Obama plays his Catholic allies for fools

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Er... because of this little thing called "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

What religious exercise are they prohibiting?

The right of the religious hospital not to supply health care with certain reproductive provisions in their health care policy. Provisions which goes against their religious beliefs.

Doesn't US law require health care plans to provide that? I think it does. Again, you're free to practice your religion up to the point it violates law. Would you defend a Rastafarian's use of marijuana?

The decision a couple weeks ago to allow the firing of a religious school teacher (who had just become terribly ill) is opening a dangerous door: a door that allows religious organizations to ignore laws in the name of their religion. Based upon other hateful anti-Islamic sentiments you've expressed in the past, I really doubt you'll defend Muslims if they attempt similar tactics.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Er... because of this little thing called "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

What religious exercise are they prohibiting?

The right of the religious hospital not to supply health care with certain reproductive provisions in their health care policy. Provisions which goes against their religious beliefs.

Any woman in America can get an abortion now so we are just talking about an insurance company billing issue.....

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Er... because of this little thing called "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

What religious exercise are they prohibiting?

The right of the religious hospital not to supply health care with certain reproductive provisions in their health care policy. Provisions which goes against their religious beliefs.

Any woman in America can get an abortion now so we are just talking about an insurance company billing issue.....

No... were talking about a Catholic Hospital or Catholic university being forced to have reproductive services provisions in their health care policies... even though those provisions go against their religious beliefs. Simple. What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your tongue..

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: No... were talking about a Catholic Hospital or Catholic university being forced to have reproductive services provisions in their health care policies....

In America they have to provide it for thier employees, just like they have to provide a safe work envioroment. And not everybody that works at Notre Dame is a Catholic..

plaidvillain wrote: Doesn't US law require health care plans to provide that? I think it does. Again, you're free to practice your religion up to the point it violates law. Would you defend a Rastafarian's use of marijuana?

The decision a couple weeks ago to allow the firing of a religious school teacher (who had just become terribly ill) is opening a dangerous door: a door that allows religious organizations to ignore laws in the name of their religion. Based upon other hateful anti-Islamic sentiments you've expressed in the past, I really doubt you'll defend Muslims if they attempt similar tactics.

Sorry. You liberals are always so keen on that separation clause... not so much now... huh?

(And to answer your deflections separately... "Would you defend a Rastafarian's use of marijuana" Yes. And "Based upon other hateful anti-Islamic sentiments you've expressed in the past"... no, I've made hateful anti-radical-Islam comments in the past... big difference.)

My god you are so full of hypocritical bs...in the Occupy debates, you stuck to the position that their protest was illegal, thus they were criminals and their message was invalid. In discussions on medicinal marijuana, your stance was "its federally illegal, case closed". But now, when it comes to this, you support violations of law in the name of religion. Hypocrite.

You are so flighty, no rhyme or reason...maintaining further discussion with you is a waste of time...but, alas, it's MY error for believing rational discourse with a shill was possible.

plaidvillain wrote: My god you are so full of hypocritical bs...in the Occupy debates, you stuck to the position that their protest was illegal, thus they were criminals and their message was invalid. In discussions on medicinal marijuana, your stance was "its federally illegal, case closed". But now, when it comes to this, you support violations of law in the name of religion. Hypocrite.

You are so flighty, no rhyme or reason...maintaining further discussion with you is a waste of time...but, alas, it's MY error for believing rational discourse with a shill was possible.

Well... first off... in many of the cases, the Occupy protests were illegal, both proven out by the law enforcement efforts taken by the police, the mayors and the city councils. So... sorry that I'm right in that regards. And marijuana is illegal... in case you missed it. It has not been federally legalized, but there are certain guarantees in our founding documents that may make it's use in a religious context legal for that use. So... I'm right in that regard. And I'm sorry, I support the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of our Constitution, which has supported Jehovah's Witnesses right to refuse blood transfusions, protected certain strict fundamentalist from accepting vaccines (and there is a LARGE anti-vaccination contingent on the left too!) and in general has protected religions from the intrusions of governments. So... I'm right in that regard.

What's your argument? I'm confused? There is nothing flighty about my positions... they are presented above, very clear and rather supported by law, case law and history. No one is suggesting breaking any laws. I'm for the reasonable enforcement of the law, but it is my error to assume that you are for the fair employment of the law.

This does not help his reelection chances. As a practical matter I would not be surprised for the admin. to give them a waiver.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Sorry. You liberals are always so keen on that separation clause... not so much now... huh?

Everyone gets the same healthcare plan no matter what crazy religion they are..It's like a buffet-You pick n choose what you want....