Religion

enki23

(7,786 posts)

77. The religious "liberty" to deny liberty.

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:06 PM

Dec 2012

In one of a million equivalent ways, I daily infringe upon the religious liberty of millions.

My heart fucking weeps for them, each and every one.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit [View all] rug Dec 2012 OP

Yuck. I don't like this one bit. Laelth Dec 2012 #1

btw, I am morally opposed to war. Laelth Dec 2012 #2

Sorry, colleges and institutions do not HAVE consciences, PEOPLE HAVE THEM! cleanhippie Dec 2012 #3

Tell us, in which way was religious liberty in risk of being infringed? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #4

You'll find it in the Ccourt's order. rug Dec 2012 #5

I'm more interested in your opinion. 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #6

I'm sure you are. rug Dec 2012 #7

The answer to that question is, of course, "none." Do you disagree with that? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #11

That you canot find a fact where the Court of Appeals has does not surprise me in the least. rug Dec 2012 #13

No, the court did not answer that question in the order. eomer Dec 2012 #14

That's not correct. rug Dec 2012 #15

None of those are a finding by the court that a protected liberty was infringed. eomer Dec 2012 #16

Actually it does. rug Dec 2012 #17

There is a distinction you're missing between different types of religious organizations. eomer Dec 2012 #18

Yes a religious college is different from a religion. rug Dec 2012 #20

That safe harbor was granted by HHS (not by the legislation) and was temporary. eomer Dec 2012 #22

The Affordable Care Act amends literally dozens of other statutes. rug Dec 2012 #24

That link is to the regulation I was already referring you to. eomer Dec 2012 #31

The ACA imports the trem "religious employer" as defined in ERISA and the Internl Revenue Code, rug Dec 2012 #36

Not true, the ACA does not import the term "religious employer" or use it in any way. eomer Dec 2012 #39

The definition is in 26 USC § 414. rug Dec 2012 #40

No it's not. eomer Dec 2012 #45

26 USC § 414(e)(3)(D), specifically. rug Dec 2012 #52

That's not a definition of the term "religious employer", which you said would be found there. eomer Dec 2012 #56

It immediately follows 26 USC § 414(e)(3)(C), "Church treated as employer". rug Dec 2012 #57

If you read them together they still have nothing to say about the right claimed by Wheaton College. eomer Dec 2012 #58

And that representation was that HHS will write the regulation implementing the exemption. rug Dec 2012 #59

The court clearly did not decide whether the college *had* to be exempt. eomer Dec 2012 #64

Therefore, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the HHS, without statutory authority, rug Dec 2012 #65

No, the statutory authority is listed right in the regulation and it is the same as I said in #31. eomer Dec 2012 #76

Can we now take it you accept eomer has showed you the court did not rule about religious liberty? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #23

Not if you've been following closely because he hasn't. rug Dec 2012 #25

The title if the piece you chose was "a tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #29

I don't alter headlines. If you have a better article, post it. rug Dec 2012 #37

You've refused to answer the question, again, so there's no point in continuing muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #38

The answer is throughout this thread. rug Dec 2012 #41

Mostly correct but the administration has granted an accommodation, not recognized a right. eomer Dec 2012 #46

I *have* posted a better article - see post 26. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #42

And is *this* aritcile substantially different? rug Dec 2012 #43

It repeats it, but does not endorse it. There's a difference. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #49

Why don't we all take a look at all OTHER things Mr. Wingfield has written on that publcation? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #8

Why don't you take a look at the Court Order? rug Dec 2012 #9

Why do you approvingly relay the words of a Rush wannabe? 2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #10

Find your own link to this important decision. rug Dec 2012 #12

Here is a link to a report from 'The Hill'.. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #26

I don't believe in monsters. The article is from a mainstream newspaper. rug Dec 2012 #44

I do not prefer to 'chew on surmises' so I will ask you questions directly. LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #48

"DISGUSTING, INHUMAN individuals, who cannot be regarded as part of decent society"? rug Dec 2012 #50

Thanks LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #55

Do you have any idea who Kyle Wingfield is, or what his general views are? LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #19

Not really. The piece is from the Atlanta Journal Constitution. rug Dec 2012 #21

Wingfield manages to include his predilections in the article... LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #27

There is of course one solution to the problem of institutions paying for aspects of healthcare that LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #28

WHOSE religious liberty? What about a Protestant student, whose religion allows abortion? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #30

Wheaton College was founded by a Methodist abolitionist. rug Dec 2012 #34

Good choice of cases; the gov is not up against the giant Church. In THIS case. Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #63

The other appellant, Belmont Abbey College, is a Cathoic college and the Becket Fund is behind this. rug Dec 2012 #66

The most important idea: ENFORCING AN ANTI-ABORTION RELIGION, DENIES OTHER RELIGIONS Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #67

Protestants almost uniformly disapproved contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. rug Dec 2012 #69

Most Protestant churches allow contraception today: another important case here; not just labor Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #71

I argued with Archbishop Chaput that bishops are employees of the Vatican, in effect? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #72

Thanks for the link. rug Dec 2012 #73

My argument was never presented; feel free to bring it up with whoever is working on these cases Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #75

There is a win for religious liberty here, just not the one that the article claims. eomer Dec 2012 #32

My religion allows abortion; what happens when my Catholic employer denies my religion? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #78

When you post uses a bullshit title edhopper Dec 2012 #33

I posted the headline, verbatim. rug Dec 2012 #35

Rug? My PhD is in post-poststructuralist semantics; it's clear to me you are equivocating Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #47

An appeal to authority is, as you should know, a fallacy. rug Dec 2012 #51

Unless it is supported by corroborating arguments Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #61

I've been accused of what? rug Dec 2012 #68

Thanks in any case, for your close consideration of the current legal argument Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #62

All religous groups need to get out of the social welfare underthematrix Dec 2012 #53

That is essentially correct. rug Dec 2012 #54

Honestly, unless they are dickheads, I would imagine, they would accept buyouts... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #60

That might be a solution but it is not an easy one. rug Dec 2012 #70

I imagine it would be piecemeal... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #74

Would have to close? Wouldn't there be more dimensions to the question of conscience? eomer Dec 2012 #79

They would continue their charity work, including medical care, as they have for centuries. rug Dec 2012 #80

Catholic doctrine says all artificial methods are evil and will result in eternal damnation. no? eomer Dec 2012 #82

The religious "liberty" to deny liberty. enki23 Dec 2012 #77

What happens when religions conflict? Whose religion gets freedom, over others? Brettongarcia Dec 2012 #81