Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin... at the General Forum; Originally Posted by rivrrat No, they're not. The church is perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs. So "[t]he church" ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:32 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,309
Thanks: 12,608
Thanked 4,546 Times in 2,915 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
No, they're not. The church is perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs.
So "[t]he church" is "free" to practice those doctrines it holds dear; but individual members of the church are not free to do so, if they also happen to be employers.

I see.

For observant Christians, religious doctrine and practice permeates every possible sphere of their lives. So they cannot merely compartmentalize, and act in a "religious" manner during worship services, on Sunday, and act in a secular manner the rest of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Yup. But one had to do with illegal drugs and the other has to do with a mandate for all employers.
Perhaps you do not understand that an analogy, by definition, displays a set of similarities as concerning different matters.

What this particular case reinforces is this: The courts have consistently given deference to established religions, while showing no similar deference to recently made-up "religions."

Moreover, your logic (such as it is) is clearly of the reductio ad absurdum variety; which is a strain of reasoning that has never impressed me...
Reply With Quote
  #132 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:33 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Still if a woman won't put out she won't (unless raped) get pregnant. Facto mundo extraordinaire!
99.9% of the women in the world aren't going to go through their entire life celibate. facto mundo
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #133 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:39 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
So "[t]he church" is "free" to practice those doctrines it holds dear; but individual members of the church are not free to do so, if they also happen to be employers.
Of course they are.

Quote:
For observant Christians, religious doctrine and practice permeates every possible sphere of their lives. So they cannot merely compartmentalize, and act in a "religious" manner during worship services, on Sunday, and act in a secular manner the rest of the time.
Excuse me while I try to stop laughing.


Anywho, they don't need to 'act' in any manner. They are perfectly free to hold whatever beliefs they want and act in accordance with those beliefs.


Quote:
Perhaps you do not understand that an analogy, by definition, displays a set of similarities as concerning different matters.
Perhaps you don't understand that I was explaining the distinct differences that made it a poor analogy.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #134 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:46 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 82,706
Thanks: 55,898
Thanked 26,430 Times in 18,931 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
99.9% of the women in the world aren't going to go through their entire life celibate. facto mundo
celibate? No but they could certainly use a bit of discernment.
__________________
An unhappy woman from California is known as a divorcee.


An unhappy woman from the South is known as a widow.
~ Steve Bruner
Reply With Quote
  #135 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:47 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,309
Thanks: 12,608
Thanked 4,546 Times in 2,915 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Of course they are.
I am still trying to figure out how it is that individual members of a religious group might be "free" to practice their religion--not merely believe it, but actually practice it--if the government requires them to take actions that are contrary to the doctrines they hold dear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Excuse me while I try to stop laughing.
So, you find it "laugh[able]" for someone to note that truly religious people practice their religion 24/7, and not just during worship services...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Anywho, they don't need to 'act' in any manner. They are perfectly free to hold whatever beliefs they want and act in accordance with those beliefs.
Not if they are being forced to do something that they consider immoral...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Perhaps you don't understand that I was explaining the distinct differences that made it a poor analogy.
Well, since the High Court has consistently shown deference to established religions, but has never shown similar deference to recently invented "religions," I believe it is a pretty good analogy...
Reply With Quote
  #136 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 11:53 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
I am still trying to figure out how it is that individual members of a religious group might be "free" to practice their religion--not merely believe it, but actually practice it--if the government requires them to take actions that are contrary to the doctrines they hold dear.
Providing insurance choices to people is contrary to their doctrines? Where is that, exactly, in the bible where it says, "thou shalt not provide insurance for employees"?

The government isn't requiring the individuals to USE birth control. They are not being required to take actions that are contrary to "doctrine they hold dear".

Not that it matters. You should not get a pass on the law because of your chosen beliefs of the moment.


Quote:
Not if they are being forced to do something that they consider immoral...
Uh huh. I'm sure it just weighs heavily on their conscience every moment of every day that they're providing insurance that provides women with a choice to use birth control or not. Like. ZOMG. The horror.

Gimme a break.

There is nothing in any doctrine that say "thou must not let other people choose to do something thou disagrees with"

Not that it matters. You should not get a pass on the law because of your chosen beliefs of the moment.

Quote:
Well, since the High Court has consistently shown deference to established religions, but has never shown similar deference to recently invented "religions," I believe it is a pretty good analogy...
I've already explained why it's not.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel

Last edited by rivrrat; 02-24-2012 at 11:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
  #137 (permalink)  
Old 02-25-2012, 04:43 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,309
Thanks: 12,608
Thanked 4,546 Times in 2,915 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Providing insurance choices to people is contrary to their doctrines?
Providing easy access to an action one considers morally reprehensible does, indeed, fly in the face of religious people's doctrines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
You should not get a pass on the law because of your chosen beliefs of the moment.
We are not discussing one's "chosen beliefs of the moment," as if all (or most) religious beliefs were transient and probably insincere.

Clearly, neither is the case...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Uh huh. I'm sure it just weighs heavily on their conscience every moment of every day that they're providing insurance that provides women with a choice to use birth control or not.
Your chosen method of debate would appear to be to ridicule those with whom you disagree, rather than actually debating them (in the usual sense of the word).

One could surely be pardoned for wondering if you have even one scintilla of evidence to support the view that most of those who are objecting to this new requirement are not really bothered by it, from a purely moral standpoint...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
There is nothing in any doctrine that say "thou must not let other people choose to do something thou disagrees with"
Do you really suppose that your attempt at Elizabethan English changes anything?

