Certain News Outlets Relentless On Mormonism

[ERayR]

Yes, exactly.

It is actually forcing their insurance to abide by current laws. Jehovah's Witnesses have for years had insurance that allows blood transfusions. Note that the Catholics also want this exemption to apply to any business owned by a Catholic. In other words they want to selectively decide which laws they obey and don't obey. Note that no one is actually forcing their employees to use these services.

Forcing the insurance company is a distinction without a difference.

Just because one group has had their rights trampled for years and has not, for whatever reason, disputed the infringement, does not make it constitutional.

[The Nehor]

Forcing the insurance company is a distinction without a difference.

I disagree.

Just because one group has had their rights trampled for years and has not, for whatever reason, disputed the infringement, does not make it constitutional.

The First Amendment does not protect you from having to follow state and national insurance mandates nor do I think it should. It is not forcing anyone to personally violate their religious principles.

Belonging to a pacifistic faith doesn't let you opt out of paying taxes that support the military. Believing public schools are evil does not let you opt out of paying property taxes. Believing that cars are evil does not let me opt out of paying state road taxes. How is this different?

[Darren10]

Yes, exactly.

It is actually forcing their insurance to abide by current laws.

No, it's forcing insurances to abide by new laws which are very likely to be struck down tby the Supreme court and laws which a clear majority of the people do not support. Never before has the government forces anyone to fund birth control. The Roman Catholic Church should no doubt be exempt from such a mandate.

Note that the Catholics also want this exemption to apply to any business owned by a Catholic. In other words they want to selectively decide which laws they obey and don't obey. Note that no one is actually forcing their employees to use these services.

First off, they have every right to exempt all Catholic-owned businesses from the health mandate. You are correct in that they are not forced to use the services but they are forced to a) provide health insurance under the universal healthcare mandate and b) forced to provide funding for what they determine as morally aprehensible. The end result is for Catholci institutions/businesses to drop insurance and thus leading others to get government insurance.

If this Catholic exemption were to be allowed the result would be that insurance legislation would quickly become worthless.

And that is good in my opinion. The mandate itself is unconstitutiona and not desired by the people.

If I were a CEO and this was allowed I'd consider joining the Homeopathic Nutters faith (which I would found) and insist that all modern medicine is against my religion and that the cure for everything is a statistically insignificant amount of arsenic diluted in water.

Go for it. But I think the criteria is that you need to show that this faith just just founded is a sincere faith in that you and your members are applying it into your general living standards. There is court precedent for you to prove this tothe state. As for me, if you can satisfy the state, then the exemption is all yours.

Think of how much we could save if that is all we ever had to fund.

You're living in a dream world, sir. There is not a sinlge nation with universal healthcare, except, perhaps Singapore whose sstem is very different than that of ours and Europe's, which saves money from their healthcare madates. Healthcare mandates always lead to more tax payer costs, less medical access, and less avaialble medical resources. England is a prime example of the nightmare which comes from mandates.

Healthcare mandates also reduces personal freedom. As we see with the Catholic Church, this also includes less religious freedom. And this violation against Cathlic, I fear, is only the beginnig. Regulate health and government can regulate everything. Even religious practice.

[Darren10]

How is this different?

Everything you cited is for the public good with public access. Roads, the military, schools, are still accessible to al and provide protection to all. Even those who disagree with their establishment. What the healthcare mandate does is force everyone to buy personal health insurance or to sign up for government insurance. In other words you are forced to buy a private product. There is no mandate to buy a car or a school books. Besides, the Amish do not pay road taxes, roperty taxes, or are mandated to send their kids to school beyond the age of 12 I think. I believe that 12 is when they consider kids to become adults.

[Darren10]

I find it hard to stop blatantly propagandizing for the Rhinoceros Party.

Just don't do it here. Especially on my own open thread.

Nehor has been thread banned.

