Certain News Outlets Relentless On Mormonism

[Matthew J. Tandy]

This thread has turned faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too political.

Darren, you will not make headway with thesometimesaint. He posts the most liberal political comments around these parts. Others post very conservative. Fortunately, this is a board about religion, and when the topic gets more into politics than faith, the threads tend to get closed. I think aside from politics we can all mostly hug and get along.:-)

[Skylla]

TSS: You have been banned from another thread.

Skylla

[Calm]

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

But does it not require them to pay for it even if it is provided by the insurance company? The insurance company is not giving birth control coverage away for free, after all. No one would think it is appropriate for the CC or anyone else to have to pay a standard fee for an temporary help agency that included having the services of an escort service available. True, the CC wasn't paying the escort service anything, they would just be paying the help agency that would be paying for the escort service's availability. If not having the escort service as part of the package would result in lower costs to the Church, then I don't see how by any reasoning one can claim they are not having to pay for something immoral even if the ones who pay for it aren't the ones using the service.

And if the only other option is not to provide any insurance service, even the ones they desire to offer to their people, it not only sounds like blackmail to me (pay for this or you will lose the ability to attract decent workers), but no one is doing the employees a favour if the end result is that they have to pay more for their insurance even if the Church adds to their paycheck what it saves by not paying for it. If the CC is forced to buy insurance and forced to buy one that includes paying for/subsidizing something they see is immoral and whose benefit is primarily a personal one (as opposed to paying taxes that are for the upkeep of a military force for a country even though one is a pacifist), it seems the government is forcing others to be accountable for an individual's choice even when those others teach the opposite of that person's behaviour.

It seems to me the appropriate option would be for the Catholic Church to pay for basic insurance and for birth control to be an option that can be added from the insurance provided for the individual employee. The money the CC saves is given to the employees. That way those who do not take advantage of the service have the choice to spend their money on what they want and those who feel the need to birth control are responsible for making the decision themselves without infringing on anyone else's rights.

Insurance costs are shared by not only the Church but the employees who will get smaller paychecks because of funds having to go to mandated insurance coverage. Having to pay for services they will not use seems as unjust as having to pay a full combo meal because that is the only thing a fast food place is allowed to sell even though one doesn't drink pop or eat the french fries. It may make it cheaper for those who do eat the soda and fries, but why should those who don't eat them subsidize those that do when it is of no benefit to them?

Edited June 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Even Mormons recognize that there are times when abortion is a valid consideration. That doesn't make us pro abortion. I've never met any one whom thought that abortion was a good thing. There probably are some, but their number is so freakishly small as to not be a concern. That it is such a decision it is best left to the woman in consult with her partner, her doctor, and her God. The state particularly during the early stages of pregnancy has no compelling interest that should override her decision.

That is what contraception is all about Birth Control. The Catholic church through its affiliated businesses is claiming that it has the right to dictate to others not of their faith on the matters of contraception.

That is not what the law says. If you don't want to provide medical insurance for your employees that is up to you. Good luck in getting and keeping good employees. The law says that if you offer medical insurance to your employees it must contain clauses that pays for contraception if your employees want to use it. No one other than the insurance companies cares if your employees don't want to use it. Though that would cost the insurance company more money to pay for pregnancy/delivery services. So it makes more financial sense to offer it than not.

The law doesn't not require the Catholic church, or any other religious body to fund birth control.

Yes they are. It is the insurance companies that are providing payment for the service. The Catholic church claiming the right to dictate through separate insurance companies to its non Catholic employees, and patients at Catholic hospital business ventures its anti contraception rules.

ObamaCare does no such thing. It is an Individual Mandate not a business mandate. Exactly the same thing that Republicans wanted and RomneyCare(and he's running away from as fast as he can) provides.

Though I belong to a private HMO I have nothing against the Indian Health Service, or Veterans Administration hospitals, or my local county hospital. In fact I think it should be Medicare for all. Give us the same quality of care that every Congressman, Senator, and their dependents already has.

My younger Grandkids don't have automobile insurance. Nor do they have medical insurance(they are covered through their parents). Additionally if you don't dive on the public roads there is no requirement for either insurance or a bond. At some point in their lives everyone will get sick, or have an injury that requires a doctors care. Unless you want to see people die on the street. You have to have the needed cash. If you do then no problem, if you have good quality insurance no problem, if you don't have the cash(they don't accept chickens), and aren't insured big problem. You either suffer through it, die because of it, or the taxpayers pay extra for it through higher Emergency Room costs.

Age requirements vary lots depends on the state laws in which Mormons live. TTBOMK there are mandatory school attendance in every state in the US. It need not be public school, but can be parochial, private, charter, or even home school. But the requirement is still there. Personally I'd like to see a little more flexibility. But the key is "little".

Not me I want the best educated, most qualified doctors I can find.

[thesometimesaint]

Skylla

I'd still like to know what exactly I posted that would warrant a banning?

Edited June 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Darren10]

This thread has turned faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too political.

Darren, you will not make headway with thesometimesaint. He posts the most liberal political comments around these parts. Others post very conservative. Fortunately, this is a board about religion, and when the topic gets more into politics than faith, the threads tend to get closed. I think aside from politics we can all mostly hug and get along.:-)

Both points I agree with. This is way to political and nothing will be gained.

