Balloon guy 158 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The Bill of Rights does not say you can do whatever you want as long as it is a longstanding religious belief. There are some very old religions that believe in sacrificing virgins. I hope the law doesn't interfere with their religious beliefs.The BoR is there so that you cannot be specifically persecuted for exercising your religion, not so that your religion will provide you with an exception to laws that everyone else must abide by.The Bill of Rights?Where does it cover the rights of sluts to not be responsible to bring along a case of trojans for their Lacrosse team try outs? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 She didn't go to the courts though..did she?She doesn't have to because the law is on her side. Georgetown can go to court to challenge it. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The Bill of Rights?Where does it cover the rights of sluts to not be responsible to bring along a case of trojans for their Lacrosse team try outs?Ninth ammendment. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 She doesn't have to because the law is on her side. Georgetown can go to court to challenge it.Uh..the school isn't doing it. The do-gooder liberal airheads will have to take them to court. The school will win without much ado. Notwithstanding the brilliant use of the Bill of Rights by VB to explain why virgins cannot be sacrificed. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Sixty Ninth ammendment.Like I'm going to look that up.... Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Uh..the school isn't doing it. The do-gooder liberal airheads will have to take them to court. The school will win without much ado. Notwithstanding the brilliant use of the Bill of Rights by VB to explain why virgins cannot be sacrificed.The Dept of Health & Human Services has given them until August 2013 to comply with the new law. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The Dept of Health & Human Services has given them until August to comply with the new law.Like I said, slam dunk easy case of religious freedom. The 2nd Amendment comes before the 9th Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The Dept of Health & Human Services has given them until August 2013 to comply with the new law.In effect what they are saying is that the Catholic Church can no longer run education institutions, hospitals, or charities, including food kitchens ect. They can only hang out in the Church. You know, I actually think the individual mandate may pass muster but this attack on religious freedom is what is going to be their downfall. And all he had to do was give a realistic exemption to religious organizations like he promised in his speech at Notre Dame. This is a huge power grab. The State wants a monopoly on heathcare, education, and charitable programs. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The Bill of Rights does not say you can do whatever you want as long as it is a longstanding religious belief. There are some very old religions that believe in sacrificing virgins. I hope the law doesn't interfere with their religious beliefs.The BoR is there so that you cannot be specifically persecuted for exercising your religion, not so that your religion will provide you with an exception to laws that everyone else must abide by.So because the government can ban religious organizations from sacrificing virgins, they can also ban them from charitable work, running schools and hospitals. So what does the free exercise law cover exactly, the court won't consider long standing religious practices in determining this? Your position seems to be that free exercise means whatever the government wants it to mean. If this is true then the whole thing is meaningless. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 In effect what they are saying is that the Catholic Church can no longer run education institutions, hospitals, or charities, including food kitchens ect. They can only hang out in the Church.I...don't think...that's what they're saying. And all he had to do was give a realistic exemption to religious organizations like he promised in his speech at Notre Dame.I skimmed through his speech, but couldn't figure out what you're talking about. Could you highlight it for me please?So because the government can ban religious organizations from sacrificing virgins, they can also ban them from charitable work, running schools and hospitals. So what does the free exercise law cover exactly, the court won't consider long standing religious practices in determining this?"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."Reynolds v United States Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 In effect what they are saying is that the Catholic Church can no longer run education institutions, hospitals, or charities, including food kitchens ect. They can only hang out in the Church.Yeah that's the effect. I heard Notre Dame has begun plans to shut down operations. The State wants a monopoly on heathcare, education, and charitable programs.The State wants a monopoly on protecting people's rights. Restricting people's rights in the name of religion is not a noble venture. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah that's the effect. I heard Notre Dame has begun plans to shut down operations. The State wants a monopoly on protecting people's rights. Restricting people's rights in the name of religion is not a noble venture.People have a right to contraception? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."Reynolds v United States But the Mormons believed in bigamy for sooooooo long! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 But the Mormons believed in bigamy for sooooooo long!So ZD brings an argument, you get all lawyer up on him.So he pulls out case law..and all you got is this?Enjoy business contract writing Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm sorry, I blacked out for a second and missed some posts.Apparently. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I...don't think...that's what they're saying.Yes, that is in effect exactly is what will happen and they know that. Will the Schools and Hospitals all close? no, but they will not have any religious affiliation. The key hit to the poor will be a lot of catholic charities which are extremely efficient in distribution of charitable donations and funding. I skimmed through his speech, but couldn't figure out what you're talking about. Could you highlight it for me please?He promised a "sensible conscience clause" but the exemption he offered is one in which the Catholic Church completely rejects. And not what he promised them on more than one occasion. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."Reynolds v United States There is also a free exercise of religion. It is not limited to beliefs and opinions. They are to be free to practice their religion without interference. Yes, there are certain practices obviously that would not be allowed, but that doesn't mean you can simply ban any practice the government sees fit. This is why I hate big government. It always leads to this. Just like imminent domain(or whatever the legal term is), now leads to cities taking peoples homes and land so they can sell it or give it to developers. (BTW do you see any danger of corruption in actions like these) Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yeah that's the effect. I heard Notre Dame has begun plans to shut down operations. The State wants a monopoly on protecting people's rights. Restricting people's rights in the name of religion is not a noble venture.Note Vb definition of rights. Right to operate a business or school without violating personal deeply held religious beliefs is not considered a right.Contraception and abortion are absolute rights, not only are they allowed but payment for these rights is forced onto people who hold those things to be against their religious beliefs.and then he accuses the church of restricting peoples rights. This is a perfect example of religous bigotry. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 There is also a free exercise of religion. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 So ZD brings an argument, you get all lawyer up on him.So he pulls out case law..and all you got is this?Enjoy business contract writingThat was DJ refuting zd and me mocking zd. Have some metamucil and try and keep up. Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I Love the mocking and condescension from people who are comparing bigamy and virgin sacrifice with providing food and medicine for the poor.Yes, silly me, those are exactly the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
ShakeZuma 585 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 they banned providing food and medicine to the poor? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 They should have to provide whatever the law requires and their religious views are meaningless on what the minimum coverage should be.It would be difficult to make a more un-American statement than this on how laws and government are supposed to work in this country. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It would be difficult to make a more un-American statement than this on how laws and government are supposed to work in this country.Yea...glad he's stuck in the frozen north! Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No you said "subsidize her sexual activity". Now you changed it to "pay for her birth control" because it's a far less sexist and erroneous statement. Of course, you're still wrong. And she is saying that health plans should cover something the vast, vast majority of the female population uses....not always just for sexual purposes. You like every other conservatroll has tried to frame this as about fluke's sexual wants and needs. So, I found everything to be erroneous.The words I chose have no effect on the meaning of the statement; both are accurate.She is free to attempt to find a health care plan that suits her needs; forcing others to act in a way that person feels immoral because she is too lazy to do so is ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 That was DJ refuting zd and me mocking zd. Have some metamucil and try and keep up.I need to turn on avatarsOr JJ needs to stop jumping between neutral attempts at humor and actual engagement during debates. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now