Does this mean our CONGRESS and elected representatives are Muslim? For on what grounds are they exempt from obamacare? :(
And who PROFITS the most from this Bill? Washington! For ALL of those tax penalties that companies and individuals will have to pay will go to the Federal Govt and not to the Private Insurance companies who will be stuck with "Adverse Selection!"
Which, by the way, will bankrupt them and we will finally be FORCED to having a "single payer system!" Which was the original intent ALL ALONG! :) Old Salt
~edited to add... "and who....."
Health care law - does it discriminate?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/08/07 18:12:51
|
|
|||||
|
57 votes
|
|
50% | ||
|
50 votes
|
|
44% | ||
|
7 votes
|
|
6% | ||
Does the health care law discriminate in favor of some religions and against others?
Consider: members of "religious sects or divisions," extant prior to 31 December 1950, that forbid insurance, do not have to buy insurance. That's right out of the Social Security Act, to which the health care reform bill refers in this context.
So: if your religion forbids buying insurance, you don't have to buy insurance. (That is, as long as your sect has existed since before 31 December 1950.) But if your religion forbids anything else, like contraception, you're out of luck! (Or in religious terms, you're accursed!)
How convenient, for Islam, in which insurance is forbidden (haraam), but not for Roman Catholics, who do not use contraceptives!
Does this constitute "making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? You tell me.
Consider: members of "religious sects or divisions," extant prior to 31 December 1950, that forbid insurance, do not have to buy insurance. That's right out of the Social Security Act, to which the health care reform bill refers in this context.
So: if your religion forbids buying insurance, you don't have to buy insurance. (That is, as long as your sect has existed since before 31 December 1950.) But if your religion forbids anything else, like contraception, you're out of luck! (Or in religious terms, you're accursed!)
How convenient, for Islam, in which insurance is forbidden (haraam), but not for Roman Catholics, who do not use contraceptives!
Does this constitute "making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? You tell me.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/07...
What if this was a concern: Blacks are always seen by the doctor BEFORE whites because blacks have been discriminated against in the past. IS THAT DISCRIMINATION??
Since the government could make that coverage an optional rider paid by the insured patient, and refuses to do it, the government is denying those people their freedom of religion, and forcing them to obey a different theology. It can also be stated that the The government is establishing a very profound religious principle that human life is not sacred and that an unborn baby does not have a soul.
This law should be ruled unconstitutional according the the establishment of religion clause.
As for this:
"How convenient, for Islam, in which insurance is forbidden (haraam), but not for Roman Catholics, who do not use contraceptives!"
There is nothing in the health care act that requires a priest to wear a condom when raping a little boy.
But seriously, this exemption effects an individual muslim and his family. If you tell me that this provision allows a muslim with employees not to buy health insurance for his employees then you are right. It is discriminatory.
But this particular issue has been driven into the ground as well as proven false.
Since the US separates church and state, churches should stay out of state business too. If Congress wrote a bad law (gasp, my smelling salts please, I feel faint), FIX IT.
The US constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and only prohibits the government establishment of a particular religion.
The degrees are outlined in the above argument for this post.
I think it is extremely funny to think that Catholics do not use contraceptives. Now it is probably not as high as 98% but even my sister in law who is roman catholic with her husband, my brother, used them. Not any longer as she has long past menopause.
Church has not always been right. Even they admit that. They need to stop treating women as second class citizens.
I am not Catholic but would you go to Church if all those women are gone?
I will repeat what I said, Catholic Women are not forced to not take birth control. However the Catholic Church promotes the rythem method.
Anyone that does not agree with the doctrine is welcome to leave.
Your assertion that women are treated as second class citizens is absurd.
Obviously the vast majority of Catholic women do not follow this primitive teaching. Lets see how long did they take to correct the mistake on Galileo?
Ever heard of Women on the bus?