Anyone think Administration will lose votes

[byco42]

We live in a society where children are now the bane of its existence rather than the treasure of it. Children are the most abused social group in the world, so it's little wonder that that abuse now begins even before conception!

 

[Michchamp]

We live in a society where children are now the bane of its existence rather than the treasure of it. Children are the most abused social group in the world, so it's little wonder that that abuse now begins even before conception!

do you listen to this guy, by any chance? http://www.freep.com/article/20120213/NEWS05/202130357/Views-on-provocative-Real-Catholic-TV-station-anger-Detroit-archdiocese-and-others?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

he seems 100% crazy to me, but I'm guessing you, KAWDUP and red might feel that while he's a little extreme he has a valid viewpoint, grounded in reality.

 

[byco42]

We live in a society where children are now the bane of its existence rather than the treasure of it. Children are the most abused social group in the world, so it's little wonder that that abuse now begins even before conception!

do you listen to this guy, by any chance? http://www.freep.com/article/20120213/NEWS05/202130357/Views-on-provocative-Real-Catholic-TV-station-anger-Detroit-archdiocese-and-others?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

he seems 100% crazy to me, but I'm guessing you, KAWDUP and red might feel that while he's a little extreme he has a valid viewpoint, grounded in reality.

I recognize him, but I've never talked to him. EDIT: And this is the first I've heard of his program.

Some of his suggestions are beyond the pale. A Catholic dictator? Not something I'd support.

 

[KAWDUP]

If not, we need to back up and analyze what the real issue is again. It is not about contraception, who pays for it, or the big bad Catholic church. Those things upset you, I can see that, but the issue has always been the government telling a church, any church, what they can and can not do.

. . .

No, that's not the issue. The government can tell a church what it can and can't do when it's operating outside the bounds of the actual practice of its religion.

if the church opened a bank and started lending to consumers, they'd have to obey the banking laws.

if the church decided to run a railroad, they'd be subject to the same transportation laws as any other railroad.

they operate a hospital? they have to obey healthcare laws, patient privacy laws, and their employees are subject to the state and federal labor laws.

. . . and there you go again trying to quote me the law. If any of THOSE laws went against a legitimate conscience-based tenet of the religion, there would be the same outcry and it would be supported in the same way by a majority of its members.

. . . and no they shouldn't get out of the hospital business because they do it very well.

Not even trying to make you "get it" anymore because you are somehow arguing that all religion should use your logical, secular approach to looking at things rather than their currently used faith-based way. The world isn't like that whether you want it to be or not. It really doesn't matter how bad you want it to be.

 

[KAWDUP]

We live in a society where children are now the bane of its existence rather than the treasure of it. Children are the most abused social group in the world, so it's little wonder that that abuse now begins even before conception!

do you listen to this guy, by any chance? http://www.freep.com/article/20120213/NEWS05/202130357/Views-on-provocative-Real-Catholic-TV-station-anger-Detroit-archdiocese-and-others?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

he seems 100% crazy to me, but I'm guessing you, KAWDUP and red might feel that while he's a little extreme he has a valid viewpoint, grounded in reality.

I also recognize this guy. He is wrong on several fronts, but does say some things that I don't have a problem with.

For you though:
<<Voris' efforts are financed by Marc Brammer, a business developer for Moody's who lives in South Bend, Ind., and is a member of Opus Dei, a somewhat controversial group known for its traditional views.>>

This is not me - I can understand why you might think so, but I would definitely put him closer to the fringe than you are thinking I would - that is for sure.

Not sure how this applies to the discussion here, maybe you can elaborate? There are very normal everyday Americanized Catholics who are coming out against this health care rule, and I can tell you it has nothing to do with contraception.

 

[redandguilty]

We live in a society where children are now the bane of its existence rather than the treasure of it. Children are the most abused social group in the world, so it's little wonder that that abuse now begins even before conception!

do you listen to this guy, by any chance? http://www.freep.com/article/20120213/NEWS05/202130357/Views-on-provocative-Real-Catholic-TV-station-anger-Detroit-archdiocese-and-others?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

he seems 100% crazy to me, but I'm guessing you, KAWDUP and red might feel that while he's a little extreme he has a valid viewpoint, grounded in reality.

I've already talked about extremist Catholics. There's a better chance of MC becoming one than me.

 

[Michchamp]

No, that's not the issue. The government can tell a church what it can and can't do when it's operating outside the bounds of the actual practice of its religion.

if the church opened a bank and started lending to consumers, they'd have to obey the banking laws.

if the church decided to run a railroad, they'd be subject to the same transportation laws as any other railroad.

they operate a hospital? they have to obey healthcare laws, patient privacy laws, and their employees are subject to the state and federal labor laws.

. . . and there you go again trying to quote me the law. If any of THOSE laws went against a legitimate conscience-based tenet of the religion, there would be the same outcry and it would be supported in the same way by a majority of its members.

. . . and no they shouldn't get out of the hospital business because they do it very well.

Not even trying to make you "get it" anymore because you are somehow arguing that all religion should use your logical, secular approach to looking at things rather than their currently used faith-based way. The world isn't like that whether you want it to be or not. It really doesn't matter how bad you want it to be.

Faith and religion should not trump secular laws in the public realm; that's how I see this. The best argument the church can make is that it's required to operate hospitals as part of the tenets of its religion. I don't believe that's legitimate for a number of reasons, most importantly that they hire and employ lay personnel, they accept public funds, and they accept payment for the services they provide. The only exception would be in regards to some catholic sects (like the aforementioned Alexian Bros) that were founded solely to provide hospital care.

I think for a long time, the church accepted the reality of the situation, and followed laws & regulations related to medical care and labor law, but now they decided to pick a fight over this. Given some of the more notorious church conduct over the years, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they try to "pretend" to get all upset over what they perceive to be some deep affront to their faith.

you obviously sincerely believe this stuff, and if I've gotten too heated in some of the things I've said, I apologize.

BUT I think you guys would be singing a different tune here if, say, a non-religious organization, for example a community center, or a bank, affiliated with the Muslim faith was refusing to obey some aspect of a federal law or regulation because it conflicted with Sharia law.

 

[Michchamp]

do you listen to this guy, by any chance? http://www.freep.com/article/20120213/NEWS05/202130357/Views-on-provocative-Real-Catholic-TV-station-anger-Detroit-archdiocese-and-others?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

he seems 100% crazy to me, but I'm guessing you, KAWDUP and red might feel that while he's a little extreme he has a valid viewpoint, grounded in reality.

I've already talked about extremist Catholics. There's a better chance of MC becoming one than me.

no there's not.

 

[redandguilty]

. . . and there you go again trying to quote me the law. If any of THOSE laws went against a legitimate conscience-based tenet of the religion, there would be the same outcry and it would be supported in the same way by a majority of its members.

. . . and no they shouldn't get out of the hospital business because they do it very well.

Not even trying to make you "get it" anymore because you are somehow arguing that all religion should use your logical, secular approach to looking at things rather than their currently used faith-based way. The world isn't like that whether you want it to be or not. It really doesn't matter how bad you want it to be.

Faith and religion should not trump secular laws in the public realm; that's how I see this. The best argument the church can make is that it's required to operate hospitals as part of the tenets of its religion. I don't believe that's legitimate for a number of reasons, most importantly that they hire and employ lay personnel, they accept public funds, and they accept payment for the services they provide. The only exception would be in regards to some catholic sects (like the aforementioned Alexian Bros) that were founded solely to provide hospital care.

I think for a long time, the church accepted the reality of the situation, and followed laws & regulations related to medical care and labor law, but now they decided to pick a fight over this. Given some of the more notorious church conduct over the years, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they try to "pretend" to get all upset over what they perceive to be some deep affront to their faith.

you obviously sincerely believe this stuff, and if I've gotten too heated in some of the things I've said, I apologize.

BUT I think you guys would be singing a different tune here if, say, a non-religious organization, for example a community center, or a bank, affiliated with the Muslim faith was refusing to obey some aspect of a federal law or regulation because it conflicted with Sharia law.

I think I'd sing the same song if the issue was really analogous, but I'd sing it more quietly because of my bias. Really, a specific example would be needed. The issue at hand involves a law involving a practice I don't like (employers providing health insurance) and it puts requirements on people to do something rather than to not do something. There aren't that many of those kinds of laws.

How do they figure out the validity of a religious claim of pacifism if someone doesn't want to register for the draft?

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . and there you go again trying to quote me the law. If any of THOSE laws went against a legitimate conscience-based tenet of the religion, there would be the same outcry and it would be supported in the same way by a majority of its members.

. . . and no they shouldn't get out of the hospital business because they do it very well.

Not even trying to make you "get it" anymore because you are somehow arguing that all religion should use your logical, secular approach to looking at things rather than their currently used faith-based way. The world isn't like that whether you want it to be or not. It really doesn't matter how bad you want it to be.

BUT I think you guys would be singing a different tune here if, say, a non-religious organization, for example a community center, or a bank, affiliated with the Muslim faith was refusing to obey some aspect of a federal law or regulation because it conflicted with Sharia law.

No worries Champ, just discussing. Sometimes you are passionate about what you believe. It happens.

Well your analogy is a good one. If, the refusal to obey some law was not normally the purview of the federal goverment, then I would be of the same mind that they have a right to be upset with such a law and to work to get it repealed. Can you come up with a relevant example? Most banking laws are the purview of the feds, but I am open to an example.

 

[redandguilty]

The example probably wouldn't be from banking. I think there are Islamic rules against charging interest. ...actually, maybe that's a reason there would be an example in banking. I wonder how Muslim banks even work.

I'm sympathetic to the needs of women that want to wear a veil in places where identity needs to be established. It seems like we should be able to develop a thumb scanner work around to avoid the issue in the places where we cannot provide female screeners.

 

[redandguilty]

 

[byco42]

Faith and religion should not trump secular laws in the public realm; that's how I see this. The best argument the church can make is that it's required to operate hospitals as part of the tenets of its religion. I don't believe that's legitimate for a number of reasons, most importantly that they hire and employ lay personnel, they accept public funds, and they accept payment for the services they provide. The only exception would be in regards to some catholic sects (like the aforementioned Alexian Bros) that were founded solely to provide hospital care.

I think for a long time, the church accepted the reality of the situation, and followed laws & regulations related to medical care and labor law, but now they decided to pick a fight over this. Given some of the more notorious church conduct over the years, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they try to "pretend" to get all upset over what they perceive to be some deep affront to their faith.

you obviously sincerely believe this stuff, and if I've gotten too heated in some of the things I've said, I apologize.

BUT I think you guys would be singing a different tune here if, say, a non-religious organization, for example a community center, or a bank, affiliated with the Muslim faith was refusing to obey some aspect of a federal law or regulation because it conflicted with Sharia law.

The convolution of your arguments are sometimes staggering. Just saying. Linking an axiomatic, first-amendment issue with the acceptance of tax dollars as a contingency for the government to suspend them capriciously when a person or religious institution disputes that suspension? As if to declare "we [government] can remove your rights because we subsidize you?"

And Sharia Law is not the law of this land, though there are some who are trying to get it recognized, so that's not even in the conversation.

And I've not felt a degree of heat in this exchange.

 

[Michchamp]

wow, that editorial cartoon is a solid counter-argument.

 

[redandguilty]

wow, that editorial cartoon is a solid counter-argument.

It's TIME. It's not an argument. It's relevant to the question of perception and impact.