Obamacare vs Christianity, as blogger sees it--

Stan is a conservative blogger who posts once a day. His most recent entry (dated January 7, 2013 in my time zone, though I suppose it could be a day before or after that in your time zone) is about Obama’s policies on insurance coverage cornering a Christian-owned company into doing something that the company (and Stan) thinks is anti-Christian.

Look for the heading ‘A Better Possession’ here:
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/

To bring you up to speed on Stan, he did not want Obama to win the election in 2008, nor in 2012. But Stan emphasizes his view that “God is absolutely sovereign,” which I take to mean that Obama only won the election under the auspices of Stan’s deity. So it was not God’s will that people vote for Obama, yet it was somehow God’s will that Obama win the election… or something.

Anyway, feel free to comment on that particular post by Stan, or any earlier ones.

There is a rollicking exchange between conservative Christian Stan and liberal Christian Dan Trabue in Stan’s post headed ‘Why a virgin birth,’ which was posted December 24 (+/-).

The same two fellows squared off multiple times on the issue of same-sex marriage.

I find this kind of stuff fascinating to view as an outsider looking in, so to speak.

Can you direct me to any other religious blogs where the fur flies?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Stan is a conservative blogger who posts once a day. His most recent entry (dated January 7, 2013 in my time zone, though I suppose it could be a day before or after that in your time zone) is about Obama’s policies on insurance coverage cornering a Christian-owned company into doing something that the company (and Stan) thinks is anti-Christian.

Lo ...[text shortened]... looking in, so to speak.

Can you direct me to any other religious blogs where the fur flies?

If you want to see fur fly pal

then hang around the clan forum.

Plenty of vitriol there to satisfy your bloodlust.

Most of us who are sane avoid it.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Stan is a conservative blogger who posts once a day. His most recent entry (dated January 7, 2013 in my time zone, though I suppose it could be a day before or after that in your time zone) is about Obama’s policies on insurance coverage cornering a Christian-owned company into doing something that the company (and Stan) thinks is anti-Christian.

Lo ...[text shortened]... looking in, so to speak.

Can you direct me to any other religious blogs where the fur flies?

Obama Care Verses the First Amendment
It would have been unthinkable at one time in our country, but not anymore. The federal government is running rough shod over an individual’s conscience and religious faith.

This past January 1st, the Hobby Lobby company began being punished by the federal government with a $1.3 million dollar daily fine for not obeying a provision in Obama Care. Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for contraception and abortions in their health care plans.

The Hobby Lobby company is a national arts and craft store with more than 500 stores in 41 states. But it is not a publically held company, but solely owned by the Green Family. And the Greens are devout Christians. The Green’s believe “it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured” and they desire to honor God by doing business “in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.”

The Green family believes the Obama Care mandate to provide the “morning after” pill and the “week after” pill violates their religious beliefs. They believe in the sixth commandment that prohibits murder (Exodus 20:13). And they believe that abortion is murder. The company will provide health insurance for its employees but they do not wish to pay for health services they deem to be immoral. Hobby Lobby’s employees can still have access to contraception or abortions; they just have to pay for it themselves.

Hobby Lobby is being fined after Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied Hobby Lobby’s emergency request to be exempt from the contraception/abortion clause of the new health care law. And as I said her ruling would have been unthinkable at one time. Why do I say this? I say it because of the First Amendment to our Constitution called The Bill of Rights. It states:

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.

One would think “no law” means just that—no law! According to the Constitution, Hobby Lobby is not in the wrong, but parts of the new health care law are in violation of The Bill of Rights! Sotomayor’s ruling is a blatant act of aggression against religious liberty. Interestingly, however, this same Supreme Court Justice ruled in favor of a Muslim inmate who was denied Ramadan meals. She stated that the meal was religiously important to the practice of Islam—stunning! This is not impartial justice, this is law with prejudice. Citizens of the United States need to wake up to the freedoms they are losing. At least Hobby Lobby can still bring the issue before lower courts because the full Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue.

Finally, no matter what type of government you live under, you should never go against your religious convictions. Scripture tells us to honor laws and to pray for those in government who lead and serve (1 Peter 2:17; 1 Timothy 2:1, 2). But when those in authority command us to act in a manner that goes against our understanding of the will of God, we must take our stand. The apostle Peter was warned by his government not to teach in the name of Jesus Christ. And the Bible reveals what happened: “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard (Acts 4:18-20).’”

Do not allow yourself to be kowtowed into ever disobeying the will of God. And while you still have rights under the Constitution of the United States, defend your rights.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The Green family believes the Obama Care mandate to provide the “morning after” pill and the “week after” pill violates their religious beliefs.

"Obama Care" doesn't force the Green family to use the “morning after” pill, does it? The Green family still has freedom of choice, right?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Obama Care Verses the First Amendment
The Green family believes .....

Pacifists pay taxes that support the military.
You see the JWs moaning about it?

My local taxes go towards a huge stadium that nobody wanted or uses.

Its tough.

Originally posted by FMF
"Obama Care" doesn't force the Green family to use the “morning after” pill, does it? The Green family still has freedom of choice, right?

It forces them to violate their own religious freedoms, by forcing them to enable others monetarily, to use the pill.

By the same token, using your (assumed, since you never really claim anything directly) line of reasoning, it would not be a rights violation if the Green family were forced to fund anti-abortion or anti-gay efforts through government taxation.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Pacifists pay taxes that support the military.
You see the JWs moaning about it?

My local taxes go towards a huge stadium that nobody wanted or uses.

Its tough.

If pacifists (Quakers for example) have legitimate religious grounds, they could and should stand up and fight against having their tax dollars spent on bolstering our military.

As far as your local taxes going to a stadium you don't want, what legitimate religious beliefs are you forced to violate?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Stan is a conservative blogger who posts once a day. His most recent entry (dated January 7, 2013 in my time zone, though I suppose it could be a day before or after that in your time zone) is about Obama’s policies on insurance coverage cornering a Christian-owned company into doing something that the company (and Stan) thinks is anti-Christian.

Lo ...[text shortened]... looking in, so to speak.

Can you direct me to any other religious blogs where the fur flies?

Church state is out the window now.
Kelly

Originally posted by sumydid
It forces them to violate their own religious freedoms, by forcing them to enable others monetarily, to use the pill.

Where do you think the limit of religion is?

Taxes go right now to fund medical procedures yet some religions don't believe in modern medicine at all. Is it a serious violation of the first amendment for them to "enable others monetarily" to use modern medicine?

If it is against my religion to give any government any of my money for any reason, does that mean that I get to not pay taxes at all because it would violate my religious beliefs?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Church state is out the window now.
Kelly

It's amazing how some religious folks (not necessarily you) don't give a crap about church state separation when it comes to forcing people to pray in schools or other violations of church state, but then get their panties in a bunch over not being able to push their own morals on their employees.

Originally posted by sumydid
It forces them to violate their own religious freedoms, by forcing them to enable others monetarily, to use the pill.

Do you advocate some sort of a line item veto system for taxpayers?

One can only wonder if those who see this as a "freedom of religion" issue would support someone who demanded his "right" to own and beat slaves which is clearly condoned in the Bible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
One can only wonder if those who see this as a "freedom of religion" issue would support someone who demanded his "right" to own and beat slaves which is clearly condoned in the Bible.

That's exactly my point. The bible can be (and has been) used to justify some of the most heinous things in history.

Also, you can't just have this be applicable to Christianity. You would have to allow any and every religion have their own exemptions.

If I take the pacifist interpretation of a religion can I not have my tax dollars go to the military?

There are near infinite examples.

Originally posted by sumydid

As far as your local taxes going to a stadium you don't want, what legitimate religious beliefs are you forced to violate?

None.
But why should religious beliefs take precedence over other beliefs.

Or maybe I start an Anti-Stadium Religion


My point is that we cannot control how our tax money is used.

You may as well refuse to pay a shop-keeper unless he promises not to
buy anything which offends your religious sensibilities. Its utter nonsense.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
It's amazing how some religious folks (not necessarily you) don't give a crap about church state separation when it comes to forcing people to pray in schools or other violations of church state, but then get their panties in a bunch over not being able to push their own morals on their employees.

I've never pushed for anyone to be forced to pray in schools, the issue now
is that the govenment is now telling people when they will and will not respect
people's beliefs in how they live their lives and do business. You don't see this
as an issue, just because you disagree with people on prayer? You cannot see
this as a seprate issue that needs to be looked at on its own merits?
Kelly