I Pit Those who Believe in a War on Religion

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I see now that I misunderstood your original question. I didn’t realize you objected to the insurer mandate, as opposed to the employer mandate, since the former is what the thread was about.

That should read “latter”. :smack:

[MaxTheVool]

Bricker: I think you’re kind of missing the point of this thread.

Obviously, the place of religion in a secularly-governed society is a tricky one. Accommodations must be reached. Compromises must be made. Reasonable people can differ on precisely where those lines should be drawn. Throw in a very complicated system of laws and checks and balances and different branches of government and court decisions and so on and so forth and there’s endless room for debate.

What no reasonable person could possibly believe, however, is that whatever the Obama administration and anything other than a fringe of a fringe of the left is either doing or advocating can be reasonably described as a war on religion, an attack on religion, or any such bullshit.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

Bricker: I think you’re kind of missing the point of this thread.

Obviously, the place of religion in a secularly-governed society is a tricky one. Accommodations must be reached. Compromises must be made. Reasonable people can differ on precisely where those lines should be drawn. Throw in a very complicated system of laws and checks and balances and different branches of government and court decisions and so on and so forth and there’s endless room for debate.

What no reasonable person could possibly believe, however, is that whatever the Obama administration and anything other than a fringe of a fringe of the left is either doing or advocating can be reasonably described as a war on religion, an attack on religion, or any such bullshit.

Agreed.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What? No. I’m only talking about (1). I didn’t realize you had a problem with the second one.

I don’t have a substantive problem with the second one. I have a procedural problem: the President doesn’t have the authority to order it, unless pursuant to procedures under the APA.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Eh, to be fair, I also wanted to pit the mind-numbing stupidity of some of those involved in this particular scandal for other reasons.

[foolsguinea]

@Chessic_Sense

Surely you see the difference between a law prohibiting you from practicing your religion (You can’t eat your parents) and a law requiring you to violate your religion (any office-taker must publicly swear the YHWH is the one, true God). Which one does the birth control law look more like?

Um, they are the same thing, you’re picking prejudicial examples.

If I tell you that you can’t donate to charity, that’s forbidding the practice of your religion as much as forbidding you from eating human flesh. If I tell you to violate your religion by swearing allegiance to the Constitution, that’s as much requiring you to violate your religion as making you swear by YHWH.

[elucidator]

Yep. And we do it all the time. Its unavoidable, but we at least try to make reasonable accomodations, and I think, over all, we do well. But if the Amish are going to drive their buggies at night, they have to have reflectors. Period. Full stop.

[Uncle_Jocko]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In related news, religion is apparently considering fighting back.

The Diocese of Sioux City? Those folks out in western Iowa are, how shall I put this, rather hyper-puritanical in their beliefs. Dare I say, Taliban-esque? They did give us the gift of Rep. Steve King, after all.

@MaxTheVool

What no reasonable person could possibly believe, however, is that whatever the Obama administration and anything other than a fringe of a fringe of the left is either doing or advocating can be reasonably described as a war on religion, an attack on religion, or any such bullshit.

Amen, amen, and amen. Yet we find ourselves surrounded, nay, besieged by rank upon rank of unreasonable persons. And they all seem to have megaphones. Or at least blogs and sympathetic news outlets.

[What_the]

@miss_elizabeth

Looks like they do now, asshole.

I’ve never understood why “asshole” is ok but “cunt” isn’t. I guess one is generic enough that you shouldn’t take offense and the other has a more specific nature to it.

[Broomstick]

@Chessic_Sense

Surely you see the difference between a law prohibiting you from practicing your religion (You can’t eat your parents) and a law requiring you to violate your religion (any office-taker must publicly swear the YHWH is the one, true God). Which one does the birth control law look more like?

No one is FORCED to use contraception.

If the church can’t convince it’s followers to forego contraception why should that be the government’s problem?

[Grrr]

I actually heard one of these fucknuts on the radio. He actually called birth control pills, “abortion pills”.

I sincerely hope he was just saying that for hyperbole. Because man, if he wasn’t, that’s a whole new level a stupid I’ve never seen before.

[DianaG]

Really? I see that level of stupid with depressing frequency.

[Evil_Captor]

@Shakes

I actually heard one of these fucknuts on the radio. He actually called birth control pills, “abortion pills”.

I sincerely hope he was just saying that for hyperbole. Because man, if he wasn’t, that’s a whole new level a stupid I’ve never seen before.

It’s not stupid. It’s propaganda. BELIEVING it is stupid. And the Republicans, especially the social conservatives, have a lot of stupid people in their camp. Big tent, indeed!

[elucidator]

@Broomstick

No one is FORCED to use contraception…

There is the method of celibacy by popular demand.

[purplehorseshoe]

@Broomstick

No one is FORCED to use contraception.

If the church can’t convince it’s followers to forego contraception why should that be the government’s problem?

** standing and applauding **

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they’re being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.

[MaxTheVool]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I hope this also includes those atheists who say they’re being persecuted in the US even though atheists in general form some of the wealthiest and most educated portions of the American population and there are numerous atheists in the intellectual fields.

So… you think the level of persecution and discrimination faced by atheists-for-their-atheism and Christians-for-their-Christianity, in the US at present, are comparable?

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

I don’t have a substantive problem with the second one. I have a procedural problem: the President doesn’t have the authority to order it, unless pursuant to procedures under the APA.

What reason is there to think they won’t be promulgating this amendment to the rule under the normal procedures for modifying an interim rule? Are you under the impression that the announcement of a rule never precedes formal notice and comment rulemaking for the final version?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What the hell are you talking about, Quin?

[Sarabellum]

All this controversy ought to be so simple.

If you believe abortion is wrong, it goes against your religion, any reason really, you should do your absolute best to avoid ever having an abortion. **And shut the fuck up about what other people do.
**
If you believe that it’s wrong to be gay, it goes against your religion, it’s not natural, you find the idea of gay sex squicks you out, whatever, you should try to avoid having sex with anyone of your own gender. **And shut the fuck up about what other people do.
**

I think it’s a good motto for most controversial topics. Decide which side of the fence you’re on, and conduct your own life accordingly. **And shut the fuck up about what other people do.
**