Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ustrello wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit

Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.

There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.

Relapse wrote:
Wasn't the thing with the Little Sisters that one of the contraceptives was the morning after pill, which they view as abortion?

Partly, yes.

But, I think the lawsuits was for all contraceptives.

I think you were thinking of the Hobby Lobby case.

What was the republicans fears about muslims again? That they would start dictating our laws and turn it into a muslim disneyland? Kinda odd that its okay for christians to do it

 Ustrello wrote:
What was the republicans fears about muslims again? That they would start dictating our laws and turn it into a muslim disneyland? Kinda odd that its okay for christians to do it

Quite... odd.

 whembly wrote:

So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

K... our conversation is done.

I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit

Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.

There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.

Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

K... our conversation is done.

I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.

It's the idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees, demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is... as if Catholic nuns would be a group to ask for contraception.

The Sisters asked for an accommodation waiver from HHS... which were denied at every phase, until the SCoTS remanded the case back to the appellate court and to have the defense (HHS) work on the 'least restrictive' method on a government mandate. The court suggested to HHS that a waiver (which is NOT abnormal) would be considered as 'least restrictive'.

Here we have, a perfect example of how deaf the Obama HHS administration.

What does he really want to say?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit

Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.

There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.

Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

K... our conversation is done.

I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.

It's the idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees, demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is... as if Catholic nuns would be a group to ask for contraception.

The Sisters asked for an accommodation waiver from HHS... which were denied at every phase, until the SCoTS remanded the case back to the appellate court and to have the defense (HHS) work on the 'least restrictive' method on a government mandate. The court suggested to HHS that a waiver (which is NOT abnormal) would be considered as 'least restrictive'.

Here we have, a perfect example of how deaf the Obama HHS administration.

Its this kind of stuff that makes me wish churches were taxed.

I've always stated that Church income should be taxed.

(they are taxed, however, on property, which is their largest holdings...

Also, the outcry seems to have backed off the GOP:

NEW: House Republicans withdraw ethics changes for now, postpone to future date.

— Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) January 3, 2017

Laziness. Such a great hazard. Let's say... Fox News reported that, because I know there's a great chance you won't believe any other news outlet.

Edit: The source is here. Google each item. You'll find them to be true.

 Verviedi wrote:
Laziness. Such a great hazard. Let's say... Fox News reported that, because I know there's a great chance you won't believe any other news outlet.

I'm shocked they did though. I am sure it will be followed up by welfare fraud or Clinton emails.

I just don't get where this government persecution of christians and war on christmas come from. I am sorry being inclusive may tread on your ability to force your views on others.

No, the Fox News thing is me being horrible. I edited to make it productive, instead of just mindless HATE and mud-slinging.

American Christians as a group have a persecution complex. They're used to being in control. That control is slipping. They believe that they are inherently superior to non-Christians, and are pissed that their inferiors are taking control. See, "sin" system.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

K... our conversation is done.

I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.

Let me mansplain you , coming from the Jesus Freak persuasion.

SO the argument is:
1. The First Amendment states that DAS EVILZ GOVERNMENT may not prohibit nor protect a particular religion. Obviously there are exceptions. The argument kind of falls as to whether this is a constituional exception.

2. The government mandated insurance and that employers pay that insurance.

3. Catholic policy is against abortion. Its viewed as a a biggie level sin (Manchu can provide the correct actual doctrine statement, I'm paraphrasing) and akin to murder. Catholic nuns are even more persnickety about the sin thing, being nuns and all.

4. Therefor the government is requiring the Catholic nuns violate their most sacred oaths and pay for murder.

I think we've learned an important lesson here. Don't mess with nuns, especially if they have guns*


*And drive tanks and wear battle armor and have a real thing for that whole purge the heretic with fire thing...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
No, the Fox News thing is me being horrible. I edited to make it productive, instead of just mindless HATE and mud-slinging.

Christians as a whole have a persecution complex. They're used to being in control. That control is slipping. They believe that they are inherently superior to non-Christians, and are pissed that their inferiors are taking control. See, "sin" system.

That depends. In Egypt, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, SA, Syria, and a host of other country's that "persecution complex" is a very very lethal one.

 Verviedi wrote:
Laziness. Such a great hazard. Let's say... Fox News reported that, because I know there's a great chance you won't believe any other news outlet.

Edit: The source is here. Google each item. You'll find them to be true.

Reddit... yeah, that the bastion of journalistic integrity there.

Look, I get you don't like Pence. His advocacy for Traditional marriage puts him as Enemy #1 and thusly, makes him disqualified for public office. That's a fine position to take...

But, it's a wee bit hyperbolic to state that he's advocating for a Theocracy:

the·oc·ra·cy
/THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

I apologize, I should have specified "American". Thank you.

 whembly wrote:


So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

Pretty much, I don't use the NHS but I still pay for it (quite happily I should say). One day I may need it though. Same applies here and echoing what other posters have said; just because you don't think you need it, doesn't mean you won't need it one day.

You'd think from how they'd talk about how oppressed they are, you'd think we were still feeding them to the lions in the Colosseum.

Anyways thats the biggest part that irritates me about the "Religious Right' fear mongering about "Shariah law" yet they constantly try to push their "Abrahamic Law and Morals" on the population through legislation.

 whembly wrote:


Look, I get you don't like Pence. His advocacy for Traditional marriage puts him as Enemy #1 and thusly, makes him disqualified for public office. That's a fine position to take...

1: Marriage has been around before christianity. Men used to marry men to combine wealth and land. This is another example of christianity taking something and trying to conform it.
2: The man has delivered a speech before the entire house of reps about his views on it and how he disbelieved evolution.
3: His views on the LGBT community are quite clear
4: The Trump administration has already stated their views on repealing the Johnson amendment.
5: Pence is a climate change denier
6: Wants to defund planned parenthood
7: Abhors the use of condoms and that people should strictly stick to christian abstinence.

Magister wrote:

 whembly wrote:


So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

Pretty much, I don't use the NHS but I still pay for it (quite happily I should say). One day I may need it though. Same applies here and echoing what other posters have said; just because you don't think you need it, doesn't mean you won't need it one day.

But we don't have the NHS.

You pay taxes that in turn funds the NHS.

In the US, Obamacare isn't even healthcare... it's primarily a set of regulations and mandates for the health insurance industry. The consumers has to 'go shop' for and 'pay for' an insurance plan. Ergo, you are participating in a transaction that may or may not infringe on your beliefs.

Huge difference.

We have an "NHS-like" program, and it's called Medicaid (the state's insurance program for the poor, elderly and disabled) and it's not even an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Look, I get you don't like Pence. His advocacy for Traditional marriage puts him as Enemy #1 and thusly, makes him disqualified for public office. That's a fine position to take...

1: Marriage has been around before christianity. Men used to marry men to combine wealth and land. This is another example of christianity taking something and trying to conform it.
2: The man has delivered a speech before the entire house of reps about his views on it and how he disbelieved evolution.
3: His views on the LGBT community are quite clear
4: The Trump administration has already stated their views on repealing the Johnson amendment.
5: Pence is a climate change denier
6: Wants to defund planned parenthood
7: Abhors the use of condoms and that people should strictly stick to christian abstinence.

That's your justification for his disqualification? Cool.

Doesn't mean he's an advocate for a theocratic system.

 Frazzled wrote:

If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.

I guess a better question would be, is why are health insurance companies - and by extensions their subscribers - paying for contraception. Its not a medical issue.

It sure as hell is.

My wife has to take birth control for reasons related to endometriosis. We very much want to have more children, but can't, but leaving her condition untreated will only lead to more permanent damage, more constant pain, more surgeries and more complications.

There are many, many medical reasons why a woman might need birth control.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.

I guess a better question would be, is why are health insurance companies - and by extensions their subscribers - paying for contraception. Its not a medical issue.

It sure as hell is.

My wife has to take birth control for reasons related to endometriosis. We very much want to have more children, but can't, but leaving her condition untreated will only lead to more permanent damage, more constant pain, more surgeries and more complications.

There are many, many medical reasons why a woman might need birth control.

Insurance caps spending on terminal illness in many plans. You use up your cancer payments? Too bad or so we're told. but this is better?

Insurance companies should not be for profit, period.

Paying for monthly pills will save them from having to pay for many expensive surgeries. Just like paying for yearly screenings could save them from paying for expensive cancer treatments.

And I think it's pretty horrible that insurance companies have so many caps on what they'll pay out for treatment.

 whembly wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.

From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).

A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns.
B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives.
C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.

A. Birth control pills have other beneficial uses for women apart from contraceptives.

Of course... there are exceptions. The Church allows it as long as their doctors stipulates the justification the off-label uses of hormonal treatements.

B. That stance shouldn't stop secular laws.

First Amendment would disagree with you.

C. But becoming a member of the Little Sisters is enough for a woman to murder her full-term, healthy baby for fear of her pregnancy being discovered.

And? That's a different issue


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.

From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).

A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns.
B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives.
C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.

If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.

The HHS mandates that their plans must have (ie, pay for it) contraceptives.

Yes, and? The are being made to pay for something they won't use. That's not great, but it's not attack on Christians.

So, you think the sisters should suck it up.

K... our conversation is done.

Something something bootstraps something something.

I want to know why they should get special treatment. Please tell me that.

 Vash108 wrote:
Insurance companies should not be for profit, period.

NO

Healthcare should not be funded through insurance companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I want to know why they should get special treatment. Please tell me that.

Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.

Sometimes I just want to go around and beat people who hate freedom and with an angry wiener dog.

Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

YES!

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

Yup... pretty much.

Takes the " participating in a transaction that may or may not infringe on your beliefs " out of the equation.

Sure, some will fight it because it's MOAR GUBMINT! But, it's a defacto government system anyway...

 Frazzled wrote:
Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.

No, the first amendment says that nobody gets special treatment. If the rule is "everyone must do X" your organization's religious beliefs don't matter, you still have to do X. Giving special privileges to religious groups is going against the first amendment.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.

No, the first amendment says that nobody gets special treatment. If the rule is "everyone must do X" your organization's religious beliefs don't matter, you still have to do X. Giving special privileges to religious groups is going against the first amendment.

So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?

 jasper76 wrote:
Just so it will have been said, a single payer system would eliminate this issue altogether.

That sounds suspiciously like a National Health Service. Has anyone ever mentioned that American politics is just plain, well, insane*?


Not my first choice of word. But, filters.