jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (14 posts)

Obamacare vs. Freedom of Religion

  1. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    Here's the story:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/obama … ado-court/

    Oops! Another chink in the armor huh?

    1. Paul Wingert profile image77
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Daily Caller seems bias to me. This is the first couple of sentenses from their About Us page - Founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran journalist, and Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

      1. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        So that event never occurred?

      2. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I love how the messenger is always suspect when the left doesn't like a story.

    2. Niteriter profile image77
      Niteriterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I can tell which way the wind is blowing on health care debates when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is addressed by the childish appellation "Obamacare". It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americas want to deny their fellow citizens access to one of the most basic of human rights - health.

      So how here, JS, do you plan to further a productive discussion by pitting this subject against Freedom of Religion? It seems rather inflammatory to me.

    3. stanwshura profile image75
      stanwshuraposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Versus??  Smart policy, bipartisan cooperation and democratic and public "sausage-making" can respect one and put the other into FULL and BINDING effect.  The two are NOT mutually exclusive, otherwise we need to redesign our currency, re-remove two certain words from the Pledge of Allegiance, and change courtroom trial procedure such that an agnostic or atheist doesn't have to swear to tell the truth, by telling the lie that they will do so "so help me, God", or defend and live such truth by refusing to sothe lie bythat taking (faking!) such a biased oath

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Churches are socialist.

  3. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Does freedom of religion trump the law of the land? If it does get ready for Sharia law smile

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It's not really a religious issue. The government can't constitutionally force someone to do these things.

      Our government has a very, VERY limited set of powers. Of course, it constantly walks all over the Constitution, but who cares?

      UW, Is the law of the land always right?

    2. Quilligrapher profile image86
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hi there, UW. Nice to chat with you.

      You seem to be opposed to Sharia law out of fear that it will replace your own country’s legal system. Rest assured that is never going to happen.

      Having said that let me add that a good case can be made for installing Sharia law to supplement existing statues particularly in areas of torts and personal injury. For example, Sharia law is officially recognized in Israel.

      “Not only is sharia law officially recognized by the justice system in Israel in everything regarding the personal status of Muslims, but the judges of the sharia courts are officially appointed by a joint ministerial-parliamentary committee and their salaries paid for by the state. Ironically, this arrangement originates from the days when Britain was the Mandate power in Palestine.” {1}

      Here in the US, most Americans will be surprised to discover they voluntarily surrendered their rights to due process in a US court of law when they find themselves in a dispute with their credit card company. In a sense, an appointed arbitrator trumps the law of the land and credit card customers are subject to the arbitrator’s decisions.

      Sharia law is also a voluntary option in parts of Europe. Litigants can request their particular case be considered in a Sharia court. The outcomes of these cases obviously can not violate national laws.

      Have no fear, young lady.  Any application of Sharia law in the West will not require that restitution be paid with a severed body part.
      {1} http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ … haria-law/

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, I was being sarcastic. I am in Canada and I am not worried about Sharia law in the least.

        I was basically saying that if we let religions decide what laws they want to follow then he can't complain if Sharia law takes hold. Many people want freedom or religion only for their own religion.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image86
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Gotcha UW. Thanks for the clarification. I have never been good at detecting sarcasm in print.

  4. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 5 years ago

    Just a message to all.
    If I have to take Huffington Post as an unbiased source....you have to take the Daily Caller.

  5. cascoly profile image60
    cascolyposted 5 years ago

    the dailycaller article conveniently forgets to point out that there is NO requirement for any organization to follow a particular policy - it only goes into effect IF a group wants to receive federal funding.  if someone's religious ideals prevent compliance with simple provisions to ensure women's health, then they don't have to take the money.