[The Nehor]

No, it's forcing insurances to abide by new laws which are very likely to be struck down tby the Supreme court and laws which a clear majority of the people do not support. Never before has the government forces anyone to fund birth control. The Roman Catholic Church should no doubt be exempt from such a mandate.

I think it will make it through the Supreme Court and I don't agree that most people are opposed to it. If they are they really should make more of a stink about it and start telling legislators they are going to be losing their jobs.

First off, they have every right to exempt all Catholic-owned businesses from the health mandate.

Nope, that would be a First Amendment violation. Everyone has to abide by the law except for the Catholics. They're exempt.

You are correct in that they are not forced to use the services but they are forced to a) provide health insurance under the universal healthcare mandate and b) forced to provide funding for what they determine as morally aprehensible. The end result is for Catholci institutions/businesses to drop insurance and thus leading others to get government insurance.

Okay, but then I wish them luck attracting employees.

And that is good in my opinion. The mandate itself is unconstitutiona and not desired by the people.

I must have missed the clause about birth control. I'll have to reread it later.

Go for it. But I think the criteria is that you need to show that this faith just just founded is a sincere faith in that you and your members are applying it into your general living standards. There is court precedent for you to prove this tothe state. As for me, if you can satisfy the state, then the exemption is all yours.

Not a chance of it working.

You're living in a dream world, sir. There is not a sinlge nation with universal healthcare, except, perhaps Singapore whose sstem is very different than that of ours and Europe's, which saves money from their healthcare madates. Healthcare mandates always lead to more tax payer costs, less medical access, and less avaialble medical resources. England is a prime example of the nightmare which comes from mandates.

I'm not supporting universal healthcare. I think the United States would be better off if it eliminates the monopolistic health insurance groups and either goes with a more capitalistic model or a more socialist model. It's trying to do both that is making it far too expensive. We need to make a choice. I don't have a strong opinion either way myself.

Healthcare mandates also reduces personal freedom.

So does marriage, traffic laws, property laws, and income tax. I'm not allowed to abandon a spouse with my children without having to pay child support, drive 100 mph in a school zone, defecate on my neighbor's lawn, or refuse to pay taxes so I can buy more delicious candy. The reduction of personal freedom is not a trump card that makes something unsound. The question is if the reduction in personal freedom creates enough other good to be worth the cost.

As we see with the Catholic Church, this also includes less religious freedom. And this violation against Cathlic, I fear, is only the beginnig. Regulate health and government can regulate everything. Even religious practice.

Slippery Slope fallacy.

[cinepro]

I have to admit, if the Republican candidate were from another religion such as Jehovah's Witnesses or SDA and they had something like the "White Horse Prophecy" in their culture (if not their doctrine), I might be a little curious about it and wonder how it might influence that person's view of the Presidency.

[thesometimesaint]

First off, there are *certain* nuns who support the healt mandate. These nuns tend to be first and foremost, pro-abortion and openly support the abortion efforts of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Second, even if all nuns supported this mandate, which is hardly the case to begin with, then, "so what?" Nuns have no authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if all nuns supported of the health mandate, what right or power is the government have to mandate an action from any church which the church deems as immoral? This has NEVER before been supported in the US. Certain religious groups may refuse schooling for their children, refuse drafts, and may pick up poisonous snakes if they desire to. These group's freedom to do so has always been recognize in the US. Never before have they been forced to comply with a mandate they deem immoral.

The question is what law did they violate? If the gay couple wanted a photographer, the they can find one. Heck, they can even go to a friend and ask thim or her to take pictures. Sexual orientation is not a standard frame from which to prohibit discrimination. That's like saying a restaurant may get sued for insisting that females use the female restroom and males use only the male restroom. There have always been discrimination of gender and sexual orientation. Rights of sexual orientation is very new in this country and the Founders clearly had no intention of granting any such rights upon homosexuals.

As for me, it really does not bother me so much that there are homosexuals as there are gay activists. The logical end of their efforts, as far as I see, is to empower the state to force churches to comply to their demands of "equality". Freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Discrimination agaist sexual orientation is nowhere to be found in the same document. The former, as per how the Constitution has evolved, is granted to all the latter should be left to the states. Personally, i'm against granting any such right bt it's up to each state to do so.

When individuals voluntarily place a plaque of the Ten Commandments, they should not be prohibited by ther state to do so. Same goes for crosses. The prohibition against making laws which establish a state religion applies to atheism as much as it does to any other religion. By outright prohibiting the Ten Commandments being displayed in courthouses or any other publicly-funded institution, establishes atheism.

The government had no business prohibiting polygamy in the first place. Mormons violated no law by practicing it. In addition, the government was outright malicious in attempting to enforce anti-polygamy laws. They relied upon lies and even used the US military to enforce these laws. But, in the end, the laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court (in my opion the court wascorrect so long as it applied to Utah which at the time was a federal territory) and, more importantly, the people upheld it. Done deal in my book.

A pro Abortion Nun whod athunk it.

The law doesn't require Nuns or anyone else from refusing/accepting any medical service they want to. It merely states that a church can't force non believers of that church to practice that faiths beliefs. Just as the Mormon's can't force non members to practice Mormon beliefs. A Secular state is a wonderful thing.

You could not legally refuse the Draft. If legally applied for you could receive a deferment, or legal exemption from actual combat.

Be as uneducated as you want. However NO parent can refuse education to their children. It is called educational neglect and is a serious legal violation.

The Founders clearly didn't want those under 21 years old, Indians, women, Negroes, non property owners, and certain religions from having rights at all. Please join the latter part of the twentieth century if not the twenty first. BTW Homosexuals are nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution

You can handle snakes all you want. What you can't do is force anyone else to handle them. There are no moral exemptions from US law for businesses(including hospitals). Individual churches can receive a waiver, if properly applied for.

Gay, Straight, Bi, Tri, conflicted, all have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The laws against discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation.

The Negroes could always just go to a lunch counter that served Negroes. Heck they just could even have their Negro friends cook for them. Don't you see just how bigoted that sounds?

The Founders clearly didn't want those under 21 years old, Indians, women, Negroes, non property owners, and certain religions from having rights at all. Please join the latter part of the twentieth century if not the twenty first. BTW Homosexuals are nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution.

Your argument is also a Red Herring. Ever been on an air plane? It's unisex bathrooms for everyone. Public Accommodations Law allows for separate restroom facilitates based on sex, but it is not required. Nonspecific sex bathrooms are common, especially where space is at a premium. Hospitals, and restaurants have been using nonspecific sex baby diaper changing tables for years,

They are placing a religious document on publicly owned property. They forcing an establishment of religion on me. A clear violation of not only the letter of the US Constitution, but the written intent of the Founders. Further I find it personally insulting to be forced to have any God paid for by my tax dollars. You keep your religion out of my government, and I promise you I'll keep my government out of your religion. No it doesn't establish Atheism. We are a secular state with the freedom from state interference to worship as we please. The only exception is health and safety codes, and they must not place any undo burden on any church. The state is not going to tell you how, when, where, whom, or what you must worship. We don't leave rights left up to the individual states in the US. That same law that would you would have prohibit others from exercising their rights, can and will be used against you. I'm out to protect your rights as well as mine.

Edited May 31, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[DH]

Certain news outlets will not touch Harry Reaid's religon but Mitt Romney's religion, now that's a different story. Despite the bias and inequality, why not take a moment or two to share with others "what Mormons believe"?

Harry Reid is not running for President. Mitt Romney is. That's why more attention is being paid to Mitt Romney's religion. These are not the only Mormon politicians out there. Just to name a couple, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are Mormons, and Larry Echohawk is a Mormon (though no longer a politician). I never heard anybody talk much about their Mormonism. I'm sure that if Harry Reid or any of the others ran for POTUS, people would pay more attention to their religious beliefs.

