(02-07-2012 12:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Whether you agree or not religion has its place.

It does have a place, it's the reality of living in America. We are a secular (read: not theocratic) country with religious people. Most of our elected officials are religious to varying degrees, most Americans have at least some inclination to a particular faith or two.

And while we can debate what the appropriate level of influence that religion should have in the public sphere, we can all agree that individuals should retain the ability to worship whatever combination of gods they choose. I don't think it should be a zero-sum game, meaning observance of your religious (or non-religious) beliefs requires that someone else is denied theirs. Overt public displays of either religious belief or religious suppression are both destructive.

The vast majority of Americans self-identify as some flavor of christianity. That's the reality we live in. "Non-religious" is the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US, that's also the reality we live in. I don't believe that these two things necessarily need to compete with each other in the public sphere.

(02-07-2012 12:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:42 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Again, thanks for telling us how you would like to run our lives for us. Good to know that religious freedom doesn't fit your agenda.

No one's telling you what to believe. But if you are gonna call yourself a hospital, then there are certain services you're gonna have to provide.

False. That's like saying I have a clothing store so I have to provide clothing suitable for everyone. Your logic fails the stink test. If a religious institution starts a hospital then they choose what services to provide. Your other problem is when someone prays instead of taking their child to the doctor. Now you want to regulate how someone raises their child?What if the roles were reversed and this was a Christian nation and you were made to adhere to our rules. As it stands you can chose what hospital you go to. If you want to be treated at at a state sponsored hospital then so be it but don't legislate religious institutions out of existence because you believe differently than they do. Wether you agree or not religion has its place.

Let's say you own a clothing store. That's a very different animal than a hospital, so obviously the specific items on your shelves will be up to you. And hospitals have freedom based on what they can offer from a technological standpoint.

But do you, as a clothing store owner, get to pick and choose who you serve? Do you have different rules as to what specific health care options will be in your benefits package (i.e. no insurance that pays for birth control or anything you don't believe in)? Do you have to pay taxes like everyone else?

When you start talking about exclusions due to religious beliefs, you are going down a path that doesn't lead to freedom, but discrimination because someone doesn't share your beliefs. You are offering services to everyone, including your employees. Anybody can invent any justification they want based on "religious beliefs" to exclude anybody from anything, if they really wanted to. We've all seen, it's been done before - just look at segregation. Look at folks getting in a tizzy because they might have to deal with gay customers. Hospitals who don't want to pay for health care that other companies pay for because of religious ideas. It's all the same BS.

(02-07-2012 01:06 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The vast majority of Americans self-identify as some flavor of christianity. That's the reality we live in. "Non-religious" is the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US, that's also the reality we live in. I don't believe that these two things necessarily need to compete with each other in the public sphere.

As long as everyone is treated the same regardless of religious beliefs, I totally agree.

(02-07-2012 01:06 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Whether you agree or not religion has its place.

It does have a place, it's the reality of living in America. We are a secular (read: not theocratic) country with religious people. Most of our elected officials are religious to varying degrees, most Americans have at least some inclination to a particular faith or two.

And while we can debate what the appropriate level of influence that religion should have in the public sphere, we can all agree that individuals should retain the ability to worship whatever combination of gods they choose. I don't think it should be a zero-sum game, meaning observance of your religious (or non-religious) beliefs requires that someone else is denied theirs. Overt public displays of either religious belief or religious suppression are both destructive.

The vast majority of Americans self-identify as some flavor of christianity. That's the reality we live in. "Non-religious" is the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US, that's also the reality we live in. I don't believe that these two things necessarily need to compete with each other in the public sphere.

If by "overt" you mean shouting at people from the street corner that they're sinners and will burn then yes that is destructive. But I don't think that religion or atheism should be censored(to a point). Its when the discussion spirals down to where WVUcrazed has it that I think there is a problem. You/anoyone doesn't have the right to tell me or a religious hospital what to believe or how to best serve their patrons. That's a slippery slope that can easily slide back the other way and, not incidentally, I wouldn't like that either.

(02-07-2012 12:42 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Again, thanks for telling us how you would like to run our lives for us. Good to know that religious freedom doesn't fit your agenda.

No one's telling you what to believe. But if you are gonna call yourself a hospital, then there are certain services you're gonna have to provide.

This identifies one huge problem with US health care. It's not a free market system because the critical elements of the free market--competition and choice--are absent. Instead health care providers are regulated into a regimented delivery model--if you're going to call yourself a hospital, you're going to have to do x and y and z. One thing I like about the French approach is the range of choices available in their pay system. Their "free" system is highly regulated, probably moreso than ours. But once you get over to the "pay" side there are a lot more options. You want homeopathic medicine? There are numerous practitioners, there are insurance plans to cover it, there are homeopathic pharmacies all over (they have a different symbol from ordinary pharmacies).

