Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: A tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit [View all]rug
(82,333 posts)68. I've been accused of what?
Well, please do post that link unless you'd rather not share pms.
"You look suspiciously, exactly like a practicing Catholic" OMG! Not a practicing Catholic!
Listen, Bretton, I as a rule disregard the anti-Catholic statements and bigots who routinely peddle this unsavory form of bullshit in this Group. Note, I said disregard, not ignore.
Now, to avoid confusion under a poststructuralist semantics analysis, there is a stark difference between doctrine and politics. One might say there is a - gasp - separation between the two.
The RCC has a whole range of doctrines, some appalling, some admirable, that have developed over centuries. Those religious doctrines are per se neither conservative nor liberal. Those adjectives have meaning only when a contemporay political issue arises.
When that happens it really doesn't matter if a religious doctrine is cast as politically conservative or politically liberal. The concern is that public policy is not made based on that religious doctrine. And that concern is true whether the doctrine is cast as conservative or liberal.
As to this case, many religions disapprove of contraception and many do not. Those numbers change when the prescription is an abortifacient as well as a contraceptive. The answer? So what. That is not a legitimate basis for public policy.
The only issue is that these matters are decided according to law, not extraneous religious doctrine.
That is my concern.
Now, Bretton, if you and those "us" for whom you choose to speak wish to engage in this fight ignorant of the law and the facts, wish to proceed based on a mindset of bigotry, and wish paramountly to bait and score personal coups rather than to actually understand the dynamics of the political fight, then you and your "us" remain at the end of the day no more than disruptors, disruptors who disrupt poorly.
When I get a chance I'll say a rosary for you.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Tell us, in which way was religious liberty in risk of being infringed?
2ndAmForComputers
Dec 2012
#4
The answer to that question is, of course, "none." Do you disagree with that?
2ndAmForComputers
Dec 2012
#11
That you canot find a fact where the Court of Appeals has does not surprise me in the least.
rug
Dec 2012
#13
There is a distinction you're missing between different types of religious organizations.
eomer
Dec 2012
#18
The ACA imports the trem "religious employer" as defined in ERISA and the Internl Revenue Code,
rug
Dec 2012
#36
Not true, the ACA does not import the term "religious employer" or use it in any way.
eomer
Dec 2012
#39
That's not a definition of the term "religious employer", which you said would be found there.
eomer
Dec 2012
#56
If you read them together they still have nothing to say about the right claimed by Wheaton College.
eomer
Dec 2012
#58
And that representation was that HHS will write the regulation implementing the exemption.
rug
Dec 2012
#59
Therefore, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the HHS, without statutory authority,
rug
Dec 2012
#65
No, the statutory authority is listed right in the regulation and it is the same as I said in #31.
eomer
Dec 2012
#76
Can we now take it you accept eomer has showed you the court did not rule about religious liberty?
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#23
The title if the piece you chose was "a tentative win for religious liberty in Obamacare lawsuit"
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#29
You've refused to answer the question, again, so there's no point in continuing
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#38
Mostly correct but the administration has granted an accommodation, not recognized a right.
eomer
Dec 2012
#46
Why don't we all take a look at all OTHER things Mr. Wingfield has written on that publcation?
2ndAmForComputers
Dec 2012
#8
I do not prefer to 'chew on surmises' so I will ask you questions directly.
LeftishBrit
Dec 2012
#48
"DISGUSTING, INHUMAN individuals, who cannot be regarded as part of decent society"?
rug
Dec 2012
#50
There is of course one solution to the problem of institutions paying for aspects of healthcare that
LeftishBrit
Dec 2012
#28
WHOSE religious liberty? What about a Protestant student, whose religion allows abortion?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#30
Good choice of cases; the gov is not up against the giant Church. In THIS case.
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#63
The other appellant, Belmont Abbey College, is a Cathoic college and the Becket Fund is behind this.
rug
Dec 2012
#66
The most important idea: ENFORCING AN ANTI-ABORTION RELIGION, DENIES OTHER RELIGIONS
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#67
Protestants almost uniformly disapproved contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
rug
Dec 2012
#69
Most Protestant churches allow contraception today: another important case here; not just labor
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#71
I argued with Archbishop Chaput that bishops are employees of the Vatican, in effect?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#72
My argument was never presented; feel free to bring it up with whoever is working on these cases
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#75
There is a win for religious liberty here, just not the one that the article claims.
eomer
Dec 2012
#32
My religion allows abortion; what happens when my Catholic employer denies my religion?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#78
Rug? My PhD is in post-poststructuralist semantics; it's clear to me you are equivocating
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#47
Thanks in any case, for your close consideration of the current legal argument
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#62
Honestly, unless they are dickheads, I would imagine, they would accept buyouts...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2012
#60
Would have to close? Wouldn't there be more dimensions to the question of conscience?
eomer
Dec 2012
#79
They would continue their charity work, including medical care, as they have for centuries.
rug
Dec 2012
#80
Catholic doctrine says all artificial methods are evil and will result in eternal damnation. no?
eomer
Dec 2012
#82
What happens when religions conflict? Whose religion gets freedom, over others?
Brettongarcia
Dec 2012
#81