• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

kenvin said:
Can muslims honor kill thier daughters? Can Rastafarians give their kids drugs?
Click to expand...

The GOP says it's a matter of personal conscience.
 
kenvin said:
Can muslims honor kill thier daughters?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the killing of an individual is the exact same as a church not paying for an individuals birth control. Well done. :applaud
 
buck said:
Yes, because the killing of an individual is the exact same as a church not paying for an individuals birth control. Well done. :applaud
Click to expand...

No not the exact same its an analogy, both are the state getting involved in religion. Also, birth control is prescribed for more than simply preventing birth. It has legitimate medical purposes to do with health. Government get involved with religion. Can't let your kid die because you don't believe in the Dr. or any number of things. The Catholic church has been in bed with the government in regards to health care for a very long time. They take government money in payment. They need to provide services in accordance with federal law.

Also, women should be represented in discussions that effect them.
 
Last edited:
nonpareil said:
They have to pay for it out of pocket - so the access could be restricted due to monetary restrictions.
Click to expand...

They are not restricting access simply because they do not pay for the service or cover the service. The service is just as available as it was before and their act to not change it does not mean they are restricting access.
 
kenvin said:
No not the exact same its an analogy, both are the state getting involved in religion. Also, birth control is prescribed for more than simply preventing birth. It has legitimate medical purposes to do with health. Government get involved with religion. Can't let your kid die because you don't believe in the Dr. or any number of things. The Catholic church has been in bed with the government in regards to health care for a very long time. They take government money in payment. They need to provide services in accordance with federal law.
Click to expand...

Not a good analogy. Actually, quite a bad one. One is the state protecting the rights of the person that would be killed. The other is protecting the rights to freedom of religion. Having free birth control is not a right that I can find in the consitution. So saying a church does not have to provide free birth control is not abridging anyone's rights.
 
buck said:
Not a good analogy. Actually, quite a bad one. One is the state protecting the rights of the person that would be killed. The other is protecting the rights to freedom of religion. Having free birth control is not a right that I can find in the consitution. So saying a church does not have to provide free birth control is not abridging anyone's rights.
Click to expand...

Well Perhaps the government should stop reinbursing Catholic hospitals for indigent care, remove them from Federal insurance coverage of all levels. We wouldn't want them to get too entangled and violate their rights.
 
kenvin said:
Well Perhaps the government should stop reinbursing Catholic hospitals for indigent care, remove them from Federal insurance coverage of all levels. We wouldn't want them to get too entangled and violate their rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, if I were you I would have tried to change the topic too. It wasn't going very well for you.
 
samsmart said:
When that religious organization is operating as a business then religious liberty is no longer an issue in regards to how it treats its employees.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. This is established in US law and in the constitution itself.
 
buck said:
Yes, if I were you I would have tried to change the topic too. It wasn't going very well for you.
Click to expand...

The topic is should women have representation in constitutional decisions that affect them as tax payers. The answer is yes, and it is going well.
 
buck said:
Yes, if I were you I would have tried to change the topic too. It wasn't going very well for you.
Click to expand...

Except he didn't change the topic. And he made a very valid point.
 
Henrin said:
Yes it is. This is established in US law and in the constitution itself.
Click to expand...

Then the law is wrong, because religious organizations have no business acting as, well, a business. As soon as they act as a business they then become a business. And in doing so they are obligated to follow all the other laws that other businesses must follow.
 
buck said:
Yes, because the killing of an individual is the exact same as a church not paying for an individuals birth control. Well done. :applaud
Click to expand...

So you agree, then, that the right of personal conscience is not absolute then.

And if the right of personal conscience is not absolute then there are degrees to which the government can provide oversight and regulation to it.

And if that's the case, then that includes the degree that when a religious organization acts as a business it can be overseen as a business despite the conscience of those who run that business.
 
samsmart said:
Then the law is wrong, because religious organizations have no business acting as, well, a business. As soon as they act as a business they then become a business. And in doing so they are obligated to follow all the other laws that other businesses must follow.
Click to expand...

And you are basing this on what? The law of the land AND how it is understood does not match with what you said nor does any of the founders statements on the subject. I can't imagine where you could go for backing besides yourself honestly.
 
Henrin said:
And you are basing this on what? The law of the land AND how it is understood does not match with what you said nor does any of the founders statements on the subject. I can't imagine where you could go for backing besides yourself honestly.
Click to expand...

Because if all businesses have to do to avoid a law is to say that it violates their conscience then our laws no longer have any meaning.
 
samsmart said:
Because if all businesses have to do to avoid a law is to say that it violates their conscience then our laws no longer have any meaning.
Click to expand...

That is a bull**** reason, sorry.

1. US law establishes that violations of rights of individuals by religion are not to be tolerated when found, so US law does apply where applicable.

2. Rules of business in which we are talking about does not apply and is NOT established in us law, the law of the land, or any other document that can be referenced in the SC or an appeals court to apply it religious institutions.

3. The conclusion that because religion does not have to follow laws that apply to business that business does not have to obey such laws makes no sense.

I'm sorry you lose, but really my dear, in this argument you have lost unless you can offer backing to your thoughts in something of substance that could be used in the court to change opinion that is how it will stay. This is something I have to do every time I disagree with court rulings and so does everyone else. I hope you understand that your opinion means nothing in this debate.
 
samsmart said:
So you agree, then, that the right of personal conscience is not absolute then.

And if the right of personal conscience is not absolute then there are degrees to which the government can provide oversight and regulation to it.
Click to expand...

The government is protecting rights in both cases. The rights of an individual can only be abridged when it infringes upon the rights of another.

A muslim killing their daughter due to "honor killing" is an infringment upon the daughter's rights. Not forcing a chuch organization to pay for something for another individual does not infinge upon any rights. In fact, forcing a church organization to pay for something against their teachings violates the rights of the church.

And if that's the case, then that includes the degree that when a religious organization acts as a business it can be overseen as a business despite the conscience of those who run that business.
Click to expand...

The laws and the courts have disagreed with you. You are free to your own opinion, but frankly, your opinion has been proven wrong through many legal challenges.
 
buck said:
The government is protecting rights in both cases. The rights of an individual can only be abridged when it infringes upon the rights of another.

A muslim killing their daughter due to "honor killing" is an infringment upon the daughter's rights. Not forcing a chuch organization to pay for something for another individual does not infinge upon any rights. In fact, forcing a church organization to pay for something against their teachings violates the rights of the church.



The laws and the courts have disagreed with you. You are free to your own opinion, but frankly, your opinion has been proven wrong through many legal challenges.
Click to expand...

Well forcing tax payers to fund a religion that treats women less than equally is also not good. I think defund and unentangle government from Catholic hospitals and doctors. No insurance or indigent reimbursment. The government should only fund secular medical facilities.
 
kenvin said:
Well forcing tax payers to fund a religion that treats women less than equally is also not good. I think defund and unentangle government from Catholic hospitals and doctors. No insurance or indigent reimbursment. The government should only fund secular medical facilities.
Click to expand...

You are free to that opinion too. People disagree with you, as of today. So too bad.

I believe there are a lot of orgs that should be defunded by government dollars.

Unfortunately, people aren't on my side yet. So I have to get over it.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
You are free to that opinion too. People disagree with you, as of today. So too bad.
Click to expand...

Too bad? Well most agree that women should be represented in discussions that directly concern them. So too bad for you as well.
 
kenvin said:
Well forcing tax payers to fund a religion that treats women less than equally is also not good. I think defund and unentangle government from Catholic hospitals and doctors. No insurance or indigent reimbursment. The government should only fund secular medical facilities.
Click to expand...

The government should fund none of it religious or not and the Constitution demands they are not involved in such a way.
 
kenvin said:
Too bad? Well most agree that women should be represented in discussions that directly concern them. So too bad for you as well.
Click to expand...

Most would understand what they want is irreverent since we are talking about forcing someone else to cover what they want.
 
Henrin said:
The government should fund none of it religious or not and the Constitution demands they are not involved in such a way.
Click to expand...

I know lets go back to back to the olden days, where everyone fended for themselves and I could sell magic cancer cures to unsuspecting old people. Where women knew their place, and we were free to discriminate. That is the America Jesus loved.
 
kenvin said:
I know lets go back to back to the olden days, where everyone fended for themselves and I could sell magic cancer cures to unsuspecting old people. Where women knew their place, and we were free to discriminate. That is the America Jesus loved.
Click to expand...

Great way to defend actions kenvin on some sort of foundation.
 
Henrin said:
Most would understand what they want is irreverent since we are talking about forcing someone else to cover what they want.
Click to expand...


Well You mean the women who earn the insurance as compensation through their job and thus should be considered the people actually paying the premium shouldn't have a say in what their premium pays for. Oh
 
kenvin said:
Too bad? Well most agree that women should be represented in discussions that directly concern them. So too bad for you as well.
Click to expand...

What brought me into the discussion was my agreement with Mr. Vichio's comment that the conversation isn't about women's rights. The conversation is about religious freedom. The media and democrats are trying to switch the conversation to one they would rather have, since they can't possibly win the debate about religious freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom