Quantcast

Health care law - does it discriminate?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/08/07 18:12:51
Yes, this bill discriminates.
No, we've been over this before, nothing to see, move on.
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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.

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/08/07...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/08 17:13:20
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    The Vatican has it's own observatory so the mistakes on Gallieo has been corrected.
    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.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/08 17:15:23
    ehrhornp
    So they say but isn't it fortunate that most Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics? I mean if all women who use birth control was expelled, how many members would be left? Care to guess?
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/08 17:17:23
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    They do not get expelled. But it is still Catholic teaching so your point is moot.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/08 17:28:50
    ehrhornp
    They haven't gotten expelled yet. Why not? The church obviously knows it would be without any members. What good is a teaching if no one follows it? Glad I am not a roman Catholic.
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/12 02:06:46
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +1
    Because the Church does not expell it's member that is moronic.You have no clue how the Roman Catholic Church works nor do you understand it. Even though I have explained it over and over again.
    The Church teaching are not determined by it's members. It's members do not take a vote and detmine how the church teaches.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/12 02:13:39
    ehrhornp
    I know, it is a dictatorship. The Pope can at anytime change teachings with no reason. Ever heard of excommunication?

    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.
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/12 02:19:08
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +1
    Yes I have heard of excommunication and the Catholic Church does not practice it anymore nor has it in many years.
    No doubt and you are very ignorant about the subject. The statues are nothing but reminders and are not worshiped.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/12 03:39:03
    ehrhornp
    Could have fooled me as I watched people slightly kneel and cross their heart or something. Sure looks like worshiping to me.

    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...




















    Could have fooled me as I watched people slightly kneel and cross their heart or something. Sure looks like worshiping to me.

    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...
    (more)
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/12 11:29:40
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +1
    For false teaching. But show me were an individual has been excommunicated for not following Catholic Doctrine?
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/12 23:58:27
    ehrhornp
    Let me remind you that you said the church doesn't excommunicate any longer. There was no qualifications attached. Plus as Galileo has shown something could be a false teaching one day and the truth the next.
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/13 00:25:15
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +1
    True, I did say that. But we were talking about individuals not organizations conducting false teachings. There is no comparison to Galileo and the examples that you sited. Galileo's example is about scientific fact that is proven.
    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.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/13 00:43:35
    ehrhornp
    At the time of Galileo the scientific fact according to the Church was that the earth was at the center of the Universe.

    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.
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/13 00:55:45
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    Archbishops and Bishops, tisk tisk. I though I said a church member. Maybe you misunderstand. I mean a regular catholic that goes to a catholic church. Site were one has been excommunicated. If that former Arch Bishop is a FORMER Arch Bishop. I am sure it was for a reason that he was de-flocked. Pretty sure he wasn't attending any masses.

    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.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/13 01:11:52
    ehrhornp
    lol, I have always thought of Bishops, even the Pope as regular catholics who have just received promotions. Bishops go to Catholic Church. Shouldn't make a difference if the catholic runs the service or participates in it.
  • Dan (Po... ehrhornp 2012/08/13 09:32:04
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +1
    Spliting hairs are we? I was referring to a regular lay person. Well, apparently you can not site me an example but I will give you an A for effort. Nice try but no cigar.
  • ehrhornp Dan (Po... 2012/08/13 16:18:22
    ehrhornp
    It is not my fault that you changed the rules. Now what is wrong with this example:

    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]
  • jere.chievres 2012/08/07 20:01:11
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    jere.chievres
    +4
    Is a pigs butt pork? Yes it is.
  • jeepster4 2012/08/07 19:58:01
    No, we've been over this before, nothing to see, move on.
    jeepster4
    +1
    The only discrimination in this bill is against those regions that decide to excluide them selves from health pools.
  • luvguins 2012/08/07 19:54:07
    No, we've been over this before, nothing to see, move on.
    luvguins
    +2
    The Truth:
    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.
  • Elleryqueen 2012/08/07 19:47:08
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    Elleryqueen
    +9
    Can a fish swim. There are too many exemptions, but to name just a few: Unions, muslims, Congress, Senate and many more.

    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.
  • Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩ 2012/08/07 19:41:49
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩
    +7
    Blatant violation of the First Amendment establishment and free exercise clauses. SCOTUS was WAY off...
  • Adam 2012/08/07 19:33:31
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    Adam
    +10
    Yes it definitely discriminates against Christianity.
  • Oaces_boss_yo® 2012/08/07 19:31:12
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/08/07 19:20:48 (edited)
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +4
    I think that this will be changed. We will have to wait and see what they do in the end.
  • l ☆stillt... 2012/08/07 20:07:59
    l
    +4
    Only one way that I can see! Vote in Nov.,if you want changes to the health care bill
  • ☆stillt... l 2012/08/07 20:12:50 (edited)
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +4
    That is not the only issue. Congress extended the Patriot act knowing that it had been abused and they passed NDAA. Now the courts have already declared NDAA unconstitutional. There are many other things that are wrong in congress.
    Thank You!
  • toni ☆stillt... 2012/08/08 00:42:14
    toni
    +1
    The NDAA is the defense department budget. There are provisions in it that are unconstitutional, but not the budget itself. Obama considered a veto because of those provisions. He didn't veto it because if he did, he would still need a defense department budget.
  • ☆stillt... toni 2012/08/08 02:00:15
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    He is the one that asked for the provision, then said he was not going to sign it and then did. He loves his games and misdirection.
  • Old Salt 2012/08/07 19:17:55 (edited)
  • toni Old Salt 2012/08/08 00:31:19
    toni
    This bill is a windfall for the insurance companies. Health insurance companies going bankrupt as a result of this law is about as likely as Romney sticking to the same story two days in a row.
    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.
  • Old Salt toni 2012/08/08 04:13:03 (edited)
  • rightside 2012/08/07 19:17:42
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    rightside
    +9
    When the middle class go broke paying for it, it will be definite discrimination.
  • Cyan9 2012/08/07 19:07:53 (edited)
    No, we've been over this before, nothing to see, move on.
    Cyan9
    There are numerous religious exemption in the Affordable Care Act. Catholics don't have to provide contraceptives. However, if they want to form some type of insurance program then they must offer them at zero copay like every other insurance. This is very much in line with the Reynolds vs. United States(1878) supreme court decision. People have a right to religious freedom but they do not have a right to exempt themselves from laws that affect everyone else because of their religious beliefs. That goes beyond what is protected in the First Amendment.
  • Cap Cyan9 2012/08/07 19:21:36
    Cap
    +2
    "People have a right to religious freedom but they do not have a right to exempt themselves from laws that effect [sic] everyone else because of their religious beliefs." Does that mean you support Temlakos in his questioning of the basis on which those who believe in Islam are exempt from the requirement that they seek health insurance? I note that I did read the first line of your posting, but it doesn't explain to me any guiding rationale in the allowance of exemptions.
  • cjj ~ FTGOP 2012/08/07 19:03:33
    No, we've been over this before, nothing to see, move on.
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    +1
    Most Catholic women use and/or want covered contraception regardless of the over-lording of the male hierarchy. It is the Catholic Church tht is guilty of discrimination against WOMEN!
    http://content.usatoday.com/c...
  • T A cjj ~ F... 2012/08/07 22:38:43
    T A
    Irrelevant. Catholic women don't set doctrine.
  • cjj ~ F... T A 2012/08/08 14:27:25
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    Which is exactly the problem.

    But Catholic women do ignore the doctrine set by men every day.

    It isn't irrelevant. It's male dominance, pure and simple.
  • T A cjj ~ F... 2012/08/10 09:17:49
    T A
    It's irrelevant because Catholic doctrine is whatever those in charge say it is, not what the laity decides. Just like an unjust law of the United States is still the law even though the majority ignore or oppose it (they should ignore it).

    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 irrelevant because Catholic doctrine is whatever those in charge say it is, not what the laity decides. Just like an unjust law of the United States is still the law even though the majority ignore or oppose it (they should ignore it).

    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.
    (more)
  • JoeM~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/07 18:57:09
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    JoeM~PWCM~JLA
    +8
    Way to go Temlakos! That is a very astute observation. That is a better case for unconstitutionality than the mandate/commerce clause argument.
  • Dwight PWCM 2012/08/07 18:48:51
    Yes, this bill discriminates.
    Dwight PWCM
    +9
    This Law will discriminate against anything "The Secretary Determines" diserves it.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/19 17:14:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals