cipriano Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 What I find to be so great about it is that this guy, who is not LDS, has encapsulated what was at stake in the war in heaven. If we lose our agency we lose our ability to progress.Get a grip! 7 pages into this thread and I swear it has cost me a few IQ points. I think many of us saints have constructed a Molech around the philosophy of free market capitalism.
Walden Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) Yes, she hand-wrings and whines and proves yet again she is a mindless kneejerking antireligionist Socialist. Yes, she is a perfect counter-balance to the mindless, theocratic, aristocratic corporate shills that are Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Edited July 2, 2014 by Walden
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 What if HL owners were Muslims trying to impose Sharia Law on its employees? Equally important health care benefits are just part of a wage agreement, and now the employer gets to tell its women employees how to spend their own money.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 What if HL owners were Muslims trying to impose Sharia Law on its employees?I think you would be all for that.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 False Equivalency. Plus the only six pack I drink is root beer. Spread out over a week or two. I don't smoke. But YES I do expect you to pay taxes to fund hospitals in chance that both of us will at some time in our lives need a doctor.Are you by chance the Senator from Utah Mike Lee that yesterday compared women having sex and wanting contraceptives to sluts?Link, please. I'd like to read and evaluate precisely what was said and how it was said.
california boy Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 What I find to be so great about it is that this guy, who is not LDS, has encapsulated what was at stake in the war in heaven. If we lose our agency we lose our ability to progress.Wait. Aren't you one of those guys that was so enthusiastically trying to take away the right of gay couples to marry and force them to live the view of the Mormon Church?? Would that not be taking away someone's free agency to marry even if they are gay? I am just confused here on where you stand on free agency. Should gay couples have the freedom to choose to marry or not even if it is a sin?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Great cartoon! I like it even more than my comparison to "Get Out of My Life, But First Can You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall."
Scott Lloyd Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Wait. Aren't you one of those guys that was so enthusiastically trying to take away the right of gay couples to marry and force them to live the view of the Mormon Church?? Would that not be taking away someone's free agency to marry even if they are gay? I am just confused here on where you stand on free agency. Should gay couples have the freedom to choose to marry or not even if it is a sin?You are a Johnny One Note. You try to transform every thread you touch into a gay marriage platform. It really gets boring. 3
california boy Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 You are a Johnny One Note. You try to transform every thread you touch into a gay marriage platform. It really gets boring.Just asking how this all fits together in BCSpaces mind as well as yours. One side of your mouth you talk about free agency and the other you talk about restricting peoples choice. The question is not about gay marriage. The question is about free agency and how that all works for you two. Maybe it is too difficult for you to answer. I can certainly understand why
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 I think you would be all for that. Not me. I want to keep religion out of law altogether. It's you Christo-taliban devotees that want to impose your religious laws on others.
USU78 Posted July 2, 2014 Author Posted July 2, 2014 You are a Johnny One Note. You try to transform every thread you touch into a gay marriage platform. It really gets boring. Yup: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63733-stop-derailing/
USU78 Posted July 2, 2014 Author Posted July 2, 2014 Not me. I want to keep religion out of law altogether. It's you Christo-taliban devotees that want to impose your religious laws on others. Please take it elsewhere. 1
Popular Post Carebear0411 Posted July 2, 2014 Popular Post Posted July 2, 2014 What if HL owners were Muslims trying to impose Sharia Law on its employees? Equally important health care benefits are just part of a wage agreement, and now the employer gets to tell its women employees how to spend their own money.This has been said so many times, I don't understand why it isn't penetrating. This ruling does not allow business owners to force employees to DO anything. It simply allows the buisness owner to opt out of DOING something. HL can now choose NOT to provide coverage for certain types of contraceptives. They don't have the right to force their employees to not engage in sexual behavior until married or any other behavior that may go against their religious beliefs. And they certainly don't have the right to keep their employees from freely purchasing anything! This finding keeps the employee from telling the employer how to spend their money, not the other way around. 6
Garden Girl Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) This ruling does not allow business owners to force employees to DO anything. It simply allows the buisness owner to opt out of DOING something. HL can now choose NOT to provide coverage for certain types of contraceptives. They don't have the right to force their employees to not engage in sexual behavior until married or any other behavior that may go against their religious beliefs. And they certainly don't have the right to keep their employees from freely purchasing anything! This finding keeps the employee from telling the employer how to spend their money, not the other way around. Yes, and it doesn't seem to sink in, or at least to be honestly pointed out by the screamers, that HL provides 16 of 20 types of birth control for employees through insurance programs. HL chooses to opt out of ones providing the few drugs that are designed to abort, i.e., the "morning after" pill. To hear opponents tell it, HL is taking away or infringing on the rights of women to have access to birth control, period, which is totally false.And to even suggest that this is at all like trying to impose Sharia Law, or LDS beliefs, on anyone is nonsense, not when other forms of birth control through HL are readily available. If women can't be responsible enough to give a thought to birth control before taking off their panties, shame on them. GG Edited July 2, 2014 by Garden Girl 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 USU 78: "Please take it elsewhere". I think you would be all for that. I wasn't the person whom brought it up. To quote and affirm california boy "One side of your mouth you talk about free agency and the other you talk about restricting peoples choice".
