Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Thorn]

By leagues, this is the smartest thing posted since this particular threadjack began.
This discussion is silly. Catholics are already providing birth control for millions of people simply by paying taxes. I fail to understand how this is so substantively different.

I said that about mandatory health insurance, similar to drivers licenses, but nobody listens to me.........

[Jon Miller]

It is apparent from your arguments that you discount some forms of freedom of conscience. You support laws which give religions exemptions that others cannot have. Then you go so far as to paint these others as "just not wanting to", stripping them of their "conscience" entirely.

Wrong.

I can say "I don't want to go fight in the war" and have it be a lot different than "fighting in wars is wrong, I don't want to fight in the war".

The reason for things matter. Always has, should in the future too.

I think that atheists can believe that abortion is wrong or birth control is wrong or so on too.

JM

[Krill]

Still gotta fight though...

[Thorn]

Here's an idea, I believe in the culture of death, people cause suffering therefore to remove suffering people must die, please join me with the human extinction movement.

Before anyone suggests me be the first volunteer, i never claimed to be human.

[Jon Miller]

If the government decides to fund something you consider morally reprehensible then your taxes go up to pay for it. If you're against making people pay for something they claim to find morally objectionable, as a matter of principle, then you must be some kind of hardcore libertarian that wants all government spending to be paid for by voluntary contributions and nothing more.

I haven't bought any Raptors. The federal government has. The federal government is an entity. Just like the hospital/etc.

And I do regard taxation to be important enough to invalidate people's freedom of conscience, although I know some disagree.

There were a number of denominations (maybe my own) who had members refused to pay taxes during WW1 over pacifism.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Still gotta fight though...

Actually, no.

Not for the second.

It is a lot easier to prove for certain religious denominations (see Quakers) than for other groups though.

JM

[Aeson]

I can say "I don't want to go fight in the war" and have it be a lot different than "fighting in wars is wrong, I don't want to fight in the war".

The reason for things matter. Always has, should in the future too.

Yet you are denying that the reasons even exist with your comparisons. Then you are falling into the same trap you're pointing out by pretending your beliefs about the value of something override everyone else's beliefs in the value of it, and thus it's ok to treat some people differently than others simply because of what organization they belong to.

I think that atheists can believe that abortion is wrong or birth control is wrong or so on too.

Yet you are supporting the types of laws which have historically denied them the same rights as religious organizations. (And in this specific case would too, even if you had your way.)

[giblets]

I haven't bought any Raptors. The federal government has. The federal government is an entity. Just like the hospital/etc.

And I do regard taxation to be important enough to invalidate people's freedom of conscience, although I know some disagree.

There were a number of denominations (maybe my own) who had members refused to pay taxes during WW1 over pacifism.

JM

Okay, if you're saying that violating someone's freedom of conscience is okay if it's for something really important then at least you're being consistent.

[Aeson]

Actually, no.

Not for the second.

It is a lot easier to prove for certain religious denominations (see Quakers) than for other groups though.

It's ridiculous. If I don't believe in killing people, I have to fight. If a person from X religion doesn't believe in killing people, then it's ok. Complete hypocrisy in every possible way. Rather than separating church and state, you are creating a state recognized church (in this specific regard) and favoring only those people who belong to it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hardly. Government-mandated healthcare is, for all intents and purposes, a tax, just as all government mandates are.

Indirect vs. Direct, though.

And I realized another problem. I work for the Department of Labor agency that investigates Health Plans and determines whether they are in compliance with the law. This includes any HHS stuff as well. We have NEVER been allowed to investigate a religious-affiliated hospital (or state & local government). Ever. So how in the world would this be enforced?

[Jon Miller]

Okay, if you're saying that violating someone's freedom of conscience is okay if it's for something really important then at least you're being consistent.

If you believe in human sacrifice I definitely favor violating your action on your freedom of conscience.

I am remembering another conversation, you have difficulty understanding the difference between the action based freedom of conscience and the freedom of conscience.

I don't think it is ever ok to violate someone's freedom of conscience.

I was referring to the action part.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If I don't believe in killing people, I have to fight.

Wrong.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

Please, research a bit.

JM

[giblets]

If you believe in human sacrifice I definitely favor violating your action on your freedom of conscience.

I am remembering another conversation, you have difficulty understanding the difference between the action based freedom of conscience and the freedom of conscience.

I don't think it is ever ok to violate someone's freedom of conscience.

I was referring to the action part.

JM

Which one of those is forcing someone to pay for things? I certainly have difficulty understanding your comparison between not wanting to pay taxes and wanting to sacrifice humans. I think it makes more sense to compare forcing someone to pay taxes for things they don't want to forcing someone to pay for condoms they don't want people to use.

[Uncle Sparky]

Indirect vs. Direct, though.

And I realized another problem. I work for the Department of Labor agency that investigates Health Plans and determines whether they are in compliance with the law. This includes any HHS stuff as well. We have NEVER been allowed to investigate a religious-affiliated hospital (or state & local government). Ever. So how in the world would this be enforced?

So if an employee filed a complaint, you'd be unallowed to investigate?

[Aeson]

Wrong.

Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971).

http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

Please, research a bit.

JM

What you are saying here is that you support CO's being drafted and having to fight in Vietnam if they would have fought against Nazis in WWII. And this is supposed to show that you are supportive of CO's how?

Yet it's some unbearable burden for hospitals to have to pay for their employees health plans even though it's the same health plan every other hospital has to pay for.