America is a Christian nation

He's actually right. Most scientists consider nature to be an extention of god. So the study of nature (science), is the study of god's work.

 

So, just to get this 100% straight. Your objection is about the use of government power over private companies not the fact that said power was used speficially with regard to the Catholic church.

If this is the case Obama is not being "anti-religious" as he is not speficially targeting a Church. You disagree with the policy being applied to anyone, not specifically the Catholic church. To return to the point at hand, how is this policy specifically anti-religious? Any more than a tax increase is specifically anti-Bob when his neighbour Mary gets the same tax increase.

 

Because it's not a tax, it's a requirement. Anyone giving health insurance to their employee must now cover things that are against the teaching of the Catholic Church (to include many others, but I'm a Baptist, and I recognize the Catholic Church as "the Church" because it's the largest one, with billions of followers worldwide). So, you are forcing to do that which violates their religion. This isn't some religious opposition created for the purpose of avoiding taxes, or created for the purpose of smoking weed. This is legitimately equivalent to drafting a Quaker and sending him into combat.

 

many believe in a deistic sort of god, rather then a Christian God

 

I never called it a tax. To return to my hypothetical before, should Jehovah's Witness' cover blood transfusions? There was a case in my country where Jehovah Witnesses refused to allow their newborn child to have a blood transfusion but the court ruled that the doctors could do the transfusion if medically required. Also, the bill only requires that the insurers cover contraception for Catholic Church employees. The priest doesn't have to hand out condoms.

So your problem is that it specifically goes against Catholic doctrine rather than the law being applied to say a business. The person I was responding to, ptif219, was saying that the law was bad for anyone, not specifically the Catholic Church.

EDIT: To clarify, I am opposed to a draft for anyone and would not support it.

 

I didn't see your hypothetical, but I would not back such a ruling as happened in your country. While I think such a stance by Jehovah's Witnesses is horribly wrong, and misguided, it's not my place to say that the state is superior to their faith. The separation of church and state that we have in our country is intended to protect the faith from the state, which it seems as though the state trampled the religious rights and freedoms of those in your country. Wherever you are from, I would not want my children to live there.

To my point, you have misinterpreted it. Yes, the supposed "concession" made by the Obama administration (not by Congress, with whom all Congressional authority ought to reside) is that it only applies to Priests. How the FRELL does that stop it from trampling religious freedom? Catholic Priests are not the only people who are Catholics. This law will force a Catholic hospital, college, school, or independent business owner to pay for services that are against his faith. Directly. How is this so different from forcing a Quaker to kill Viet Cong? You are forcing someone to do something that violates their religious beliefs.

 

Then you and I fundamentally disagree. I cannot agree that religion and superstition should trump the life of an individual. According to your beliefs, female genital mutilation should be allowed as the law should not trump superstition. The law should be applied equally to all provided it is just. I do not consider drafting just and so would not apply it to anyone. However if I do think a law is just, it should apply to everyone equally. Female genital mutilation and allowing your children to die due to medical neglect are criminal and I do not respect people's "religious right" to participate in such behaviours. The law must be just, and when it is so, it must trump superstition.

 

religion is man made.

 

The question is, which teachings should be considered? The Bible has many to offer and not all Christians share the same interpretation of these theachings. It even makes a difference in which language the text is written, because translation is always interpretation and therefor always differs. A goverment couldn't declare a single law without offending a numerous amount of said teachings.

 

You can't seperate one's religion because he owns a business. Obama is attacking Christians

 

If you know your Christianity, you'd realize it's more like 5% of the people are Christians....going to church and saying you believe in god does not make you a Christian.

BTW I have no problem with religion. I go to church every Sunday and bring my kid along.

 

He is no more attacking Christians than a tax increase attacks Bob over Mary. You can say it is a bad law for everyone but to claim it targets Christians is nonsense.

 

As all other creatures appear to carry on with their lives , not preoccupied with a "belief system " its apparently more important/exclusive to Homo-sapiens .

- The existence or non-existence cannot be proven nore disproven , most scientists (those with any sense ) would have a open mind on the subject, until they examined the evidence.

Where's the evidence , ? in the bible ? Hahahaha - I think NOT.


Man created god .

Glory be to our good Lord Dionysus. (wink)




.....

 

You're summation of this is that I support criminality, but that you believe the government should trump family and religion, except where you don't like it. The "except where I don't like it" is not a principle, caveats can not be laid down in principles.

You've tried to shape my views differently than as they really are. It's as simple as this: you believe that the state must trump over the family and religious beliefs. You can't have it your own way at every turn. Letting the state triumph over the family means that the state can force what is unjust (i.e. sterilization, eugenics), and letting the state trump over religion means that the state can force conscientious objectors to go to war. If your government has the right to force a Jehovah's Witness family's child to get a blood transfusion, then your government has the right and authority to administrate eugenics, sterilization, and to force you to go to war.

There isn't as much differentiation as you might think. While there are 212 Protestant denominations, many have the same exact beliefs, breaking only on their beliefs in the afterlife. As splintered as they are, they have generally the same beliefs.

We don't block laws that offend some small minority, because it's far simpler to simply respect their beliefs. Most don't hold sincere beliefs against participating in wars, but those who do are not only exempt from the draft, but if they acquire those beliefs while in the service, they are released of their service obligation. But to create a law, forcing Americans to do what is against the beliefs of the majority? That's just sheer stupidity that will, as we've seen, result in the government attempting to force it on the whole.

 

No, my position is that if a law is just it should apply to everyone equally. I only support laws I consider just. You have stated that you think that people should be given exceptions to the law if they hold certain religious beliefs.

To take the draft, which I consider unjust and would not impose on anyone. You do not seem to consider the draft unjust, you just deplore the fact that it may be applied to people who object to it on religious grounds. If someone says "Oh I'm a Quaker" they get an immediate pass, if someone says "Oh, I'm a conscientious objector" they end up in prison. I do not see why a deeply-held belief becomes more genuine if it assumes the veneer of religion.

To return to the point in question, you have stated that religions should be exempt from certain laws. To ask a question, should female genital mutilation be allowed?

 

well gee, so then we could also say, Obama is a Christian, those attacking Obama are attacking Christians

Preachers that want to marry same sex couples are not allowed too, could say homophobes are attacking Christians...

the list goes on

 

That's what you're not understanding. What you consider just is what you consider just. The next guy may have a different idea. The only difference? Who is making the decisions. What doesn't change? You've established the state trumps family and faith. And please, what I've said on the draft is simply what the law is, not my personal view.

And you clearly don't understand the rules regarding the draft. A Quaker is a conscientious objector.

Now I will gladly answer your question about female genitalia mutilation, but first I would like an answer on my inferred question. Since what you personally consider just is personal, should the state have the authority over family to force eugenics? Should the state have the authority over faith to force people to go to war?

 

I do understand what you are saying. I think the law should be minimal in what it prohibits but that law exists it should be applied equally. I do not think it is just that the state enforce eugenics. I also do not think a draft is just. I would oppose any such laws for anyone regardless of faith. However, if I did consider it just to force people to war (which I do not) then I do not see why religious objection should factor any more than secular objection.

The law must be applied equally. The law exists precisely because people have different ideas of what they consider just. Some people think that bombing abortion clinics, or theft or murder is perfectly permissable. Should the law bend to their "personal beliefs"? No. There should be no "religious" exemption from any law.

 

The matter is one of principle, not of what you or I think is wrong. If the state trumps the family, then it can enforce eugenics. If the state trumps the faith of the individual, then the state CAN force someone to go to war. Things like bombing abortion clinics are another matter, because bombers aren't just minding their own business practicing their faith, they are actively infringing on the rights of others, in which case the state does have a right to step in.

So no, I don't think that it is right for parents to stop their children from getting a life-saving procedure, but I don't think that the state has the right to force the procedure on the family either. The matter of female genital mutilation is very much a different matter, first because it is a cultural practice, not a religious one.

 

On the female genital mutilation issue, I might have disagreed with you a while ago, but now I'm seeing the danger of government stepping in here. One of the latest protest movements is this assinine protest over male circumcision; as if people are now protesting just for the sake of protesting and have no idea what real injustices are anymore. It's starting in college campuses, of course, young idiots decrying the "mutilation" of infant boys who have no say in the issue, demanding their foreskin back, and other such nonsense. They want government to intervene (of course) and stop the atrocity of male circumcision. These people have given me reason to agree with you and keep government completely out of what parents decide to do with their children's genitilia at birth.

 

The right of the child to life trumps the superstition of the parents. The law must protect children from criminal medical neglect.

Do not brush of FGM as a "cultural matter", it is dodging the issue. If FGM was mandated by a religion would you oppose it?

To fully emphasise I am not saying that the state is always right. I am saying that one should not be allowed exemptions from the law on the basis of religion.

 

So why isn't Jesus or even God mentioned in the US Constitution?

 

Probably but not for long.

http://www.religiontoday.com/articl...ought-going-to-church-says-study-1396537.html

http://djchuang.com/2010/churches-closing-and-pastors-leaving/

 

you can frown on a person's religion as superstition as much as you want, it only puts your bigotry on full display. And no, that isn't criminal medical neglect. Parents have the authority to determine what medical and psychological care is appropriate for their child, and their decision to refuse treatment for the child based on religious belief is protected in this country. You don't need to like it, that's just how it is.

FGM is a cultural issue, not a religious one. I don't care to discuss made up theoretical issues. If you have a real one to discuss, then let's discuss it.

What you still seem to be missing is that a) what you consider just another may not, the state making decisions based on what is just won't sit well with you if that other person is in a position of authority, not you. And b) you may not believe that the state is right, but what you would like to see the state do would establish that the state has the right to violate, basically any beliefs and rights of the citizen.

 

uh... do you know what a nation is?