Hmm...honestly folks? I don't know what I would call myself anymore because despite my strong, conservative religious leanings I'm not actively out there trying to make anything legal/illegal that goes against those beliefs.
I'm going to crawl on 2V's train here.
Also, I just want the government out of my business. Period. I think that's the biggest reason for my change over the last few years. I'm sick of it all and I just don't really care. Marry who you want. Do what you want. Smoke what you want. It doesn't matter to me. Ultimately, we don't answer to the government. We answer to God, so why does this stuff even matter?
This is a refreshing perspective. Maybe you should run for office?
I'm pro-life on the whole, but am pro-choice in still leaving it up to a woman to decide if she'll bear a child or get an abortion. I am against legislation that would prevent that choice.
Women's rights Health care Education Affirmative action Environmental policy Prisoner rights/court reform Immigration policy Welfare/social safety net
There's some bleed over with some of these as economic issues, but there are people on this board who's stance on these issues is influenced primarily by a social view that the board generally describes as "boot straps." I think there are a number of Social Darwinists/Ayn Rand types here. I think they don't post their opinions because of the skittles-type comments.
Jinx! I wrote my list above before I saw this one.
Those are really broad issues. I see none of them as black & white. Overall I'm sure I'm to the right of people here, but I'm not going down the list saying "Nope, nope, nope."
Ultimately, we don't answer to the government. We answer to God, so why does this stuff even matter?
Wait, do you mean "we" as in you and your family, or "we" as in everyone?
Not her, but I am guessing probably both. I don't think it is a bad thing, but some people see all (believers and non-believers alike) as children of God. It is a level statement, not a loaded one, imo.
Wait, do you mean "we" as in you and your family, or "we" as in everyone?
Not her, but I am guessing probably both. I don't think it is a bad thing, but some people see all (believers and non-believers alike) as children of God. It is a level statement, not a loaded one, imo.
A Christian believes that all human beings are children of God and will answer to him when the die or on Judgment Day. That's what I believe as well, based on my faith.
Ultimately, we don't answer to the government. We answer to God, so why does this stuff even matter?
Wait, do you mean "we" as in you and your family, or "we" as in everyone?
Sorry. I mean "we" as in Bible-believing Christians, many of whom tend to be the most outspoken on these social issues.
I guess I've just reached a point where I realized that it isn't the government's job to legislate what the Bible teaches. It's an imperfect institution created by man. God legislates what the Bible teaches, so that should be enough for us. The less we allow the government to get involved in this stuff, the freer we are as Christians to worship. It's a slippery slope, IMO.
ETA - PP are right - we all answer to God. I was just speaking for Christians, because obviously we're the ones that believe this.
Not her, but I am guessing probably both. I don't think it is a bad thing, but some people see all (believers and non-believers alike) as children of God. It is a level statement, not a loaded one, imo.
A Christian believes that all human beings are children of God and will answer to him when the die or on Judgment Day. That's what I believe as well, based on my faith.
Not her, but I am guessing probably both. I don't think it is a bad thing, but some people see all (believers and non-believers alike) as children of God. It is a level statement, not a loaded one, imo.
A Christian believes that all human beings are children of God and will answer to him when the die or on Judgment Day. That's what I believe as well, based on my faith.
And here we go.
Nah, I'm actually cool with that. I realized this when I already posted and assumed that's what AW meant.
I think there are posters who are social conservatives but are afraid to come out as such because they know they would get pummeled by this board.
I would agree with this as well. They see what happens in threads about abortion, past threads about gay marriage, etc. I don't think most people want to bother. I know my desire has waned a great deal.
I will add though that my latest "issue" is the contraception mandate. I wonder what the SCOTUS will say on this matter.
What part of it? I thought Obama already backed down on requiring that for religious institutions. The issue I keep hearing is that there should be an exception for business owners who are religious (or claim to be) and I'm pretty concerned about that being the standard.
Obama's definition of "religious institutions"= houses of worship. What about Catholic Charities, Catholic colleges, Priests for Life, EWTN, etc? Just because they aren't literally paying for birth control, abortions, sterilizations doesn't mean.....they aren't paying for them/providing them against their faith.
I'll have to dig up a good explanation from Cardinal Dolan.
What part of it? I thought Obama already backed down on requiring that for religious institutions. The issue I keep hearing is that there should be an exception for business owners who are religious (or claim to be) and I'm pretty concerned about that being the standard.
Obama's definition of "religious institutions"= houses of worship. What about Catholic Charities, Catholic colleges, Priests for Life, EWTN, etc? Just because they aren't literally paying for birth control, abortions, sterilizations doesn't mean.....they aren't paying for them/providing them against their faith.
I'll have to dig up a good explanation from Cardinal Dolan.
Surprisingly, I'm somewhat conflicted about the "free" birth control mandate.
Obama's definition of "religious institutions"= houses of worship. What about Catholic Charities, Catholic colleges, Priests for Life, EWTN, etc? Just because they aren't literally paying for birth control, abortions, sterilizations doesn't mean.....they aren't paying for them/providing them against their faith.
I'll have to dig up a good explanation from Cardinal Dolan.
The AMA has a good explanation. The exemption is NOT just houses of worship. This is the quote:
HHS also put forward an exemption to the required coverage of contraception for health plans provided by “religious employers” [3]. That key term is defined as an organization that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets, and is a nonprofit organization under sections of U.S. law that refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and to “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order” [32]. The language mirrors the religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage laws established, and upheld by courts, in California and New York [33, 34]. Public comments on this proposal were accepted through September 2011.
I'm going to need you to translate. So where does this leave religiously-affiliated schools. Not just Catholic schools either. We have a local Mennonite college. The purpose of the institution is education, but the college was founded under Mennonite values. Students are required to take a few religion classes, but the education itself is not religiously-based and you do not have to be a Mennonite to attend or work there, although the school seems to be a choice for many Mennonites.
I would still think that it would be against the values that the college upholds to pay for birth control. So would they be included?
Obama's definition of "religious institutions"= houses of worship. What about Catholic Charities, Catholic colleges, Priests for Life, EWTN, etc? Just because they aren't literally paying for birth control, abortions, sterilizations doesn't mean.....they aren't paying for them/providing them against their faith.
I'll have to dig up a good explanation from Cardinal Dolan.
The AMA has a good explanation. The exemption is NOT just houses of worship. This is the quote:
HHS also put forward an exemption to the required coverage of contraception for health plans provided by “religious employers” [3]. That key term is defined as an organization that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets, and is a nonprofit organization under sections of U.S. law that refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and to “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order” [32]. The language mirrors the religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage laws established, and upheld by courts, in California and New York [33, 34]. Public comments on this proposal were accepted through September 2011.
The AMA has a good explanation. The exemption is NOT just houses of worship. This is the quote:
HHS also put forward an exemption to the required coverage of contraception for health plans provided by “religious employers” [3]. That key term is defined as an organization that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets, and is a nonprofit organization under sections of U.S. law that refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and to “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order” [32]. The language mirrors the religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage laws established, and upheld by courts, in California and New York [33, 34]. Public comments on this proposal were accepted through September 2011.
So, in other words, the government gets to define what a religious institution is?
Yes? But if you think about it, for practical purposes, the government has to have a working definition of a religious institution. If there are benefits, including exemptions from federal laws, that come with being a religious institution, there has to be a working definition of what one is for regulatory purposes. It's just not really practical any other way. You may not like the definition and may want to see it expanded, but that is something slightly different than taking issue with teh fact that there is a definition at all.
Yes? But if you think about it, for practical purposes, the government has to have a working definition of a religious institution. If there are benefits, including exemptions from federal laws, that come with being a religious institution, there has to be a working definition of what one is for regulatory purposes. It's just not really practical any other way. You may not like the definition and may want to see it expanded, but that is something slightly different than taking issue with teh fact that there is a definition at all.
Exactly. Otherwise my husband and I could just claim that our apartment is a church, we are the ministers, our cats are our congregants, and BAM! sales tax exemption for the harpies.
So, in other words, the government gets to define what a religious institution is?
Well, who else would define it? FWIW, the first part of any statute is going to be a list of the intended definitions of the words used in the statute. Any statute. I mean, there's probably a statute out there that pertains to rollercoaster safety and includes a government definition of what a rollercoaster is.
The AMA has a good explanation. The exemption is NOT just houses of worship. This is the quote:
HHS also put forward an exemption to the required coverage of contraception for health plans provided by “religious employers” [3]. That key term is defined as an organization that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets, and is a nonprofit organization under sections of U.S. law that refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and to “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order” [32]. The language mirrors the religious exemptions to contraceptive coverage laws established, and upheld by courts, in California and New York [33, 34]. Public comments on this proposal were accepted through September 2011.
So, in other words, the government gets to define what a religious institution is?
The government also gets to define which religions are worthy of exemption.
I still will never understand why the Amish get special treatment when it comes to stuff like this. The Amish view on abortion or birth control is no different than mine.
Yes? But if you think about it, for practical purposes, the government has to have a working definition of a religious institution. If there are benefits, including exemptions from federal laws, that come with being a religious institution, there has to be a working definition of what one is for regulatory purposes. It's just not really practical any other way. You may not like the definition and may want to see it expanded, but that is something slightly different than taking issue with teh fact that there is a definition at all.
Exactly. Otherwise my husband and I could just claim that our apartment is a church, we are the ministers, our cats are our congregants, and BAM! sales tax exemption for the harpies.
See now to equate this scenario with an institution such as Catholic Charities is just ridiculous.
Wasn't Obama's compromise for religious institutions something along the lines of "ok--you won't have to pay premiums for contraception, your insurance provider just has to provide those services for free."
Regardless of who you define as a religious institution, I never understood how exactly that's a compromise, since insurance companies aren't generally in the habit of just providing free coverage because the White House said so.
Exactly. Otherwise my husband and I could just claim that our apartment is a church, we are the ministers, our cats are our congregants, and BAM! sales tax exemption for the harpies.
See now to equate this scenario with an institution such as Catholic Charities is just ridiculous.
Kind of, but not really. I think we all agree that Catholic Charities is legitimate. But if there is NO definition of a religious institution (or a religious employer for the ACA), and ANY religion can declare what is or is not a religious institution, this would be a certain consequence.
How does a Catholic or other religious entity qualify for this exemption? It must be a non-profit organization under certain IRS guidelines, and must meet all of the following criteria:
- The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization; -The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization; -The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. Got that? The federal government is graciously allowing your parish church to consider itself Catholic. But, not much else would qualify.
See now to equate this scenario with an institution such as Catholic Charities is just ridiculous.
Kind of, but not really. I think we all agree that Catholic Charities is legitimate. But if there is NO definition of a religious institution (or a religious employer for the ACA), and ANY religion can declare what is or is not a religious institution, this would be a certain consequence.
Well, I'm glad you and others seem to think Catholic Charities is legitimate because according to the HHS mandate, it doesn't qualify as a religious institution.
Exactly. Otherwise my husband and I could just claim that our apartment is a church, we are the ministers, our cats are our congregants, and BAM! sales tax exemption for the harpies.
Wasn't Obama's compromise for religious institutions something along the lines of "ok--you won't have to pay premiums for contraception, your insurance provider just has to provide those services for free."
Regardless of who you define as a religious institution, I never understood how exactly that's a compromise, since insurance companies aren't generally in the habit of just providing free coverage because the White House said so.
Or how about those religious institutions that self-insure??
How does a Catholic or other religious entity qualify for this exemption? It must be a non-profit organization under certain IRS guidelines, and must meet all of the following criteria:
- The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization; -The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization; -The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. Got that? The federal government is graciously allowing your parish church to consider itself Catholic. But, not much else would qualify.
So as SBP said, a Catholic school that hires priests and nuns (or other Catholics) to teach and only admits Catholic students would qualify for the exemption.
Chic-Fil-A does not hire only Christians and sells chicken to everyone who wants some. The purpose of CFA is not to promote Christianity; it's to sell chicken.
The government also gets to define which religions are worthy of exemption.
I still will never understand why the Amish get special treatment when it comes to stuff like this. The Amish view on abortion or birth control is no different than mine.
No. The Courts define this. They define religions via the 1st Amendment.
It still doesn't make sense to me. Let's say I'm Amish and I leave the church for whatever reason. I am no longer officially affiliated with the Amish church, don't attend formal church services, but my beliefs are exactly the same. But according to the government, I would no longer be exempt in the same way I was before I was shunned by or left the Amish church.
There are many Christians out there that don't affiliate with a formal denomination. I don't. But my faith is just as important to me as someone who does. What gives the courts the right to say that my beliefs aren't as worthy as someone else's?
I realize that they have to draw a line somewhere so that people don't abuse the system, but it seems extremely unfair for the people who are genuine in their beliefs and seems to be unconstitutional.
Exactly. Otherwise my husband and I could just claim that our apartment is a church, we are the ministers, our cats are our congregants, and BAM! sales tax exemption for the harpies.
I love this post so much.
We're really working with Fatty. He struggles mightily with gluttony.
I'm going to need you to translate. So where does this leave religiously-affiliated schools. Not just Catholic schools either. We have a local Mennonite college. The purpose of the institution is education, but the college was founded under Mennonite values. Students are required to take a few religion classes, but the education itself is not religiously-based and you do not have to be a Mennonite to attend or work there, although the school seems to be a choice for many Mennonites.
I would still think that it would be against the values that the college upholds to pay for birth control. So would they be included?
Any school affiliated with an actual church is going to be exempt. Probably religious colleges would be exempt to, but I'd guess there'll be litigation over that. Religious charities would be exempt.
If a school only requires you to take a few religion classes, but the education itself is not "religiously based" and the school is not owned and operated by a church or diocese, it would probably NOT be exempt. And I'm okay with that. Because I don't want businesses like Chick-Fil-A saying they are a "religious" business just because they're closed on Sundays and then refusing to provide contraceptive coverage to women.
And the flip side of this, is that the exemptions that are being proposed by Dolan and his cronies would effectively allowed business of any background whether overtly religious or not to refuse to cover any procedures or care that they found morally objectionable. Not cool, boys. Not cool.
But they are not! Because they have the audacity to serve/employ people who aren't of the same religion!
The government also gets to define which religions are worthy of exemption.
I still will never understand why the Amish get special treatment when it comes to stuff like this. The Amish view on abortion or birth control is no different than mine.
I don't understand your analogy.
And the government doesn't define which religions are worthy of exemption. That would violate the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought I read that ACA would be the same as it is for things like Social Security when it comes to religious institutions. The Amish are exempt because of their history. They have special exempt status, which has always struck me as slightly unfair.