BF2S Forums DAST Chat

whats this i hear about obama disregarding catholics freedom of religion.

I don't see it as any less of a violation of their religious freedom as forcing a volcano worshiper to not sacrifice virgins.

We tell native American tribes they can not smoke peyote. We tell Rastafarians they can't smoke pot. Forcing hospitals, universities, and charitable organization to provide adequate health insurance coverage to their employees is not an overbearing violation of their faith. Society has rules that the religious have to follow regardless of what their faith says.

To fall back on religious freedom in such is a way is sort of like defending someone publishing military secrets in newspapers as free speech. In the way there is ''time and place'' limits on free speech there too is a limit on how far you can go with 'freedom of religion'.

Macbeth wrote:

I don't see it as any less of a violation of their religious freedom as forcing a volcano worshiper to not sacrifice virgins.

We tell native American tribes they can not smoke peyote. We tell Rastafarians they can't smoke pot. Forcing hospitals, universities, and charitable organization to provide adequate health insurance coverage to their employees is not an overbearing violation of their faith. Society has rules that the religious have to follow regardless of what their faith says.

To fall back on religious freedom in such is a way is sort of like defending someone publishing military secrets in newspapers as free speech. In the way there is ''time and place'' limits on free speech there too is a limit on how far you can go with 'freedom of religion'.

I agree for the most part.

What makes it all the more annoying is that the religion argument is fairly easy to abuse.

I could start my own religion that refuses to serve black people.  What comes first?  Racial equality or adherence to religion?

Of the federally protected classes, religion should be at the bottom of the list, because it's a choice.  You don't choose your race, gender, handicaps, or sexuality (for the most part).

Religion is a voluntary thing.  If you choose to follow certain traditions, that doesn't mean that society should necessarily have to bow to them.

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I don't see it as any less of a violation of their religious freedom as forcing a volcano worshiper to not sacrifice virgins.

We tell native American tribes they can not smoke peyote. We tell Rastafarians they can't smoke pot. Forcing hospitals, universities, and charitable organization to provide adequate health insurance coverage to their employees is not an overbearing violation of their faith. Society has rules that the religious have to follow regardless of what their faith says.

To fall back on religious freedom in such is a way is sort of like defending someone publishing military secrets in newspapers as free speech. In the way there is ''time and place'' limits on free speech there too is a limit on how far you can go with 'freedom of religion'.

I agree for the most part.

What makes it all the more annoying is that the religion argument is fairly easy to abuse.

I could start my own religion that refuses to serve black people.  What comes first?  Racial equality or adherence to religion?

Of the federally protected classes, religion should be at the bottom of the list, because it's a choice.  You don't choose your race, gender, handicaps, or sexuality (for the most part).

Religion is a voluntary thing.  If you choose to follow certain traditions, that doesn't mean that society should necessarily have to bow to them.

You can't agree with any of it if you really want minarchism like you professed in the other thread. His position is that of government omnipotence.

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I don't see it as any less of a violation of their religious freedom as forcing a volcano worshiper to not sacrifice virgins.

We tell native American tribes they can not smoke peyote. We tell Rastafarians they can't smoke pot. Forcing hospitals, universities, and charitable organization to provide adequate health insurance coverage to their employees is not an overbearing violation of their faith. Society has rules that the religious have to follow regardless of what their faith says.

To fall back on religious freedom in such is a way is sort of like defending someone publishing military secrets in newspapers as free speech. In the way there is ''time and place'' limits on free speech there too is a limit on how far you can go with 'freedom of religion'.

I agree for the most part.

What makes it all the more annoying is that the religion argument is fairly easy to abuse.

I could start my own religion that refuses to serve black people.  What comes first?  Racial equality or adherence to religion?

Of the federally protected classes, religion should be at the bottom of the list, because it's a choice.  You don't choose your race, gender, handicaps, or sexuality (for the most part).

Religion is a voluntary thing.  If you choose to follow certain traditions, that doesn't mean that society should necessarily have to bow to them.

You can't agree with any of it if you really want minarchism like you professed in the other thread. His position is that of government omnipotence.

A suitable limit would involve differences in spending.

If a Catholic hospital accepts public funds, then it shouldn't be able to hide behind religion to prohibit services.

If it's entirely privately funded, then it can.

Macbeth wrote:

I don't see it as any less of a violation of their religious freedom as forcing a volcano worshiper to not sacrifice virgins.

That would result in the death of someone, most likely against their will. Completely different situation.

We tell native American tribes they can not smoke peyote. We tell Rastafarians they can't smoke pot. Forcing hospitals, universities, and charitable organization to provide adequate health insurance coverage to their employees is not an overbearing violation of their faith. Society has rules that the religious have to follow regardless of what their faith says.

Assumes that it's OK to limit those parties' religious practices in that way...

To fall back on religious freedom in such is a way is sort of like defending someone publishing military secrets in newspapers as free speech. In the way there is ''time and place'' limits on free speech there too is a limit on how far you can go with 'freedom of religion'.

First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's a clearly "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which is a blatant First Amendment violation. By forcing a religion to go against its core beliefs in order to meet government mandates for insurance (whose own constitutionality is in question atm), the government is quite blatantly acting against the First Amendment.

As to the "military secrets" comparison, I personally don't care for the practice, but it's protected under the First Amendment, as well.

FEOS wrote:

As to the "military secrets" comparison, I personally don't care for the practice, but it's protected under the First Amendment, as well.

That's apparently not true for Bradley Manning.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As to the "military secrets" comparison, I personally don't care for the practice, but it's protected under the First Amendment, as well.

That's apparently not true for Bradley Manning.

He didn't publish it, Wikileaks did. Manning violated the law by providing classified information to the publisher.

Two very distinct roles.

So if Manning published it himself, he would have been fine?

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

He didn't publish it, Wikileaks did. Manning violated the law by providing classified information to the publisher.

Two very distinct roles.

So if Manning published it himself, he would have been fine?

No, he swore an oath.

So what this really comes down to is contracts, not rights.

Apparently, the same is true with hospitals.

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, he swore an oath.

So what this really comes down to is contracts, not rights.

Apparently, the same is true with hospitals.

You dont get it.

Doesn't it seem strange that you can enter a contract that relieves you of a right, so that then the government has to enforce or otherwise protect someone's ability to eliminate that right?

That's what I'm getting out of it.

Jay wrote:

Actually you did get it you just don't give a f*ck because you hate religion More than you care about people 's rights

I don't care about the supposed right to restrict people based on a tradition or belief system.

If you want to restrict your own behavior, that's fine.  When your traditions start affecting other people, that's where I draw the line.

We have a rather monopolistic medical system to begin with, so when a city with an already limited medical market is limited in its services due to some inane tradition, yes, I do prefer to intervene.

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So what this really comes down to is contracts, not rights.

Apparently, the same is true with hospitals.

You dont get it.

Doesn't it seem strange that you can enter a contract that relieves you of a right, so that then the government has to enforce or otherwise protect someone's ability to eliminate that right?

That's what I'm getting out of it.

Your argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Comparing Bradley Manning to forcing Catholic hospitals to offer insurance with contraceptives covered? Wtf dude. Wtf.

Basically every employer has people sign non-disclosure agreements of some sort. If you work at KFC and divulge the Colonel's secret blend of herbs and spices they will sue you so hard your great grandkids will feel it. The government just has a nice death sentence possibility added to give it extra weight. Bradley Manning committed treason. So, please, for the love of god, explain how treason somehow correlates with insurance.