(02-07-2012 01:22 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  You/anoyone doesn't have the right to tell me or a religious hospital what to believe or how to best serve their patrons.

That's what the segregationists thought, too.

(02-07-2012 01:15 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:42 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Again, thanks for telling us how you would like to run our lives for us. Good to know that religious freedom doesn't fit your agenda.

No one's telling you what to believe. But if you are gonna call yourself a hospital, then there are certain services you're gonna have to provide.

False. That's like saying I have a clothing store so I have to provide clothing suitable for everyone. Your logic fails the stink test. If a religious institution starts a hospital then they choose what services to provide. Your other problem is when someone prays instead of taking their child to the doctor. Now you want to regulate how someone raises their child?What if the roles were reversed and this was a Christian nation and you were made to adhere to our rules. As it stands you can chose what hospital you go to. If you want to be treated at at a state sponsored hospital then so be it but don't legislate religious institutions out of existence because you believe differently than they do. Wether you agree or not religion has its place.

Let's say you own a clothing store. That's a very different animal than a hospital, so obviously the specific items on your shelves will be up to you. And hospitals have freedom based on what they can offer from a technological standpoint.

But do you, as a clothing store owner, get to pick and choose who you serve? Do you have different rules as to what specific health care options will be in your benefits package (i.e. no insurance that pays for birth control or anything you don't believe in)? Do you have to pay taxes like everyone else?

When you start talking about exclusions due to religious beliefs, you are going down a path that doesn't lead to freedom, but discrimination because someone doesn't share your beliefs. You are offering services to everyone, including your employees. Anybody can invent any justification they want based on "religious beliefs" to exclude anybody from anything, if they really wanted to. We've all seen, it's been done before - just look at segregation. Look at folks getting in a tizzy because they might have to deal with gay customers. Hospitals who don't want to pay for health care that other companies pay for because of religious ideas. It's all the same BS.

Emphasis added...where is the freedom for the hospital? All healthcare insurance isn't "equal". Where's the outrage over that?

Emphasis added...seems like you and your ilk are the ones who want to discriminate against religious freedom.

Oh, and about slavery...Republicans were the ones who actually freed the slaves. Google it.

(02-07-2012 01:24 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:22 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  You/anoyone doesn't have the right to tell me or a religious hospital what to believe or how to best serve their patrons.

That's what the segregationists thought, too.

you're obviously an angry black man with an axe to grind. Get over it.

(02-07-2012 01:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Oh, and about slavery...Republicans were the ones who actually freed the slaves. Google it.

Thanks for the history lesson. Let's just say it's a different breed of Republicans from what we have now.

As for religious freedom, it's quite simple: you are free to believe whatever hocus pocus you want. But if you are going to offer health care, benefits, services, etc.. and that is a CHOICE you make... then you're going to have to offer them to everyone equally, even if it goes against your religious beliefs. If you can't do that, then go into something that won't compromise your beliefs. It's quite simple, really.

(02-07-2012 01:29 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  you're obviously an angry black man with an axe to grind. Get over it.

Swiiiiiiing and a miss.

(02-07-2012 01:31 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Oh, and about slavery...Republicans were the ones who actually freed the slaves. Google it.

Thanks for the history lesson. Let's just say it's a different breed of Republicans from what we have now.

As for religious freedom, it's quite simple: you are free to believe whatever hocus pocus you want. But if you are going to offer health care, benefits, services, etc.. and that is a CHOICE you make... then you're going to have to offer them to everyone equally, even if it goes against your religious beliefs. If you can't do that, then go into something that won't compromise your beliefs. It's quite simple, really.

Your version of freedom is offensive and ignorant.

(02-07-2012 01:29 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:24 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:22 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  You/anoyone doesn't have the right to tell me or a religious hospital what to believe or how to best serve their patrons.

That's what the segregationists thought, too.

you're obviously an angry black man with an axe to grind. Get over it.

I think we can take that to mean you are a racist that has no problem with slavery or segregation.

(02-07-2012 12:41 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 12:34 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:But it is the concern of folks who need the care and who might be turned away because of an archaic superstition.

Examples? how does Obama forcing Catholic Hospitals to provide contraceptives *to their employees as part of their health care plan* fit into this?

Like I said you have tried to take this thing so far off point that you don't even know whats being discussed

Quote:Yes, the government should have the right to tell hospitals what benefits they must provide.

And with what type of service does the governments right over the private group end?

Quote:There should not be any exceptions or exemptions because of religion, nor should there be tax exemptions for these massive mega-dollar mega churches. It's all a gigantic scam preying off the superstition and vulnerable.

RTFA you don't even know what this is all about you loon.

Yeah, I know what it's all about. I'm making an additional point, and it relates. All of these special considerations for religion - - it's absurd. Some religions don't believe in blood transfusions. Some folks will sit and watch their kids die while praying to an imaginary sky god rather than take them to the doctor. There is no limit to the kookiness of religion. There obviously has to be governmental regulation of hospitals, to keep all of us safe. Why should some hospitals be permitted to withhold certain legal and safe services because of religious ideals? Should a surgeon be allowed to say "oh, nope, sorry, can't operate, will violate my religious beliefs"? If that seems absurd, then it is - - - the whole thing is. The entire concept is. The notion that healthcare decisions should be made on someone's interpretation of ancient mythology is just ludicrous - - it really is.

You were clearly clueless when this thread started and are now spinning like a top. That, and the fact you would afford no American a freedom you don't like mkaes discussion past this point meaningless..

(02-07-2012 01:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You were clearly clueless when this thread started and are now spinning like a top. That, and the fact you would afford no American a freedom you don't like mkaes discussion past this point meaningless..

[shrug] Freedom and equality. It all boils down to a very simple concept: you are free to live your life how you want and hold whatever religious ideas you want, but when it impacts others there must be equality, period.

Your belief in a particular religion shouldn't impact others. Very simple.

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You were clearly clueless when this thread started and are now spinning like a top. That, and the fact you would afford no American a freedom you don't like mkaes discussion past this point meaningless..

[shrug] Freedom and equality. It all boils down to a very simple concept: you are free to live your life how you want and hold whatever religious ideas you want, but when it impacts others there must be equality, period.

Your belief in a particular religion shouldn't impact others. Very simple.

It doesn't. Very simple. You chose where to work and seek treatment. You're the one who wants to change the rules.

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You were clearly clueless when this thread started and are now spinning like a top. That, and the fact you would afford no American a freedom you don't like mkaes discussion past this point meaningless..

[shrug] Freedom and equality. It all boils down to a very simple concept: you are free to live your life how you want and hold whatever religious ideas you want, but when it impacts others there must be equality, period.

Your belief in a particular religion shouldn't impact others. Very simple.

So clothing stores, as someone else brought up, should not be allowed to cater only in Christian cloths... Like I said, you hate freedom... Forced Equality of outcome and Liberty can not co-exist.

(02-07-2012 02:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So clothing stores, as someone else brought up, should not be allowed to cater only in Christian cloths... Like I said, you hate freedom... Forced Equality of outcome and Liberty can not co-exist.

No. A store can carry whatever it wants. But when it comes to who they serve, and the laws governing their relationship and obligations to their employees and customers, religious affiliation should make no difference. It's not a hard distinction.

(02-07-2012 02:55 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So clothing stores, as someone else brought up, should not be allowed to cater only in Christian cloths... Like I said, you hate freedom... Forced Equality of outcome and Liberty can not co-exist.

No. A store can carry whatever it wants. But when it comes to who they serve, and the laws governing their relationship and obligations to their employees and customers, religious affiliation should make no difference. It's not a hard distinction.

This is the dumbest analogy.

(02-06-2012 10:07 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

dcCid Wrote:  The requirement is not for direct employees of the church, only public businesses like Hospitals. If all other businesses are going to be required to offer them there is no reason to give a competitive advantage to Catholic hospitals who may be able to pocket some cost savings on their health plans due to this. It is up to the plan participant to decide if they want the birth control pills anyway.

Catholic universities and charities too. I guess those are called "businesses" by liberals.

Catholics technically only recognize a marriage performed by a priest. So should they be able to deny spousal and dependent coverage to any couple not married by a priest?

(02-07-2012 03:16 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 10:07 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

dcCid Wrote:  The requirement is not for direct employees of the church, only public businesses like Hospitals. If all other businesses are going to be required to offer them there is no reason to give a competitive advantage to Catholic hospitals who may be able to pocket some cost savings on their health plans due to this. It is up to the plan participant to decide if they want the birth control pills anyway.

Catholic universities and charities too. I guess those are called "businesses" by liberals.

Catholics technically only recognize a marriage performed by a priest. So should they be able to deny spousal and dependent coverage to any couple not married by a priest?

Stay focused. I guess this is your admission that your original statement was either incorrect or misleading.