. There is a difference between killing people and Murder. Murder is expresslly forbidden, killing people is not.
There is even one instance in the bible where God told Israel to commit outright Genocide. And not only all the people, not even the livestock were to be spared. Saul disobeyed, and because of that David was annointed to be King in his place. And the prophet Sammuel(IIRC) put the captured enemy king to the sword himself.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; depends on how you define 'human'. For some people a zygote doesn't quite make the cut yet for others even masturbating may be akin to abortion. If it were that simple, politicians wouldn't be able to use it as a wedge issue so easily.
chaos0xomega wrote: Nowhere did I say I was Christian. In my opinion it is the government that has broken the law by enacting legislation that infringes upon the reasonable, sane, and safe (implying that this belief doesnt infringe upon the rights of others) religious beliefs of a portion of its constituents.
So what exactly do you guys think that the Greens are arguing? What, in their minds, are they being told to do that is violating their religious beliefs?
There is a difference between the Government forcing you to get an abortion and the government forcing you to give your employees the option of getting one through the insura.....
You know what, nevermind. Gonna sit here, eat me some Chik-Fil-A, and laugh.
Dreadwinter wrote: There is a difference between the Government forcing you to get an abortion and the government forcing you to give your employees the option of getting one through the insura.....
You know what, nevermind. Gonna sit here, eat me some Chik-Fil-A, and laugh.
whembly wrote: The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.
As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.
You're right... it IS the law.
Does that mean the anyone (Hobby Lobby for one) shouldn't engage the legal/political process to reverse that?
Is that it?
Or... is the response is "Hey it's legal, so shut up!". ?
I mean, they're obviously worked up about it. Let 'em have their day in court.
Can we go to single payer already? It'll render these things moot....
chaos0xomega wrote: Nowhere did I say I was Christian. In my opinion it is the government that has broken the law by enacting legislation that infringes upon the reasonable, sane, and safe (implying that this belief doesnt infringe upon the rights of others) religious beliefs of a portion of its constituents.
Just because they made a decision doesn't make it right.
The SCOTUS, and the government in general, is perfectly capable of being in the wrong. If the government was infaillable, we would have no higher courts and Laws would never be overturned.
chaos0xomega wrote: Nowhere did I say I was Christian. In my opinion it is the government that has broken the law by enacting legislation that infringes upon the reasonable, sane, and safe (implying that this belief doesnt infringe upon the rights of others) religious beliefs of a portion of its constituents.
Just because they made a decision doesn't make it right.
The SCOTUS, and the government in general, is perfectly capable of being in the wrong. If the government was infaillable, we would have no higher courts and Laws would never be overturned.
This isn't about right and wrong, it is about legal and illegal. The person said they thought it was illegal and the responder showed that people that have at least some familiarity with the Constitution and US law said that it actually is legal. Generally the law is never about right and wrong, honestly, as the law itself doesn't define morality or ethics.
Vulcan wrote: If this goes through, I expect a lot of companies will get religion really quickly.
Simple solution: "Christian opt out plan" same thing, same cost, just no.birth control. If you really wanna screw them you make it a comprehensive childcare and STD testing/treatment plan.
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Vulcan wrote: If this goes through, I expect a lot of companies will get religion really quickly.
Simple solution: "Christian opt out plan" same thing, same cost, just no.birth control. If you really wanna screw them you make it a comprehensive childcare and STD testing/treatment plan.
Do you think Hobby Lobby is fighting the government over birth control?
Vulcan wrote: If this goes through, I expect a lot of companies will get religion really quickly.
Simple solution: "Christian opt out plan" same thing, same cost, just no.birth control. If you really wanna screw them you make it a comprehensive childcare and STD testing/treatment plan.
Do you think Hobby Lobby is fighting the government over birth control?
Honestly? I think they're doing this to elicit some kind of response similar to Chi-fil-a in the hopes to generate more revenue.
But, I'm kinda Jaded now... shall I dispense with that in 33 minutes?
Vulcan wrote: If this goes through, I expect a lot of companies will get religion really quickly.
Simple solution: "Christian opt out plan" same thing, same cost, just no.birth control. If you really wanna screw them you make it a comprehensive childcare and STD testing/treatment plan.
Do you think Hobby Lobby is fighting the government over birth control?
Honestly? I think they're doing this to elicit some kind of response similar to Chi-fil-a in the hopes to generate more revenue.
But, I'm kinda Jaded now... shall I dispense with that in 33 minutes?
So you have no clue what Hobby Lobby is actually arguing against? Because nobody has actually answered the question of what they think it is that Hobby Lobby think is violating their beliefs.
Vulcan wrote: If this goes through, I expect a lot of companies will get religion really quickly.
Simple solution: "Christian opt out plan" same thing, same cost, just no.birth control. If you really wanna screw them you make it a comprehensive childcare and STD testing/treatment plan.
Do you think Hobby Lobby is fighting the government over birth control?
Honestly? I think they're doing this to elicit some kind of response similar to Chi-fil-a in the hopes to generate more revenue.
But, I'm kinda Jaded now... shall I dispense with that in 33 minutes?
So you have no clue what Hobby Lobby is actually arguing against? Because nobody has actually answered the question of what they think it is that Hobby Lobby think is violating their beliefs.
I do have a clue... I'm offering to sell some too!
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Mannahnin wrote: Exactly. The Greens in no way are being required to violate their own religious strictures. The separate legal entity which they own is being required to provide coverage which enables its employees to use or NOT use contraception as those EMPLOYEES' religious beliefs require or permit. If the government was requiring the Greens personally to use birth control, then that would clearly be a violation of their religious freedom. Instead they are complaining because they are not being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" makes quite clear that Jesus was saying to pay your taxes and obey the law in the temporal world. Yes, the Roman empire clearly did plenty of things with that tax revenue that the Jews and early Christians might not agree with. But what the government did with the tax money wasn't their responsibility.
Gonna go with this one. Me thinks the Greens like playing the victim a little bit.
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Because we have people going on about how Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for birth control because that is their faith. And Hobby Lobby is paying for birth control and has no problem with doing so. Which just means that people are mouthing off and ranting about stuff that has nothing to do with the case.
Hobby Lobby is also not being told to cover abortions, they never have been. They are also not told to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, they never have been.
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Because we have people going on about how Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for birth control because that is their faith. And Hobby Lobby is paying for birth control and has no problem with doing so. Which just means that people are mouthing off and ranting about stuff that has nothing to do with the case.
Hobby Lobby is also not being told to cover abortions, they never have been. They are also not told to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, they never have been.
Ahtman wrote: On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
-Barry Goldwater
Barry Goldwater sounds like the kind of lefty RINO that's ruining conservatism, and we should primary him.
The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government.
...followed by this...
The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity.
I cant believe they worded it like that (bold part)
defying... to do something wrong? So the history of the Christian faith is the defiance of a right government, to do something wrong .i.e. worship God, and live their lives in a manner concurrent with their faith. That is, if nothing else, a sickening misrepresentation of Christian history
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Because we have people going on about how Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for birth control because that is their faith. And Hobby Lobby is paying for birth control and has no problem with doing so. Which just means that people are mouthing off and ranting about stuff that has nothing to do with the case.
Hobby Lobby is also not being told to cover abortions, they never have been. They are also not told to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, they never have been.
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Because we have people going on about how Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for birth control because that is their faith. And Hobby Lobby is paying for birth control and has no problem with doing so. Which just means that people are mouthing off and ranting about stuff that has nothing to do with the case.
Hobby Lobby is also not being told to cover abortions, they never have been. They are also not told to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, they never have been.
Wait... they're currently covering them?
They are covering birth control, like they always have and will continue to do.
They are not covering abortions, which they were never ordered to cover.
Kyle Duncan, an attorney for the pro-life legal group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement that hobby Lobby doesn’t plan to offer its employees insurance that would cover the drug while its lawsuit is pending.
“The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees,” Duncan said. “To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
Because we have people going on about how Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to pay for birth control because that is their faith. And Hobby Lobby is paying for birth control and has no problem with doing so. Which just means that people are mouthing off and ranting about stuff that has nothing to do with the case.
Hobby Lobby is also not being told to cover abortions, they never have been. They are also not told to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, they never have been.
Wait... they're currently covering them?
They are covering birth control, like they always have and will continue to do.
They are not covering abortions, which they were never ordered to cover.
So Plan B is not covered? huh... I thought it was... my bad.
Mannahnin wrote: Exactly. The Greens in no way are being required to violate their own religious strictures. The separate legal entity which they own is being required to provide coverage which enables its employees to use or NOT use contraception as those EMPLOYEES' religious beliefs require or permit. If the government was requiring the Greens personally to use birth control, then that would clearly be a violation of their religious freedom. Instead they are complaining because they are not being allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" makes quite clear that Jesus was saying to pay your taxes and obey the law in the temporal world. Yes, the Roman empire clearly did plenty of things with that tax revenue that the Jews and early Christians might not agree with. But what the government did with the tax money wasn't their responsibility.
whembly wrote: The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.
As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.
Mannahnin your killing me with this one! So am I to take it you are implying that Christians may only do with their property, something that the Government tells them they may? Is it not true that the Greens own the hobby lobby companies? Is it not also true, by reason of logical inference, that you are saying something to the effect of "well the greens arent being forced to remain in control of their company, if they dont like the law, they can leave the public forum and hide in their backwards hole!" ?!!
Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, is IMMEDIATELY followed by "Render unto God, that which is Gods." Now tell me, what do you think falls where; the taxes that the hobby lobby company pays, as well as the money the Green family pays; and the lives of unborn children who have done nothing more than to be conceived. Lemme tell you my position
Taxes= Governments, Babies= Gods
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of when life begins (although the real argument is over whether a woman has a right to end that life when ever she wants (as long as its in her uterus) ) the fact of the matter is the Green family believes that it is protected and precious life and ending it is a direct affront to God and violates His intentions. What gives the Government the right to dictate to them how they should run their company on an issue such as this? Are you so put off by Christianity in the public square, that you are oblivious to the steam rolling of your fellow citizens constitutionally declared rights over the sustainment of some invented right? Because it seems that way to me.
And thanks to you Ahtman for giving us that lil.... gem of... lets just call it tripe from our illustrious B Goldwater.
I find it so ammusing that he, a member of our rule of the majority style government, is mad the the majority. Not only that, he thumbs his nose at the "political preachers" i.e. vocal majority, and tells them to effectively "STFU AND BE HAPPY WE DONT THROW YOU IN PRISON YOU PRETENTIOUS PRICKS!" Such a beacon of legislative neutrality and unbiased representation he is.... ( if I could poor condensed sarcasm onto my keyboard right now I would)
They are refusing to cover Plan B in violation of the law because they have no idea how it works and think it causes abortions.
We have a huge federal court case that is being waged in the name of religion against a big evil government simply because people "believe" that the drug does something it doesn't.
d-usa wrote: They are refusing to cover Plan B in violation of the law because they have no idea how it works and think it causes abortions.
We have a huge federal court case that is being waged in the name of religion against a big evil government simply because people "believe" that the drug does something it doesn't.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Levonorgestrel, a chemical present in "morning after pills", cause the egg to not be able to adhere to the uterine wall via irritation of its lining, preventing gestation i.e. further growth of the childerrr "fetus"? This would then mean, that as the fertilized egg drops from the fallopian tubes, it finds no purchase in the uterine wall to begin gestation. So the fertilized egg is then expelled from the uterus via the cervix, then the vagina, and thus the womans body.
Now, if that is the case, and you happen to believe that life begins at conception, would it not then follow, that you just killed that life at its earliest possible stage? Thus committing an abortion of that life?
The answer is most definitely yes ( remember, given that life begins at conception) And I would there for caution you to be a bit more empathetic to the beliefs of others, just as you seem to think the believer should be empathetic to the lack, or difference, of belief in others.
d-usa wrote: They are refusing to cover Plan B in violation of the law because they have no idea how it works and think it causes abortions.
We have a huge federal court case that is being waged in the name of religion against a big evil government simply because people "believe" that the drug does something it doesn't.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Levonorgestrel, a chemical present in "morning after pills", cause the egg to not be able to adhere to the uterine wall via irritation of its lining, preventing gestation i.e. further growth of the childerrr "fetus"?
The entire mechanism of action is centered around preventing the release of an egg to be fertilized in the first place. If Plan B fails then it fails for two primary reasons:
1) The woman is already pregnant, and Plan B has no effect on a fertilized egg before or after implantation.
2) The woman has already ovulated, allowing the egg to become fertilized and implant as normal.
Indeed LNG has been shown to be no better than placebo at
suppressing ovulation when given immediately prior to ovulation17 and is not thought to be
effective once the process of fertilisation has occurred.22–25
Studies looking at the effect of LNG on endometrial markers of receptivity have found little to
no effect using different modes of administration.16,26,27 Evidence from an in vitro study
indicates that LNG does not affect embryo-endometrial attachment.28
The available evidence suggests that pregnancies occurring after LNG failure are not
associated with any major congenital malformations, pregnancy complications or other
adverse pregnancy outcomes.29
Implantation:
• Two studies have estimated effectiveness of LNG ECPs by confirming the cycle day by hormonal
analysis (other studies used women’s self-reported cycle date). In these studies, no pregnancies
occurred in the women who took ECPs before ovulation; while pregnancies occurred only in women who took ECPs on or after the day of ovulation, providing evidence that ECPs were unable to
prevent implantation.9,10
• A number of studies have evaluated whether ECPs produce changes in the histological and bio-
chemical characteristics of the endometrium. Most studies show that LNG ECPs have no such effect
on the endometrium, indicating that they have no mechanism to prevent implantation.1,2,11,12,13 One of
these studies found that following administration of double the standard dose of LNG, there are only minor or no alterations in endometrial receptivity.12 One study found a single altered endometrial param- eter only when LNG was administered prior to the LH surge, at a time when ECPs inhibit ovulation.14
• One study showed that levonorgestrel did not prevent the attachment of human embryos to a
simulated (in vitro) endometrial environment.15
• Animal studies demonstrated that LNG ECPs did not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in
the endometrium.16,17
d-usa wrote: They are refusing to cover Plan B in violation of the law because they have no idea how it works and think it causes abortions.
We have a huge federal court case that is being waged in the name of religion against a big evil government simply because people "believe" that the drug does something it doesn't.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Levonorgestrel, a chemical present in "morning after pills", cause the egg to not be able to adhere to the uterine wall via irritation of its lining, preventing gestation i.e. further growth of the childerrr "fetus"?
The entire mechanism of action is centered around preventing the release of an egg to be fertilized in the first place. If Plan B fails then it fails for two primary reasons:
1) The woman is already pregnant, and Plan B has no effect on a fertilized egg before or after implantation.
2) The woman has already ovulated, allowing the egg to become fertilized and implant as normal.
Indeed LNG has been shown to be no better than placebo at
suppressing ovulation when given immediately prior to ovulation17 and is not thought to be
effective once the process of fertilisation has occurred.22–25
Studies looking at the effect of LNG on endometrial markers of receptivity have found little to
no effect using different modes of administration.16,26,27 Evidence from an in vitro study
indicates that LNG does not affect embryo-endometrial attachment.28
The available evidence suggests that pregnancies occurring after LNG failure are not
associated with any major congenital malformations, pregnancy complications or other
adverse pregnancy outcomes.29
Implantation:
• Two studies have estimated effectiveness of LNG ECPs by confirming the cycle day by hormonal
analysis (other studies used women’s self-reported cycle date). In these studies, no pregnancies
occurred in the women who took ECPs before ovulation; while pregnancies occurred only in women who took ECPs on or after the day of ovulation, providing evidence that ECPs were unable to
prevent implantation.9,10
• A number of studies have evaluated whether ECPs produce changes in the histological and bio-
chemical characteristics of the endometrium. Most studies show that LNG ECPs have no such effect
on the endometrium, indicating that they have no mechanism to prevent implantation.1,2,11,12,13 One of
these studies found that following administration of double the standard dose of LNG, there are only minor or no alterations in endometrial receptivity.12 One study found a single altered endometrial param- eter only when LNG was administered prior to the LH surge, at a time when ECPs inhibit ovulation.14
• One study showed that levonorgestrel did not prevent the attachment of human embryos to a
simulated (in vitro) endometrial environment.15
• Animal studies demonstrated that LNG ECPs did not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in
the endometrium.16,17
Wowee D... hold on there pardner...
At your work, do you have Micromedex or Lexicomp? FDB or Multum?
Check 'em out.
At Lexicomp, there's a "How does this drug work?", which states:
- Levonorgestrel stops or delays egg release (ovulation). It keeps the sperm form fertilizing the egg, changes chemicals seen in pregnancy, and stops the fertilzed egg from implanting.
-It thins the lining of the uterus.
d-usa wrote: They are refusing to cover Plan B in violation of the law because they have no idea how it works and think it causes abortions.
We have a huge federal court case that is being waged in the name of religion against a big evil government simply because people "believe" that the drug does something it doesn't.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Levonorgestrel, a chemical present in "morning after pills", cause the egg to not be able to adhere to the uterine wall via irritation of its lining, preventing gestation i.e. further growth of the childerrr "fetus"?
The entire mechanism of action is centered around preventing the release of an egg to be fertilized in the first place. If Plan B fails then it fails for two primary reasons:
1) The woman is already pregnant, and Plan B has no effect on a fertilized egg before or after implantation.
2) The woman has already ovulated, allowing the egg to become fertilized and implant as normal.
Indeed LNG has been shown to be no better than placebo at
suppressing ovulation when given immediately prior to ovulation17 and is not thought to be
effective once the process of fertilisation has occurred.22–25
Studies looking at the effect of LNG on endometrial markers of receptivity have found little to
no effect using different modes of administration.16,26,27 Evidence from an in vitro study
indicates that LNG does not affect embryo-endometrial attachment.28
The available evidence suggests that pregnancies occurring after LNG failure are not
associated with any major congenital malformations, pregnancy complications or other
adverse pregnancy outcomes.29
Implantation:
• Two studies have estimated effectiveness of LNG ECPs by confirming the cycle day by hormonal
analysis (other studies used women’s self-reported cycle date). In these studies, no pregnancies
occurred in the women who took ECPs before ovulation; while pregnancies occurred only in women who took ECPs on or after the day of ovulation, providing evidence that ECPs were unable to
prevent implantation.9,10
• A number of studies have evaluated whether ECPs produce changes in the histological and bio-
chemical characteristics of the endometrium. Most studies show that LNG ECPs have no such effect
on the endometrium, indicating that they have no mechanism to prevent implantation.1,2,11,12,13 One of
these studies found that following administration of double the standard dose of LNG, there are only minor or no alterations in endometrial receptivity.12 One study found a single altered endometrial param- eter only when LNG was administered prior to the LH surge, at a time when ECPs inhibit ovulation.14
• One study showed that levonorgestrel did not prevent the attachment of human embryos to a
simulated (in vitro) endometrial environment.15
• Animal studies demonstrated that LNG ECPs did not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in
the endometrium.16,17
Wowee D... hold on there pardner...
At your work, do you have Micromedex or Lexicomp? FDB or Multum?
Check 'em out.
At Lexicomp, there's a "How does this drug work?", which states:
- Levonorgestrel stops or delays egg release (ovulation). It keeps the sperm form fertilizing the egg, changes chemicals seen in pregnancy, and stops the fertilzed egg from implanting.
-It thins the lining of the uterus.
Micromedex says the same thing...
Both get their data from the insert written by the company, which based it on research that is older than the current research. Our understanding of the drugs changes, but the majority of times the little fancy paper inserts that nobody reads don't get updated.
Belief that the pill might be an abortifacient stems from speculative language that the Food and Drug Administration approved for its original label, which listed a number of physiological processes by which the pill might prevent pregnancy, including preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb.
...
The F.D.A. now acknowledges that the emerging data suggest the morning-after pill, often called Plan B, does not inhibit implantation. It should remove that unsupported suggestion from the label. Mitt Romney and other politicians need to stop calling it an “abortive” pill. Decisions on whether to take the pill should be left to women.
The studies have shown, over and over again, that Plan B works by delaying ovulation. And if ovulation or fertlilzation has occured it has no effect.
Plan B, the nation’s most widely used emergency contraceptive, works only as a contraceptive and does not cause abortions, according to an article in the January-February issue of Health Progress, the official journal of the Catholic Health Association
If my religion believes that a person with cancer should be left to die, does my business have to cover cancer related stuff? Its unnatural to preserve the dying, after all. I don't want to be forced by the liberal government to fund something immoral, heaven forbid.
d-usa wrote: They are refusing to cover Plan B in violation of the law because they have no idea how it works and think it causes abortions.
We have a huge federal court case that is being waged in the name of religion against a big evil government simply because people "believe" that the drug does something it doesn't.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Levonorgestrel, a chemical present in "morning after pills", cause the egg to not be able to adhere to the uterine wall via irritation of its lining, preventing gestation i.e. further growth of the childerrr "fetus"?
The entire mechanism of action is centered around preventing the release of an egg to be fertilized in the first place. If Plan B fails then it fails for two primary reasons:
1) The woman is already pregnant, and Plan B has no effect on a fertilized egg before or after implantation.
2) The woman has already ovulated, allowing the egg to become fertilized and implant as normal.
