ArloNet • Separation of Church and State

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:18 pm

heraclitis wrote:

No it is not outside the scope of this argument. It is what this argument is all about!

Really? I didn't realize an individual was a church, pardon me..

heraclitis · **Joined:** Jul 17, 2010 **Posts:** 1161

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

No it is not outside the scope of this argument. It is what this argument is all about!

Really? I didn't realize an individual was a church, pardon me..

You say separation of church and state means churches get special treatment and individuals can be pissed on.

I say you are full of @3it!

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:48 pm

heraclitis wrote:

You say separation of church and state means churches get special treatment and individuals can be pissed on.

I say you are full of @3it!

Is that what I said? I think you are hallucinating.. A flashback perhaps? Did you eat the brown one?

heraclitis · **Joined:** Jul 17, 2010 **Posts:** 1161

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

You say separation of church and state means churches get special treatment and individuals can be pissed on.

I say you are full of @3it!

Is that what I said?

Yes it is!

agnes · **Joined:** Sep 15, 1999 **Posts:** 4002

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

You say separation of church and state means churches get special treatment and individuals can be pissed on.

I say you are full of @3it!

Is that what I said?

Yes it is!

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo wrote:

There is a right to medication?

They do pay for it. It is an insurance program.

I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of employer based health insurance but the conservatives and tea party will not give it up so, really, should you be commenting on it?

They pay for SOME of it yes, but if the company that provides the insurance doesn't want to cover procedures that are against its religious beliefs, there is a Constitutional protection that says they do not have to..

agnes wrote:

so if i am of a religion that does not believe in using contraceptives and i start a company, hiring a diverse group of people (some may be religious, some may not be). and through my company i offer health insurance that would cover contraceptives...i will say no to the contraceptives for others, because i don't believe in using them myself?

Goofus · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:44 pm

Jafo wrote:

agnes wrote:

so if i am of a religion that does not believe in using contraceptives and i start a company, hiring a diverse group of people (some may be religious, some may not be). and through my company i offer health insurance that would cover contraceptives...i will say no to the contraceptives for others, because i don't believe in using them myself?

Well, that is a bit outside the scope of this argument because we are not talking about individuals here. We are talking about churches and their enterprises. However, I would say any employer is allowed to offer whatever insurance he/she wants, or even NO insurance. If an employee does not like it, they are free to work elsewhere.

I for one do not understand the Catholic churches opposition to contraception, in fact, I find it rather goofy, but I also find a lot of beliefs of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants and etc. a bit whacky too. But it isn't up to me to dictate what their religious doctrines should be. What's next? Should we force Muslims to eat pork because by choosing to not eat pork they are affecting interstate commerce?

Only at Christmas, and only at Chinese restaurants.

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:01 pm

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

You say separation of church and state means churches get special treatment and individuals can be pissed on.

I say you are full of @3it!

Is that what I said?

Yes it is!

Really where? Where did I say that? You can't point it out.. How does it feel to be such a lying sack of shit?

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:02 pm

agnes wrote:

so if i am of a religion that does not believe in using contraceptives and i start a company, hiring a diverse group of people (some may be religious, some may not be). and through my company i offer health insurance that would cover contraceptives...i will say no to the contraceptives for others, because i don't believe in using them myself?

And what does this bumbling of the quote feature mean exactly?

Goofus · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:11 pm

Jafo wrote:

agnes wrote:

so if i am of a religion that does not believe in using contraceptives and i start a company, hiring a diverse group of people (some may be religious, some may not be). and through my company i offer health insurance that would cover contraceptives...i will say no to the contraceptives for others, because i don't believe in using them myself?

And what does this bumbling of the quote feature mean exactly?

That you are the only one that doesn't get it.

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:12 pm

Let's take the Agnes and Heraclitis argument shall we?

To sum it up: Free contraception is not only a human right, but it must be provided by the employer.

I say that is BULLSHIT. Not only is it afoul of the Constitution, it is morally wrong, whether the employer is an INDIVIDUAL or a CORPORATION or a CHURCH matters not. There is no individual right to medicine. If people want health insurance that covers contraception they have the LIBERTY and FREEDOM to purchase it themselves and nobody, especially the government or a church is allowed to deny them that.

What Agnes and Heraclitis want is to force a church to provide insurance that provides contraception when said church has a religious exception to it. Somehow they have it in their mind that all employers not only MUST provide health insurance, but THE insurance THEY want.

So please, don't talk to me about Libertarianism, you two are about tyranny, not liberty.

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:12 pm

Goofus wrote:

That you are the only one that doesn't get it.

There is nothing to get. They have no argument.

Goofus · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:13 pm

I guess I shoulda called you a name too. I just don't have it in me.

Jafo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:16 pm

Goofus wrote:

I guess I shoulda called you a name too. I just don't have it in me.

And you have made zero points in the conversation, you just jump in with snide remarks thinking it somehow bolsters the irrational ramblings of socialists, when it really make you look like a fool.

Goofus · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:13 am

Jafo wrote:

Goofus wrote:

I guess I shoulda called you a name too. I just don't have it in me.

And you have made zero points in the conversation, you just jump in with snide remarks thinking it somehow bolsters the irrational ramblings of socialists, when it really make you look like a fool.

No. It just pisses me off when you say degrading things to my friends. I don't mind being the fool.

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:30 am

Goofus wrote:

No. It just pisses me off when you say degrading things to my friends. I don't mind being the fool.

And it pisses me off when your friends do the same.

Forums

FAQ

Chat

Links

Contact

Search

Home of Everyone's Favorite Folkslinger!

Login

Register

Options

Separation of Church and State

Topic Options

Who is online