The Coming Christian Revolt

The Coming Christian Revolt

There are 283 comments on the Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy story from Jul 19, 2014, titled The Coming Christian Revolt. In it, Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy reports that:

From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular-"progressive."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#255 Jul 30, 2014
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I be happy that HL is being allowed to violate the law AND the 1st amendment rights of their employees?
the law says that any company the size of HL is required to provide health insurance. The law requires health insurance to cover BC, specifically a list of 20 forms. The name of the business is HOBBY Lobby, not "Church" Lobby. They have NO business telling their employees that they are not going to obey the law and provide the legally mandated coverage.
Oh, and yes I do get to say what is and is not a rational religion. I am not saying that everyone must only worship in a rational religion, but I can and will identify those religions that are not rational, for the betterment of all mankind.
HL isn't violating the law. Their claim won in front of the Surpreme Court and they are not required to cover certain of the contraceptives mandated. They are not in violation of the law.

They are not violating the First Amednment rights of their employees. No religious belief or practice is being violated by Hobby Lobby NOT covering 2-4 types of contraceptives. They are not telling the employees they cannot use them nor are the employees enjoined from obtaining them in any way.

Question to you (and 'passing by', and 'lides'): You have told me in no uncertain terms that you (all) believe that this HL thing is a free exercise violation against the employee's religious beliefs, and one or two of you have called me several variations of "stupid" beacuse I don't agree with this "obvious" conclusion you've drawn.

If we have such and obvious free exercise/First Amendment violation here, where are the plaintiffs? I mean, Hobby Lobby employs a large number of women, and I've yet to read about an individual suit OR a class-action suit from any of them on this "obvious" cause of action?

Where are the plaintiffs? Why no lawsuits? Maybe the attorneys know something you three don't.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#256 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is nothing saying that abortion is a sin,........, and there is nothing to support the notion that there is anything wrong with birth control."
Those.
But that silence is the place where folks create their own beliefs, and try to spread them. Unless it is specifically mentioned, then EVERYONE is arguing their case from silence.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#257 Jul 30, 2014
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
No. By opting out, they are not complicit. Period.
Again, for your information:

"Page 2 of the "Opt-Out" Form leads off as such: EBSA 700-look it up.
"The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to the plan’s health insurance issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for self-insured health plans) in order for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement."

The signed opt-out form is an authorization for provision of the contraceptives by a third party administrator.

For the betterment of mankind, don't ignore facts if they get in the way of slogans. It makes you look like a mindless automation in thrall to someone else's talking points.

In the matter of the opt-out form, If the contraceptives cannot be provided by a third party without your signature, and you sign the form and they are subsequently provided, are you:

1.) a participant in the in provision of the contraceptives

2.) not involved in any way in provision of contraceptives

Of course, it's #1. You yourself aren't buying them, but someone else does on your authorization.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#258 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
People shouldn't be forced to contract for goods and services. No one's entitled to the fruits of the labor of others.
lides believes that is true for a single individual, however when a dozen, or a hundred dozen individuals get together and hold hands something magical happens, instead of being a dozen individuals they become a group, and lides insists that groups have rights that none of the individuals in them by themselves have. He can't explain this magic but he insists it is there.

For instance lides admits that he has no right to force someone to bake him a cake, however if he votes for someone and they are part of a group, the group called government, that they can then make up new rights for their group, to do things lides can't do by himself.

If lides can't violate the rights of others, why can a group of people do so? What is the magical thing that happens where powers and new right come into existence because you are more than one?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#259 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you .
You do not have the right to force someone to bake you a cake, I do not have the right to force someone to bake me a cake. No individual on the earth has a right to force another individual to bake them a cake. The two of us do not have the right to force other individuals to bake cakes. How many individuals must hold hands until they magically have the right to force some individuals to bake cakes for certain other individuals?

How many people must be in the group to change what a single individual can't do into something the group can do? What is this magical number of individuals?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#260 Jul 30, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate polygamy? You've clearly bought into the Christian nation rhetoric.
Good questions Frankie.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#261 Jul 30, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
lides believes that is true for a single individual, however when a dozen, or a hundred dozen individuals get together and hold hands something magical happens, instead of being a dozen individuals they become a group, and lides insists that groups have rights that none of the individuals in them by themselves have. He can't explain this magic but he insists it is there.
For instance lides admits that he has no right to force someone to bake him a cake, however if he votes for someone and they are part of a group, the group called government, that they can then make up new rights for their group, to do things lides can't do by himself.
If lides can't violate the rights of others, why can a group of people do so? What is the magical thing that happens where powers and new right come into existence because you are more than one?
Sorry, Alan, you are misrepresenting my position again, which tends to imply that your reading comprehension skills are, on the whole, rather poor.

I simply haven't made the argument that you claim I have, and you seem to lack the intelligence to address my argument as it was posed. The reality remains that the government does derive its authority from the consent of the governed, and anti-discrimination laws have been regularly challenged through due process, and have never been struck down.

That you may disagree with them is utterly irrelevant.

Thanks you for once again underscoring your devious nature by telling bald faced lies.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#262 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why else would one bring up that America has only been governed at its highest level by Christians?"
Well, I actually DIDN'T bring that up. I mentioned it in response to this statement from another poster:
"And we can't gloss over the fact that most all elected officials are Christians in America which proves you can not trust a republic to Christians as they will immediately destroy it"
I am that poster. Christians are destroying our Republic by passing laws establishing Christianity. I own my body and you can not tell me I can't put something in it even when you believe it is harmful. Harmful is irrelevant. Freedom and self-ownership is relevant.

Our Government is full of control freak Christians who want to micromanage our lives and force us to obey Christian beliefs. Christians are destroying America.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#263 Jul 30, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
I am that poster. Christians are destroying our Republic by passing laws establishing Christianity. I own my body and you can not tell me I can't put something in it even when you believe it is harmful. Harmful is irrelevant. Freedom and self-ownership is relevant.
Our Government is full of control freak Christians who want to micromanage our lives and force us to obey Christian beliefs. Christians are destroying America.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#264 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Alan, you are misrepresenting my position again, which tends to imply that your reading comprehension skills are, on the whole, rather poor.
I simply haven't made the argument that you claim I have, and you seem to lack the intelligence to address my argument as it was posed. The reality remains that the government does derive its authority from the consent of the governed, and anti-discrimination laws have been regularly challenged through due process, and have never been struck down.
That you may disagree with them is utterly irrelevant.
Thanks you for once again underscoring your devious nature by telling bald faced lies.
I clearly represented your position. You clearly stated that you as an individual do not have the right to force another individual to bake you a cake. Since I do not have that right either, it follows that if we hold hands that the two of us do not magically acquire rights that neither of us possess by ourselves. Yet you insist on this magic, that a group of individuals have rights that the individual members of the group do not have. It is a logical question to ask: if you do not have a right to force an individual to bake you a cake, and I do not have such a right, how many of us must there be before the right to force people to do things materalizes?
Dan

United States

#265 Jul 30, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I am that poster. Christians are destroying our Republic by passing laws establishing Christianity. I own my body and you can not tell me I can't put something in it even when you believe it is harmful. Harmful is irrelevant. Freedom and self-ownership is relevant.
Our Government is full of control freak Christians who want to micromanage our lives and force us to obey Christian beliefs. Christians are destroying America.
"I own my body and you can not tell me I can't put something in it even when you believe it is harmful."

Well, to a point. You can't smoke in many places, you can't drink in public, etc.

If you're speaking of the contraceptive thing i.e. your "freedom and self-ownership" thing, then you're in good shape here.

No one's prohibited contraceptives. No one's trying to. Some people are exercising their "freedom and self-ownership" to refuse to buy certain things. None of that impinges upon "self-owners" to get it for themselves if they want it.

Anyone who bitches about someone not giving them somethihg they think someone owes them doesn't really believe in "self-ownership". i.e. "my body, my choice, your wallet".

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#266 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If you do not have a right to force an individual to bake you a cake, and I do not have such a right, and no individual has such a right, yet groups have such a right, how many of us must there be in a group before the right to force people to do things magically materializes?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#267 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Hey, that's twice as often as you are. Troll, would you mind staying on topic.
Dan

United States

#268 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Alan, you are misrepresenting my position again, which tends to imply that your reading comprehension skills are, on the whole, rather poor.
I simply haven't made the argument that you claim I have, and you seem to lack the intelligence to address my argument as it was posed. The reality remains that the government does derive its authority from the consent of the governed, and anti-discrimination laws have been regularly challenged through due process, and have never been struck down.
That you may disagree with them is utterly irrelevant.
Thanks you for once again underscoring your devious nature by telling bald faced lies.
"The reality remains that the government does derive its authority from the consent of the governed"

"That you may disagree with them is utterly irrelevant."

Until you disagree with what government decides-i.e. the HL ruling.

Then all your platitudes go right out the window.

You, RE: the Coloado gay wedding cake thing:

"the case has been decided, the Courts uber alles, only an imbecile would still be complaining about it; it's settled"

You, RE: the HL ruling:

"the SCOTUS made a horrible ruling, it'll be the end of the Republic", et. al.

....here you are, making arguments you call "irrelevant" when made by others.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#269 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
HL isn't violating the law. Their claim won in front of the Surpreme Court and they are not required to cover certain of the contraceptives mandated. They are not in violation of the law.
They are not violating the First Amednment rights of their employees. No religious belief or practice is being violated by Hobby Lobby NOT covering 2-4 types of contraceptives. They are not telling the employees they cannot use them nor are the employees enjoined from obtaining them in any way.
Question to you (and 'passing by', and 'lides'): You have told me in no uncertain terms that you (all) believe that this HL thing is a free exercise violation against the employee's religious beliefs, and one or two of you have called me several variations of "stupid" beacuse I don't agree with this "obvious" conclusion you've drawn.
If we have such and obvious free exercise/First Amendment violation here, where are the plaintiffs? I mean, Hobby Lobby employs a large number of women, and I've yet to read about an individual suit OR a class-action suit from any of them on this "obvious" cause of action?
Where are the plaintiffs? Why no lawsuits? Maybe the attorneys know something you three don't.
Lawsuits cost money. Lawsuits that require taking the case all the way to SCOTUS require hundreds of thousands of dollars. And as long as there are SC justices that will decide the case not on its merits but on their ideology, it would be money ill spent.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#270 Jul 30, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But that silence is the place where folks create their own beliefs, and try to spread them. Unless it is specifically mentioned, then EVERYONE is arguing their case from silence.
Except for the fact that the Bible specifically says that it is a sin to add anything to the list of sins as presented in the Torah. In other words, if something is not listed as a sin, then it is not, never was, nor ever will be a sin.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#271 Jul 30, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, for your information:
"Page 2 of the "Opt-Out" Form leads off as such: EBSA 700-look it up.
"The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to the plan’s health insurance issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for self-insured health plans) in order for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement."
The signed opt-out form is an authorization for provision of the contraceptives by a third party administrator.
For the betterment of mankind, don't ignore facts if they get in the way of slogans. It makes you look like a mindless automation in thrall to someone else's talking points.
In the matter of the opt-out form, If the contraceptives cannot be provided by a third party without your signature, and you sign the form and they are subsequently provided, are you:
1.) a participant in the in provision of the contraceptives
2.) not involved in any way in provision of contraceptives
Of course, it's #1. You yourself aren't buying them, but someone else does on your authorization.
Still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

If you opt out, you are not providing the contraceptives. End of story.

That someone else will be providing them is not your business.
Dan

United States

#272 Jul 30, 2014
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Lawsuits cost money. Lawsuits that require taking the case all the way to SCOTUS require hundreds of thousands of dollars. And as long as there are SC justices that will decide the case not on its merits but on their ideology, it would be money ill spent.
Nonsense and you know it.

You mean to tell me an attorney wouldn't love to line their pockets wads of HL cash, not to mention the notoriety?

The ACLU wouldn't take the case? Everyone else's, but not this one?

Sure, Liam.

I

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#273 Jul 30, 2014
The coming Christain Revolt... hasn't Christianity always been revolting?
Dan

United States

#274 Jul 30, 2014
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
If you opt out, you are not providing the contraceptives. End of story.
That someone else will be providing them is not your business.
"That someone else will be providing them is not your business"

Don't be intentionally thick, Liam.

What enables the third-party to provide the contraceptives?

You have the text of the form in front of you.

Who's (and no one else's) signature authorizes provision of the contraceptives by the third party, per the form?

Can't use your Progressive American flash cards now, Liam.

Gotta give a straight, honest answer instead of a talking point.

Let's see it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 15 min TerriB1 214
News Chelsea Clinton Blasts the GOP Platform's Suppo... 17 min Betcha 10
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 19 min who cares 14,988
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... (Jan '16) 1 hr DaveinMass 479
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 1 hr Brian_G 1,142
Good Morning Merica 2 hr Johannes 1
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 3 hr Just read the Bible 914
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 38,646
More from around the web