Carebear0411 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Absolute self serving sophistry. Read the Divinely Inspired US Constitution. Congress has all the powers it needs to lay and collect taxes for what ever purpose they deem necessary.This is true, which is why ultimately the American people can fire their Congress (because it is supposed to represent the people) every 2 years for the House and every 6 years for the Senate. Unfortunately, we have a populace that votes name recognition far too often so incumbancy re-election rates top 90%. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php So, in essence, you are right...sad. Please everyone, vote for anyone BUT an incumbent this year. Let's clean House and Senate.
Carebear0411 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Yes, and it doesn't seem to sink in, or at least to be honestly pointed out by the screamers, that HL provides 16 of 20 types of birth control for employees through insurance programs. HL chooses to opt out of ones providing the few drugs that are designed to abort, i.e., the "morning after" pill. To hear opponents tell it, HL is taking away or infringing on the rights of women to have access to birth control, period, which is totally false. GGThat is how the women's movement has operated since the 70's. Any movement away from absolute dominion of their philosophies is the end of civilization as we know it.
Walden Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Just asking how this all fits together in BCSpaces mind as well as yours. One side of your mouth you talk about free agency and the other you talk about restricting peoples choice. The question is not about gay marriage. The question is about free agency and how that all works for you two. Maybe it is too difficult for you to answer. I can certainly understand why LDS Free Agency = the freedom to choose to either adhere to LDS theology or spend eternity in outer darkness
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 This has been said so many times, I don't understand why it isn't penetrating. This ruling does not allow business owners to force employees to DO anything. It simply allows the buisness owner to opt out of DOING something. HL can now choose NOT to provide coverage for certain types of contraceptives. They don't have the right to force their employees to not engage in sexual behavior until married or any other behavior that may go against their religious beliefs. And they certainly don't have the right to keep their employees from freely purchasing anything! This finding keeps the employee from telling the employer how to spend their money, not the other way around. If you keep repeating the same nonsense long enough and loud enough some people will believe it. Yes it does. Any corporation can now tell its female employees how to spend their wages. Employers medical health plan is just part of the wages paid to their employees. Any corporation can now impose their religion on their female employees. Now the female employees of any corporation have to go to their boss and ask permission to use any type of birth control, based not on what the female's own MD says is the best for them, but based on the boss's religion. IMNTBHO When(outside of normal work hours) their female employees have sex with, and what if any form of birth control their female employees use, is none of any employer's business. Of course we can always go with the Mormon Senator from Utah Mike Lee that women whom have sex and want birth control are sluts. Then wonder why we're perceived as ignorant fools.
halconero Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 LDS Free Agency = the freedom to choose to either adhere to LDS theology or spend eternity in outer darkness Wow, it's so true that when you dumb down the theology to the level that you have you can make almost any ideology or belief system seem awful. This sentence fails to recognize that in LDS theolgoy people are given multiple chances, with some pretty obvious signs that LDS teachings are true. If LDS theology is true, then showing up in the Spirit World to be greeted by missionaries is a pretty good sign that we've got it right. If LDS theology is not true then nobody who chooses not to adhere to it is in any danger. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 This is true, which is why ultimately the American people can fire their Congress (because it is supposed to represent the people) every 2 years for the House and every 6 years for the Senate. Unfortunately, we have a populace that votes name recognition far too often so incumbancy re-election rates top 90%. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php So, in essence, you are right...sad. Please everyone, vote for anyone BUT an incumbent this year. Let's clean House and Senate. I certainly always have and will continue to vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate running regardless of political party, or incumbency. For better or worse my pick seldom has won the election. I registered to vote at age 19 the same day the 18 year old were given the right to vote. In the nearly 44 years of voting in every local, state, and federal election. I have missed exactly one local election because I was out of the state, and forgot to submit my absentee ballot in time.
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Wow, it's so true that when you dumb down the theology to the level that you have you can make almost any ideology or belief system seem awful. This sentence fails to recognize that in LDS theolgoy people are given multiple chances, with some pretty obvious signs that LDS teachings are true. If LDS theology is true, then showing up in the Spirit World to be greeted by missionaries is a pretty good sign that we've got it right. If LDS theology is not true then nobody who chooses not to adhere to it is in any danger. And if our Atheist friends are correct. Then none of us will know any differently anyway.
Calm Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 What if HL owners were Muslims trying to impose Sharia Law on its employees? Equally important health care benefits are just part of a wage agreement, and now the employer gets to tell its women employees how to spend their own money.I disagree. Employers don't pay for food and rent, are they in any way telling their employees how to spend their money in these areas?
Walden Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Wow, it's so true that when you dumb down the theology to the level that you have you can make almost any ideology or belief system seem awful. This sentence fails to recognize that in LDS theolgoy people are given multiple chances, with some pretty obvious signs that LDS teachings are true. If LDS theology is true, then showing up in the Spirit World to be greeted by missionaries is a pretty good sign that we've got it right. If LDS theology is not true then nobody who chooses not to adhere to it is in any danger. Yes, I agree with your sentiment that when stripped of it's ritual, pomp and circumstance, and without the application of the rationalized history viewed through the rose-tinted glasses of devout adherents, i.e. when theology is essentially "dumbed down," then yes, it can seem "awful." Thus, I agree with Nietzsche's sentiment that "the will to a system is a lack of integrity." And if the LDS theology is not true, you are incorrect that nobody is harmed. Certainly there is a whole population of former and ex members who have been cutoff from family, abandoned by friends, and/or ostracized by communities just for leaving the LDS faith; the mental and emotional toll that some have paid for not aligning their belief systems with that of their LDS family and/or community are certainly harmful. But I guess that is the price one pays for "free agency."
Recommended Posts