Mitt Romney has been very wise in avoiding making this campaign NOT a Mormon campaign.

Agreed. His religion should not be the issue, and neither should Obama's religion be an issue.

Edited May 31, 2012 by DH

[Darren10]

DH

Harry Reid is not running for President. Mitt Romney is. That's why more attention is being paid to Mitt Romney's religion. These are not the only Mormon politicians out there. Just to name a couple, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are Mormons, and Larry Echohawk is a Mormon (though no longer a politician). I never heard anybody talk much about their Mormonism. I'm sure that if Harry Reid or any of the others ran for POTUS, people would pay more attention to their religious beliefs.

Romney's Mormonsim is far more publicized than that of the presidential incumbant's was in 2008. While Harry Reid is not running for president, he is the highest ranking member fo the US Senate. If Romney's religion is suspicious, than why not Harrry Reid's?

[Darren10]

sometimesaint;

I have a somewhat lengthy post for you. I cannot write it right now so I will attempt to do so later today.

[thesometimesaint]

I eagerly await your response. I probably won't be here for the rest of the day as I usually get a life for the rest of the day.

[Darren10]

thesometimesaint;

Rest assured that when i post things about news/politics, I pretty much always do so with a solid general knowledge as to what I'm talking about. So I'll follow up here with some more details.

Pro-choice nuns:

A pro Abortion Nun whod athunk it.

Here's my original statement. I'll place the emphasis in bold:

First off, there are *certain* nuns who support the healt mandate. These nuns tend to be first and foremost, pro-abortion and openly support the abortion efforts of organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Note the original asterices to place emphasis on the fact that note all, neither a majority, of nuns support abortions. But no doubt some have andsome do. I binged "pro-choice nuns" and got three hits that I'd like to share. First:

The Vatican today formally threatened to take disciplinary action against two American nuns who signed an advertisement during the 1984 presidential campaign supporting the right of Roman Catholics to dissent from the church's opposition to abortion. In a statement, the Vatican office that deals with religious orders also said it had cleared an additional 25 American nuns, priests and brothers who also signed the advertisement but have since made ''public declarations of adherence to Catholic doctrine on abortion.'' The two nuns under threat, Sisters Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey, who work in a shelter for the homeless in Charleston, W. Va., have refused to make such a declaration.

VATICAN REPORT THREATENS PRO-CHOICE NUNS

Note that threat of disciplinary action was made by the Vatican in 1984. This leads to my second hit to share:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Two nuns who were threatened with expulsion for supporting a right to an abortion said today that they have resigned from their order.

In June, officials of the Roman Catholic Church had sent word from Rome that they will not proceed with the "process to dismiss" Sisters Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey from the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. Today the nuns said that was justification for their stand and departed.

The same two nuns threated with disciplinary action in 1984 resigned in 1988. That's four years of two nuns being pro-choice and no disciplinary action was taken against them.

Fast foward to recent times:

Despite a public reprimand from her religious order last month, Chicago’s pro-choice Roman Catholic nun, Sister Donna Quinn, is not backing down from her support of abortion rights, applauding the defeat of an amendment today that would have added restrictions to the health care bill for women seeking abortions.

On the day the church honors the Immaculate Conception, or conception of the Virgin Mary, Quinn sent a thank you note to those who lobbied their senators to vote against the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, which lost in a 54-45 Senate vote earlier today.

Pro-choice nun still fighting for women's care

This article was written on 12 / 08 / 09. Following up on Sister Donna Quinn I found this:

With pressure mounting from inside and outside the Church hierarchy, an order of nuns has rebuked a Chicago-area member for volunteering at an abortion clinic, telling her that such actions are "in violation of her profession."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/sister-donna-quinn-domini_n_344089.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/sister-donna-quinn-domini_n_344089.html

That was time stamped on 03/18/10. note that she is *still* a nun. She was 'rebuked" but not disciplined.

So, indeed, "*certain*" nuns are pro-choice. But, like I said, who cares if all nuns were pro-choice. They have no authority to speak on behalf of the Roman catholicv Church. In addition to pro-choice nuns, there's also Catholics for Choice which i find as a bunch of liars who declare Catholicism merely to lend themselves some credibility. They do nothing to promote Catholicism but gravely distort it.

The law doesn't require Nuns or anyone else from refusing/accepting any medical service they want to. It merely states that a church can't force non believers of that church to practice that faiths beliefs. Just as the Mormon's can't force non members to practice Mormon beliefs. A Secular state is a wonderful thing.

Baloney. It forces the Catholic Church to fund something which they categorically denounce as immoral.

The draft:

You could not legally refuse the Draft. If legally applied for you could receive a deferment, or legal exemption from actual combat.

You may be correct on the particulars of involving oneself in the military via a draft call but er'es what i found regarding religious exemptions to the draft:

Conscientious Objection

• 
  Conscientious objection means that a person is opposed to war and to the draft on an ethical or moral basis. He must still register with the Selective Service, and if a draft happens to begin, he must file a conscientious objection claim with his local board. A conscientious objector will need to provide documentation of his beliefs, possibly in the form of witnesses who can testify to his claim. Conscientious objection claims can be based on religious beliefs, but this is not required. Alternative service is an option that may be offered at this point and includes jobs that contribute in a meaningful way to national health and interests.
  

Exemptions and Deferments

• 
  There are many categories under which a young man might file for an exemption or deferment regarding the military draft, but he must apply for these exemptions and deferments. The criteria in almost all of these circumstances are stringent, and claims must be supportable in order to be granted. These exemption and deferment claims can range from financial hardship to mental and physical reasons. A young man applying for an exemption or deferment must be able to submit documentation supporting his claim in order to have his claim granted. Local draft counselors or an attorney can provide advice about specific situations. The local Post Office can provide applicants with information about draft counselors.
  

Read more: Military Draft Rules | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6748452_military-draft-rules.html#ixzz1wUNfuctI

Essentially, there is indeed religious exemption to the draft.

[Darren10]

Continued...

Education:

You said:

Be as uneducated as you want. However NO parent can refuse education to their children. It is called educational neglect and is a serious legal violation.

Here's one thing I said previously about the Amish:

Besides, the Amish do not pay road taxes, roperty taxes, or are mandated to send their kids to school beyond the age of 12 I think. I believe that 12 is when they consider kids to become adults.

I binged "amish exempt from school" and one hit is Amish FAQ.

School for Old Order Amish and Mennonites is only a part of the learning necessary for preparation for the adult world. Children have formal schooling in one-room schools to 8th grade and then have a structured learning program supervised by their parents. Classes in the one-room Amish schools are conducted in English, and the children learn English when they go to school. The teachers are Amish and they have no more than an eighth grade education themselves. When the landmark United States Supreme Court decision of 1972 gave exemption for Amish and related groups from state compulsory attendance laws beyond the eighth grade, Chief Justice Burger wrote: “It is neither fair nor correct to suggest that the Amish are opposed to education beyond the eighth grade level. What this record shows is that they are opposed to conventional formal education of the type provided by a certified high school because it comes at the child's crucial adolescent period of religious development.”

This you may read under, "Why are Amish schools different". I said "beyond the age of 12 I think" and this article says "beyond the eighth grade level". I'll let you decide how accurate I was.

The Founders clearly didn't want those under 21 years old, Indians, women, Negroes, non property owners, and certain religions from having rights at all. Please join the latter part of the twentieth century if not the twenty first. BTW Homosexuals are nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution

You're absolutely wrong about Negroes and the rest they were content to allow the states to decide for themselves. Also, I previously said 9emphasis mne here):

Freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Discrimination agaist sexual orientation is nowhere to be found in the same document. The former, as per how the Constitution has evolved, is granted to all the latter should be left to the states

Originally the rights enumerated in the US Constitution only prohibited the federal fgovernment from violating them, state, on the other hand, were completely autonomous and may decide for themselves which rights to uphold. For example, many states did establish a religion for their state and not a single founding father opposed tihheir cnstitutonal right to do so. They, correctly so, went to their resoective state and opposed its official religion on the state level but never even considered using the federal government to prohibit states from deciding one its own if it had a state religion or not. After the Civil War, howeve,r this concept radically changed. While the union was preserved, and we are very blessed that it was, the 10th amendment took a big hit in that the federal governmet could not impose rights upon all citizens everywhere no matter what the states said. so, there was nothing to prohibit states from granting rights to women 9women sovereignty was first given in wyoming but definitely first practiced in Utah), Indians, negroes, or land owners.

Snakes:

You can handle snakes all you want. What you can't do is force anyone else to handle them.

Nor may you have minors present when handling them. I think that was a wise court decision.

Ten Commandments:

They are placing a religious document on publicly owned property.

Religious along the lines of this?

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Citizens and judges may erect religious monuments in the courts and on inthe public square if they desire. period. No one is forcing anyone to rerad the or to belive them. The judeo-Christian morals are the founding of our legal sstem. period. If you want to erect a declaration in the public square, please do. I don't care what it says (as long as it is not crude or vulgar). The prohibition of erecting religious mounments is censorship of religion. and by doing so, the state also establishing its own religion of secularism/atheism.

[Calm]

I'm all for mocking Dr. Paul but still, you need to stop this on ths website. It's against policy.

Unless you are a mod, you need to use the report function rather than telling others they need to stop something. The mods have asked us to do so and refrain from doing anything else besides pointing to the board rules/providing a link and a quote of them.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Unless you are a mod, you need to use the report function rather than telling others they need to stop something. The mods have asked us to do so and refrain from doing anything else besides pointing to the board rules/providing a link and a quote of them.

When we start the threads ourselves, it has been accepted that we can in large part self-regulate by asking people not to do something or to stay on topic. I suppose Darren citing policy versus thread preference may cross some boundary though.

[Calm]

I had forgotten that Darren had started the thread. That's makes a big difference.

[Darren10]

Unless you are a mod, you need to use the report function rather than telling others they need to stop something. The mods have asked us to do so and refrain from doing anything else besides pointing to the board rules/providing a link and a quote of them.

Yeah, I used the report function after I spoke my mind. Thank you, though, for the reminder. with lots of rules (and i'm not saying they are bad rules, just a lot), I'll need reminders here and there.

[Darren10]

Matt & Cal;

I do appreciate ya'll keeping me on my toes.

[Darren10]

Freedom of Religion under attack

Story 1:

Every December, media headlines are dominated by the annual War on Christmas. As time progresses, it seems the nation is also gripped each spring and summer by another increasingly-fervent battle: the War on Prayer.

This phenomenon generally involves graduation prayer dramas and it tends to erupt during the months of May and June. Earlier today, The Blaze told you about the atheist valedictorian in Texas who successfully petitioned to remove prayer from his ceremony. Now, there’s another story coming out of South Carolina in which a former student is suing over a religious message that was uttered at his commencement.

Former HS Student Sues School District Over ‘Unwanted Exposure to a School-Sanctioned Prayer’

Story 2 (bold mine):

After a church-state separatist group sent a warning notice, Poteet High School in Poteet, Texas, will be scrapping a traditional invocation and benediction that has been part of commencement ceremonies for decades. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that works to segregate religion and government, contacted the Poteet Independent School District after a student complained about the presence of religion in the school’s graduation ceremony.

Rather than push forward with the program as scheduled, the district and school cited concerns over legal ramifications and subsequently scrapped the religious elements from the ceremony. As a result, Shelby Martinez, a senior who is speaking at the event, is considering altering her speech to include prayer, seeing as this will no longer be a part of the festivities.

Atheist Valedictorian’s Complaints Lead TX High School to Ban 99-Year Graduation Prayer Tradition

I guess for 99 years judges, lawyers, and common folk were just not as enlightened as they are now.

/sarc off

Edited June 1, 2012 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

thesometimesaint;

Rest assured that when i post things about news/politics, I pretty much always do so with a solid general knowledge as to what I'm talking about. So I'll follow up here with some more details.

Pro-choice nuns:

Here's my original statement. I'll place the emphasis in bold:

Note the original asterices to place emphasis on the fact that note all, neither a majority, of nuns support abortions. But no doubt some have andsome do. I binged "pro-choice nuns" and got three hits that I'd like to share. First:

VATICAN REPORT THREATENS PRO-CHOICE NUNS

Note that threat of disciplinary action was made by the Vatican in 1984. This leads to my second hit to share:

The same two nuns threated with disciplinary action in 1984 resigned in 1988. That's four years of two nuns being pro-choice and no disciplinary action was taken against them.

Fast foward to recent times:

Pro-choice nun still fighting for women's care

This article was written on 12 / 08 / 09. Following up on Sister Donna Quinn I found this:

http://www.huffingto...i_n_344089.html http://www.huffingto...i_n_344089.html

That was time stamped on 03/18/10. note that she is *still* a nun. She was 'rebuked" but not disciplined.

So, indeed, "*certain*" nuns are pro-choice. But, like I said, who cares if all nuns were pro-choice. They have no authority to speak on behalf of the Roman catholicv Church. In addition to pro-choice nuns, there's also Catholics for Choice which i find as a bunch of liars who declare Catholicism merely to lend themselves some credibility. They do nothing to promote Catholicism but gravely distort it.

Baloney. It forces the Catholic Church to fund something which they categorically denounce as immoral.

The draft:

You may be correct on the particulars of involving oneself in the military via a draft call but er'es what i found regarding religious exemptions to the draft:

Read more: Military Draft Rules | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/...l#ixzz1wUNfuctI

Essentially, there is indeed religious exemption to the draft.

Pro Abortion Nuns

I doubt you'll find ANY Nuns who are pro abortion. That is the idea that I'm mocking. Though evidently some are pro choice. With some 97% of America Catholic women using birth control at some time in their lives. There would appear that there is a major disconnect between the head and the neck( to play off of the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

The Catholic church can set its own rules for its own members. What they can not do is set the rules for others not of the Catholic faith. Further the law does not require the Catholic church, or any other religious body, to practice what they find immoral. What they, and others like them, can not do is prohibit others from doing so. There no law that requires a business to provide medical insurance to their employees, though many do, and more would like to do so to attracted and keep better employees. What the law does require however is that if medical insurance is provided it must meet certain minimal requirements.IE; In California, where I live, it is no different than if you drive a motor vehicle on the public roads you are required by law to have minimal automobile insurance(or post a bond). The state is not requiring you to drive, or do what you believe is immoral, it is just requiring some limited protection for everyone else from your poor decisions.

The Draft

As to the Draft even religious exemptions had to be applied for and accepted. While the Quakers generally abstain for actual combat they sure made fine medics in Vietnam. Eventually the Draft became so unpopular that religious exemptions were given pretty much proforma, even to Mormons.

Education:

Even the Amish set up their own schools. Heck there are Mormons whom set up home schools. They must meet specific educational criteria established by the state(pretty loose in reality) but it is still there. Personally I don't see how anyone in their right mind could even want to go to a MD who didn't have a thorough understanding and acceptance of Evolution, and that knew that the elements aren't eternal.

Edited June 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

So the efforts of the Obama administration to force Catholic church institutions to fund birth control and abortion isn't such an attack?

I thought they made changes to the program so objection would not arise.

[thesometimesaint]

Oklahoma Doctor Refuses To Provide Rape Victim With Emergency Contraception

By Annie-Rose Strasser on May 31, 2012 at 11:09 am

An Oklahoma emergency room doctor refused to provide emergency contraception to a 24-year-old female rape victim because the medication violated the health provider’s personal beliefs, a local CBS News affiliate reports. The hospital also denied the victim a rape kit, noting that it had no appropriate nurse on staff to administer the test.

“I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my beliefs,” the doctor allegedly told the rape victim and her mother, Rhonda. “She knew my daughter had just been raped. Her attitude was so judgmental and I felt that she was just judging my daughter,” Rhonda told the news station. Watch the segment:

Emergency contraception’s effectiveness diminishes over time, and is most effective when taken immediately. Oklahoma law, however, shields providers from offering the perfectly legal medication under a “conscience clause” which could significantly hinder women’s access to contraception services. States across the nation have adopted similar restrictions and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to expand Bush-era rules permitting doctors to place their beliefs ahead of women’s health.

Fortunately, the young woman in Oklahoma ended up going to another hospital, where she received the medication she needed and the rape kit. But she would have had to go to two hospitals either way, since budget cuts have forced the state to resort to a system of rotating Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE nurses).

[Darren10]

Pro Abortion Nuns

I doubt you'll find ANY Nuns who are pro abortion. That is the idea that I'm mocking.

What's the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice"? When I referenced the latter it was to help women get abortions.

Though evidently some are pro choice. With some 97% of America Catholic women using birth control at some time in their lives. There would appear that there is a major disconnect between the head and the neck( to play off of the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

I made no reference to birth control. And My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a pretty entertaiing film. Good reference there.

The Catholic church can set its own rules for its own members. What they can not do is set the rules for others not of the Catholic faith.

And they can also choose not to fund or even offer birth control copverage via the healthcare they offer. But the government, or rather, the current Executive administration, is saying tha they have to provide birthcontrol coverage.

Further the law does not require the Catholic church, or any other religious body, to practice what they find immoral.

HUH???

What they, and others like them, can not do is prohibit others from doing so.

The Catholic Church and all its bishops are not doing any such thing.

There no law that requires a business to provide medical insurance to their employees

And Obamacare will change all of that. It forces everyone to buy health insurance and for businesses to provide it. If not, businesses are to pay a fine (which is financially better for many of them) or have people sign up for government healthcare. Now, the Catholic Church receives no exemption for providing birth control although they find such a provision immoral.

What the law does require however is that if medical insurance is provided it must meet certain minimal requirements. IE; In California, where I live, it is no different than if you drive a motor vehicle on the public roads you are required by law to have minimal automobile insurance(or post a bond).

No, sir. It forces insurance to be provided and also andates minimal requirements such as providing birth control. You don't have to drive but you do have to live. That's a huge difference. The government is now saying that since you and I are alive we have to buy something.

The state is not requiring you to drive

And it's now requiring eeeryone to have insurance.

The Draft

As to the Draft even religious exemptions had to be applied for and accepted. While the Quakers generally abstain for actual combat they sure made fine medics in Vietnam. Eventually the Draft became so unpopular that religious exemptions were given pretty much proforma, even to Mormons.

Then we seem to be in agreement.

Education:

Even the Amish set up their own schools.

But they are not required to send their kids to school or to even provide schooling for their kids although they generally do. Mormons are required to send their kids to school or provide schooling until they are 16 which is pretty much standard.

Personally I don't see how anyone in their right mind could even want to go to a MD who didn't have a thorough understanding and acceptance of Evolution, and that knew that the elements aren't eternal.

I don't care what an MD's position on evolution or elements are so long as he or she is good in his or her trade.

[Darren10]

Sometimesasaint #49;

The nurse doesn't have to work there nor does the rape victim have to go there for contraception. The mother could pick up the contraception at the local pharmacy.