Urban planning community | #theplannerlife

+ Reply to thread
Page 66 of 278 FirstFirst ... 56 65 66 67 76 ... LastLast
Results 1,626 to 1,650 of 6932

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #1626
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." therefore my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. I as an American, I don't believe the government should infringe on their rights.

    As for infringing on my rights, as someone who gives money to the Catholic Church as part of my tithe each week, I am now paying for something that I don't think is right, and the Catholic Church does not think is right. That is one of the many reasons that I am Catholic. The bible calls me to tithe and now, regardless of the church, it is something that will be universally required, even if it is in direct conflict with Catholic teachings.

    In 1779, as part of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, Jefferson stated "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

    This was half of the foundation for the separation of church and state concept. The other half was the 1st Amendment. By requiring the Catholic church to pay for insurance that is in violation of their beliefs, it is in fact, prohibiting the full free exercise thereof.
    For me, I really don't see the issue here. If the Catholic Church is an employer in the US and US law requires offering coverage, they must provide it. The law takes precendent, not the Church. The issue of whether contraception or abortion services are a POSSIBLE use of that insurance is immaterial as it is the nation's law and requirement and I think upending that would be disasterous. No one is FORCING these employees to use contraception and they certainly don't have to if it is offensive to them or against their beliefs. It would be one thing if the Church was being required to do something, but really, they are being required to offer the OPTION. Should we allow Christian Scientists to not offer any coverage to their employees at all because they don't believe in it? What if you work for the Shakers and then have a kid? Will they not cover prenatal care? IMO, the role of government here should be to ensure everyone has access as a civil rights issue. This all seems a very slippery slope to get employers off the hook of providing insurance (or at least the parts they don't like or agree with) and I can see a slew of related arguments. that would follow.

    I would invoke two things in relation to this. One is, that, according to many, God gave us all free will. That means we have the right and even the duty to make our own decisions for ourselves (and not have others make them for us). So, while the Church may preach that one should not use contraception, they can't FORCE you to do so.They rely on each individual's free will to make that decision (after arguing their case, of course). The same with anything that violates a religious tenent, including murder. You can't force people not to kill each other, but you can give people the information to make what you feel is an informed decision and hope they follow a responsible path. If I don't believe in murder because its against my religion, can I get out of paying the part of my taxes that goes to prisons?

    The second is the protection of individual rights. The law is very clear that issues of contraception or abortion really are individual rights and decisions that can be made only by the direct parties. Religion informs how people make decisions, but cannot and should not (in our country at least) dictate directly. Given that a Catholic entity can and does employ non-Catholics, the DENIAL of these health coverage OPTIONS would be a serious infringement on their rights. And I do know at least three people who work for Catholic entities (Catholic Charities and a Catholic Secondary School, specifically) who are not Catholics, so this definitely happens and would be a serious infringement of their civil rights to deny them access to contraception.

    Lastly, its worth noting on this contraception issue the recent study I cited in another forum that found "98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning."

    This indicates the Chuhrch is quite a bit out of step with realities of its US members and that refusing to offer contraception through health care would be seen as detrimental to more than just the non-Catholic employees of the church.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  2. #1627
    Nice post, wahday. You expressed my opinion better than I could.

    I see Mike's point better in this situation, though: Amish men arrested for refusing to display placard. Kentucky law requires them to post safety-orange reflective triangle-shaped placards on their slow-moving buggies, for their safety and ours. They refused because they are required by their religion (Old Order Sheckentruber) to avoid bright colors, and because the triangle shape is reserved for the Trinity. Instead, they put reflective safety tape on their buggies, but were ticketed and ultimately sentenced to between 3 and 10 days in jail. it will be interesting to see if the Kentucky Supreme Court hears the case and, if they do, how the Court holds on the issue.
    Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
    Abraham Lincoln

  3. #1628
    Cyburbian Tarf's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker View post
    Nice post, wahday. You expressed my opinion better than I could.

    I see Mike's point better in this situation, though: Amish men arrested for refusing to display placard. Kentucky law requires them to post safety-orange reflective triangle-shaped placards on their slow-moving buggies, for their safety and ours. They refused because they are required by their religion (Old Order Sheckentruber) to avoid bright colors, and because the triangle shape is reserved for the Trinity. Instead, they put reflective safety tape on their buggies, but were ticketed and ultimately sentenced to between 3 and 10 days in jail. it will be interesting to see if the Kentucky Supreme Court hears the case and, if they do, how the Court holds on the issue.
    In balancing public safety with religious freedom, my bet is that the court will rule that the state's regulation is not the "least intrusive" means of ensuring public safety. Granted, I don't know whether the safety tape on the buggies was adequate to ensure public safety, but clearly the state needs to revise their code so it isn't a triangle (or at least allow an alternate shape).
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)

  4. #1629
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,599
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker View post
    Nice post, wahday. You expressed my opinion better than I could.

    I see Mike's point better in this situation, though: Amish men arrested for refusing to display placard. Kentucky law requires them to post safety-orange reflective triangle-shaped placards on their slow-moving buggies, for their safety and ours. They refused because they are required by their religion (Old Order Sheckentruber) to avoid bright colors, and because the triangle shape is reserved for the Trinity. Instead, they put reflective safety tape on their buggies, but were ticketed and ultimately sentenced to between 3 and 10 days in jail. it will be interesting to see if the Kentucky Supreme Court hears the case and, if they do, how the Court holds on the issue.
    same deal really as not allowing plural marriage for fundamentalist Mormons - remember that the one guy is serving a long time in jail for that. How about allowing Rastafarians to smoke marijuana? Certain indian religions use peyote which is outlawed (which is really messed up that we took their land and then outlawed their religious practices but that's another rant altogether). For the greater good there always will be and always has been a balance on these things. The fact is that there never has been a complete freedom of religion in the sense that mskis is arguing for. I would also argue that mskis argument that what he believes in is the absolute truth and everyone else is wrong really highlights the fact that complete freedom of religion can never exist in a civilized society.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  5. #1630
    Cyburbian Zoning Goddess's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 1999
    Location
    400 miles from Orlando
    Posts
    13,856
    Hillary Clinton looks like crap at SOTU. She really really needs to cut her hair.

  6. #1631
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally posted by Zoning Goddess View post
    Hillary Clinton looks like crap at SOTU. She really really needs to cut her hair.

    You would look like crap as well if you were trying to simultaneously plan for the attack on and subsequent invasion and transition of Iran AND wrestling with world leaders. That can't be an easy job!

    To bad she won't run after Obama's second term.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  7. #1632
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    13,007
    Obama was overly optimistic. Daniels was down right pessimistic. I guess I prefer to err on the side of optimism, but both were a bit weak. Obama said everything you would expect. He even brought in Warren Buffet's secretary. Mitch Daniels was horrible. Why would the R's pick him? He has no personality and seems to have an odd face tick or something. I do think "My man Mitch" was a downgrade from Jindal too, even if Jindal was horrible last year.

    Funny how ABC, NBC, and CBS were talking about the merits of the speech; the good points, the easy points, and some of the points that need details (damn Left Wing media). Then I switch to Fox News and they just talked about how horrible a speech it was. How it covered nothing. All the points are bad. And how Obama just dug his own grave.

    I don't know how you would ever learn about moderation or other views if you only watched Fox News. I think ABC was liking Obama a bit too much, but if you don't think they are more "Fair and Balanced" than Fox you are crazy...
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  8. #1633
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Somewhere between the mountains and the ocean.
    Posts
    16,934
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    For me, I really don't see the issue here. If the Catholic Church is an employer in the US and US law requires offering coverage, they must provide it. The law takes precendent, not the Church. The issue of whether contraception or abortion services are a POSSIBLE use of that insurance is immaterial as it is the nation's law and requirement and I think upending that would be disasterous. No one is FORCING these employees to use contraception and they certainly don't have to if it is offensive to them or against their beliefs. It would be one thing if the Church was being required to do something, but really, they are being required to offer the OPTION. Should we allow Christian Scientists to not offer any coverage to their employees at all because they don't believe in it? What if you work for the Shakers and then have a kid? Will they not cover prenatal care? IMO, the role of government here should be to ensure everyone has access as a civil rights issue. This all seems a very slippery slope to get employers off the hook of providing insurance (or at least the parts they don't like or agree with) and I can see a slew of related arguments. that would follow.

    I would invoke two things in relation to this. One is, that, according to many, God gave us all free will. That means we have the right and even the duty to make our own decisions for ourselves (and not have others make them for us). So, while the Church may preach that one should not use contraception, they can't FORCE you to do so.They rely on each individual's free will to make that decision (after arguing their case, of course). The same with anything that violates a religious tenent, including murder. You can't force people not to kill each other, but you can give people the information to make what you feel is an informed decision and hope they follow a responsible path. If I don't believe in murder because its against my religion, can I get out of paying the part of my taxes that goes to prisons?

    The second is the protection of individual rights. The law is very clear that issues of contraception or abortion really are individual rights and decisions that can be made only by the direct parties. Religion informs how people make decisions, but cannot and should not (in our country at least) dictate directly. Given that a Catholic entity can and does employ non-Catholics, the DENIAL of these health coverage OPTIONS would be a serious infringement on their rights. And I do know at least three people who work for Catholic entities (Catholic Charities and a Catholic Secondary School, specifically) who are not Catholics, so this definitely happens and would be a serious infringement of their civil rights to deny them access to contraception.

    Lastly, its worth noting on this contraception issue the recent study I cited in another forum that found "98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning."

    This indicates the Chuhrch is quite a bit out of step with realities of its US members and that refusing to offer contraception through health care would be seen as detrimental to more than just the non-Catholic employees of the church.
    I am shocked how you can list several truths but be completely wrong on this. God did give us free will, the church is not forcing people to use it, we have a protection of individual rights, and there are a lot of women who do use contraception who are catholic. But you are 100% wrong to say that the federal government can supersede the Catholic Church in requiring them to do something that is in direct conflict with their religion. But that is what is wrong with too much of society today. People doing wrong things and trying to rationalize and even support those actions.

    The Catholic Church not offering insurance that includes birth control does not prevent anyone from access to birth control. Furthermore, they could choose to work at a different place if they felt that they NEEDED drugs or devices to limit perceived undesired consequences of their lustful desires. Furthermore, free will would allow us to go out and buy any kind of insurance we want and do whatever we want with it, regardless of who their employer is.

    Do you have insurance from the Catholic Church? In talking with a youth minister friend of mine (who does have insurance from the church), he pointed out that a catholic school, mission, university, soup kitchen, or similar non-church entity is not a “business” but working and acting to provide a public service with a very specific faith based approach.
    Let me make something very clear, there is nothing you, or anyone else in this forum board is going to say that will change my mind on this matter. I think it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong and based on my conversation with my friend, the US Council of Bishops has already stated that they will challenge this. The office of the Pope noted that they will have the full backing of the Vatican.
    If you're not growing, you're dying. - Lou Holtz

  9. #1634
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,425
    The federal government should just stay out of it. The Knights Templar will ensure that no one uses condoms ever again.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  10. #1635
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    13,007
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Let me make something very clear, there is nothing you, or anyone else in this forum board is going to say that will change my mind on this matter. I think it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong and based on my conversation with my friend, the US Council of Bishops has already stated that they will challenge this. The office of the Pope noted that they will have the full backing of the Vatican.
    Alright, then please, for the sake of rational argument and discussion, please stay out of this thread. You are continually pushing your view as correct, and are unwilling to have a rational discussion about it.

    I think most people have tried to explain to you their views. You don't agree. That is your right. It doesn't mean you are right. It means that is what you perceive to be right. Luckily everyone gets to make their own decisions about right and wrong.


    Let's all move on...
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  11. #1636
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    9,189
    m-skis and wahday - just agree to disagree on this point.


    As for the SOTU - I wasn't sure of Fox Newsentertainment was watching the same speech. They poo-pooed everything, even the points that both parties agree on. The speech itself was over optimistic, but there were several items that basically said 'look everyone, we're in this together, so lets work to fix it'

    BTW-I hate the standing ovations for every sentence and you could certainly see where the dems sat and where the repubs sat in the chambers.
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  12. #1637
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    Alright, then please, for the sake of rational argument and discussion, please stay out of this thread. You are continually pushing your view as correct, and are unwilling to have a rational discussion about it.

    I think most people have tried to explain to you their views. You don't agree. That is your right. It doesn't mean you are right. It means that is what you perceive to be right. Luckily everyone gets to make their own decisions about right and wrong.


    Let's all move on...
    Let's see....

    Agree with us = 'rational and reasoned'
    Disagree with us = 'irrational and divisive'

    Kewl, Got it!!!



    Mike

  13. #1638
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    13,007
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Let's see....

    Agree with us = 'rational and reasoned'
    Disagree with us = 'irrational and divisive'

    Kewl, Got it!!!



    Mike
    It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It is about rational discussion. I said nothing about reasoned. Nor did I say anything about divisive. Unfortunately it isn't a woe is me moment.

    It is a let's move on since we are beating a dead horse moment.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  14. #1639
    maudit anglais
    Registered
    May 1997
    Location
    Odd-a-wah
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Let's see....

    Agree with us = 'rational and reasoned'
    Disagree with us = 'irrational and divisive'

    Kewl, Got it!!!



    Mike
    Oh, please Mike(s). Stop using this cop out every time you fail to "win". This is a discussion thread not a polemic thread - if you can't contribute anything stay out of it.

    Okay, to actually add something to the discussion from a Canadian perspective. I think I could twist mskis argument into a case for public heath care. Take the decision out of the hands of various religious-based employers and give everyone the FREEDOM of access to medical products and procedures that their employer, church, God may not approve of. FWIW, as far as I know contraceptives are not covered by public health care here (unless medically required). You want birth control (condoms, pills) you pay for it yourself or find a community health centre/clinic which offers sexual health services.

  15. #1640
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,195
    ^^
    And if the USSupremes side with the Catholic Church on 'religious freedom' grounds when this case reaches them?

    Mike

  16. #1641
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Let me make something very clear, there is nothing you, or anyone else in this forum board is going to say that will change my mind on this matter. I think it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong and based on my conversation with my friend, the US Council of Bishops has already stated that they will challenge this. The office of the Pope noted that they will have the full backing of the Vatican.
    Hey Man, I wasn't trying stomp on your buzz! I simply assumed that since you had posted your opinion in the forum that you were open to a discussion about it. Usually when one posts in a setting like this there is an assumption that others will share/posit their own positions (which, given human nature, are most likely to vary). I was operating on that assumption.

    Since its causing so much ire, let's just move on...
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  17. #1642
    Cyburbian Tarf's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    The federal government should just stay out of it. The Knights Templar will ensure that no one uses condoms ever again.
    That, and Rick Santorum.

    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    ^^
    And if the USSupremes side with the Catholic Church on 'religious freedom' grounds when this case reaches them?

    Mike
    They won't side with the Catholic church. They just had a very recent decision that exempted churches from I think it was ADA requirements. However, the decision intentionally did not apply to employees of the church who do not work in a religious capacity. As noted above, if you're a theology professor at Notre Dame, you're exempt; if you're an economics professor, you are not.
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)

  18. #1643
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,599
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    It is a let's move on since we are beating a dead horse moment.
    Are you trying to take away my freedoms to beat dead horses?
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  19. #1644
    Wow. looks like the conservative cyburbs are taking it on the chin today.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  20. #1645
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,697
    We can and should take out the religious argument out of this discussion. The potential protections the religious hospitals want and pretend to have should be made moot. National, single payer healthcare for all. Religious healthcare can then wither on the vine if they want to provide actual healthcare. Religious institutions should not be involved in providing insurance. Then, if they refuse to provide a medical service and it causes a harm or death to a patent, they can be sued out of existence.

    Religious institutions should not be immune from the law. Nor should they be protected.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  21. #1646
    Cyburbian Zoning Goddess's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 1999
    Location
    400 miles from Orlando
    Posts
    13,856

    Newt's promising a Moon Base

    What, is he trying to top Mitt's announcement of $42 million income in 2 years; "Look at me, we'll have a moon base!". Talk about a ridiculous waste of money that will never be approved.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...LRQ_story.html

  22. #1647
    Cyburbian Tarf's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally posted by Zoning Goddess View post
    What, is he trying to top Mitt's announcement of $42 million income in 2 years; "Look at me, we'll have a moon base!". Talk about a ridiculous waste of money that will never be approved.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...LRQ_story.html

    What federal programs for the needy and/or federal agencies does he want to cut so we can afford a moon base?

    Good to see he has his priorities straight.
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)

  23. #1648
    Cyburbian Zoning Goddess's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 1999
    Location
    400 miles from Orlando
    Posts
    13,856
    I'd like to know if all these anti-insurance, anti-abortion, anti-lustful desires people ever had sex outside of marriage. Hell, almost everyone else on the planet has. Did they use condoms? Any other form of birth control? Or is this the "I had my fun, now I"m a responsible Republican anti-sex person and you can't have any sex fun" argument? Seriously, you mainlining no-insurance outside of marriage people didn't do it?

  24. #1649
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally posted by Tarf View post
    What federal programs for the needy and/or federal agencies does he want to cut so we can afford a moon base?

    Good to see he has his priorities straight.
    The moon base is where we'll send all the poor and needy. There, problem solved (brushes hands and walks away).
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  25. #1650
    Cyburbian Tarf's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally posted by wahday View post
    The moon base is where we'll send all the poor and needy. There, problem solved (brushes hands and walks away).
    Nice!
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)

+ Reply to thread
Page 66 of 278 FirstFirst ... 56 65 66 67 76 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 9
    Last post: 02 Jul 2015, 1:07 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 9:26 AM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 10:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 2:17 PM