Are Conservitives in favor of Sharia law?

[Pandora]

From what you have explained of your financial situation, NO ONE is asking you to pay for ANYTHING.

And this issue is NOT about abortion, but access to free birth control, especially for the women who need it the most: those who cannot afford to purchase it themselves, and who can even less afford to bring another child in this world.

By the way, I am not a big supporter (actually not at all) of Sharia law, but it is ALSO BASED on the "conscience" of the Muslims!

Daw is correct. . .very little difference between ANY laws based on religious beliefs (which are all manmade dogmas anyway!)

The morning after pill is not birth control its an instant abortion and if a person wants that then fine but don't ask someone else to pay for it.

Nothing is free, you should be old enough to know that!

 

[dogtowner]

So. . .let's get rid of all the small airports or at the least remove all government subsidies for those. In fact, since so many people cnanot afford to fly even from large airports, why don't we just take away all the subsidies to every airport, and let businesses and wealthy people who want to travel pay for their own airport expenses.

O-M-G now we're talking !

 

[GenSeneca]

...why don't we just take away all the subsidies...

I'm a Capitalist, we don't believe in subsidies of any kind, for anybody, for any reason, ever.

By the way, let's remember that it takes TWO to make a baby. . .

What I said applies to both men and women.

only RELIGIOUS laws are "sent from heaven" and putting ridiculous restrictions on women!

The Catholic's position on birth control applies to men as well. If you don't like the moral restrictions Catholics have against birth control, don't be a Catholic and you will face no such restrictions. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything.

 

[Openmind]

I'm a Capitalist, we don't believe in subsidies of any kind, for anybody, for any reason, ever.


What I said applies to both men and women.


The Catholic's position on birth control applies to men as well. If you don't like the moral restrictions Catholics have against birth control, don't be a Catholic and you will face no such restrictions. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything.

You mean, the Oil companies are not "capitalist?" And all those big business who sent our jobs oversea and still receive subsidies are not Capitalist?
Maybe (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) you are an "original" true, REAL capitalist, a proponent of "THE FREE MARKET," but I hope you realize that that "free market" is no more than an illusion anymore and that original, free capitalism has ran away with all the corporate welfare deals that the GOP would love to continue!

Yes, what you say applies to both men and women. . .unfortunately, men can walk away pretty much unscathed if they get someone pregnant. . . I guess you must be about 80 years old if you believe that an aspirin will do the trick!

No one is trying to force anyone to do anything. . .but someone is trying to keep women (and the men they love) from enjoying a healthy sex life, even if they are still in child bearing age!
I am a Catholic, and it is not the control freaks and silly old geezers at the head of the AMERICAN Catholic Church who will change my mind and my God given free will and ability to think. And if you are part of that "interesting crowd of self annointed God's messengers" I have no more time for you than I do for the other old geezers. . .especially those who hid behind their robes to molest kids or to allow others to molest kids!

 

[Openmind]

The morning after pill is not birth control its an instant abortion and if a person wants that then fine but don't ask someone else to pay for it.

Nothing is free, you should be old enough to know that!

I think you need to get some FACTUAL information re: the morning after pill!

Here is one short overview from the Mayo Clinic:

The morning-after pill can be used after you've had unprotected sex. Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, the morning-after pill can prevent or delay ovulation, block fertilization, or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Don't take the morning-after pill if you're already pregnant.

Even in the case where an egg has already been fertilized. . .as long as it is not implanted in the uterus, THERE IS NO PREGNANCY.

Next, you will want to outlaw masturbation of women's periods. . .because it wastes spermatozoids and eggs!

 

[Openmind]

well if you're talking about the mandatory birth control its a Constitutional matter so yeah, that gets the attention of conservatives.

Yes, it is a constitutional matter. . . and the establishment clause says that not only the government cannot promote an official religion, or forbit the practice of ANY religion, it also says that the government cannot make "special arrangements" based on religious beliefs.

Since birth control pills coverage AVAILABLE (not forced) for every woman working in ANY business large enough to provide health care insurance, regardless of religion or non-religion, it would be a "special accomodation" to allow one group to escape that coverage based on RELIGIOUS beliefs, therefore it is against the First Amendment.

 

[Openmind]

who do you think will be paying for these contraceptives ?

equal protection under the law cannot be if you have multiple sets.

Who do you think will be paying for the additional expenses of the hundreds, maybe tens of thousands, new unwanted birth that may result from a black out on contraception?

Do you think it will cost a mere $30 a month to raise to provide prenatal, delivery and postnatal care for those kids? How about the foster homes, and the schools, and the continued health care, and what about the increased likelihood that many of these unwanted children will become entangled in illegal activities?

Who will pay? Is that an issue the Catholic Church should be considering?
Why aren't they considering the cost of covering Viagra?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, it is a constitutional matter. . . and the establishment clause says that not only the government cannot promote an official religion, or forbit the practice of ANY religion, it also says that the government cannot make "special arrangements" based on religious beliefs.

Since birth control pills coverage AVAILABLE (not forced) for every woman working in ANY business large enough to provide health care insurance, regardless of religion or non-religion, it would be a "special accomodation" to allow one group to escape that coverage based on RELIGIOUS beliefs, therefore it is against the First Amendment.

never saw that bolded part before when I read it. but even if it did it would demand that this provision be unconstitutional on 1st and equal protection..

 

[Openmind]

never saw that bolded part before when I read it. but even if it did it would demand that this provision be unconstitutional on 1st and equal protection..

Well, will this quote be easier to understand for you?

From http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-exercise-clause
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, RELIGION RESEARCH
Free-exercise clause overview

CLAIRE MULLALLY
CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Friday, September 16, 2011
“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)” is called the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. The free-exercise clause pertains to the right to freely exercise one’s religion. It states that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Although the text is absolute, the courts place some limits on the exercise of religion. For example, courts would not hold that the First Amendment protects human sacrifice even if some religion required it. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause so that the freedom to believe is absolute, but the ability to act on those beliefs is not.

Let me remind you that, in this case, Obama is NOT interefering with anyone's beliefs, not even with the ability to act on those beliefs (although the free exercise clause would have allowed him to do so) since he has now charter the private insurance industry to provide free birth control. . .without FORCING ANYONE TO USE IT!

 

[dogtowner]

Well, will this quote be easier to understand for you?


Let me remind you that, in this case, Obama is NOT interefering with anyone's beliefs, not even with the ability to act on those beliefs (although the free exercise clause would have allowed him to do so) since he has now charter the private insurance industry to provide free birth control. . .without FORCING ANYONE TO USE IT!

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200643.htm
perhaps this will help you fully understand the problem.

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and the president of The Catholic University of America were among 300 signers of a letter who called President Barack Obama's revision to a federal contraceptive mandate "unacceptable" and said it remains a "grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand."

On Feb. 10, Obama said religious employers could decline to cover contraceptives if they were morally opposed to them, but the health insurers that provide their health plans would be required to offer contraceptives free of charge to women who requested such coverage.

The change came after three weeks of intensive criticism that Department of Health and Human Services' contraception mandate would require most religious institutions to pay for coverage they find morally objectionable, despite a limited religious exemption.

Now questions have been raised over how the revision announced by the president will pertain to the many dioceses and Catholic organizations that are self-insured and whether it could still force entities morally opposed to contraception to pay for such services.

The letter signed by former Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard and Catholic University's John Garvey, along with professors and other academics, and Catholic and other religious leaders, said it was "an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick."

Other critics also said

the change was a matter of semantics and still failed to address the conscience rights of faith groups and the issue of religious liberty.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, will this quote be easier to understand for you?


Let me remind you that, in this case, Obama is NOT interefering with anyone's beliefs, not even with the ability to act on those beliefs (although the free exercise clause would have allowed him to do so) since he has now charter the private insurance industry to provide free birth control. . .without FORCING ANYONE TO USE IT!

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200643.htm
perhaps this will help you fully understand the problem.

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and the president of The Catholic University of America were among 300 signers of a letter who called President Barack Obama's revision to a federal contraceptive mandate "unacceptable" and said it remains a "grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand."

On Feb. 10, Obama said religious employers could decline to cover contraceptives if they were morally opposed to them, but the health insurers that provide their health plans would be required to offer contraceptives free of charge to women who requested such coverage.

The change came after three weeks of intensive criticism that Department of Health and Human Services' contraception mandate would require most religious institutions to pay for coverage they find morally objectionable, despite a limited religious exemption.

Now questions have been raised over how the revision announced by the president will pertain to the many dioceses and Catholic organizations that are self-insured and whether it could still force entities morally opposed to contraception to pay for such services.

The letter signed by former Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard and Catholic University's John Garvey, along with professors and other academics, and Catholic and other religious leaders, said it was "an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick."

Other critics also said

the change was a matter of semantics and still failed to address the conscience rights of faith groups and the issue of religious liberty.

 

[GenSeneca]

Maybe (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) you are an "original" true, REAL capitalist, a proponent of "THE FREE MARKET," but I hope you realize that that "free market" is no more than an illusion anymore and that original, free capitalism has ran away with all the corporate welfare deals that the GOP would love to continue!

People just like you ended Capitalism and the Free Market long ago. You wanted a Mixed Market and that's what you got, a mix of private and public ownership under the control and regulation of the government. People like you gave government the power to benefit some at the expense of everyone else, and while such action is not allowed under a Capitalist system, you blame the corruption inherent to your own flawed Mixed Market system on a system we no longer use, Capitalism. All while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that your demands to give government even more power to benefit some at the expense of everyone else will only make the problems you claim to hate that much worse.

Yes, what you say applies to both men and women. . .unfortunately, men can walk away pretty much unscathed if they get someone pregnant. . .

Except for the Paternity suit and Child support... All the more reason for both people to act like responsible adults and either pay for their own birth control products or find alternative methods of intercourse.

No one is trying to force anyone to do anything. . .

Except the government... Who is trying to force Catholic organizations to provide insurance plans that cover contraception.

And if you are part of that "interesting crowd of self annointed God's messengers" I have no more time for you than I do for the other old geezers.

What part of "I'm an Atheist" do you not understand?

 

[Openmind]

perhaps this will help you fully understand the problem.



the change was a matter of semantics and still failed to address the conscience rights of faith groups and the issue of religious liberty.

A very strong, unbiased source you provided!
A letter signed by 300 Catholics bigots!

The 1st amendment with its establishment clause AND the free exercise clause is a lot more dependable in term of the constitutional legality of the "protests" by such a tiny portion of Catholics. . .who are totally out of step with their flock!

 

[Openmind]

People just like you ended Capitalism and the Free Market long ago. You wanted a Mixed Market and that's what you got, a mix of private and public ownership under the control and regulation of the government. People like you gave government the power to benefit some at the expense of everyone else, and while such action is not allowed under a Capitalist system, you blame the corruption inherent to your own flawed Mixed Market system on a system we no longer use, Capitalism. All while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that your demands to give government even more power to benefit some at the expense of everyone else will only make the problems you claim to hate that much worse.


Except for the Paternity suit and Child support... All the more reason for both people to act like responsible adults and either pay for their own birth control products or find alternative methods of intercourse.


Except the government... Who is trying to force Catholic organizations to provide insurance plans that cover contraception.

What part of "I'm an Atheist" do you not understand?

You are wrong on all counts. But why should I keep explaining?

If even the words of the first amendment, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause are not enough to convince a supposedly atheist person that the right of women is violated a lot more than the rights of a few bigots, if you do not see that YOU, a stated atheist have for only interest in this the political chess game of your political party who is USING the few bigots in the Catholic Church. . . I have nothing more to say.

You keep your beliefs, I will gladly keep mine!

 

[Openmind]

Just a little reminder of the Catholic Bishops' morality stand:

In birth control fight, Catholic bishops take hard stance on Viagra

ADDICTEDTORADIO FEBRUARY 14, 2012 0

Obviously, the man in this Viagra commercial is all about making babies.
According to the Catholic Church, birth control is “intrinsically evil” and requiring insurance companies to cover it is a “grave moral concern.” But a man’s right to take magical hard-on pills, like Viagra, and to have them covered by his insurance? Why, that’s sacred:

The answer on Viagra coverage is usually yes, Catholic leaders say. And they argue that’s neither hypocritical nor sexist.
Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help.​

Ohhhhhhh. So when Bob Dole started shilling for Viagra at the age of 75, obviously, it was because he was concerned about men not being able to impregnate their wives, right? That’s why all the ads you see for erectile dysfunction medication feature sad young childless couples who just want to be able to procreate, as the Catholic Church dictates. Right? It has nothing to do with old men who can’t get it up and apparently can’t figure out how to please their partners in a non-insert-penis-somewhere way. Or they just don’t care.
But don’t worry. The Catholic Church is on to those few men out there who are considering taking the pill for non-procreative purposes:

Still, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells me that many Catholic-based health plans are now adding caveats that such drugs “should be prescribed for a medically identifiable problem to prevent wide abuse.”​

So Catholic-based health plans warn patients that they should only be taking hard-on pills for the serious “problem” of not being able to get it up to make babies and not for the dirty, sinful problem of just wanting to get laid. Here’s your magic pill, sir, but please remember, it’s for baby-making only. Wink wink.
After all, that’s the only not-sinful reason to have sex, isn’t it? Just ask poster child for Catholic sharia law Rick Santorum. He’ll tell you why he wants to take away contraception, even from married couples, because it just lets them enjoy sex, and God knows how wrong that is:

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.​

Yes. How things are “supposed to be.” Everyone knows sex is only supposed to be between a married man and a woman who want to have babies. Or, you know, between a priest and an altar boy.
http://addictedtoradio.com/in-birth-control-fight-catholic-bishops-take-hard-stance-on-viagra/

 

[GenSeneca]

...the right of women is violated...

Nobody is having their rights violated by Catholic organizations who choose to carry insurance plans that do not offer "free" birth control.