Indeed LNG has been shown to be no better than placebo at
suppressing ovulation when given immediately prior to ovulation17 and is not thought to be
effective once the process of fertilisation has occurred.22–25
Studies looking at the effect of LNG on endometrial markers of receptivity have found little to
no effect using different modes of administration.16,26,27 Evidence from an in vitro study
indicates that LNG does not affect embryo-endometrial attachment.28
The available evidence suggests that pregnancies occurring after LNG failure are not
associated with any major congenital malformations, pregnancy complications or other
adverse pregnancy outcomes.29
Implantation:
• Two studies have estimated effectiveness of LNG ECPs by confirming the cycle day by hormonal
analysis (other studies used women’s self-reported cycle date). In these studies, no pregnancies
occurred in the women who took ECPs before ovulation; while pregnancies occurred only in women who took ECPs on or after the day of ovulation, providing evidence that ECPs were unable to
prevent implantation.9,10
• A number of studies have evaluated whether ECPs produce changes in the histological and bio-
chemical characteristics of the endometrium. Most studies show that LNG ECPs have no such effect
on the endometrium, indicating that they have no mechanism to prevent implantation.1,2,11,12,13 One of
these studies found that following administration of double the standard dose of LNG, there are only minor or no alterations in endometrial receptivity.12 One study found a single altered endometrial param- eter only when LNG was administered prior to the LH surge, at a time when ECPs inhibit ovulation.14
• One study showed that levonorgestrel did not prevent the attachment of human embryos to a
simulated (in vitro) endometrial environment.15
• Animal studies demonstrated that LNG ECPs did not prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in
the endometrium.16,17
Wowee D... hold on there pardner...
At your work, do you have Micromedex or Lexicomp? FDB or Multum?
Check 'em out.
At Lexicomp, there's a "How does this drug work?", which states:
- Levonorgestrel stops or delays egg release (ovulation). It keeps the sperm form fertilizing the egg, changes chemicals seen in pregnancy, and stops the fertilzed egg from implanting.
-It thins the lining of the uterus.
Micromedex says the same thing...
Both get their data from the insert written by the company, which based it on research that is older than the current research. Our understanding of the drugs changes, but the majority of times the little fancy paper inserts that nobody reads don't get updated.
The studies have shown, over and over again, that Plan B works by delaying ovulation. And if ovulation or fertlilzation has occured it has no effect.
So four clinical decision support systems used globally are all wrong-ish? (Not unusual though... they do change all the time)
Even you it's true, I personally know OB doctors who would prescribe them and they told me they work post sex. Now, we may never know if the russian roulette of egg+sperm actually worked at those times.
*shrugs*
If it doesn't work, then the Plan B company pulled one hell of a scam. <---- I'm jesting there...
Well... you implied it's only use is pre-sex. (which would work since it can prevent the release of the egg).
Please show where I implied it's only use is pre-sex...
um... this blurb?
The entire mechanism of action is centered around preventing the release of an egg to be fertilized in the first place. If Plan B fails then it fails for two primary reasons:
1) The woman is already pregnant, and Plan B has no effect on a fertilized egg before or after implantation.
2) The woman has already ovulated, allowing the egg to become fertilized and implant as normal.
See updated post that you quoted for more information about the mistakes in the clinical support documentation. There is a reason we continue to do studies long after the package insert is written.
But an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.
And it seems that you are confusing three separate events and/or lumbing them in together because nothing in my post mentions the time of sex:
-Sex -Ovulation -Fertilization
The Plan B folks didn't pull a scam. Plan B works like it is advertised. It just doesn't work how people think it does.
Personally, I feel the only time you can take a life is when the life is actually conscious of it's own existance. From what I can gather, Plan B is simply a contraceptive pill that is to be ingested before intercourse to prevent fertilization. The fact that the egg isn't actually fertilized in the first place surely doesn't make it an abortion, rather puts it in the same place as the morning-after pill, condoms and other forms of contraception?
The real point, though, is whether companies should be allowed to opt out of pieces of legislation because of an issue of conscience their owners have.
Vulcan wrote: If this goes through, I expect a lot of companies will get religion really quickly.
Simple solution: "Christian opt out plan" same thing, same cost, just no.birth control. If you really wanna screw them you make it a comprehensive childcare and STD testing/treatment plan.
Do you think Hobby Lobby is fighting the government over birth control?
No, nor do I think it has anything to do with religion. They're trying to cut costs. That's the only reason corporations do anything anymore.
The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government.
...followed by this...
The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity.
Yeah.....how dare all those NAACP....... Martin Luther King...Gandis, underground railroad, Oskar Shindler types of the world break unjust laws....
The Bible declares we must obey every law even if it breaks God's Moral laws......errrr...wait.....no it doesn't.
GG
Trying to compare these guys to MLK, Gandhi and Oscar Schindler is silly and borders on a lack of respect for what they [MLK et al] worked for, especially seeing as they worked in favour of people not being chained down by old ways of thinking as opposed to maintaining those very rules. Employees aren't actually free to just quit, because then they won't have a job, which means you can't pay your rent, which means you'll get evicted. The "just quit and get another job" argument is a silly right-wing fantasy. The employer has a lot of power over their employees; this entire conflict is about whether or not we think it is OK for an employer to effectively force his or her belief system on the employees.
You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...
LoneLictor wrote: If my religion believes that a person with cancer should be left to die, does my business have to cover cancer related stuff? Its unnatural to preserve the dying, after all. I don't want to be forced by the liberal government to fund something immoral, heaven forbid.
And THAT'S why this is a bad idea.
There's a reason we have laws in place to separate religion from government.
Today is the first day of their fine. Another reason i like 2013. These people aren't attempting to defy the government, They should get find. As many people have said, they are a company that has to comply by federal laws, it is no different from minimum wage or mandatory breaks
Company seeks to dodge legal obligations to it's employees, gets rightfully fined.
Claims it's against the religion of the owners, this claim is open to a wide range of criticism on the letter of their religious laws, owners are conducting business within a nation and society that has passed laws and will conduct that business lawfully or have it censured.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Company seeks to dodge legal obligations to it's employees, gets rightfully fined.
Claims it's against the religion of the owners, this claim is open to a wide range of criticism on the letter of their religious laws, owners are conducting business within a nation and society that has passed laws and will conduct that business lawfully or have it censured.
Obey the law or cease business.
End of.
You almost got it right... it's:
"Obey the law, cease business or pay the fine".
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Company seeks to dodge legal obligations to it's employees, gets rightfully fined.
Claims it's against the religion of the owners, this claim is open to a wide range of criticism on the letter of their religious laws, owners are conducting business within a nation and society that has passed laws and will conduct that business lawfully or have it censured.
Obey the law or cease business.
End of.
You almost got it right... it's:
"Obey the law, cease business or pay the fine".
Can they pay it ad infinitum? Or, like FSA fines in the UK, it adds up over time and if they are reviewed again, further steps can be taken.
whembly wrote: The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.
As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.
Mannahnin your killing me with this one! So am I to take it you are implying that Christians may only do with their property, something that the Government tells them they may? Is it not true that the Greens own the hobby lobby companies? Is it not also true, by reason of logical inference, that you are saying something to the effect of "well the greens arent being forced to remain in control of their company, if they dont like the law, they can leave the public forum and hide in their backwards hole!" ?!!
No, you're making a silly argument. They are in control of their company, but the law (as it always has, and must for many reasons, as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire amply demonstrates) limits some ways in which they may exercise that control. Generally to help provide for the safety and just treatment of their workers, or of the general public. Do you freak out about laws against dumping toxic waste into rivers and watersheds? Or laws requiring that overtime be paid to hourly employees who work over 40 hours in a week? By your logic, those laws = the Greens having control of their company taken away from them.
thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote: Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, is IMMEDIATELY followed by "Render unto God, that which is Gods." Now tell me, what do you think falls where; the taxes that the hobby lobby company pays, as well as the money the Green family pays; and the lives of unborn children who have done nothing more than to be conceived. Lemme tell you my position
Taxes= Governments, Babies= Gods
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of when life begins (although the real argument is over whether a woman has a right to end that life when ever she wants (as long as its in her uterus) ) the fact of the matter is the Green family believes that it is protected and precious life and ending it is a direct affront to God and violates His intentions. What gives the Government the right to dictate to them how they should run their company on an issue such as this? Are you so put off by Christianity in the public square, that you are oblivious to the steam rolling of your fellow citizens constitutionally declared rights over the sustainment of some invented right? Because it seems that way to me.
A) The right of women to control over their own reproductive process has been the law of the land since the 1970s. I strongly suspect that if men could also get pregnant this right would have been a blanket assumption going back at least to the founding, if not further. There are MANY, MANY limitations on how this right is exercised, and many restrictions in place currently on tax revenue being spent on abortion.
B) The ACA doesn't require them to cover abortions, and their objection to Plan B is founded on, at best, outdated science (as the medical professional in the thread has explained), or at worst, a simple desire to control their employees' reproductive lives and a disingenuous smokescreen of an argument as to why.
C) If Christians or other religious business owners can make up excuses to break the law by saying "I think babies = God's", therefore, since I know God's will, I am allowed to defy the law, where does that get us? Hey, the Amish believe that hard work is the path of godliness! Since "work = God's", does that mean than an Amish employer can ignore any labor regulation that it wants? Can they deny their employees overtime pay on the basis that working overtime will be rewarded in heaven?
thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote: [I find it so ammusing that he, a member of our rule of the majority style government, is mad the the majority. Not only that, he thumbs his nose at the "political preachers" i.e. vocal majority, and tells them to effectively "STFU AND BE HAPPY WE DONT THROW YOU IN PRISON YOU PRETENTIOUS PRICKS!" Such a beacon of legislative neutrality and unbiased representation he is.... ( if I could poor condensed sarcasm onto my keyboard right now I would)
You've got it backwards. Political preachers are not and were not the vocal majority. They are a (frequently obnoxious) minority, one Goldwater experienced attempting to bully legislators and impose their personal doctrines as the word of god and the exclusive path of morality.
LoneLictor wrote: If my religion believes that a person with cancer should be left to die, does my business have to cover cancer related stuff? Its unnatural to preserve the dying, after all. I don't want to be forced by the liberal government to fund something immoral, heaven forbid.
And THAT'S why this is a bad idea.
There's a reason we have laws in place to separate religion from government.
It doesnt separate religion from government. It separates Government from religion. (loosely paraphrased) Government shall make no law that favors one religious sect above another. Nor establish for itself, a religion beholden to it.
The whole idea of "separation of church and state" doesn't even appear in our constitution (the document that tells us how to structure, operate, and interpret our laws, and our government) It is something atheists and the ACLU have harped on from a letter by one of the founding fathers.
The case for seperation of c&s is even more hairy when you look at historical context. Our founding fathers were well aware of the reason the puritans came over in the first place and their issues with the national church of England (headed by the king of england) and its abuses led to the clause about Governments and religions.
There were two things we are expressly warned about by the founding fathers. Banks and Governments (well that and this system of government only working if supported and ran by God fearing, christian principled citizens) Not religion in and of itself
It doesnt separate religion from government. It separates Government from religion. (loosely paraphrased) Government shall make no law that favors one religious sect above another. Nor establish for itself, a religion beholden to it.
