Jump to content

Lds Church Joins Religious Coalition In Opposing Obamacare Mandate


Scott Lloyd

Recommended Posts

YES!!!!! This just made my day!

Link to comment

Still upset that they upgraded the missionary force when they thought Romney was going to win. Now there like, what... what.... what... we going to do with all these people. Let's oppose Obamacare that will really help get converts to be involved in politics even more.

Tyler is out of the thread.

Link to comment

Here.

Good for the Church and its ecclesiastical allies in standing up for religious liberty in the United States.

I might be a little less cynical about the Church doing this if it weren't, at the same time, taking steps to limit all part-time workers hours to less than 30 a week so the Church won't have to provide benefits.

Link to comment

The mandate is ridiculous anyway. Birth control is not that expensive. Now we get to pay a lot more for healthcare so people can have "free" birth control. Oh, and lose jobs.

Link to comment

I might be a little less cynical about the Church doing this if it weren't, at the same time, taking steps to limit all part-time workers hours to less than 30 a week so the Church won't have to provide benefits.

The reduction of hours is a direct result of government health mandate. It's happening across the country.

Link to comment

I join others in expressing my joy in the LDS Church joining others to oppose the healthcare mandate. From the link in the opening post:

"While the mandate is a specific offense, it represents a greater fundamental breach of conscience by the federal government," the letter stated. "The (Health and Human Services) is coercive and puts the administration in the position of defining — or casting aside — religious doctrine. This should trouble every American."

Yes, this mandate should absolutely be troubling for every American.

Link to comment

I know the Brethren are deeply concerned about the erosion of religious liberty, especially as it concerns removing faith groups from public policy discourse.

The most incredible part is that this church-state conflict is not necessary. The govt. could avoid it and still achieve its goal of “free” birth control by simply doing the following:

1. Exempt any faith based organizations from directly or indirectly providing birth control coverage to their employees if they feel doing so would violate their core religious beliefs.

2. Pay directly for the birth control of their employees from general tax revenue.

The govt. accomplishes its goal of “free” birth control for everybody. FBOs maintain their religious integrity. The country avoids an unnecessary divisive “church and state” conflict. True, this would cost the govt. some money, but it probably would be cheaper than a long, drawn out court battle which it may well lose.

One more thing. The govt. would avoid the possibility of a major disruption of our critical medical infrastructure, should the Catholic Church decide that, if it were forced to violate its core religious principles, it could no longer, in good conscience, continue to operate its hospitals. How much money would that cost the government? To say nothing of the social costs due to reduced availability of medical services.

Link to comment

Interesting political division on who didn't sign it:

"No mainline Protestant faith signed on nor did anyone from the Muslim, Buddhist or Sikh traditions"

Usually I am against the church getting involved in politics. If however there is an issue that would restrict Mormon approach to worship I can accept their involvement. I wonder if the church will also be writing to governments in a the other countries they have members in.

By the way Scott, on the general board you said "I will be closing this thread" was that a slip of your doubling as a moderator?

Link to comment

I might be a little less cynical about the Church doing this if it weren't, at the same time, taking steps to limit all part-time workers hours to less than 30 a week so the Church won't have to provide benefits.

As I understand, the church follows the government crop subsidy regulations. It prudently uses the tax laws when buying and selling real estate.

The church operates as a business, as well as a charity -- it has both accountants as well as general authorities. If employees are hurt by the 30 hour rule, then they can receive church assistance both financially and finding suitable employment.

Link to comment

By the way Scott, on the general board you said "I will be closing this thread" was that a slip of your doubling as a moderator?

Contributors can close their own threads. You have just a little over a thousand posts to find out.
Link to comment

I might be a little less cynical about the Church doing this if it weren't, at the same time, taking steps to limit all part-time workers hours to less than 30 a week so the Church won't have to provide benefits.

Mark,

Why would the church do this? It is a serious question. I have decided to be much more open to dialogue with you as of late. I think we might disagree in the end but I am curious as to what you think.

Link to comment

Still upset that they upgraded the missionary force when they thought Romney was going to win. Now there like, what... what.... what... we going to do with all these people. Let's oppose Obamacare that will really help get converts to be involved in politics even more.

Tyler is out of the thread.

Wha?

Link to comment

Interesting political division on who didn't sign it:

"No mainline Protestant faith signed on nor did anyone from the Muslim, Buddhist or Sikh traditions"

Usually I am against the church getting involved in politics. If however there is an issue that would restrict Mormon approach to worship I can accept their involvement. I wonder if the church will also be writing to governments in a the other countries they have members in.

I know from having heard comments by Elder Christofferson on the topic that the Brethren are as concerned about erosion of religious liberty in other countries as they are about such erosion in the United States.

By the way Scott, on the general board you said "I will be closing this thread" was that a slip of your doubling as a moderator?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a moderator.

I gather that one who is at at a certain level of posting privileges may close a thread that he himself has created. I don't know what the specifics are about such a policy. All I know for certain is that I personally do have that capability. I have, on rare occasion, closed my own thread when it wasn't going the way I wanted it to.

Link to comment

In a democracy predicated upon citizens’ equality before the law: rights to personal safety, health, and liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals.

Does your "right" to "health" supersede your doctors right to liberty? Or must he slavishly provide you care?
Link to comment

In a democracy predicated upon citizens’ equality before the law: rights to personal safety, health, and liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals.

Right to health? I'm not aware that there was any such right. Ditto for the right to personal safety.

Link to comment

In a democracy predicated upon citizens’ equality before the law: rights to personal safety, health, and liberty must supersede the religious beliefs of individuals.

Good thing we are not a democracy. And even if we were, I reject such a notion. Weather I choose to offer a good or service to a person who wishes that I do something against my personal beliefs, that in no way means that they are some how not equal before the law. Perhaps that is why CA is so jacked up? And further more I did not read any were were there was a right to personal saftey or health. Liberty Yes.
Link to comment

Still upset that they upgraded the missionary force when they thought Romney was going to win. Now there like, what... what.... what... we going to do with all these people. Let's oppose Obamacare that will really help get converts to be involved in politics even more.

Tyler is out of the thread.

Spread the gospel of the living Christ...you sound angry and this comment so misguided. :(
Link to comment

Right to health? I'm not aware that there was any such right. Ditto for the right to personal safety.

Playing devil's advocate here, but some would argue that health and personal safety could fall under the same rights to life, and the pursuit of happiness. A lot of the classical liberal philosophers who influenced (or were themselves) the Founder Fathers of the US felt as such.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...