Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Obama breaches First Amendment

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default Obama breaches First Amendment

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jGvvTYO-ldZa_Q

    Thought you guys might be interested in this. I'm generally against organized religion, and disagree with it as I might, I still think this is vastly un-American. If you don't feel like reading it. Essentially Obama is forcing the Catholic church and denominations to provide contraception and abortion pills to people. The church said no, this goes against our beliefs we won't do it, Obama said too bad. A number of churches are closing because they don't want to go against their beliefs as well as a few massive religious charities.


    Stop Government intrusion. RON PAUL
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,784
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I really do not see why this is a big deal...

    As a Democrat(only party that remotely fits my views), I believe that the option for everything should always be open to everyone, isn't this the land of the free? I believe in separation of Church & State, if a Catholic organization wants the rights of being government recognized, they should have to comply with regulations. In no way is the government saying "You must use contraceptives", they are just trying to make the option available to everybody.

    Don't get me wrong, I am a Catholic by birth and I went to private Catholic schools my entire life up to date. I am familiar with Catholics and their hypocritical tendencies. They enjoy every moment of telling you what to do, but the second someone bigger than them goes against their "beliefs" they get all high and mighty about how it isn't in God's plan. I believe that Catholics shouldn't look at the letter of the law, but the spirit. Being a good person should be what matters, not sticking it to anyone who doesn't do what you want.

    People need to set their priorities straight. What matters more these days, contraceptives or the economy. I personally think all attention should be payed to the future and ending all of these pointless wars. Those Republican "candidates" need to get their acts together as well, the last 3 months they have spent throwing mud at each other instead of taking stands on issues.

    /Rant. I'm no politician, I'm just a 17 year old High School Senior that thinks our government would be a lot better if people dropped their pride and looked out for the good of others.

    Currently: Working on Defending&Attacking in my Castle-Wars Script
    Project Rebuild: 90M/170M

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The first amendment says we are free to practice our beliefs/religion. You're dealing with an establishment that has very firm convictions against contraception/abortion. Forcing one to violate their beliefs (beliefs that are not illegal) is unconstitutional. It is the same as telling a muslim student to take their head-garb off in school because "it is disrespectful to wear hats in public buildings"
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,784
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nietszche View Post
    The first amendment says we are free to practice our beliefs/religion. You're dealing with an establishment that has very firm convictions against contraception/abortion. Forcing one to violate their beliefs (beliefs that are not illegal) is unconstitutional. It is the same as telling a muslim student to take their head-garb off in school because "it is disrespectful to wear hats in public buildings"
    Yes, we are free to practice our religions, but then where do we draw the line with separation of church and state? What I was trying to say in my last post, is that nobody is going to force the individual to go against their religion. If an institution wants government recognition they should have to follow the laws set down for other institutions, why should they be exempt because of a cross or the like? The individual is still free to not use contraceptives, but the option would be there...I do not see the harm in this.

    Currently: Working on Defending&Attacking in my Castle-Wars Script
    Project Rebuild: 90M/170M

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatDuffy View Post
    Yes, we are free to practice our religions, but then where do we draw the line with separation of church and state? What I was trying to say in my last post, is that nobody is going to force the individual to go against their religion. If an institution wants government recognition they should have to follow the laws set down for other institutions, why should they be exempt because of a cross or the like? The individual is still free to not use contraceptives, but the option would be there...I do not see the harm in this.
    The church doesn't support the use. With his plans, they are forcing churches to supply things they wish to not supply (it goes against their beliefs) and if they don't, they'll be heavily fined.

    It's the same for nurses and abortion. Right now, a nurse has a choice whether they want to take part of doing an abortion or not. If ObamaCare were to come in, the nurse would have to take part in the abortion no matter what (assuming she was ordered to do so.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I understand what you're saying, and in terms of Government recognition, I think I can agree with that, but I think for this mandate to be constitutional there would have to be an option offered to opt out of things like tax exemption to continue with not providing things that go against the Church's beliefs. As of now, that is not an option, and for any church to exist, for any person who believes that "God is my salvation, the only way to be saved is to go to church," to fulfill the rites of one's religious belief, one would have to go against their own foundation of morality. Apart from churches, it is also imposed upon Religious run charities, which, (I'm not sure of the legal status of charities, so I may be open to change my beliefs about this) should not be force to give something against their beliefs when they are already committing resources to what you could call more productive causes.

    E: Sorry I'm multi-tasking so some of that may not have made sense. The essential argument for a religious person would be; "I believe in God, I believe to follow God I need to go to Church, as my religion teaches me Contraception/abortion is wrong, I have to contribute money to the Church, my money should have not go to something I don't believe in" So, in a sense, it does affect the individual and impose on the individual's rights.
    Last edited by Nietszche; 02-08-2012 at 03:16 AM.
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6 Post(s)

    Default

    They're only being forced to supply it if someone wants it, they aren't being forced to push it on anyone. I'm a Catholic, and relatively conservative. This is not a big deal whatsoever.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,784
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    So your saying that just because the Church as an institution doesn't support it, it shouldn't be allowed?

    Currently, with your example of Nurses, the individual is able to choose, but the institution must confine to standards if they wish to be recognized by the government. That is the exact same thing as with this....