Yes, so no 'established religion', that includes 'Christianity' (which, btw, only started calling it's self 'Christianity' in the latter half of the 20th century as the various factions allied to fight abortion and other issues, it's a relatively recent construct as far as the US is concerned.
The whole idea of "separation of church and state" doesn't even appear in our constitution (the document that tells us how to structure, operate, and interpret our laws, and our government) It is something atheists and the ACLU have harped on from a letter by one of the founding fathers.
In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.
The case for seperation of c&s is even more hairy when you look at historical context. Our founding fathers were well aware of the reason the puritans came over in the first place and their issues with the national church of England (headed by the king of england) and its abuses led to the clause about Governments and religions.
Your statement here is self defeating. It proves they were determined not to facilitate the 'heavenly mandate' or rule of church. That's the very reason they were so adamant about the separation of the church and matters of legislation and governance. You and your religion have no place on or in public areas unless equally shared with EVERY other religious and theocratic philosophy in the nation.
There were two things we are expressly warned about by the founding fathers. Banks and Governments (well that and this system of government only working if supported and ran by God fearing, christian principled citizens) Not religion in and of itself
Wrong. Religion influencing government as it had in the Old World was the very thing they railed against and set measures against.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...
This is typical....Where did I say that the greens cause was equivalent to the cause of Gandhi, MLK..etc? I didn't.
Straw man arguments are easy to win... and that's why people resort to them.
I was trying to point out the error of quoting out of context of "having no desire to defy their own govt" when the context was... that they don't desire to defy the just laws of their govt.
And I was merely saying that some laws are unjust... and civil disobediance, such as that of MLK, Gandhi can be used, and also that civil disobedience doesn't necessarily violate scripture.
GG, it does seem like bad writing or inconsistency for them to say in one sentence their commitment to defy the government, and in another sentence that they don't want to defy the government.
It just comes off a bit strange. I can certainly see your point about civil disobedience, though.
thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote: The whole idea of "separation of church and state" doesn't even appear in our constitution (the document that tells us how to structure, operate, and interpret our laws, and our government) It is something atheists and the ACLU have harped on from a letter by one of the founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote the Declaration, and who was a big advocate for the Bill of Rights and worked with Madison on it. Yeah, that guy is the one who explained so patiently to the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment creates a "wall of separation" between church and state.
MGS covered the rest of the historical context, but I was not comfortable letting you dismiss the separation as if it's some obscure triviality.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...
This is typical....Where did I say that the greens cause was equivalent to the cause of Gandhi, MLK..etc? I didn't.
Straw man arguments are easy to win... and that's why people resort to them.
Calm down, you're very quick to cry strawman. I was merely pointing out that comparisons drawn with people who have obviously had far more noble causes isn't a good place to start any sort of argument...
Howard A Treesong wrote: You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...
This is typical....Where did I say that the greens cause was equivalent to the cause of Gandhi, MLK..etc? I didn't.
Straw man arguments are easy to win... and that's why people resort to them.
Calm down, you're very quick to cry strawman.....
Because you have done it to me before. You love the straw man argument.
The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government.
...followed by this...
The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity.
Yeah.....how dare all those NAACP....... Martin Luther King...Gandis, underground railroad, Oskar Shindler types of the world break unjust laws....
The Bible declares we must obey every law even if it breaks God's Moral laws......errrr...wait.....no it doesn't.
I am more than capable of inserting my own foot into my own mouth, I do not need your help; and it is not appreciated. I never claimed that the Bible requires Christians to obey all of the laws of men.
The point I was attempting to make was that the Greens very clearly want to defy the law in question, as did MLK, Gandhi, Oskar Schindler, and (at times) the NAACP.
Claiming that your desire to adhere to your general understanding of Christian teachings does not eliminate the specific desire to refrain from doing a thing as a result of the genreal desire.
Easy E wrote: Seaward should be coming in now to tell us an employer should be able to do whatever they want with no governmental repercussions.
Sorry, apparently I'm quite late. And while I don't think I've ever said employer should be able to do whatever it wants, I certainly agree that Hobby Lobby should be able to offer whatever insurance plan it likes to its employees - or not. Want to guess my feelings on the ACA?
whembly wrote: The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.
As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.
Mannahnin your killing me with this one! So am I to take it you are implying that Christians may only do with their property, something that the Government tells them they may? Is it not true that the Greens own the hobby lobby companies? Is it not also true, by reason of logical inference, that you are saying something to the effect of "well the greens arent being forced to remain in control of their company, if they dont like the law, they can leave the public forum and hide in their backwards hole!" ?!!
No, you're making a silly argument. They are in control of their company, but the law (as it always has, and must for many reasons, as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire amply demonstrates) limits some ways in which they may exercise that control. Generally to help provide for the safety and just treatment of their workers, or of the general public. Do you freak out about laws against dumping toxic waste into rivers and watersheds? Or laws requiring that overtime be paid to hourly employees who work over 40 hours in a week? By your logic, those laws = the Greens having control of their company taken away from them.
thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote: Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, is IMMEDIATELY followed by "Render unto God, that which is Gods." Now tell me, what do you think falls where; the taxes that the hobby lobby company pays, as well as the money the Green family pays; and the lives of unborn children who have done nothing more than to be conceived. Lemme tell you my position
Taxes= Governments, Babies= Gods
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of when life begins (although the real argument is over whether a woman has a right to end that life when ever she wants (as long as its in her uterus) ) the fact of the matter is the Green family believes that it is protected and precious life and ending it is a direct affront to God and violates His intentions. What gives the Government the right to dictate to them how they should run their company on an issue such as this? Are you so put off by Christianity in the public square, that you are oblivious to the steam rolling of your fellow citizens constitutionally declared rights over the sustainment of some invented right? Because it seems that way to me.
A) The right of women to control over their own reproductive process has been the law of the land since the 1970s. I strongly suspect that if men could also get pregnant this right would have been a blanket assumption going back at least to the founding, if not further. There are MANY, MANY limitations on how this right is exercised, and many restrictions in place currently on tax revenue being spent on abortion. ( red herring) B) The ACA doesn't require them to cover abortions, and their objection to Plan B is founded on, at best, outdated science (as the medical professional in the thread has explained), or at worst, a simple desire to control their employees' reproductive lives and a disingenuous smokescreen of an argument as to why. (Granted, and you are now engaged in character assassination? You have no way of knowing that they are being disingenuous or dishonest, OR that they desire to control their employees reproductive lives. Their ignorance is blatant on the issue of the "abortion pills" but you CANNOT therefore infer, that they are guilty of what you insinuate they are. Toit, I hardly feel that telling my child I am not going to pay for their condoms and birth control is "controlling their reproductive rights!" They have a right to have sex, the outcome of penis+vagina+male orgasm= baby. Its not MY problem if my daughter has sex and gets pregnant. That is HER right. BUT it is NOT her right, to reach into MY wallet and pay to rewrite the equation above ^ into penis+vagina+male orgasm =/= baby. The same goes for employee-employer relations. The employee can drop their flies and get freaky, but THAT is their right. NOT dropping their flies, making an oopsie (or not wanting to start a family just yet) and forcing their employer (who objects to the practice of ending that oopsie) to end it.) C) If Christians or other religious business owners can make up excuses to break the law by saying "I think babies = God's", therefore, since I know God's will, I am allowed to defy the law, where does that get us? Hey, the Amish believe that hard work is the path of godliness! Since "work = God's", does that mean than an Amish employer can ignore any labor regulation that it wants? Can they deny their employees overtime pay on the basis that working overtime will be rewarded in heaven?( equating pay to abortion and birth control is the WORST kind of equivocation fallacy ive seen in a long time. Basic concepts like paying your employee a decent and reasonable wage, providing safe working conditions etc.. are biblical principles you may be amused to know, but also conditions of employment that we as a nation have deemed (thanks to unionized labor no less) basic and proper. The employer must provide a certain level of care for its employees. But how do you then jump to the ridiculous "you gotta pay for my indiscretions/ family planning/ stupidity/ tragic incident!" ?! I dont see how this even remotely falls into the realm of employer responsibility)
thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote: [I find it so amusing that he, a member of our rule of the majority style government, is mad the the majority. Not only that, he thumbs his nose at the "political preachers" i.e. vocal majority, and tells them to effectively "STFU AND BE HAPPY WE DONT THROW YOU IN PRISON YOU PRETENTIOUS PRICKS!" Such a beacon of legislative neutrality and unbiased representation he is.... ( if I could pour condensed sarcasm onto my keyboard right now I would)
You've got it backwards. Political preachers are not and were not the vocal majority. They are a (frequently obnoxious) minority, one Goldwater experienced attempting to bully legislators and impose their personal doctrines as the word of god and the exclusive path of morality.
I was hoping you would say that, because that leads me to my next question. Simply because they are a minority, and are threatening to take their votes elsewhere, that means they should STFU and remove themselves from the public square? Simply because you dont like what they are saying? They are trying to get their voices heard, and feel as if their views and cherished beliefs are being trampled on, ridiculed, and demonized.
I was hoping you would say that, because that leads me to my next question. Simply because they are a minority, and are threatening to take their votes elsewhere, that means they should STFU and remove themselves from the public square? Simply because you dont like what they are saying? They are trying to get their voices heard, and feel as if their views and cherished beliefs are being trampled on, ridiculed, and demonized.
That is quite a wall of quote you have going on there, and a pretty nice False Choice fallacy to boot.
So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.
Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.
Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.
Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.
Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?
As far as the separation of church and state goes, I cite the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate, in which the government of the United States clearly states that the US is not founded on the tenets of Christianity.
The Senate wrote:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.
Was that directed at me? If so, I don't understand the question.
What I mean is, I am sure you would agree that in general, companies should obey the law.
Why should a company be allowed to evade the law or not be subject to it on the specific issue of certain items in a health insurance plan conflicting with the religious conscience of the owners?
What I mean is, I am sure you would agree that in general, companies should obey the law.
Why should a company be allowed to evade the law or not be subject to it on the specific issue of certain items in a health insurance plan conflicting with the religious conscience of the owners?
In general I agree, yes.
I also think the ACA is terrible law that never should have been passed, and I think Roberts was legacy-hunting or outright out of his mind when he decided to call it constitutional.
Companies have to obey the law because not all employees are going to be martyrs and refuse to follow a law, especially a law that benefits them.
Individual employees and the Greens are free to exercise their right as individuals to sue the government and protest peacefully over the law and ignore it for themselves and themselves alone so long as it legal to do so.
My favorite thing to do with news stories like this is to look to the people so to say. I love seeing the reactions people have on the social medias. I saw #HobbyLobby hashtag trending on twitter, and clicked. It was split down the middle of people, "Pray for HobbyLobby" etc... the other was things like, "Glad HobbyLobby is going to incur some fines starting today. That's what you get for being a fascist company "
The first made some what sense, the second type of comments made go Like wtf? I get that you might not agree with their policies, but they're still providing health insurance to their employees, which is a lot better than what some companies are offering their employees. *shrugs* I think the Greens have some of their wires crossed about the "abortion pills" and what not, but remember, the only type of "Safe Sex Practices" for Christians is no sex
At this point I want them to either be fined for being to dumb to realize what drugs really do and wasting the time of the Supreme Court because of it.
Why can't a judge just dismiss the lawsuit on account of them being dumb?
d-usa wrote: At this point I want them to either be fined for being to dumb to realize what drugs really do and wasting the time of the Supreme Court because of it.
Why can't a judge just dismiss the lawsuit on account of them being dumb?
That's what I get for answering my phone while I post...
Either get fined for being dumb, or have it dismissed on account of being dumb.
"The court finds that the complaint is dumb since you can't be forced to violate your faith by paying for abortions since these drugs don't cause them. Your fine is a subscription to medical journals..."
d-usa wrote: That's what I get for answering my phone while I post...
Either get fined for being dumb, or have it dismissed on account of being dumb.
"The court finds that the complaint is dumb since you can't be forced to violate your faith by paying for abortions since these drugs don't cause them. Your fine is a subscription to medical journals..."
We would like to sue the court for making us read. We feel that it is in our rights to ignore free speech when it is in the written word, and we shall not enact the sacred chant of our forefathers. lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!
kronk wrote: I hate that Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays. That's about the only day I have time to swing by there. fethers.
Yeah, I jokingly said that I hope this forces them to change their "pro-religious" policies so they can finally be open on a Sunday...
hell, I'd purposely keep my Hobby Lobby open on a Sunday, just hire anyone that celebrates their holy day on a different day of the week, or ya danged atheists
Note: well aware that if I did have a HL, I couldn't simply because the closed on Sunday is company policy and I'd be out of a job faster than you can say, "he rose again on the 3rd day."
If you do not like a Law:
- Do not obey it and be prepared for the perscribed punishment.
- Fight it in court and see if you can be the next precidence for getting the law overturned.
- Lobby your local representative and give some good reasoning for the need for change.
- Create a petition, setup a website stating your case join with like minded people.
People have a right to determining their lives.
We all buy into our governments and if willing to gain the benefit of it we must be prepared to put-up with or try to legally bring about change what we do not like.
Rebellion is the weapon of last resort usually used when dealling with people of strong "principles" that do not hesitate on imposing on others.
Easy E wrote: So comapnies can choose which laws are terrible and selectively ignore the ones they choose themselves as being terrible?
Can you point me to where I said that? Please stop making gak up and putting it in my mouth. If you're not going to act like an adult, go sit at the kids' table.
A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the Obama administration's birth-control coverage policy for Tom Monaghan, the Catholic billionaire who founded Domino's Pizza.
Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff issued the decision Sunday, less than two days before the policy would have taken effect and exposed Monaghan to fines for non-compliance.
"Plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion," Zatkoff wrote.
"The government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. ... This factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' motion."
Monaghan recently filed suit against the policy, which requires most employers to cover a range of birth-control methods in their health plans. Churches and houses of worship are exempt, and employees of religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic schools will be able to obtain birth control directly from their insurance company, also without a co-pay.
The accommodation does not cover employers who are personally religious and object to their employee health coverage serving as a vehicle for forms of birth control they disagree with, such as the morning-after pill.
The suit comes on behalf of Monaghan and Domino's Farms, a Michigan office park he owns, not Domino's Pizza.
It is one of more than 40 challenges pending against the mandate, many of which come from employers who run secular businesses.
Monaghan also founded Ave Maria University, a Catholic college in Florida, and Legatus, a group of Catholic business leaders. Both organizations have already filed suit over the mandate.
Supporters of the requirement say birth control is essential component of most women's healthcare and should be covered by insurance to make it as affordable as possible.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why do i have a feeling that this only applies to christian beliefs. That is a Jew or Muslim try to do it, they are Ignored?
Because Christians tend to make a lot of noise when things infringe upon their beliefs in this country? Idk
Though, there have been famous people of different religions complaining about doing their job on holidays. There was a stink in the NBA this year about having to play on Christmas instead of enjoying the holiday with their families, couple that with Sandy Koufax and Hank Greenberg missing games on their various post season chasing teams because of Yom Kippur. Note:
I'm sure there are better examples, but those are the only sorts of examples I can think of that are even similar, though in those cases it was more that they didn't play, and not the reasons why (at least what sports media covered)
Easy E wrote: So comapnies can choose which laws are terrible and selectively ignore the ones they choose themselves as being terrible?
Can you point me to where I said that? Please stop making gak up and putting it in my mouth. If you're not going to act like an adult, go sit at the kids' table.
Your right, you didn't say it, you only implied it based on your statement that the ACA was a terrible law, combined with the fact that Hobby Lobby shouldn't follow it. Therefore the Company cna decide what is a terrible law and not follow it. Sorry I actually followed your "argument" to its conclusion and you didn't like where it led.
Also, @Whembly if we can litigate a Comapny not following the Law, we are thereby holding it accountable to that law and not simply letting them decide which law is appropriate for them to follow.
Easy E wrote: So comapnies can choose which laws are terrible and selectively ignore the ones they choose themselves as being terrible?
Can you point me to where I said that? Please stop making gak up and putting it in my mouth. If you're not going to act like an adult, go sit at the kids' table.
Your right, you didn't say it, you only implied it based on your statement that the ACA was a terrible law, combined with the fact that Hobby Lobby shouldn't follow it. Therefore the Company cna decide what is a terrible law and not follow it. Sorry I actually followed your "argument" to its conclusion and you didn't like where it led.
Also, @Whembly if we can litigate a Comapny not following the Law, we are thereby holding it accountable to that law and not simply letting them decide which law is appropriate for them to follow.
E... here's a question for you.
Should Hobbit Lobby just shut up? They're engaging the political/legal process with this... at least they ain't responding violently.
Engaging in the political process is fine. That's why they have lawyers and lobbyists. They cross the line when they refuse to comply after failing to receive and injunction.
Come on, if Hobby Lobby was some kid on a sidewalk at a college campus in California refusing to comply with the law to keep the sidewalk clear, Righties would be cheering them on to get maced. Why the change of heart for Hobby Lobby's failure to comply with the law? Shouldn;t we Mace them too?
Easy E wrote: Engaging in the political process is fine. That's why they have lawyers and lobbyists. They cross the line when they refuse to comply after failing to receive and injunction.
What do you mean by "cross the line"? What line? Legally? I you meant legally, I'm sure they're fully cognizant and are prepared for the consequences.
Come on, if Hobby Lobby was some kid on a sidewalk at a college campus in California refusing to comply with the law to keep the sidewalk clear, Righties would be cheering them on to get maced.
Wait, wut? I wouldn't want to mace 'em.
Why the change of heart for Hobby Lobby's failure to comply with the law? Shouldn;t we Mace them too?
O.o
If you disagree with their position, you can affect them other ways. Don't patronize their business... and/or support ogranizations that protest against them.
Easy E wrote: Your right, you didn't say it, you only implied it based on your statement that the ACA was a terrible law, combined with the fact that Hobby Lobby shouldn't follow it. Therefore the Company cna decide what is a terrible law and not follow it. Sorry I actually followed your "argument" to its conclusion and you didn't like where it led.
So when I agreed with Killkrazy that companies should follow the established laws, you thought that meant I believed Hobby Lobby shouldn't follow the law? Interesting.
Look, if you're just not going to read them, why even bother responding to my posts?
Easy E wrote: Come on, if Hobby Lobby was some kid on a sidewalk at a college campus in California refusing to comply with the law to keep the sidewalk clear, Righties would be cheering them on to get maced. Why the change of heart for Hobby Lobby's failure to comply with the law? Shouldn;t we Mace them too?
Except can we use an older version of the mace this time around?
whembly wrote: Are they willing to pay the 1.2 million daily fine?
Makes no difference. They can pay or go out of business. What will actually happen its they will get a reduced fine if the courts side against them. Unless our goverment takes the stance that top defy them is to go out of business.
Easy E wrote: Come on, if Hobby Lobby was some kid on a sidewalk at a college campus in California refusing to comply with the law to keep the sidewalk clear, Righties would be cheering them on to get maced. Why the change of heart for Hobby Lobby's failure to comply with the law? Shouldn;t we Mace them too?
Except can we use an older version of the mace this time around?
Technically that's not a mace, that's a morningstar. The spikes give it away.[/medieval weapon geek]
Easy E wrote: Come on, if Hobby Lobby was some kid on a sidewalk at a college campus in California refusing to comply with the law to keep the sidewalk clear, Righties would be cheering them on to get maced. Why the change of heart for Hobby Lobby's failure to comply with the law? Shouldn;t we Mace them too?
Except can we use an older version of the mace this time around?
Technically that's not a mace, that's a morningstar. The spikes give it away.[/medieval weapon geek]
I'm OK with people using those on the Hobby Lobby as well.
Political disagreement = call for violence
How subtle.
Oh come on I'm just joking, I don't actually condone violence on them and violence should only be seriously considered in any situation if all other options are exhausted and you can justify such an action.
Well that was a boring and rational response to Auston's post. I'm disappointed. For a thread about religion AND politics, we're being awfully kind in here...
Any more news on this? Google isn't turning up anything of interest.
kronk wrote: The only news I have is that I still get their weekly email with 40% off coupons and 50% off framing, and they're still fething closed on Sundays.
They did a great job with my Badab War Poster, though.
Spoiler:
But when you had it made, did you mention that those Space Marines worshipped a corpse-god? Because odds are that if you did mention it, they would have refused you service for worshipping false idols!
Also Phantom, they would be fine since 1/3 of the Christian God is a zombie angel, and another 1/3 is a spirit to begin with. The dead practically rule christianity!*
*This is said from someone that was raised in a Catholic household, and is said in jest
Easy E wrote: Come on, if Hobby Lobby was some kid on a sidewalk at a college campus in California refusing to comply with the law to keep the sidewalk clear, Righties would be cheering them on to get maced. Why the change of heart for Hobby Lobby's failure to comply with the law? Shouldn;t we Mace them too?
Except can we use an older version of the mace this time around?
Technically that's not a mace, that's a morningstar. The spikes give it away.[/medieval weapon geek]
O.o... that it was more like:
????
That's a mace-and-chain. Somewhere along the line, someone (probably Gygax) called one a morninstar and there's been confusion ever since.
Some people seem to be backing Hobby Lobby on this issue, likely because they are on the same side of the debate over woman's rights.
But if this goes through and Hobby Lobby wins an exemption on religious grounds, how about some Jehovah's Witness-based company deny Easter and Christmas holidays on the same grounds? Or Tom Cruise denying.... whatever he believes to be evil... lets say coffee... to the crew of his next film?
But if this goes through and Hobby Lobby wins an exemption on religious grounds, how about some Jehovah's Witness-based company deny Easter and Christmas holidays on the same grounds? Or Tom Cruise denying.... whatever he believes to be evil... lets say coffee... to the crew of his next film?
Do Jehovah's Witness' fund Christmas? Does Tom Cruise buy the coffee? Not really applicable situations.
But if this goes through and Hobby Lobby wins an exemption on religious grounds, how about some Jehovah's Witness-based company deny Easter and Christmas holidays on the same grounds? Or Tom Cruise denying.... whatever he believes to be evil... lets say coffee... to the crew of his next film?
Do Jehovah's Witness' fund Christmas? Does Tom Cruise buy the coffee? Not really applicable situations.
Businesses must pay their employees extra on statutory holidays. Jehovah's Witnesses could try to get out of this on religious grounds.
The Tom Cruise thing was a bit of a joke, but I think production companies provide food and drink to the crew do they not?
This. I worked on Christmas Eve and received no extra pay. There is no law that demands this and Federal holidays are only required to be observed by the state.
Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Thanksgiving, Remembrance Day, Canada Day, and a few others are statutory holidays up here. Full time employees get a day off with pay or overtime if worked.
Don't you guys even get Xmas Day and July 4th? Are there any paid holidays at all in the land of the free?
Depends on the employer. There is no law about having holidays off, holiday pay, etc besides those that only effect government offices.
The US recognizes 11 Federal Holidays: New Years Day, MLK Day, Inauguration Day, Washington Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
On those days the Federal Government doesn't usually work and employees are paid. States sometimes do the same but there is no law that binds private employers to the standard (Banks regularly do however do the same things).
Typically a full time job will probably give someone most of these days off work (but may not be paid).
LordofHats wrote: Depends on the employer. There is no law about having holidays off, holiday pay, etc besides those that only effect government offices.
While there certainly is no law requiring it, I have yet to work for a manufacturing company that doesn't have holiday pay, time off for salaried folks on holidays, etc.
LordofHats wrote: Depends on the employer. There is no law about having holidays off, holiday pay, etc besides those that only effect government offices.
While there certainly is no law requiring it, I have yet to work for a manufacturing company that doesn't have holiday pay, time off for salaried folks on holidays, etc.
Agreed, I have 9 paid days off due to company holidays. So with that list that was given of federal holidays, I work a chunk of those, but like I have New Year's Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th and and 5th this year, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Black Friday, and Christmas... so there are plenty of days that I have work when others don't, but yeah... The ONLY job I've ever worked that worked on a holiday was when I worked at a summer camp. I "technically" didn't get memorial day off, but our boss was visiting family and told us to go home for the long weekend, but I should have had to work, and for the 6 years I worked there, I never once had a July 4th off.
This. I worked on Christmas Eve and received no extra pay. There is no law that demands this and Federal holidays are only required to be observed by the state.
True, though Christmas Eve isn't a federal holiday.
This. I worked on Christmas Eve and received no extra pay. There is no law that demands this and Federal holidays are only required to be observed by the state.
True, though Christmas Eve isn't a federal holiday.
It's a good thing Hobby Lobby wants to fight for it's right to deny other people their rights. I try to avoid that place whenever convenient. I'll be sure to try extra hard now.
Maybe they should stop covering anti-depressants because people should just "think themselves happy" like Paul said? Or maybe stop covering allergy meds because it's all in their head anyway. Or stop covering diabetes medicine because those people just need to lose weight (body is a temple, afterall). Or stop covering vaccines because they cause terrible unproven side effects. Or stop covering anything that assists in blood flow because it's a sexual enhancer and that's dirty. Or stop covering anything at all, because faith should be enough to get healing.
I don't like where this is potentially going. Not saying it absolutely would, but the potential is scary.
dogma wrote: True, though Christmas Eve isn't a federal holiday.
True . Though, FedEx policy is that holiday pay is given on Christmas Eve IF someone has been working there a year and I haven't been there that long. Way back many summers ago when I worked at Sonic, I was working there on Christmas eve and Christmas day. Flip'n burgers.
kronk wrote: The only news I have is that I still get their weekly email with 40% off coupons and 50% off framing, and they're still fething closed on Sundays.
They did a great job with my Badab War Poster, though.
a framing shop would most likely done a better job for half the price
I tend to support a local economy, no big box stores or mega chains. These days they need the help
kronk wrote: The only news I have is that I still get their weekly email with 40% off coupons and 50% off framing, and they're still fething closed on Sundays.
They did a great job with my Badab War Poster, though.
a framing shop would most likely done a better job for half the price
I tend to support a local economy, no big box stores or mega chains. These days they need the help
I'm OK with people using those on the Hobby Lobby as well.
At least the poor employee getting bashed with it will have their medical costs for *that* paid.
Unless you masturbate on it and somehow get her pregnant by hitting them with it, I suppose...
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: It's a good thing Hobby Lobby wants to fight for it's right to deny other people their rights.
What is scarier is that there are companies that don't provide any health benefits. Just how evil are those for 'denying other people their rights' !!!
Oh wait, employee subsidized health care is NOT a right... Seems some people for get this.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: It's a good thing Hobby Lobby wants to fight for it's right to deny other people their rights.
What is scarier is that there are companies that don't provide any health benefits. Just how evil are those for 'denying other people their rights' !!!
Oh wait, employee subsidized health care is NOT a right... Seems some people for get this.
If the law tells you to include contraceptives for your employees and you don't you're denying them a right written down in law. Pretending otherwise is pretty silly.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: It's a good thing Hobby Lobby wants to fight for it's right to deny other people their rights.
What is scarier is that there are companies that don't provide any health benefits. Just how evil are those for 'denying other people their rights' !!!
Oh wait, employee subsidized health care is NOT a right... Seems some people for get this.
If the law tells you to include contraceptives for your employees and you don't you're denying them a right written down in law. Pretending otherwise is pretty silly.
This. And a company that picked and chose for arbitrary reasons is guilty of denying as far as I'm concerned.
CptJake wrote: Employer provided health care is not a right. If it was every single employer would have to offer to sudsidize health care.
Pretending otherwise is pretty silly.
If the law tells you to include contraceptives for your employees and you don't you're denying them a right written down in law. Pretending otherwise is pretty silly.
CptJake wrote: Employer provided health care is not a right. If it was every single employer would have to offer to sudsidize health care.
Pretending otherwise is pretty silly.
While we could have an esoteric discussion about the true nature of rights, for all intents and purposes a law which stipulates that person X must provide something to person Y is granting person Y the right to that thing.
Maybe in the UK. Sadly, this opinion is not Universal.
Heh, that's funny. You typed "sadly" when you meant "fortunately."
Because watching those less fortunate than you (universal "you", not personal "you"), suffer, provides endless hours of priceless entertainment, am I right? Where is that "high five" emoticon? Oh, here it is:
Sadly, the mindset of "if you are poor and didn't work hard enough to have enough money for healthcare then you deserve to die" is not uncommon in the US.
Believe our Keeper of Secrets, Cannerus, is talking about God not existing, and thus saying that God told them is stupid... but I could be wrong. Far be it from me to know what a daemon prince of slaanesh is up to.
Believe our Keeper of Secrets, Cannerus, is talking about God not existing, and thus saying that God told them is stupid... but I could be wrong. Far be it from me to know what a daemon prince of slaanesh is up to.
To be fair, there are a fair number of religious scholars who believe that a person claiming to have spoken to God is most likely either a liar, or insane.
Maybe in the UK. Sadly, this opinion is not Universal.
Article 25 of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.
Just so we're clear it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's about as binding as my Declaration of AustonT Supremacy I wrote on a napkin at McDonalds.
d-usa wrote: We passed a constitutional amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution saying that we don't have to listen to nothing the UN does. So there...
They should stop wasting their time.
UN dealings are done by the federal government.
methinks you need to read up States vs Federal rights.
Basically, OK said "Feth off!".
The only way that changes is if the US Congress ratifies a treaty stating as such (which it ain't).
Basically Oklahoma wasted their time. Here is the thing about these kind of voter initiatives: most of them don't mean jack and get thrown out the first time they are challenged in court.
In 2010 it was a state question about "international law is not valid in Oklahoma and Sharia law is not valid in Oklahoma" (despite the fact that any international law ratified by the US is the law in Oklahoma. They also had a state question about voter ID, a state question about "the official language in Oklahoma (english)" and a law forbidding the State from enforcing ObamaCare.
In 2012 we had questions about banning affirmative action, lowering property taxes, exempting things from property taxes, and abolishing the Department of Human Services.
These questions were put on the ballot by a Republican controlled legislature and you can probably see pretty clearly which people think all these are great ideas. And that is the point of these state questions. Quite often they are not meant to be actual real laws that stand the test of time. Their main purpose is to make the masses go "I'ma gonna vote to make them Mexicans speak English and keep the Muslims out of our courts and stick it to ObamaCare" because they know that once the conservative voters are in the polling places to stick it to Mexicans/Muslims/Obama they are going to go ahead and vote for the Republican candidates since they are already there. People might not be passionate enough to go out of their way to vote for a candidate, but these kind of issues appeal to them enough to make the drive to fill out a ballot. States with Democratic controlled legislatures do the same thing.
You don't put ballot initiatives up for a vote because you think they will all pass, you put them on the ballot to make your base come and vote.
Yeah, that idea totally blew up in Repub faces in Minnesota thsi year when the Repub Legislature added a Gay Marriage and Voter ID Amendment to our ballot.
Turns out it didn't drive any more Conservatives to the ballot, but it sure did mobilize the Democrats. They were completely swept out of the State Legislature.
I almost felt bad, but then I figured "you reap what you sow", or something.
Been thinking about it more and I want to clarify, I don't think doing something because you believe in god is stupid. Lots of people don't kill and rape people because they believe in god. I support this notion. When people let practicality fall to the wayside or go out of their way to inconvenience others, that's an issue for me. I'm sure most of these people would rather have someone willingly choose not to use the morning after pill, so why not give them the choice? Why not allow propaganda posters in pamphlets in the employee break room while following the law, which has been proven to be supported by scripture, in this thread? I don't know why finding a middle ground ahs to be the end of the world for one group and that's okay while if another group tried to not compromise on the same issue, they would be shot down. People should (generally) be able to make their own choices, and a wage-slaver (anywhere that pays less than $10/hr in my book) already has too much control over a person's life in terms of scheduling and stress level for them to have even more power.
One thing about Hobby Lobby though, and remember that I think they should face the full amount of the fines for the current situation here:
All other things considered they are a pretty decent company. Their starting pay is $9 for part time workers, and $13 for full time workers. Benefits are pretty decent, vacation times, you are actually off every Sunday (even if you are not going to church it is nice to have a weekend day off), and the insurance is decent (and does cover birth control). The majority of people I know that work for them are pretty happy.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: I don't think doing something because you believe in god is stupid. Lots of people don't kill and rape people because they believe in god. I support this notion.
Why shouldn't we call it stupid? Yes, they're doing the right thing, but for a bad reason. It's entirely coincidental that their flawed decision-making process happens to lead to a good outcome in those cases, and it's not at all necessary to use that flawed process to come to the right conclusion. Consider an analogy: if you're mad at your boss and decide to shoot him, but at the last second he ducks and the bullet hits a serial killer (who you didn't see) standing behind him about to shoot an innocent person and kills the would-be murderer you don't deserve praise. Morally speaking you're still guilty, you just happened to benefit from blind luck and do the "right" thing.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: I don't think doing something because you believe in god is stupid. Lots of people don't kill and rape people because they believe in god. I support this notion.
Why shouldn't we call it stupid? Yes, they're doing the right thing, but for a bad reason. It's entirely coincidental that their flawed decision-making process happens to lead to a good outcome in those cases, and it's not at all necessary to use that flawed process to come to the right conclusion. Consider an analogy: if you're mad at your boss and decide to shoot him, but at the last second he ducks and the bullet hits a serial killer (who you didn't see) standing behind him about to shoot an innocent person and kills the would-be murderer you don't deserve praise. Morally speaking you're still guilty, you just happened to benefit from blind luck and do the "right" thing.
God is no different.
Except that shooting people and not raping them is not even close to the same. Thanks for failing. If you think you can control what everyone thinks OR if you think only your way is the appropriate way, you are set up for major dissappointment. You are going to do things that you will later realize were for stupid reasons and you'll want some slack.
Also note that I think most people would be happier not believing in god and making peace with themselves, but I don't give a gak one way or the other. If we shame them for thinking that way, they are justified in shaming us back for the same thing. The easiest route is just not to care.
Gnnnnnnaaahhhhh.... It's somewhat different, in the sense that the beleiver didn't actually have an evil aim by worshipping God. He doesn't ''miss'' his aim, he just happens to hit a target he beleived was pointed at him by someone who doesn't exist.
A better analogy would be : Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if most of those decisions are good anyhow?
Or
Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if those decisions end up being the same as what a rational being would make anyhow?
You missed the point of the analogy. You didn't shoot someone, you stopped a horrible crime and just happened to use a gun shot as the method for stopping it. The result is clearly a good thing under pretty much any ethical system (one dead murderer, one about-to-be-victim not dead), but the motivation behind the act was wrong and it's only coincidence that it happened to cause a good result. We can simultaneously be glad that the serial killer is dead and the victim is still alive, but also convict the "hero" of the story for attempted murder in trying to kill their boss and just happening to fail in a way that benefited society.
God is no different because the reason for not killing and raping is a bad one. The supposed "word of god" that you're obeying has no credibility, and you're obeying out of nothing more than obedience to perceived authority. So we can say that it's good that you don't behave in certain evil ways but also say that obeying god is a stupid act. You shouldn't avoid raping and murdering because god told you to, you should refrain from doing those things because they're wrong.
In short: doing good things for bad reasons doesn't change the fact that your reasons were bad.
If you think you can control what everyone thinks OR if you think only your way is the appropriate way, you are set up for major dissappointment.
Where did you get the idea that it's possible, or even desirable, to control what everyone thinks? I never said that, I just said that the fact that people sometimes do good things out of religious belief doesn't negate criticism of that belief.
You are going to do things that you will later realize were for stupid reasons and you'll want some slack.
Since when does my selfish interest in getting favorable treatment from society mean that I'm not justified in criticizing others, no matter how bad their motivations are?
If we shame them for thinking that way, they are justified in shaming us back for the same thing.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Gnnnnnnaaahhhhh.... It's somewhat different, in the sense that the beleiver didn't actually have an evil aim by worshipping God. He doesn't ''miss'' his aim, he just happens to hit a target he beleived was pointed at him by someone who doesn't exist.
Except that the lack of "evil aim" was pure coincidence. The believer's motivation is "god told me to do this", it's just coincidental that in a particular case "this" is "don't murder anyone" instead of "murder everyone who believes in the rival god". The exact same motivation leads very easily to the latter.
A better analogy would be : Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if most of those decisions are good anyhow?
Yes, we should call them stupid. Or, to mirror the original statement better, we should consider their actions stupid, since overall they might be a fairly intelligent person who just happens to have this one stupid belief.
Should we call stupid someone who'se every decisions are made by an imaginary friend, if those decisions end up being the same as what a rational being would make anyhow?
See above about attacking the belief, not the person. And yes, we should say that their actions are stupid because it's blind luck that they're the same as what the rational being would do. Betting your life and all of your money on a single roll of the dice is a stupid act, even if you happen to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Why should we call it "stupid" in the first place?
Ask the person who I quoted. I'm not sure where the whole "stupid" comment originated and I'm not going to bother digging through a 9-page thread to find out, I'm just objecting to their criticism of it.
You missed the point of the analogy. You didn't shoot someone, you stopped a horrible crime and just happened to use a gun shot as the method for stopping it. The result is clearly a good thing under pretty much any ethical system (one dead murderer, one about-to-be-victim not dead), but the motivation behind the act was wrong and it's only coincidence that it happened to cause a good result. We can simultaneously be glad that the serial killer is dead and the victim is still alive, but also convict the "hero" of the story for attempted murder in trying to kill their boss and just happening to fail in a way that benefited society.
God is no different because the reason for not killing and raping is a bad one. The supposed "word of god" that you're obeying has no credibility, and you're obeying out of nothing more than obedience to perceived authority. So we can say that it's good that you don't behave in certain evil ways but also say that obeying god is a stupid act. You shouldn't avoid raping and murdering because god told you to, you should refrain from doing those things because they're wrong.
The practicality is that some people don't do lots of bad things because they believe in god/karma/whatever. Whether that''s a good reason or not, again, I could give a gak. I can't control what they think (possibly outside of influencing my circle of friends), so what can I really do about it? Whine? I agree it's a terrible reason. many people think lots of what I do is for terrible reasons. I also agree that it can lead to really horrible extremes (though many belief systems/philosophies have the same fate).
Where did you get the idea that it's possible, or even desirable, to control what everyone thinks? I never said that, I just said that the fact that people sometimes do good things out of religious belief doesn't negate criticism of that belief.
If one criticizes people who already aren't going to listen, what purpose does the criticism serve if not to attempt to curb that behavior? Maybe blowing off steam, but that only goes so far.
Since when does my selfish interest in getting favorable treatment from society mean that I'm not justified in criticizing others, no matter how bad their motivations are?
All I'm saying is whining creates either noise or change, and I prefer quiet. You're making me feel dirty for defending them, stop it
How exactly are they justified?
The same way you feel justified. See how that works?
Ask the person who I quoted. I'm not sure where the whole "stupid" comment originated and I'm not going to bother digging through a 9-page thread to find out, I'm just objecting to their criticism of it.
No, I'm more than capable of seeing through that weak attempt at deflection.
I don't care where it originated, I care about the specious argument you made by way of it. If you are going to make a comment, you should at least understand what you intended in doing so. And you very clearly made a comment questioning why we should refrain from calling decisions made according to a belief in God stupid.
Except that the lack of "evil aim" was pure coincidence. The believer's motivation is "god told me to do this", it's just coincidental that in a particular case "this" is "don't murder anyone" instead of "murder everyone who believes in the rival god". The exact same motivation leads very easily to the latter.
That's awfully reductive. You don't know what's the beleiver's motivation in beleiving, just that he beleives. His motivation might be that he thinks God gave us moral intuitions to guide us, it might be a respect of the scripture, or it might be simply that it's his need of 'goodness' in the world that oriented him toward beleiving in the first place.
See above about attacking the belief, not the person. And yes, we should say that their actions are stupid because it's blind luck that they're the same as what the rational being would do. Betting your life and all of your money on a single roll of the dice is a stupid act, even if you happen to win.
Maybe it's not blind luck? Maybe everyone more or less have the same inner drives, and just have a variety of different myths to justify them? Everyone has a tendency to inflate the content of their consciousness, after all.
Maybe everyone more or less have the same inner drives, and just have a variety of different myths to justify them? Everyone has a tendency to inflate the content of their consciousness, after all.
I'd also argue that the majority of discourse is not related to bashing religion, but questioning the need to bash religion by default. We could actually get somewhere with this one and it's staying civil more or less.
More and more, everytime I read about something like this, all I can think is that we know that making contraception freely available reduces the number of abortions by about 80%. As such, the absolute best way to stop the number of abortions is to promote access to contraception. And yet we do not see that. Instead we see bs like the people in the OP's post.
Ultimately, it becomes impossible to believe that the groups who carry on about abortion are genuine in their protests. If they were they would have embraced the real, practical methods of reducing abortions that are available. Instead they carry on about they being oppressed... because their real interest is in seeing themselves as poor, unfortunate martyrs.
Kovnik Obama wrote: That's awfully reductive. You don't know what's the beleiver's motivation in beleiving, just that he beleives. His motivation might be that he thinks God gave us moral intuitions to guide us, it might be a respect of the scripture, or it might be simply that it's his need of 'goodness' in the world that oriented him toward beleiving in the first place.
I can be reductive because "because of belief in god" was a premise of the statement I was responding to. It's explicitly about someone who does good things because of their religion, not someone who does good things because they're a good person and just happens to be religious as well.
And all of those "alternatives" are still bad reasons.
Maybe it's not blind luck? Maybe everyone more or less have the same inner drives, and just have a variety of different myths to justify them? Everyone has a tendency to inflate the content of their consciousness, after all.
Except we've seen "obey god" be used for both good and bad things in the past. You can't single out the people that do good and praise their motivation while ignoring the people who use the same motivation to do bad things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: And you very clearly made a comment questioning why we should refrain from calling decisions made according to a belief in God stupid.
No I didn't.
I objected to a specific appeal to consequences as a reason for not calling acting based on a belief in god stupid.
I said nothing about other reasons for not calling acting based on a belief in god stupid. For example, my criticism would not apply to someone who said that it's not stupid to act based on a belief in god because look over here, god is yelling at you to do something and you really don't want to kindle the anger of the lord. Granted, there would be other objections to that, but that's separate from the specific issue I was criticizing.
Or, if you wanted to ignore the factual/moral questions involved, my criticism also wouldn't apply to someone who said that we should refrain from calling actions based on a belief in god stupid because it's rude to call someone stupid.
You might have a point if I was arguing that if we ever meet someone who acts out of a belief in god we should yell at them for their stupidity, rather than just pointing out something in a forum debate. Apathy is a comment about behavior, it isn't an argument.
azazel the cat wrote: As an interesting note, I don't believe the Bible actually says anything about abortion... the entire anti-abortion sentiment was something that began amongst the "new wave" of Evangelical Christians sometime in the late 1970s. In fact, it almost shifted overnight. Prior to Jerry Falwell & friends, the Evangelicals didn't seem to have the objections that they do now.
Yep. Into the mid-70s concern about abortion was seen as a Catholic thing.
But then the new generation of evangelical leaders, the New Christian Right, saw abortion as a great way to draw in the large Catholic vote to their growing power bloc. It didn't work as intended, the Catholic vote remained as hard to capture en masse as it always had, but it did work incredibly well in forming the opinions of evangelicals - abortion went from being an issue they barely considered, to a cornerstone of their political beliefs. Given the nature of movement though, and the dishonest nature of its leadership, there was little discussion or conversation on the issue, just a sudden ramping up in sermons about abortion and the need to end the practice, and no commentary on why now all of a sudden it had become an issue. They just pretended they'd always believed it.
As a protestant idea, the belief that life begins at conception is younger than the Happy Meal. But finding evangelicals that know that is incredibly hard.
Peregrine wrote: You might have a point if I was arguing that if we ever meet someone who acts out of a belief in god we should yell at them for their stupidity, rather than just pointing out something in a forum debate. Apathy is a comment about behavior, it isn't an argument.
And arguing a course of thought is a legitimate form of debate. And implying that I'm apathetic is far different from realizing that I'm arguing the path of least resistance on this issue.
Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
sebster wrote: More and more, everytime I read about something like this, all I can think is that we know that making contraception freely available reduces the number of abortions by about 80%. As such, the absolute best way to stop the number of abortions is to promote access to contraception. And yet we do not see that. Instead we see bs like the people in the OP's post.
Ultimately, it becomes impossible to believe that the groups who carry on about abortion are genuine in their protests. If they were they would have embraced the real, practical methods of reducing abortions that are available. Instead they carry on about they being oppressed... because their real interest is in seeing themselves as poor, unfortunate martyrs.
er... what? Got a citation on that 80% statistic?
Contraceptives aregenerally available... thing is, you gotta get the girls to use 'em as directed (folks forget about that too).
Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
A little... but, hey... that's what the people elected for... *shrugs*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GalacticDefender wrote: Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
Isn't it great that we live in a country where we think we shouldn't use to obey the law and should not be fined when we don't like the law.
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
Isn't it great that morning after pills are also cheaper than raising a child.
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
Isn't it great that we live in a country where we think we shouldn't use to obey the law and should not be fined when we don't like the law.
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
How is Hobby Lobby not displaying an even greater sense of entitlement? And we're not talking about free morning after pills. Insurance still costs money.
Figure given there is for a reduction in abortions by 873,000. There's about 1.1 million abortions a year at present. 80%.
Contraceptives aregenerally available... thing is, you gotta get the girls to use 'em as directed (folks forget about that too).
They're available, but they're not free. In most cases they're not even cost prohibitive, but they're still not free.
Now, contraception even at its current price might be a hell of a lot cheaper than an abortion let alone raising a kid, and so you'd think that'd be enough to make sure everyone that didn't want a kid used them. That was the general assumption for a long time in health policy circles. It reduced unplanned abortions and pregnancies massively, but it didn't remove them entirely, especially not among the poor. I think most of that is that the poor, typically, don't make great financial decisions*. Doubly so for the young and poor. To a lot of folk, $10 for condoms or the pill feels like a lot, when they can't really conceptualise the $50,000 or $100,000 they'll pay over the next 18 years for a kid, and so they skip on the condoms or the pill, and end up with an unplanned pregnancy.
But when something is free, they'll use it, and studies in the field have shown most women choose IUDs. Now, $5,000 for a 10 year implant might seem like a lot, but it's a lot cheaper than paying a mum the single parent pension, or the costs generally associated with raising a kid raised by a Mum who wasn't ready yet.
And if what you really want is no more abortions, well then its both a moral imperative and a great way to save money. And yet the idea is not only unsupported among abortion groups, it's responded to with absolute hostility. One has to wonder why.
*Poor financial decision making is both a consequence of being poor and a major reason they're poor in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
Isn't it great that common sense public policy that benefits all parties (less overall cost to government, less abortions) is railed against through some gibberish notion that someone else gets something they didn't personally earn.
"Who cares if we'd all be better off, that person would be better off without earning it, and that's unacceptable!"
Figure given there is for a reduction in abortions by 873,000. There's about 1.1 million abortions a year at present. 80%.
Contraceptives aregenerally available... thing is, you gotta get the girls to use 'em as directed (folks forget about that too).
They're available, but they're not free. In most cases they're not even cost prohibitive, but they're still not free.
Now, contraception even at its current price might be a hell of a lot cheaper than an abortion let alone raising a kid, and so you'd think that'd be enough to make sure everyone that didn't want a kid used them. That was the general assumption for a long time in health policy circles. It reduced unplanned abortions and pregnancies massively, but it didn't remove them entirely, especially not among the poor. I think most of that is that the poor, typically, don't make great financial decisions*. Doubly so for the young and poor. To a lot of folk, $10 for condoms or the pill feels like a lot, when they can't really conceptualise the $50,000 or $100,000 they'll pay over the next 18 years for a kid, and so they skip on the condoms or the pill, and end up with an unplanned pregnancy.
But when something is free, they'll use it, and studies in the field have shown most women choose IUDs. Now, $5,000 for a 10 year implant might seem like a lot, but it's a lot cheaper than paying a mum the single parent pension, or the costs generally associated with raising a kid raised by a Mum who wasn't ready yet.
And if what you really want is no more abortions, well then its both a moral imperative and a great way to save money. And yet the idea is not only unsupported among abortion groups, it's responded to with absolute hostility. One has to wonder why.
*Poor financial decision making is both a consequence of being poor and a major reason they're poor in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Geemoney wrote: Isn't great that we live in a country were we think its our right to have our employer provide free morning after pills, and we think it is okay to fine that employer millions of dollars a day when we don't get what we want. Sense of entitlement much?!?
Isn't it great that common sense public policy that benefits all parties (less overall cost to government, less abortions) is railed against through some gibberish notion that someone else gets something they didn't personally earn.
"Who cares if we'd all be better off, that person would be better off without earning it, and that's unacceptable!"
Hmm interesting...
I don't think that access to contraceptive has changed all that much to account for that shift.
*shrugs*... I don't care either way, just wondering where you got that figure.
But, I sort of question the fact that just because BC are free that it'll directly cause that much of a shift.
I don't think that access to contraceptive has changed all that much to account for that shift.
There hasn't been a shift. The point is that is what abortion numbers are expected to shift by if free contraception was offered.
But, I sort of question the fact that just because BC are free that it'll directly cause that much of a shift.
Well, you can question it all you want, but it's what studies undertaken in the real world have indicated. That is, when people have been offered free contraception of their choice, that's how much behaviour has changed. The number of studies are still limited so the end result of the policy is hardly absolutely guaranteed, but to a large extent the findings of real world studies ought to matter than what people just kind of figure will happen.
And yet, in anti-abortion circles the response is either silence or a hostile rejection of the figures. If the motive was really about ensuring no unborn is to be wilfully destroyed, well public policy just offered a means to reduce the abortions by 800,000 a year. That's more than the whole movement has managed in sum total over 40 years. And yet they don't like. Because ultimately the anti-abortion movement basically isn't motivated by reducing abortions.
I objected to a specific appeal to consequences as a reason for not calling acting based on a belief in god stupid.
No, no you didn't. Cannerus said that he did not believe acting according to a hypothetical belief in God was stupid, because such a belief can motivate people to do good things. You responded to this by asking why we shouldn't call it stupid. At no point was the existence of God discussed, and it certainly wasn't implied that God exists because a belief in His existence motivates people to do good things; which would be required for an appeal to consequence in this case.
However, what you did do is beg the question, erect a strawman and, just now, employ kettle logic.
GalacticDefender wrote: Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.
Yeah, I casually mentioned this to my wife who is a big Hobby Lobby fan... or she was. She has also now banned us from ordering Dominoes Pizza as well.
Worse, she actually means it! I remember about 15 years ago, a local Pizza Hut didn't honor a coupon. She vowed to never go back. That location went out of business and was demolished 8 years ago, and I finally convinced her this year that it was okay to support our new local franchise owner who opened up 6 months ago.
If she says she isn't shopping someplace again, she really means it. She's down right hardcore about it.
Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.
Frazzled wrote: Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.
Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.
If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.
Frazzled wrote: Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.
Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.
If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.
Do other cities actually enforce this law? I've never seen anyone get a ticket because fido made his pees and poops on your yard.
Frazzled wrote: Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL!
Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.
Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.
If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.
Do other cities actually enforce this law? I've never seen anyone get a ticket because fido made his pees and poops on your yard.
Frazzled wrote: Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL! Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.
Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.
If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.
A. If they lose the suit then pay the fine. But lets stop this nonsense about them being evil and worthy of protest. Jeez. Get off the high horse people. B. TBone does poop on the sidewalk because: 1) he goofs up and can't see whats grass and whats sidewalk; or 2) he's that mean.
Frazzled wrote: Hobby Lobby is just evil EVIL for following their religious beliefs. EVILLLLL! Its better they go out of business then have their better paid employees continue to suffer so. In fact all their employees should quit and go work for that paragon of employment - McDonalds.
Break the law, pay the fine. It doesn't matter how many good things they might do.
If your dog poops on the sidewalk and you don't clean that up, you still pay a fine even if T-Bone is a model citizen dog otherwise.
Do other cities actually enforce this law? I've never seen anyone get a ticket because fido made his pees and poops on your yard.
No, but people get in fist fights over it.
Try to attack me for Rodney pooing in your yard and TBone will pee on your shoe. Its what he does and he does it well.
GalacticDefender wrote: Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.
Yeah, I casually mentioned this to my wife who is a big Hobby Lobby fan... or she was. She has also now banned us from ordering Dominoes Pizza as well.
Well To be fair, Banning Dominoes is a rational decision even if you are not against their beliefs.
GalacticDefender wrote: Or we could just choose to not go to hobby lobby simply on the grounds that they are religious nuts? I can get my paintbrushes and model rocket engines elsewhere.
Yeah, I casually mentioned this to my wife who is a big Hobby Lobby fan... or she was. She has also now banned us from ordering Dominoes Pizza as well.
Well To be fair, Banning Dominoes is a rational decision even if you are not against their beliefs.
Why? When it comes to chain pizza places, Dominoes is great now that they no longer serve cardboard.
I prefer Papa John's if I'm buying chain store pizza. I like a handful of the frozen pizzas better than any of the chain store pizzas, though. I might be weird that way.
Homemade is the best.
Hobby Lobby makes terrible pizzas. They taste like plastic and you can't cook them...
I thnk Papa John's founder felt the need to speak out about the ACA or somethign political too. However, I'm too lazy to look it up, or tellmy wife about it. I have to get delivery pizza from somewhere!
Easy E wrote: I thnk Papa John's founder felt the need to speak out about the ACA or somethign political too. However, I'm too lazy to look it up, or tellmy wife about it. I have to get delivery pizza from somewhere!
Basically "I know I give away millions of free pizzas each year as a promotional stunt, but if I have to give health insurance to people I am charging everyone $.50 more!"
No offense christians.
"
Like 
