Are Conservitives in favor of Sharia law?

[GenSeneca]

If the law states that all workers should have access to X...

I have asked that you justify the need for a mandate that forces all health insurance plans to cover contraception and birth control products and services, you are yet to even make an attempt.

One reasonable argument would be that contraception and birth control are constitutional rights and that is why such a mandate on health insurance companies is necessary. You need only cite the specific section and clause of the constitution that states health insurance companies, and not the federal government, are responsible for meeting the obligations of the alleged constitutional right.

Another reasonable argument would be that constitutional rights are being violated by the health insurance companies because of their failure to offer contraception and birth control products and services in every single policy. This argument would require that you cite the specific right, or rights, being violated and further explain how this mandate on health insurance companies will put a stop to the alleged violation of rights.

you say it should not apply to people of some Religion...

Incorrect. I have stated that such a mandate is unconstitutional as it violates the religious beliefs of Catholics. Even if the mandate did not violate the religious views of anyone, I would still argue against it on the grounds of it being entirely uncessary.

You begin with the false premise that I support the mandate for everyone else, when in fact I do not. Beyond that, you think I'm arguing that Catholics, and only Catholics, should be exempted from compliance, thus allowing their religious beliefs to trump state and federal law. A false premise serves as the foundation of what you believe my position to be, as a result you are arguing against a position that I do not hold, making your argument a strawman.

I could care less if some Religions own beliefs are overruled by Federal law. It happens a lot...

You should care if our constitutional rights are being violated at the hands of government, even if they are rights that you do not exercise and therefore do not care about.

I can think of two examples where the law trumps religious beliefs/practices, bigomy among Mormons and Honor killings among Muslims. Go back to the beginning of my post where I outline how to make a reasonable case for when laws should trump religious practices/beliefs.

In the case of bigomy, nobody is having their constitutional rights violated by allowing multiple adults to marry each other, therefore, laws against bigomy are unconstitutional as they violate the religious freedom of Mormons without protecting the constitutional rights of anyone.

In the case of honor killings, someone is having multiple constitutional rights violated to satisfy the religious beliefs of Muslims, therefore, laws preventing Muslims from exercising the practice of honor killings are entirely necessary and, because no individual or group has the "right" to violate the rights of others, such laws do not violate the free exercise clause.

Next...

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

America practices dishonour killings with its healthcare program

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I have asked that you justify the need for a mandate that forces all health insurance plans to cover contraception and birth control products and services, you are yet to even make an attempt.

One reasonable argument would be that contraception and birth control are constitutional rights and that is why such a mandate on health insurance companies is necessary. You need only cite the specific section and clause of the constitution that states health insurance companies, and not the federal government, are responsible for meeting the obligations of the alleged constitutional right.

Another reasonable argument would be that constitutional rights are being violated by the health insurance companies because of their failure to offer contraception and birth control products and services in every single policy. This argument would require that you cite the specific right, or rights, being violated and further explain how this mandate on health insurance companies will put a stop to the alleged violation of rights.



Incorrect. I have stated that such a mandate is unconstitutional as it violates the religious beliefs of Catholics. Even if the mandate did not violate the religious views of anyone, I would still argue against it on the grounds of it being entirely uncessary.

You begin with the false premise that I support the mandate for everyone else, when in fact I do not. Beyond that, you think I'm arguing that Catholics, and only Catholics, should be exempted from compliance, thus allowing their religious beliefs to trump state and federal law. A false premise serves as the foundation of what you believe my position to be, as a result you are arguing against a position that I do not hold, making your argument a strawman.


You should care if our constitutional rights are being violated at the hands of government, even if they are rights that you do not exercise and therefore do not care about.

I can think of two examples where the law trumps religious beliefs/practices, bigomy among Mormons and Honor killings among Muslims. Go back to the beginning of my post where I outline how to make a reasonable case for when laws should trump religious practices/beliefs.

In the case of bigomy, nobody is having their constitutional rights violated by allowing multiple adults to marry each other, therefore, laws against bigomy are unconstitutional as they violate the religious freedom of Mormons without protecting the constitutional rights of anyone.

In the case of honor killings, someone is having multiple constitutional rights violated to satisfy the religious beliefs of Muslims, therefore, laws preventing Muslims from exercising the practice of honor killings are entirely necessary and, because no individual or group has the "right" to violate the rights of others, such laws do not violate the free exercise clause.

Next...

I have already said that it was one thing to be against it for everyone...but thats not the current case right now...Its republicans Pushing for exemptions...exemptions they often did not support when they where in office and signed and pushed bills that where the same as what had just passed...Its Hypocrisy. Also the newest golden child of the republican middle ages party has said he would try to flat out ban Birth control..not just deal with if health care should cover it. The fact is the republican party is pushing for a exemptions for there Religion...even though they contend at the same time that all other companies should be held to the law. If you think health care for evryone should not cover it, thats one thing...dumb but a different issue. Fact is, it should be..many Female freinds I know take it for health reasons other then to stop from having a kid..and I am 100% sure if men where the ones who had the kid...this would never be a issue both in law or in the church. I never see Republicans crying about how Viagra is covered..odd.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!

Every American ALREADY has ACCESS to contraception. You libs just want it free...lazy bunch of %@@%#@%#^%$%^$%%&%(%(&&^*&^*&^*)))(*&)*(&%^#%%#

Do libs really believe money grows on trees? It seems so.

Do libs think the constitution grants the President the right to tell private organizations to give their employees free sh*t? Apparently so, which indicates libs do not believe the constitution constraints the President...well...as long as that president is a lib.....HYPOCRISY!!!

talk about a straw man...You know that there are many things required to be covered by health care insurance...odd I don't here republicans crying about anything else. And Hypcracy? why don't you look at all the members of your party who supported the very same rules that where passed under Obama...when it was them in charge. You know guys like Huckabee..Romney. Funny how mad they are at what they supported and has been the case for a long time..because all of the sudden Obama is in office.

 

[dogtowner]

talk about a straw man...You know that there are many things required to be covered by health care insurance...odd I don't here republicans crying about anything else. And Hypcracy? why don't you look at all the members of your party who supported the very same rules that where passed under Obama...when it was them in charge. You know guys like Huckabee..Romney. Funny how mad they are at what they supported and has been the case for a long time..because all of the sudden Obama is in office.

lets see... righties are pretty uniform in wanting Obamacare gone in toto which resolves all issues including keeping "children" well into their 20's on family plans. we also generally feel pre-existin g needed lookin g at but do it the right way. and all righties object to the massive increase in bureaucracy which costs a fortune and bleeds money from the very healthcare the bill claims to want to provide.

thats been consistent from the start.

but this recent provision specifically NOT included in the thousands of pages of the law and resting in the hands of one person was presented for prompt action and demanded attention given it's unconstitutionality.

 

[GenSeneca]

The fact is the republican party is pushing for a exemptions for there Religion...even though they contend at the same time that all other companies should be held to the law.

You excel at being wrong...

The issue has heated up since Jan. 20, when Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius issued a final rule requiring that all women have access to free preventive care services, including contraceptives. The rule includes an exemption for churches and houses of worship, but not for other religious institutions such as hospitals, universities and charities. - USA TODAY​

​

Since it was the Democrats who placed "exemptions for there Religion...even though they contend at the same time that all other companies should be held to the law", are you now going to blast Democrats for "pretty much say[ing] that the rules of there Religion should trump State and Federal law"? Somehow I doubt it... Now what were you saying about hypocrisy?

Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed. That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether," he said, "not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers." ​

...​

"There's no room for compromise on this. The mandate has to go," said John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter and author of numerous books on the Catholic church. "There's not much room for a conversation here." - USA TODAY​

Let's review... Democrats, not Republicans, placed religious rules above state and federal law within their mandate and those who oppose the mandate are not asking for exemptions, as Pocket has claimed, but are actually demanding the entire mandate be repealed.

Thank you Pocket, it's always a pleasure to correct your many errors.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.
In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.
In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."
At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

 

[dogtowner]

Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.
In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.
In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."
At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

please note that the 1st begins with "Congress shall pass no law...". states are not necessarily so restricted.

 

[GenSeneca]

Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.
In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.
In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."
At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

I see you have abandoned the straw man fallacy and gone back to the tu quoque fallacy...

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

Are you going to offer any arguments that are not fallacious?

Perhaps the title of your thread should be changed to: Are Liberals in favor of Sharia Law? After all, it was the Democrats who placed religious exemptions into the mandate, essentially saying that religious laws trump those of state and federal law.

 

[Cruella]

When the Supreme Court throws out the mandate this spring, the whole thing will become moot.

 

[dogtowner]

When the Supreme Court throws out the mandate this spring, the whole thing will become moot.

well only if they further decide that it cannot be unscrewed from the whole law. the administration has already stated they are now ok with unscrewing which represents a change. I really dont expect them to go that far but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.