In any case, it is one thing to "let" others do as they wish, so long as the action in question is not demonstrably harmful to others (in which case, it would probably be a crime already); it is quite another to provide easy access for them to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
I've already explained why it's not.
And I have already explained why it is similar.

Find me just one SCOTUS case, within the past 100 years--no, find me just one SCOTUS case ever--that has established the principle that all religions must be treated equally, even if those religions have recently been invented, and I will back off. Immediately.

Otherwise, I will not...
Reply With Quote
  #138 (permalink)  
Old 02-25-2012, 04:58 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Providing easy access to an action one considers morally reprehensible does, indeed, fly in the face of religious people's doctrines.
Easy access? How are they providing any access at all? They don't open the clinics. They don't take the women to the doctor's office. They don't hand them the pills.

But they do pay their employees. And that money gives their employees easy access to do all sorts of things that are against their doctrine. They should probably stop paying their employees.


Quote:
We are not discussing one's "chosen beliefs of the moment,"
Yes. We are.

Quote:
One could surely be pardoned for wondering if you have even one scintilla of evidence to support the view that most of those who are objecting to this new requirement are not really bothered by it, from a purely moral standpoint...
No one gives a **** if they're "really bothered by it". You don't get a pass on a law because it "bothers" you.


Quote:
In any case, it is one thing to "let" others do as they wish, so long as the action in question is not demonstrably harmful to others (in which case, it would probably be a crime already); it is quite another to provide easy access for them to do so.
Already addressed this above.

Quote:
Find me just one SCOTUS case, within the past 100 years--no, find me just one SCOTUS case ever--that has established the principle that all religions must be treated equally, even if those religions have recently been invented, and I will back off. Immediately.

Otherwise, I will not...
I never said there was. /shrug

But I don't see how our government can be in the business of deciding which religions are legitimate and which ones aren't. I'm kind of astounded that anyone would want the government to be in charge of doing that. You know, due to that whole "freedom of religion" thing.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
  #139 (permalink)  
Old 02-25-2012, 11:33 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,309
Thanks: 12,608
Thanked 4,546 Times in 2,915 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Easy access? How are they providing any access at all? They don't open the clinics. They don't take the women to the doctor's office. They don't hand them the pills.

But they do pay their employees. And that money gives their employees easy access to do all sorts of things that are against their doctrine. They should probably stop paying their employees.
By their including access to free contraception within their healthcare plan, they are indeed providing easy access to that which they consider morally reprehensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Yes. We are.
Could you supply some supporting evidence, please, to help establish your assertion that longtime--in many cases, probably lifelong--Catholics are simply setting forth their beliefs "of the moment"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
No one gives a **** if they're "really bothered by it". You don't get a pass on a law because it "bothers" you.
Actually, you do "get a pass" (to borrow your own phraseology here). Always have.

To assert otherwise is to hope to overturn more than two centuries of American tradition.

Moreover, it is to declare--tacitly, at least--that the law trumps religious beliefs and practices in this country.

And, simply put, it does not.

The government has no more of a legitimate authority to place demands upon the church, and require the church to comply, than the church has to place demands upon the government, and demand the government to comply.

Neither institution stands above the other in America, authoritatively...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
But I don't see how our government can be in the business of deciding which religions are legitimate and which ones aren't. I'm kind of astounded that anyone would want the government to be in charge of doing that. You know, due to that whole "freedom of religion" thing.
The Supreme Court has already decided that brand new, made-up religions do not deserve the same deference as established religions.

Your breezy dismissal of this does not change that fact.

And neither does your militant anti-theism, which hopes (apparently) to portray all religions as equally ridiculous, and therefore unworthy of any deference...
Reply With Quote
  #140 (permalink)  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:18 AM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Santorum super-PAC backer: Women used Bayer aspirin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
By their including access to free contraception within their healthcare plan, they are indeed providing easy access to that which they consider morally reprehensible.
By paying their employees they're providing easy access to that which they consider morally reprehensible.

Quote:
Could you supply some supporting evidence, please, to help establish your assertion that longtime--in many cases, probably lifelong--Catholics are simply setting forth their beliefs "of the moment"?
The fact that, at that point in time, that's what they believe. Ergo, those are their beliefs of the moment. It's really common sense.

Quote:
Actually, you do "get a pass" (to borrow your own phraseology here). Always have.
No, you don't. Individuals who think homosexuality is evil don't get a pass on killing them just because their chosen book of myths says they should. Individuals who think women are better seen and not heard don't get a pass on abusing their wives to keep them in line simply because their beliefs state they should. Individuals who believe that women and homosexuals are inferior and/or evil do not get a pass on openly discriminating against either. Need I really go on?

Quote:
To assert otherwise is to hope to overturn more than two centuries of American tradition.
My assertion is simple fact.

Quote:
Moreover, it is to declare--tacitly, at least--that the law trumps religious beliefs and practices in this country.
It does.

Quote:
And, simply put, it does not.
Simply put, it does.

Quote:
The government has no more of a legitimate authority to place demands upon the church, and require the church to comply, than the church has to place demands upon the government, and demand the government to comply.
The government is demanding all employers follow a law.

Quote:
Neither institution stands above the other in America, authoritatively...
Umm.. yeah, one does.

Quote:
The Supreme Court has already decided that brand new, made-up religions do not deserve the same deference as established religions.
No, the supreme court ruled on one case unrelated to what we're discussing.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aspirin, backer, bayer, santorum, superpac, used, women

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0