Home schoolers call for support of Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment

[NightHawkeye]

Fundamentalists are confusing religious persecution with simply not getting everything they want, their way.

Mpok's thinking is confused. The Catholic church was told that they would be required to pay for certain commodities which run counter to the church's religious beliefs.

Mpok's first error is that the issue involved the Catholic church, not fundamentalists.

Mpok's second error is that the issue did not involve persecution; instead it involved the government forcing the church to pay for commodity items which nearly everyone in America knows violates a fundamental belief of that church ... with the possible exception of Obama and his underlings, that is.

Or, perhaps they did know. There's even a case to made that Obama expected backlash and thought it would be good for his support. Not sure he had any idea how galvanizing this would be though ...

 

[Nurbz]

The part they leave out is that if these religious organizations want to keep getting federal money, they have to abide by this law. If they want to keep opperating the way they want, they can stop taking federal money.

Pretty simple really.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The part they leave out is that if these religious organizations want to keep getting federal money, they have to abide by this law. If they want to keep opperating the way they want, they can stop taking federal money.

Pretty simple really.

If doing away with Medicaid and Medicare were only that easy ...

 

[DaisyDay]

Hi, DaisyDay.

Methinks, you mis-underestimate the magnitude of the offense which has been committed.

That doesn't answer the question what the amendment has to do with highways - this was tacked onto a highway finance bill - or with home schoolers. The "offense" is a bs excuse to fuss about something that has been the law for quite some time now.

Mpok's thinking is confused. The Catholic church was told that they would be required to pay for certain commodities which run counter to the church's religious beliefs.

Then they were told they would not have to pay for it, the burden was shifted.

Mpok's first error is that the issue involved the Catholic church, not fundamentalists.

But the fundamentalists jumped on it as though it did involve them.

Mpok's second error is that the issue did not involve persecution; instead it involved the government forcing the church to pay for commodity items which nearly everyone in America knows violates a fundamental belief of that church ... with the possible exception of Obama and his underlings, that is.

You would think that the Church sponsored universities and hospitals weren't already following the laws as regards to their secular employees.

Or, perhaps they did know. There's even a case to made that Obama expected backlash and thought it would be good for his support. Not sure he had any idea how galvanizing this would be though ...

Yeah, you wouldn't think that enforcing a decade's old law would be so galvanizing but that would be misunderestimating the dishonesty of some of the parties involved.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But the fundamentalists jumped on it as though it did involve them.

Well, there ya go ... Obama said he was gonna unite the country. Looks like a pretty good start, don't ya think?

Yeah, you wouldn't think that enforcing a decade's old law would be so galvanizing but that would be misunderestimating the dishonesty of some of the parties involved.

Exactly the point in question, DaisyDay.

The constitution has been around for quite a good while now. Don't know why some folks think they can ignore the most fundamental underpinnings of law in this country and get away with it. I'm thinking they can't. How about you, DaisyDay?

 

[conamer]

A lot of people looked the other way when Jews where rounded up because they weren't Jews and it didn't envolve them until it envolved them, then it was too late.

 

[Nurbz]

If doing away with Medicaid and Medicare were only that easy ...

End em both, God will pick which old coots should live and die better than doctors.

 

[Umaro]

It still amazes me the same group that cries persecution in having to provide the option for a legal prescription medication to non religious employers is the same group that cries their freedoms are being taken away if we allow gay marriage or ban circumcision. Jon Stewart really did say it best. "You're confusing persecution for not always getting your way."

 

[NightHawkeye]

End em both, God will pick which old coots should live and die better than doctors.

You being a young whipper-snapper ... I suppose you can be excused for not knowing the difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Hint: one has little to do with "old coots", LOL.

 

[rambot]

If you REALLY want freedom, can you "yeah but..."?

 

[DaisyDay]

Exactly the point in question, DaisyDay.

The constitution has been around for quite a good while now. Don't know why some folks think they can ignore the most fundamental underpinnings of law in this country and get away with it. I'm thinking they can't. How about you, DaisyDay?

Pretending that this is a 1st Amendment issue is bogus, a lame excuse. Again, since this has been the law for over a decade, why blame it on Obama now?

And yet again, you've ignored the question - what has this amendment got to do with highways and home schoolers? Not too long ago, it was a Republican or Tea Party talking point that tacking amendments on appropriation bills which have nothing to do with appropriations was wrong - is it suddenly, now that it is convenient for them, not bad?

 

[MattRose]

I believe in more freedom, not moving toward totalitarianism.

Got it. I was under the impression that when you quote someone and then reply, your reply is related to their post.



Let me try it your way.

I believe in more freedom, not moving toward totalitarianism.

Ahem, there are both saltwater and freshwater catfish!

 

[MattRose]

A lot of people looked the other way when Jews where rounded up because they weren't Jews and it didn't envolve them until it envolved them, then it was too late.

Although you arrived at it by sheer chance, you have a point. If we force Catholic businesses (like hospitals) to allow their employees free access to contraception, there will invariably be fewer Catholics. Perhaps this is the slowest form of genocide known.

Good job conamer, although I suppose even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Although you arrived at it by sheer chance, you have a point. If we force Catholic businesses (like hospitals) to allow their employees free access to contraception, there will invariably be fewer Catholics. Perhaps this is the slowest form of genocide known.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, might have supported your cause: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EUGENICS
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.

In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."[79] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program. In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.

Complementing her eugenics policies, Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In "A Plan for Peace", a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.
​

 

[kermit]

A lot of people looked the other way when Jews where rounded up because they weren't Jews and it didn't envolve them until it envolved them, then it was too late.

I've often wondered how many people involved in the rounding up the Jews viewed themselves as the victims and believed that they were protecting their freedom.

While you paraphrased one of my favorite sayings we have to remember then when the oppression is occuring it's not always entirely clear who it being oppressed and who is the oppressor. For example, one person might view homosexuals as being oppressed while another might view homosexuals as trying to oppress their views.

You said on another thread and freedom in an easy concept. But when you start to realize that one person's increase in freedom often means another person's reduction in freedom you start to realize that it's a very complex concept.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I've often wondered how many people involved in the rounding up the Jews viewed themselves as the victims and believed that they were protecting their freedom.

Without a moral compass, all manner of evil can be justified ...

Twilight Zone - Hitler intro - YouTube

While you paraphrased one of my favorite sayings we have to remember then when the oppression is occuring it's not always entirely clear who it being oppressed and who is the oppressor.

I would argue that it usually is quite clear. One need only look for truth ... and steer clear of lies.

For example, one person might view homosexuals as being oppressed while another might view homosexuals as trying to oppress their views.

Both are true. It's not an either/or proposition, kermit.

Truth has no agenda.

But when you start to realize that one person's increase in freedom often means another person's reduction in freedom you start to realize that it's a very complex concept.

Kinda brings us back to the moral compass, doesn't it. Mutual respect, if you will.

As a kid, I was taught: "You can always do business with an honest man". It's hard to over-estimate the value of truth ... or the destructiveness of lies.

 

[conamer]

I've often wondered how many people involved in the rounding up the Jews viewed themselves as the victims and believed that they were protecting their freedom.

While you paraphrased one of my favorite sayings we have to remember then when the oppression is occuring it's not always entirely clear who it being oppressed and who is the oppressor. For example, one person might view homosexuals as being oppressed while another might view homosexuals as trying to oppress their views.

You said on another thread and freedom in an easy concept. But when you start to realize that one person's increase in freedom often means another person's reduction in freedom you start to realize that it's a very complex concept.

Freedom doesn't mena a reduction of another persons freedom. It isn't a zero sum game. That is one lie you must believe to NOT belive in freedom.
What you're promoting is zero sum. We are all equal, just some are more equal.

 

[kermit]

Freedom doesn't mena a reduction of another persons freedom. It isn't a zero sum game. That is one lie you must believe to NOT belive in freedom.
What you're promoting is zero sum. We are all equal, just some are more equal.

Freedom is often zero-sum. I have the right to swing my fists. Is that freedom absolule? What happens when your face is in the way of my fist? Most of us would say that I have no right to punch you in the face, but isn't your right to not get punched infringing my right to swing my fist?

That example is pretty clear, but it illustrates that if the actions get more nuances the weighing of freedom and infringment gets more difficult.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Pretending that this is a 1st Amendment issue is bogus, a lame excuse. Again, since this has been the law for over a decade, why blame it on Obama now?

Hi, DaisyDay.

Don't believe I ever claimed it was a first amendment issue. The constitution has been trampled on in a number of ways leading up to the latest edict from our commissar.

And yet again, you've ignored the question - what has this amendment got to do with highways and home schoolers? Not too long ago, it was a Republican or Tea Party talking point that tacking amendments on appropriation bills which have nothing to do with appropriations was wrong - is it suddenly, now that it is convenient for them, not bad?

LOL ... one does what one needs to sometimes.

Tacking random amendments on to bills is a procedural tool mastered by the Democrats in recent years. Harry Reid demonstrated his mastery of this tool on the "highways" bill yesterday after the Senate switchboard was deluged with support for the Blunt amendment. The pressure forced Reid to announce he will allow a vote, but he then packed the bill full of amendments, thereby blocking the process further: Harry Reid fills amendment tree on transportation bill - Adam Snider - POLITICO.com

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a procedural move to block amendments to the transportation bill Wednesday afternoon after growing frustrated by Republican attempts to force votes on other issues.

Reid filled the tree, as the maneuver is known, by offering a handful of amendments and motions. Part of the move set up a Friday cloture vote that would require 60 votes to move forward on the two-year, $109 billion measure, although it’s possible leaders will reach a deal on amendment before then.
​

Kinda looks like Harry Reid doesn't have a problem with tacking amendments on to unrelated bills, huh ...

 

[mpok1519]

Mpok's thinking is confused. The Catholic church was told that they would be required to pay for certain commodities which run counter to the church's religious beliefs.

Yes, and often the law forbids certain religious practices. You can still be catholic, but you can't make decisions detrimental to others due to those beliefs. For instance, its against the law to sacrafice animals for a religious ritual because it goes against animal cruelty laws. I believe I already used this example once.

Is one religiously persecuted or discriminated against because they can't sacrafice small animals like their religion commands? No, they are not.

Mpok's first error is that the issue involved the Catholic church, not fundamentalists.

and its the fundamentalists who're the only ones making a stink about it. I spoke with a couple catholics on this subject, and they sided with Obama, saying that Obama isn't forcing Catholics to USE contraception, which is the violation of their beliefs. They're still free to not use contraception, birth-control and have abortions. It doesn't mean they can impose this on others.

Mpok's second error is that the issue did not involve persecution;

Good; then they can stop making a stink about it.

instead it involved the government forcing the church to pay for commodity items which nearly everyone in America knows violates a fundamental belief of that church ... with the possible exception of Obama and his underlings, that is.

Catholics are free to not use contraceptives; they're not free to impose this on others who need them.

Or, perhaps they did know. There's even a case to made that Obama expected backlash and thought it would be good for his support. Not sure he had any idea how galvanizing this would be though ...

Obama is a push-over for letting fundamentalists get away with it. He's just trying to get a portion of their vote.

Well, there ya go ... Obama said he was gonna unite the country. Looks like a pretty good start, don't ya think?

Yeah, he did. Too bad so many people out there would rather see the USA divided than to let Obama take any credit for what he has done good for this country.

The constitution has been around for quite a good while now. Don't know why some folks think they can ignore the most fundamental underpinnings of law in this country and get away with it. I'm thinking they can't. How about you, DaisyDay?

I don't know why some folks think that without a lick of education within consitutional law they believe their interpretation of it is correct.