    I do not see why this is turning into a religious debate across America.... separation of Church & State

    Currently: Working on Defending&Attacking in my Castle-Wars Script
    Project Rebuild: 90M/170M

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,421
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1442 Post(s)

    Default

    Isn't he just telling them to give people an option? I might be misreading this...

    Current projects:
    [ AeroGuardians (GotR minigame), Motherlode Miner, Blast furnace ]

    "I won't fall in your gravity. Open your eyes,
    you're the Earth and I'm the sky..."


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatDuffy View Post
    So your saying that just because the Church as an institution doesn't support it, it shouldn't be allowed?

    Currently, with your example of Nurses, the individual is able to choose, but the institution must confine to standards if they wish to be recognized by the government. That is the exact same thing as with this....

    I do not see why this is turning into a religious debate across America.... separation of Church & State
    I don't think it's that just because the church doesn't support it it shouldn't be allowed, as I said, I'm generally against religion, but because the church is against it they shouldn't have to partake. Imagine this scenario, Murder is declared legal, the government issues a mandate saying SRL must Kill one child every month or it is heavily fined. As far as I know, I don't think anyone here wants to kill a child, but for SRL to exist it has to do something it does not agree with. I'm assuming you like being part of SRL, you're rights are violated because now, in order to be part of a community which you enjoy, (and for hypothetical purposes you had to donate money to be part of SRL) you would have to participate (by just being apart of SRL) in murdering children.

    EDIT: Flight, if someone chooses to take that option then they're forced to go against their beliefs then aren't they?
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatDuffy View Post
    So your saying that just because the Church as an institution doesn't support it, it shouldn't be allowed?

    Currently, with your example of Nurses, the individual is able to choose, but the institution must confine to standards if they wish to be recognized by the government. That is the exact same thing as with this....

    I do not see why this is turning into a religious debate across America.... separation of Church & State
    If the institution doesn't give into the standards, they are heavily fined. The only way to stay in business, is to give in.

    @Flight
    They're making the church supply contraceptives, the church does not support them and believes they are a sin (hint why they don't want to supply them.)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,421
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1442 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jatex
    @Flight
    They're making the church supply contraceptives, the church does not support them and believes they are a sin (hint why they don't want to supply them.)
    Oh ok. I think I could go both ways with this then. This following statement is not specific to this case, it's just a general idea:

    I believe people should have the options available, even should they choose not to accept them. Just as I think every country should support and allow every religion, not stay one-sided and force everyone to embrace it or leave. Having options available is very important, give people the freedom to make decisions on their own, not be forced into something.

    On the other hand, I don't think it's right what he's proposing twords the churches. I personally think they should give out information on where/how to acquire contraceptives should anyone ask, but forcing a church to supply them is a bit overboard. :/

    Current projects:
    [ AeroGuardians (GotR minigame), Motherlode Miner, Blast furnace ]

    "I won't fall in your gravity. Open your eyes,
    you're the Earth and I'm the sky..."


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flight View Post
    Oh ok. I think I could go both ways with this then. This following statement is not specific to this case, it's just a general idea:

    I believe people should have the options available, even should they choose not to accept them. Just as I think every country should support and allow every religion, not stay one-sided and force everyone to embrace it or leave. Having options available is very important, give people the freedom to make decisions on their own, not be forced into something.

    On the other hand, I don't think it's right what he's proposing twords the churches. I personally think they should give out information on where/how to acquire contraceptives should anyone ask, but forcing a church to supply them is a bit overboard. :/
    I'm not against contraception, just forcing an entity or person that doesn't believe in it to hand them out. Catholics that use contraception can still get it, just the church shouldn't be required to provide that contraception. I agree with the information though, I don't think it would be right for a church to withhold information on it.
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    6,424
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Quoted
    863 Post(s)

    Default

    This the reason you live in Canada ^.^

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nietszche View Post
    I'm not against contraception, just forcing an entity or person that doesn't believe in it to hand them out. Catholics that use contraception can still get it, just the church shouldn't be required to provide that contraception. I agree with the information though, I don't think it would be right for a church to withhold information on it.
    ^ I also agree with that.

    It's just the fact that the church has to supply it.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't really care about the immediate consequences of this mandate, I'm not religious in any way and it doesn't affect me at all, but as a philosophy major, I do spend a fair amount of my time focusing on "slippery slopes" and I just think this is one of them.
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nietszche View Post
    Stop Government intrusion. RON PAUL
    I don't even live in USA and I know Ron Paul isn't going anywhere.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What I think is funny is that a lot of people like him but say "I wouldn't vote for him because no one else will" I don't think you're wrong, He's not going to win, I'd be amazed, but I would like to see that man president.
    "Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jatex View Post
    ^ I also agree with that.

    It's just the fact that the church has to supply it.
    Its not llike the church is being forced to hand out condoms, they just have to cover it in the insurance, that is almost like apples and oranges. Why should the athiest music director at a given catholic church not have insurance pay for birth control when its not against her beliefs? No one is being forced to do anything. All this is is giving employees of the church insurance benefits required EVERYWHERE ELSE.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •