The Attack on Religious Liberty Continues? When did it start? - alt.politics.democrats

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.politics.democrats
Message from discussion The Attack on Religious Liberty Continues? When did it start?
Path: 6ni91599pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:32:56 -0600
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:32:56 -0600
From: David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.liberalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats
Subject: Re: The Attack on Religious Liberty Continues?  When did it start?
References: <koCdndDq-qpX1DzNnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@giganews.com> <b55d6c13-f28a-474c-be2b-851ada852199@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <e6OdnVPZy-cB0zzNnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <a36fe8ad-bf5b-4d2c-b5fc-ca6488120b05@googlegroups.com> <06GdnUpE5_O1_zzNnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com> <00de7ce5-8457-4561-82d0-d4a836b15fea@googlegroups.com> <qeednW4PBbZ0jj7NnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <k86vpt$rmt$2@dont-email.me> <pKKdnbukAN-TkTrNnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <k873au$dej$1@dont-email.me> <u9mdnZl2uqrujjrNnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <k8752k$juv$1@dont-email.me> <mdydnUWtubwREjrNnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@giganews.com> <k88564$8b0$1@dont-email.me> <BcadndYZDpV_OTrNnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <k888sa$sub$1@dont-email.me> <KqidnZAHz4BELDrNnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews.com> <k88d96$n53$1@dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <k88d96$n53$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID: <VMKdnTgH9IilITrNnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 101
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/17/2012 10:17 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 9:48 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 11/17/2012 09:02 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2012 8:53 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2012 07:59 AM, Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 7:22 AM, David Hartung deleted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:50 PM, Man of Mind restored the original
>>>>>> text/context:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 10:32 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> .......
>>>>>>>> We are discussion religious freedom, not cost-benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your 'religious freedom' is anything but "freedom" it seems,
>>>>>>> in that your 'religious beliefs' do not trump federal law,
>>>>>>> nor will those beliefs be allowed to become law and as a
>>>>>>> result become a 'state religion', per the Constitution..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, to answer the question, which you avoided earlier"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Why do employers have the right to force their
>>>>>>>  religious dogma on workers."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --The answer is, "They don't have that 'right'."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to be the core of your argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Seems to be"?  Are you trying to reframe what I wrote?
>>>>>
>>>>> "We, the People, of the United States of America, have
>>>>>  the authority to prevent your religious beliefs from
>>>>>  causing harm, and can restrain you from espousing
>>>>>  political issues under the false guise of 'exercises
>>>>>  of religious faith'"
>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU have not yet provided a rational explanation
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I have "provided a rational explanation"..
>>>>>
>>>>>> refuse to pay for certain health care based upon
>>>>>> their religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You simply cannot discriminate based upon "religious beliefs"
>>>>> because it conflicts with the "establishment clause"..
>>>>>
>>>>> --Which you keep trying to avoid mentioning..
>>>>
>>>> Are you serious?
>>>
>>> Are you attempting scoff your way around this fact?
>>>
>>>> Do you actually believe that the choice of an employer
>>>> to not pay for a woman's abortion is the same as the
>>>> government establishing a state religion?
>>>
>>> You think that nobody can see what you're attempting to
>>> 'establish' with your 'religious' discrimination?
>>>
>>>> Are you truly that uninformed?
>>>
>>> Are you asking a deliberately false rhetorical question in order
>>> to avoid mentions of your fascist theocratic beliefs?
>>>
>>> --Touched a nerve there, did I?
>>
>> No, I am just amazed that a man who presents himself as educated
>> and informedwould be so foolish as to take such a position.
>
> You have yet to even begin to 'prove' how my 'educated and informed'
> position is 'foolish', much less address the facts that I have
> presented to refute your claims, and preposterous personal attacks..

May I suggest that you read the First Amendment? The text itself shows 
your position to be mistaken:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note that it says the Congress may not establish a religion, and it also 
says the the right of the individual to exercise his religion shall not 
be infringed.

You also take the position that the mere refusal of the employer to pay 
for something, constitutes the "forcing" of religious views on someone. 
You ignore the fact that employees have the full legal right to pay for 
such things themselves.

In fact, there are a whole host of things you ignore in order to mmake 
your point.

By the way, you keep on thinking you are superior to others. You 
actually remind me af a long time friend. He is a decent enough guy, but 
he is foolish enough to believe that voting democrat is a sign of 
stupidity. You exhibit the same sort of intellectual traits that he does.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
