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...
Just because some Catholic women do not follow Catholic Doctrine does not make Catholic Doctrine wrong. Catholism does not determine its Doctrine by popular vote.
The Church teaching are not determined by it's members. It's members do not take a vote and detmine how the church teaches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are right I don't know how it works nor do I have a desire to find out. Church is little more than pomp and ceremony and ritual. Seems to violate the 10 commandments with all their statues.
No doubt and you are very ignorant about the subject. The statues are nothing but reminders and are not worshiped.
As for the Catholic Church well just in this century:
Members of multiple organizations in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska were excommunicated by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in March 1996 for promoting positions he deemed "totally incompatible with the Catholic faith".[23] The organizations include Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X. The Vatican later confirmed the excommunication of Call to Action members in November 2006.[23]
Emmanual Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, for consecrating four bishops without the papal mandate. Also excommunicated were those receiving consecration.[24]
The Community of the Lady of All Nations for heretical teachings and beliefs after a six-year investigation. The declaration was announced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 12, 2007.[25]
Rev. Dale Fushek (also laicized by Pope Benedict XVI 02/2010) and Rev. Mark Dippre. Former Priests were issued a Decree of Excommunication by Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted for operating "an opposing ecclesial community" in direct disobedience to orders to refr...
As for the Catholic Church well just in this century:
Members of multiple organizations in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska were excommunicated by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in March 1996 for promoting positions he deemed "totally incompatible with the Catholic faith".[23] The organizations include Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X. The Vatican later confirmed the excommunication of Call to Action members in November 2006.[23]
Emmanual Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, for consecrating four bishops without the papal mandate. Also excommunicated were those receiving consecration.[24]
The Community of the Lady of All Nations for heretical teachings and beliefs after a six-year investigation. The declaration was announced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 12, 2007.[25]
Rev. Dale Fushek (also laicized by Pope Benedict XVI 02/2010) and Rev. Mark Dippre. Former Priests were issued a Decree of Excommunication by Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted for operating "an opposing ecclesial community" in direct disobedience to orders to refrain from public ministry.[26]
Father Marek Bozek (since laicized by Pope Benedict XVI), and the lay parish board members of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in St. Louis, Missouri in December 2005 were declared guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of schism by then-Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke.[27] Their excommunication was ratified by the Vatican in May 2008. Four of the parish board members have since reconciled with the Church.
The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, announced the automatic excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine year old girl who had an abortion after being raped and impregnated by her stepfather.[28][29]
Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion.[30] McBride later reconciled with the church and is no longer living in a state of excommunication.
[edit]See also
List of excommunicated cardinals
Shunning
[edit]References
^ 1 Timothy 1:20
^ http://www.vatican.va/holy_fa...
^ catholic encyclopedia. Entry: Honorius II
^ catholic encyclopedia, entry Innocent II
^ a b catholic encyclopedia, entry Boniface VIII
^ a b catholic encyclopedia, entry Urban VI
^ BRITANNIA.COM
^ Catholic Encyclopedia
^ "Clash of the Dogmas". BusinessWorld Weekender. Retrieved 2011-05-14.[not in citation given]
^ E. Hales, "Napoleon and the Pope", (London:1962) pg 114
^ "A BISHOP EXCOMMUNICATED.; Decree Against the Rev. S. Kaminski, Independent Polish Church, Buffalo" (PDF). The New York Times. October 18, 1898.
^ http://www.pncc.org/who_histo...
Your examples are simply violation of Catholic doctrine by Bishops and multiple organizations.
I am talking about individuals that are church members. In the past centuries individuals have been excommunicated" such as King Henry the Eighth for marrying his sister I think. So I ask again and I will be more specific.
Site an instance were a church member has been excommunicated in modern times. By the Catholic Church.
At some point in time, the Pope could reverse Church's position on many issues. (kinda like the Supreme court will from time to time reverse a prior court's decision) May not be likely but over time, will become more likely. Look how long it took for Galileo. A similar time frame into the future and I am fairly confident that you will see the church reversing itself on various issues. time will tell. Unfortunately I won't be around to tell you I told you so.
Also the following seems to be a church member being excommunicated:
Emmanual Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, for consecrating four bishops without the papal mandate. Also excommunicated were those receiving consecration.[24]
Here is another example from the article:
The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, announced the automatic excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine year old girl who had an abortion after being raped and impregnated by her stepfather.[28][29]
Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion.[30] McBride later reconciled with the church and is no longer living in a state of excommunication.
This was at a time when the Catholic Church was all powerful and pretty much ruled Europe. .
The Pope at that time Saw Galileo as a threat to the teachings of the Church. But as it turns out. Scientific findings have only proven that God exists.
The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, announced the automatic excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine year old girl who had an abortion after being raped and impregnated by her stepfather.[28][29]
There is a provision for a religious conscience exemption in the HR-3590 health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama but there is no Muslim restriction against the purchase of health insurance.
Members of some religious organizations may claim a Religious Conscience Exemption if their sects meet the conditions by having a health care sharing ministry that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a).
Health insurance and life Insurance are two different products. According to the Islam online web site, there are a variety of views of religious restrictions toward life insurance and investing because it is looked upon as gambling but no evidence was found of any restrictions toward Muslims purchasing medical, home owners and automobile policies.
If this healthlesscare bill is so good everybody, and that is everybody, Congress, Senate, muslims, etc. should all have to be under this bill and pay what everyone else has to pay or suffer the conequences.
Thank You!
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....."
On the other hand, should hell freeze over and we actually got a single payer system I would be pleased. Basic health care, like basic education, should be provided by the government in any civilized society.
By you telling me that this will be a "windfall for the insurance companies," tells me you have NO CLUE what this bill is about! :(
How sad for a 64 year old to be so easily mislead! :(
http://content.usatoday.com/c...
But Catholic women do ignore the doctrine set by men every day.
It isn't irrelevant. It's male dominance, pure and simple.
It's not a problem. They choose to belong to the club-they are not compelled to belong to it. Their very act of defiance is proof that they are not under compulsion.
So if the club says no birth control then they either admit to being members in bad standing or that they no longer wish to associate themselves with such a club; the latter being the rational choice.
It's like if the KKK had black members that were complaining about discrimination. Wouldn't your first question be "why are you a member?", not to say that the KKK should amend its bylaws? Going back to Catholic women being ground under the heel of the oppressive male hierarchy (the tongue in cheek is regarding remaining affiliated with such a system by choice), isn't it irrational that they remain in such a system if it isn't to their liking? The Inquisitions ended centuries ago, so what's stopping the exodus?
With regard to the article, all it means is that a majority of those professing to be Catholics do not hold to Catholic doctrine (quite reasonable). However, since t...
It's not a problem. They choose to belong to the club-they are not compelled to belong to it. Their very act of defiance is proof that they are not under compulsion.
So if the club says no birth control then they either admit to being members in bad standing or that they no longer wish to associate themselves with such a club; the latter being the rational choice.
It's like if the KKK had black members that were complaining about discrimination. Wouldn't your first question be "why are you a member?", not to say that the KKK should amend its bylaws? Going back to Catholic women being ground under the heel of the oppressive male hierarchy (the tongue in cheek is regarding remaining affiliated with such a system by choice), isn't it irrational that they remain in such a system if it isn't to their liking? The Inquisitions ended centuries ago, so what's stopping the exodus?
With regard to the article, all it means is that a majority of those professing to be Catholics do not hold to Catholic doctrine (quite reasonable). However, since the laity does not determine doctrine (which would be antithetical to Catholicism) then there is no reason for them to continue to claim to be Catholic. If the doctrine can be changed, it has no intrinsic value and the organization should crumble on it's own lack of merit. However, we both know that the Catholic church will eventually yield to the laity in order that it not lose the patronage on which it feeds. That however, only goes back to the point that there is no inherent value in Catholicism. It exists to feed the priests. That they are willing to change their rules every few decades or centuries is proof of this.
With regard to paying for others contraception, so long as it's voluntary, there is no problem. Only when force is used is it immoral. That applies to all things though, not just contraception or health care in general.