Let me conclude that Freedom of religion is a marvelous things and ought to be preserved with the utmost care. Mormonsim is and most likely will be a hot button issue from certain segments of the media. This despite that i fnd the overall presentation of mormonism in the media improving.

Hugs to you, Mat.

[Darren10]

thesometimesaint;

Let's stick strictly to Mormonism or stop the talks here.

[Robert F. Smith]

Tamron Hall And Guest: Romney’s Silence Leading To Concerns With Mormon ‘White Horse’ Prophecy

Here is my post #726, on Politico.com, June 3, 2012, in response to Edward-Isaac Dovere, “Romney's Mormon faith in spotlight,” Politico.com, May 28, 2012, online at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76776.html

- 6:53 PM EST

I find this article by Dovere to smack of the same sort of bigotry which one finds in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," or in anti-Semitic blood libel. Not only is the entire article based on a fraudulent tradition, which even Dovere seems to admit, but it just doesn't pass the smell test of good journalism. Perhaps Dovere could pass such infantile articles past some his Politico colleagues before publication: Alex Eisenstadt, Andrew Glass, Dan Berman, Dave Levinthal, Eliza Krigman, Elizabeth Wasserman, Emily Schultheis, Gregg Birnbaum, Lester Feder, Jake Sherman, Jason Millman, Jennifer Epstein, Josh Gerstein, Maggie Haberman, Rachel Smolkin, and Reid Epstein.

Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I personally think it would be a hoot if the Reynolds decision was cited as precedent in a decison not to allow gay marriage. If I recall the language the court used, it was to the effect that marriage was so important to society that Congress had every right to regulate it.

The problem with your assumption is that Reynolds is very likely to be overturned within the next decade, resting as it did on the bigoted and false assumption that multiple wifery was harmful to society. The sociology was blatantly wrong. Indeed, one U.S. Supreme Court justice even predicted that it would be overturned.

I am not saying that such high-handed behavior by the powers that be in Reynolds was completely negative: It may have been a blessing in disguise for the nascent LDS Church to be mainstreamed to such a degree that it is nearly acceptable now for a person to be a Mormon in any walk of life. In addition, it may have made LDS missionary work far more successful worldwide. There will come a day, however, when polygyny is legal here as well as in Islamic countries. What that may mean for Mormons is anybody's guess.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

You're being paranoid. The true nightmare is that we live in a country in which our healthcare costs are rising at unsustainable rates. We will go bankrupt on that basis alone, not to mention other rising costs.

In fact, you are quite wrong about the universal healthcare systems in other countries: In every modern country in the world, the healthcare costs per capita are half what ours are. Now, if you think that Singapore has a good system that saves money, you are welcome to advise your Congressmen to legislate for it, and we might all be healthier and save a lot of money. But something needs to be done and done now. The problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it copied all the main features of RomneyCare in Massachusetts and was written by the insurance companies, and Congress went along for obvious reasons (profit sharing, you know). Obama didn't write it, but simply let it happen. Big mistake.

See "Massachusetts Mandate," Need to Know, June 1, 2012, PBS-TV, http://video.pbs.org/video/2241402032 .

Should Mitt Romney be proud? Should we publicly thank him?

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

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.

Darren

I don't know where you get some of this off-the-wall stuff, but you really need to consider a two semester college course in Constitutional Law. It might be a real eye-opener for you. Or just political science 101, it that is all that's available. I hate to impinge on your range time, but . . .

The Declaration of Independence mentions God but is not a religious document, and could be put up nearly anywhere in public bldgs without bringing a First Amendment lawsuit. Your wishlist of other items is not only unrealistic but is illegal. The State (federal or state) must be neutral, which is why teachers (who are state employees) may not schedule or sponsor prayer in school. That is the province of students on their own.

In any case, not only is the Declaration of Independence not a legal document (the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognized it as such), but your views of the basis of law in this country are erroneous: Our laws and Anglo-American legal system are based on manifold sources. Our word "law" is a Danish word (Viking actually), and comes from the period of Danish conquest of central England over a thousand years ago. We obtained from them trial by a jury of our peers, etc., which were added to already extant Anglo-Saxon law. Our law also comes from the conquest of England by William of Normandy, who brought key legal concepts (mostly in French), which are still used today. We also heavily employ Greek and Roman legal concepts, though not to the degree that some continental European countries do. Our Judeo-Christian traditions inform our moral and ethical standards, but are not central to our secular legal system.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Nemesis]

This is not a political forum. Please get this thread back on track.

Nemesis

[changed]

regarding changes to the constitution,I'm not a fan of this one: http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

this one would be nice to see: http://en.wikipedia....udget_amendment

"The U.S. federal government is not bound by any balanced budget provision..."

"the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution." - Charles W. Nibley, 1922"

what does everyone think about the "secret combinations" issue? On a scale of 1 to 10, how corrupt is our current government?

I think we're at about a 5 on the corruption scale... stuff like Monsanto running the FDA to it's advantage,

stuff like this: [media=]

we need to get corporations out of the gov...

I also think we need a different banking system then the Federal Reserve...

corruption issues are non-partisan... seems like the two-party war is a facade to draw our attention away from what we really need to be fighting against...

Edited June 4, 2012 by changed