Ace of Spades HQ

December 26, 2013

Religion and Obamacare
— Gabriel Malor

The Obamacare contraception mandate cases are the most important religious freedom cases we've seen in years. They aren't going to bring down Obamacare. For that, look to the subsidy challenges, especially Pruitt v. Sebelius. But these contraception cases are going to shape the way government interacts with religious beliefs for decades to come.
There are two different kinds of contraception mandate cases. The ones that have had the most press so far ask the question "under what circumstances can businesses and business owners be forced to violate their religious beliefs as a condition of doing business?" The most well-known of these cases is the Hobby Lobby case currently pending before the Supreme Court.

The appellate courts offered mixed decisions on this question. Some courts have upheld the mandate with a glib explanation that businesses cannot exercise religion with little examination of business owners' rights. Others have compared the religious rights of businesses to the speech rights of corporations upheld in Citizens United. For my money, the best examination of this issue came from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Gilardi v. HHS (PDF).

That court wrote:

The contraceptive mandate demands that owners like the Gilardis meaningfully approve and endorse the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their companiesÂ’ employer provided plans, over whatever objections they may have. Such an endorsementÂ—procured exclusively by regulatory ukaseÂ—is a Â“compel[led] affirmation of a repugnant belief.Â” That, standing alone, is a cognizable burden on free exercise. And the burden becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a HobsonÂ’s choice. They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong. If that is not Â“substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,Â” we fail to see how the standard could be met.

Thus, completely aside from the question of whether a business can exercise religious freedom in its activities, business owners quite obviously do. To infringe that right the government would have to demonstrate a compelling purpose, something the Obama administration cannot claim for the contraception mandate since it has already exempted or excepted approximately 190 million people.

The second kind of contraception mandate case is equally important. These cases confront the question "under what circumstances can religious organizations be forced to violate their religious beliefs as a condition of existence." You will recall, the Obama administration issued an "accommodation" for religious organizations that purports to exempt them from the mandate. The religious organizations argue that taking advantage of the accommodation forces them to facilitate the very contraception coverage to which they object.

These accommodation cases haven't reached the circuit courts yet, much less the Supreme Court, but the district court litigation is a good indication of how things will go. Last week I wrote "Six Important Holdings From Yesterday's Decision Striking Down The Contraception Mandate in New York." Since then, six more district court judges have ruled on the issue, with four striking the mandate accommodation and two upholding it.

The central issue in the accommodation cases is whether it is a substantial burden on free exercise to force religious organizations to fill out a form facilitating the provision of contraceptives by a third party. The Obama administration has argued that the accommodation is a mere administrative task that doesn't require the religious organizations to do anything except fill out a form. Most of the district courts have rejected that argument, as the religious organizations have pointed out that forcing them to facilitate contraception coverage via a form furnished to a third party is equally objectionable to them as forcing them to provide the contraception coverage directly.

The discussion in Southern Nazarene University, et al. v. Sebelius (PDF) from a district court in Oklahoma is instructive:

The self certification is, in effect, a permission slip which must be signed by the institution to enable the plan beneficiary to get access, free of charge, from the institutionÂ’s insurer or third party administrator, to the products to which the institution objects. If the institution does not sign the permission slip, it is subject to very substantial penalties or other serious consequences. If the institution does sign the permission slip, and only if the institution signs the permission slip, institutionÂ’s insurer or third party administrator is obligated to provide the free products and services to the plan beneficiary.
It is no answer to assert, as the government does here, that, in self-certifying, the institution is not required to do anything more onerous than signing a piece of paper. The governmentÂ’s argument rests on the premise that the simple act of signing a piece of paper, even with knowledge of the consequences that will flow from that signing, cannot be morally (and, in this case, religiously) repugnant Â– an argument belied by too many tragic historical episodes to be canvassed here. The burden, under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], is not to be measured by the onerousness of a single physical act. RFRA undeniably focuses on violations of conscience, not on physical acts.

In the first of the two decisions that upheld the mandate accommodation, Priests for Life v. HHS (PDF), the plaintiffs said that it would not burden their religious freedom to fill out the accommodation form. If that represents their beliefs, then that court came to the right decision.

But the second judge to uphold the mandate accommodation was way out of bounds. In that case, The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, et al. v. Sebelius (PDF), the court actually bought the "it's just a form" argument of the Obama administration:

Here, plaintiffs seize upon the HobsonÂ’s choice language and the Circuit CourtÂ’s observation that if the risk of a $14 million fine Â“is not Â‘substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,Â’ we fail to see how the standard could be met.Â” But the question to be resolved here is not whether an acknowledged burden has been rendered substantial by the threat of financial consequences for noncompliance but whether the compelled conduct imposes a meaningful burden on plaintiffÂ’s religious exercise at all.

The judge thus conceded that being forced to apply for the accommodation is "compelled conduct," but she simply dismissed the organizations' religious objection as not "meangingful." As I noted at the time, whether a compelled act meaningfully violates a person's religious freedom is for the person to decide, not the courts. Under precedent, the job of the courts is to decide only whether a person is being compelled to act and whether the burden to compel that act is substantial.

Once the courts get into the business of deciding whether religious beliefs -- like objections to signing a form facilitating the provision of contraception coverage -- are "meaningful" or not, you can kiss free exercise of religion goodbye. Because it is such a radical departure from precedent, I expect and pray that the Archbishop of Washington decision will be overturned on appeal.

Look for the circuit courts of appeals to grapple with the accommodations cases in the new year. If Obamacare survives that long, I expect the Supreme Court will eventually take up these cases too. God willing, the justices will affirm the principle that the government should never be allowed to decide whether a religious belief is "meaningful" or not.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:37 AM | Comments (144)
Post contains 1242 words, total size 9 kb.

1st

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at December 26, 2013 09:37 AM (u1jJP)

2 I will not hold my breath for this court. Roberts will just call it a tax or some other stupid shit and sell us out.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at December 26, 2013 09:40 AM (T2V/1)

3 What an honor, you got to be "king of commenters for at least two minutes"

Posted by: traye at December 26, 2013 09:40 AM (2m7Ih)

4 Great post. Does ACA's purported lack of severability come into play with any of these challenges?

Posted by: Emile Antoon Khadaji at December 26, 2013 09:41 AM (KvKOu)

5 Three minutes

Posted by: traye at December 26, 2013 09:41 AM (2m7Ih)

6 2 I will not hold my breath for this court. Roberts will just call it a tax or some other stupid shit and sell us out. Posted by: Vic at December 26, 2013 01:40 PM (T2V/1) I'd agree, if not for the 9-0 benchslap that was Hosana-Tabor. Those were the absolute worst facts for the freedom of religion side, and still religious liberty won. Between that and Citizens United, I think this may shake out for the good guys.

Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 09:42 AM (t7OO0)

7 4 Great post. Does ACA's purported lack of severability come into play with any of these challenges? Posted by: Emile Antoon Khadaji at December 26, 2 I think that would depend on if it's in the actual law or in the "the Secretary shall" part.

Posted by: traye at December 26, 2013 09:42 AM (2m7Ih)

8 You know you're boned when the court says you did a "regulatory ukase".

Posted by: Sharkman at December 26, 2013 09:44 AM (TM1p8)

9 Now that I've read the content... excellent post. The idiot judges ruling for the mandate really need to go. The extent they go to make trivial religious objections are astounding.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at December 26, 2013 09:45 AM (u1jJP)

10 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 09:47 AM (PYAXX)

11 Prolly should have inserted an 'all' between trivial and religious. Could be read wrong the way I posted it.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my Hate cannot be found) at December 26, 2013 09:48 AM (u1jJP)

12 There was no religion other than Stalin, and now there is no religion other than obama. Although when the Nazi hoard invaded, Stalin did get some religion: it was called Mother Russia.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 26, 2013 09:49 AM (t3UFN)

13 4 Great post. Does ACA's purported lack of severability come into play with any of these challenges? Posted by: Emile Antoon Khadaji at December 26, 2013 01:41 PM (KvKOu) In theory, yes, because if one part of the act is unconstitutional, then without a severability clause the whole thing must be struck down. In theory. We have tyrants in office and lackies on the bench, so anything goes.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 26, 2013 09:51 AM (olDqf)

14 On tonight's Very Special Episode of The Fat Man and Jeb: The Fat Man has invited the President and First Lady over for Kwanzaa dinner and UPS has lost Jeb's gift, a matching set of "Some of My Best Friends Are Teabaggers" coffee mugs. Further hilarity ensues when wacky neighbor Rob Ford decides to videotape his entry in the "Chris Farley Lookalike Competition" in the Fat Man and Jeb's rec room...during Kwanzaa dinner!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 26, 2013 09:52 AM (7ObY1)

15 Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 01:42 PM (t7OO0) Nope, I'm with Vic. Anything that weakens 404Care will be refused/rejected by SCOTUS, lest John Roberts be shown to be the arrogant, ignorant hack we believe him to be. "It's a tax."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 09:52 AM (PYAXX)

16 I will completely support forcing the Catholics and Hobby Lobby being forced to provide abortion coverage under ACA-- providing that every American Muslim organization had to do so first. Either everyone gets to have a conscience or no one does.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at December 26, 2013 09:55 AM (gO6xH)

17 I told you. Elections have consequences, wingnuts.

Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts at December 26, 2013 09:56 AM (A7zvX)

Would these decisions affect an individual's personal choice even if it weren't tied to any particular religion?

Seems to me these cases hold much deeper ramifications for Ocare, and, dare I say, Roe vs. Wade.

Posted by: Soona at December 26, 2013 09:56 AM (/M1+v)

19 One of the huge schisms this body of cases is engendering is the perception that the state is playing referee in deciding which religions "really mean it" on objections to state mandated activities by corporations and individuals engaged in the business cycle.

This is toxic, Obama has basically allowed Islam and the Amish to sit out the compulsions in Ogabecare and is stating De Jure that Christians do not really have their set of doctrinal beliefs.

These little matters(sarcasm intended) are going to be the fissure points in the American cohesive identity.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 09:57 AM (9jfyN)

20 >>>Great post. Does ACA's purported lack of severability come into play with any of these challenges? Posted by: Emile Antoon Khadaji at December 26, 2013 01:41 PM (KvKOu) >>In theory, yes, because if one part of the act is unconstitutional, then without a severability clause the whole thing must be struck down. In theory. We have tyrants in office and lackies on the bench, so anything goes. No. That has never been the law of severability. Please stop repeating that. I don't know where that idea got started, but the fact that it's still being repeated is ridiculous.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 26, 2013 09:57 AM (Aq3Ux)

21 16 Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at December 26, 2013 01:55 PM (gO6xH)

I'm on board, and will join you in joining Obama the minute the US Muslims are told, "no really we don't really believe you need gapped 5 breaks a day during Ramadan."

The state is saying implicitly that Muslims are engaged in genuine religious activity but Christians are not.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 09:58 AM (9jfyN)

22 I saw Regulatory Ukase open for... wait, no, I hallucinated that bit.

Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 26, 2013 09:59 AM (4WhSY)

23 >>>These little matters(sarcasm intended) are going to be the fissure points in the American cohesive identity. ------------------- You talk about American cohesive identity like it's a good thing.

Posted by: The Left, the Academy, the Government and the MSM at December 26, 2013 10:00 AM (A7zvX)

24 The Obama administration has argued that the accommodation is a mere administrative task that doesn't require the religious organizations to do anything except fill out a form.

By this brilliant piece of logic, signing the Wannsee Protocol wasn't a crime, because the perps didn't directly shoot or gas anyone, they just approved it.

Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 10:00 AM (6TB1Z)

25 The state is saying implicitly that Muslims are engaged in genuine religious activity but Christians are not. Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 01:58 PM (9jfyN) Sadly, many of the Christians they know may help them justify this belief.

Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 10:01 AM (t7OO0)

26 23 The Left, the Academy, the Government and the MSM at December 26, 2013 02:00 PM (A7zvX)

Quite, now remember that when secession starts old boy, girl, mirl or whatever...

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:01 AM (9jfyN)

27 I will completely support forcing the Catholics and Hobby Lobby being forced to provide abortion coverage under ACA-- providing that every American Muslim organization had to do so first. Either everyone gets to have a conscience or no one does.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at December 26, 2013 01:55 PM (gO6xH)

-----------------------------------------------

Them especially. But let's not forget the Amish. I believe they're exempt themselves.

I have nothing against the Amish, but they're still American citizens. I may be a bit rusty on the Constitution, but isn't fed law supposed to be equally enforced?

Posted by: Soona at December 26, 2013 10:01 AM (/M1+v)

28 About severability: With the religious freedom aspects this does not come into play, as they are not written into the law, they are mandates "as the secretary shall determine".

Posted by: Dandolo at December 26, 2013 10:01 AM (0XBx+)

29 Seems to me these cases hold much deeper ramifications for Ocare, and, dare I say, Roe vs. Wade. Good question, actually. Now that people are FORCED to pay for contraceptive care, even on their own policies when they *also* have moral objections to it, shouldn't they have "standing" (having had to write a check is "actual harm," no?) to sue?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:01 AM (PYAXX)

30 "Christian" Obama wants to other gods but himself, no dogma but leftism and no church hierarchy/inquisition but the state.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 26, 2013 10:02 AM (BC6cY)

31 I don't know where that idea got started, but the fact that it's still being repeated is ridiculous. Might be somewhat more helpful if you illuminated what it does mean instead of just railing about that, no?

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 26, 2013 10:02 AM (naUcP)

32 I seriously doubt that the courts are going to be the one to pull the plug on this slow-motion train wreck. If it happens, it'll likely be done as a bipartisan override of an Obama veto because the Dems see themselves getting run over by the train in 2014 if they don't stop it now.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 26, 2013 10:03 AM (/Crba)

33 The idiot judges ruling for the mandate really need to go. The extent they go to make trivial religious objections are astounding.

Not only are they not going, there are more of them arriving all the time. They are just dictators in black robes.

@19
Nicely put, Sven.

Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 10:03 AM (6TB1Z)

34 25 AMDG at December 26, 2013 02:01 PM (t7OO0)

That may well be, but the state is shifting the burden of proof for "religion" at political whim in a way that has not happened in the last 70+ years.

If Mike Huckadoodle decides to start attacking say $cientology for specious religious doctrine and targeted micro taxing of Xenu worship SCotUS will attack it.

I do wish the Federal Government would just go on ahead and openly declare Christians to be untermenschen so we can all adjust.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:03 AM (9jfyN)

35 Happy Boxing Day from occupied Dixie. http://tinyurl.com/nrxj4kn

Posted by: Nip Sip at December 26, 2013 10:04 AM (0FSuD)

36 My problem with the religion exception is where does it end? So no abortion and no birth control fro Christians. OK so then no circumcision is covered by policies at Jewish owned companies? And what about some out there religions that don't believe in antibiotics? Those companies don't cover those prescriptions?

Posted by: LaShanique Jakcson at December 26, 2013 10:04 AM (0LHZx)

37 No. That has never been the law of severability. Please stop repeating that. I don't know where that idea got started, but the fact that it's still being repeated is ridiculous. Straining at gnats while swallowing a camel. Given that Obama and his Administration are flatly refusing to enforce many laws, including border control (which is essential to the being of a state), at what point are all these wonderful legal abstractions you point out moot and void?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:06 AM (4QSOR)

38 , but isn't fed law supposed to be equally enforced? Posted by: Soona at December 26, 2013 02:01 PM (/M1+v) not so much amigo you whities are suck suckers

Posted by: Pablo the undocumented at December 26, 2013 10:06 AM (uk1X0)

39 If it happens, it'll likely be done as a bipartisan override of an Obama veto because the Dems see themselves getting run over by the train in 2014 if they don't stop it now. Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 26, 2013 02:03 PM (/Crba) ___________ 2/3 repeal vote in the Senate? No fucking chance. You might maybe have an outside shot at 60. But 67? That would mean yes votes from sens in places like CA, NY, Hawaii, etc. Not a chance.

Posted by: LaShanique Jakcson at December 26, 2013 10:06 AM (0LHZx)

40 The Amish get an exemption under decades old court decisions that allow them to not participate in government programs.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at December 26, 2013 10:06 AM (gO6xH)

41 33 pep at December 26, 2013 02:03 PM (6TB1Z)

Thank you, I do have a bit of linguistic elegance when I am not being willfully cryptic.

This is the sort of thing that leads to there being a "Belgium" and a "Holland".

I will stand with my Christian brothers and sisters over the other tribes I thought "equal protection" was supposed to undermine and force us into "a group of many as one."

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:06 AM (9jfyN)

42 In theory, yes, because if one part of the act is unconstitutional, then without a severability clause the whole thing must be struck down. Well, since the law has been altered, unconstitutionally, on numerous occasions...

Posted by: garrett at December 26, 2013 10:07 AM (7kUkN)

43 Agreed, sven. Dangerous grounds right now.

Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 10:07 AM (t7OO0)

44 Them especially. But let's not forget the Amish. I believe they're exempt themselves.

I have nothing against the Amish, but they're still American citizens. I may be a bit rusty on the Constitution, but isn't fed law supposed to be equally enforced?

Posted by: Soona at December 26, 2013 02:01 PM (/M1+v)

There are several religious groups that have been exempted from Obamacide. They are the same groups that are exempt from SS. However, they must provide for an equivalent program through their community groups. That is the same thing they are doing with SS now.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at December 26, 2013 10:07 AM (T2V/1)

"God willing, the justices will affirm the principle that the government should never be allowed to decide whether a religious belief is "meaningful" or not. "

Just so.

Posted by: Liberty Lover at December 26, 2013 10:07 AM (rKqYL)

I wonder if Roberts and co. will do what they should have done the first time around?

I disagree though that this is the most important religious-govt decision in many years. That first one happened way back when, when the Sup. Ct. slapped down 9-0 the govt's claim that it had a right to intervene and decide what people that religious institutions picked to lead their congregations.

Crazy shit.

Posted by: prescient11 at December 26, 2013 10:07 AM (tVTLU)

47 I do wish the Federal Government would just go on ahead and openly declare Christians to be untermenschen so we can all adjust.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 02:03 PM (9jfyN)

--------------------------------------------

I think they're already into that process. The wheels of government revolve slowly though. But we are running out of time. There's a such thing as momentum too.

Posted by: Soona at December 26, 2013 10:09 AM (QSL7Q)

48 2/3 repeal vote in the Senate? No fucking chance. You might maybe have an outside shot at 60. But 67? That would mean yes votes from sens in places like CA, NY, Hawaii, etc. Not a chance. Posted by: LaShanique Jakcson

They won't need 67. By the time the repeal votes reach 60, the pressure to repeal will be unbearable on any president. The Dems in the Senate WILL find a way to cancel the program, even if it requires a facesaving sop from us. I think they're actually looking for that way now. BTW, wasn't there something awhile back about the filibuster not being so important after all?

Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 10:10 AM (6TB1Z)

49 Posted by: Soona at December 26, 2013 02:09 PM (QSL7Q) You do have their thought leaders pushing it though. This whole Duck thing basically boils down to them saying quoting the Bible is inherently bigoted, and not far the old trope that Catholic were inherently agents of a foreign power by being loyal to the Pope. Belief was reason for persecution and social exile.

Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 10:12 AM (t7OO0)

50 39 If it happens, it'll likely be done as a bipartisan override of an Obama veto because the Dems see themselves getting run over by the train in 2014 if they don't stop it now. Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 26, 2013 02:03 PM (/Crba) ___________ 2/3 repeal vote in the Senate? No fucking chance. You might maybe have an outside shot at 60. But 67? That would mean yes votes from sens in places like CA, NY, Hawaii, etc. Not a chance. --- Unlikely, yes, but it depends on what the various polls are saying for the Dems. If the Dems see the 2014 races as the kind of thing that will cripple the party for a generation, I could see them undercutting Reid and Obama to save themselves.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 26, 2013 10:12 AM (/Crba)

51 Posted by: LaShanique Jakcson at December 26, 2013 02:04 PM (0LHZx) Errr... yes. And? The law really needs to be binary. It's trying to get into "grey areas" that has really screwed up a lot of things (especially in civil court). Either a business owner has the right not to do something he/she finds morally objectionable, or he/she does not. Period. Now, if you're going to say, "not," I suppose that's fine (it's stupid, but let's go with it for a minute)- that means that the Amish and the Muslims (among others) lose their objector status, too. Remember, this isn't about you being denied some service- it's about who is going to pay for it. If BC is not covered by your policy, that doesn't mean you can't get The Pill; it just means you have to pay out of pocket.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:12 AM (PYAXX)

52 ha ha obama

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 10:14 AM (uk1X0)

53 I do wish the Federal Government would just go on ahead and openly declare Christians to be untermenschen so we can all adjust.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 02:03 PM (9jfyN)

Being Christian is already reason enough to lose your job.

What more do you want?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at December 26, 2013 10:14 AM (fwARV)

54 47 Soona at December 26, 2013 02:09 PM (QSL7Q)

I am inclined to agree, if the United States wants to be "er uh a Muslim nation" let's get on with it so we can secede where able.

I would not want the United States to be a Muslim, Evangelical Atheist, or Christian as Theocratic nation I like the Nation relatively as is but if we are to allow the balkanization of America I do hope my superior human friends on the left do grasp and understand we get to be tribal too.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:14 AM (9jfyN)

55 Sup. Ct. slapped down 9-0 the govt's claim that it had a right to intervene and decide what people that religious institutions picked to lead their congregations. We work around that by killing the leaders and congregants when we don't like them.

Posted by: Janet Reno[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:14 AM (4QSOR)

56 Yes, much will depend on the judges, who are appointed to the bench for life terms by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Elections matter.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 26, 2013 10:14 AM (473jB)

57 If BC is not covered by your policy, that doesn't mean you can't get The Pill; it just means you have to pay out of pocket. An AddaDicktoMe is a right!

Posted by: Chelsea Manning at December 26, 2013 10:15 AM (7kUkN)

58 56 Adjoran at December 26, 2013 02:14 PM (473jB)

and rules used to...

//Searchlight Reid

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:15 AM (9jfyN)

59 Might be somewhat more helpful if you illuminated what it does mean instead of just railing about that, no? Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 26, 2013 02:02 PM (naUcP) Watch it Brother Cavil

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at December 26, 2013 10:16 AM (R8hU8)

60 54 Any nation will have a religion, even if it is the state as godhead. All in all I would rather the U.S. at least know that we are a Christian nation, as Christians are by far the most tolerant.

Posted by: Dandolo at December 26, 2013 10:16 AM (0XBx+)

61 do hope my superior human friends on the left do grasp and understand we get to be tribal too. Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 02:14 PM (9jfyN) no they don't get that, just see by their actions

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 10:17 AM (uk1X0)

62 re 47: nah, only the wrong kind of Christians. Christians who believe in liberation theology and all that will be valuable parteigenossen for the Peoples Democratic Republic of the Future. (Forward)

Posted by: Mallfly at December 26, 2013 10:17 AM (bJm7W)

63 They won't need 67. By the time the repeal votes reach 60, the pressure to repeal will be unbearable on any president. The Dems in the Senate WILL find a way to cancel the program, even if it requires a facesaving sop from us. I think they're actually looking for that way now. BTW, wasn't there something awhile back about the filibuster not being so important after all? Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 02:10 PM (6TB1Z) _____________ Obama will cut his nuts off on live TV before he signs a repeal of Obamacare. The only way to do it is override which means 67 in the senate and whatever 292 in the house (67% of 435).

Posted by: LaShanique Jakcson at December 26, 2013 10:18 AM (0LHZx)

64 The cast that will bring down obamacare is not going to happen until someone gets hit with the individual mandate... As this IS a Tax, per Judge Roberts, and the ACA exempts some religions from paying said Tax.... that is CLEARLY Congress favoring one religion over another... And no one could, with a straight face, say otherwise. THAT is the Legal argument that kills the ACA... because if you toss out the individual mandate... then the whole thing collapses...

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 26, 2013 10:18 AM (lZBBB)

Can someone tell me again how all of this has to do with providing insurance to those alleged involuntarily uninsured?

Posted by: polynikes at December 26, 2013 10:19 AM (m2CN7)

66 Can someone tell me again how all of this has to do with providing insurance to those alleged involuntarily uninsured? Magic and Unicorn farts.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:19 AM (PYAXX)

67 Maybe Obama would sign a repeal of 404Care if the aides just told him it was another quick fix. Doubtful he'd actually read whatever it is. Probably didn't read it the first time, so why expect him to read anything later.

Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 10:20 AM (t7OO0)

68 God willing, the justices will affirm the principle that the government should never be allowed to decide whether a religious belief is "meaningful" or not.
=======
Like baking a cake . . . .
Or taking wedding photos . . . .

Posted by: RoyalOil at December 26, 2013 10:20 AM (VjL9S)

69 65 polynikes at December 26, 2013 02:19 PM (m2CN7)

Quite simply it doesn't.

Never was about coverage it was and will remain about control.

I know we know this, and I know the media never puts it like this.

That the GOP does not put it like this tells me they are in on the gag.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:20 AM (9jfyN)

70 Can someone tell me again how all of this has to do with providing insurance to those alleged involuntarily uninsured? *handwave* Because weasels. And the free market.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:20 AM (4QSOR)

71 And you have to remember just because a Dem is vulnerable doesn't mean he/she will vote against Obamacare. This is the liberal holy grail. They'll gladly lose an election in exchange for a govt run health care system. Think of it the other way....you think Ted Cruz would vote to get rid of the IRS if it meant he'd lose an election? I think he would. Some things transcend elections and for the left this is one of those things.

Posted by: LaShanique Jakcson at December 26, 2013 10:21 AM (0LHZx)

72 Obamacare is a religion unto itself. (Under normal circumstances, this would be followed by gregorian-type chants wafting unto the heavens. You'll just have to use your imaginations.)

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at December 26, 2013 10:22 AM (BZAd3)

73 68 RoyalOil at December 26, 2013 02:20 PM (VjL9S)

Correct the US left and ":moderates" seem to feel the power of the state to compel is a natural function of government down to the micro transaction in the American experiment.

It's why the goal of the wife and my retirement cycle is creating the ability to live as lean as possible.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:22 AM (9jfyN)

74 Politics is the organization of priorities and the maintenance and/or reestablishment of boundaries. Marxists are obsessed with imposing their priorities as some sort of "universal" objective truth, based, in large part, upon the lowest-common denominator primacy of emotion and instinct, while abolishing preexisting boundaries and establishing "new" Marxian ones in their stead. Conservatism struggles to articulate a sufficiently coherent intellectual opposition to the Leftist project. Later.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 26, 2013 10:22 AM (VYM4n)

75 Christians are by far the most tolerant. Yep. And just as the American left has no idea of the truth of this statement, they have no idea that America is the least racist. It's because their information loop is clouded with bad data.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:23 AM (4QSOR)

76 66 Can someone tell me again how all of this has to do with providing insurance to those alleged involuntarily uninsured? Because RACIST!!!!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 26, 2013 10:24 AM (7ObY1)

77 As a Mormon I've always had one eye open for governmental interference with my religion. After all, we fled the feds once. (There was a little more space to flee in those days....)
What makes me hair-pulling crazy is when a liberal friend solemnly assures me it would be a terrible thing to make me drink alcohol, or an Orthodox Jew eat ham, but making me pay for abortifacients is 'different'. Arrrrrrgh!!!

Posted by: Pentangle at December 26, 2013 10:24 AM (EYxo0)

>> Once the courts get into the business of deciding whether religious beliefs -- like objections to signing a form facilitating the provision of contraception coverage -- are "meaningful" or not, you can kiss free exercise of religion goodbye.

Yep.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 26, 2013 10:24 AM (WvXvd)

79 77 Pentangle at December 26, 2013 02:24 PM (EYxo0)

I figure the state compelling me to aid the Kermit Gosnell EinsatzGruppen is the US Christian nation paying for the sin of inflicting an enforced doctrinal demand on your faith's members in the 19th century.

"Sorry" although I guess since the Left is sucking Islam's dick you'll get polygamy back "maybe" in the next two decades.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:26 AM (9jfyN)

80 Great post, Gabe. Thanks for pulling together the various opinions in a cohesive post. I am not a big believer in majority rule but the majority of Americans are Christian and the vast majority, while not necessarily religious, espouse one faith or another. For many, our religious beliefs more than anything shape the people we are. Out faith is fundamental in shaping our lives and the suggestion that that fact is negotiable is infuriating and frightening. Personally, I have no problem with birth control but respect the religious views of those who do so that I can NEVER imagine asking them to compromise their values. Then again.... I might be a hypocrite because I'll be damned if I'm going to support the rights of those who want to harm people or animals. So... perhaps my support of religious freedom applies to the conventional religions. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 10:27 AM (DmNpO)

81 Think of it the other way....you think Ted Cruz would vote to get rid of the IRS if it meant he'd lose an election? I think he would. Some things transcend elections and for the left this is one of those things.

No, Ted Cruz might because he has ethics and principles. Libs are about power. Threaten that power, and they'll cave. It's beyond me why you think they consider anything other than self.

Obama will cut his nuts off on live TV before he signs a repeal of Obamacare.

And then the Senate will vote in another bill that effectively undoes OCare, or they'll defund it, or just delay it until he's gone. It really won't be up to him at that point.

Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 10:28 AM (6TB1Z)

82 It does really bug me that you can no longer be left alone by the feds.

Posted by: Bean Pies, ey? at December 26, 2013 10:28 AM (Qev5V)

83 80 Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 02:27 PM (DmNpO)

NDH, the key word is respect of which we are encouraged to be generous with as Christians.

The left refuses to respect dissenting views.

Posted by: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 10:29 AM (9jfyN)

84 Thanks, Gabe! great summary.

Politically, Obama and the Dems win either way. They are seen by many women who do not have the time or inclination to follow these things, as defenders of women's rights. Whereas the GOP is seen as still waging its war on women.

I do hope the Supremes vote our way. But I doubt there will be much gained politically - which is sad. Defending the constitutional rights of people who don't even care that their basic freedoms are being taken away is a thankless job. They simply care about their "free" stuff.. even if their increased monthly premium should show them it isn't "free" at all.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at December 26, 2013 10:29 AM (f9c2L)

85 It does really bug me that you can no longer be left alone by the feds. The Feds literally chased (with an army) the LDS church out of the US and into the territories.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:32 AM (4QSOR)

86 Then again.... I might be a hypocrite because I'll be damned if I'm going to support the rights of those who want to harm people or animals. Those are not actually equivalent. One is saying you won't be forced to do something: you won't be forced to pay for abortions, or birth-control, or whatever. The other is saying you won't be prevented from doing something, and that's wholly different. You should have absolute freedom to exercise your religion AND society should have the ability to protect itself from you if necessary. So if you want to sacrifice goats or chickens- fine. Don't be surprised when the cops come calling. To put it another way- imagine if it were human, not animal, sacrifice. While you have the right to exercise your religion, doesn't that person have a superseding Right to Life?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:32 AM (PYAXX)

87 So... perhaps my support of religious freedom applies to the conventional religions.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse

That's always the problem, isn't it? Who decides and draws the line, and with what justification? Absolutists have consistency on their side, but as with gun control and free speech, they really aren't absolute.

I think the best we can hope for is that judges are smart enough not to thwart the will of the people, but then you have other problems, like tyranny of the majority. It's almost like this governin' stuff is hard and complex.

Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 10:32 AM (6TB1Z)

88 The left refuses to respect dissenting views. Man-date, bitches. I won. Eat yo' ~~peas~~ shit sandwich!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at December 26, 2013 10:32 AM (7kUkN)

89 Thanks, Gabe. This is a great overview of the issue and highlights the importance. A lot of people don't appreciate what a big deal this is.

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 10:33 AM (GRLuN)

90 Defending the constitutional rights of people who don't even care that their basic freedoms are being taken away is a thankless job. They simply care about their "free" stuff.. even if their increased monthly premium should show them it isn't "free" at all. Our healthcare is free!

Posted by: Canadians[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:33 AM (4QSOR)

91 for: sven10077 at December 26, 2013 02:26 PM (9jfyN)

Just to be clear, I don't hold anyone alive today responsible for actions taken over a hundred years ago. No one owes us anything.
And polygamy will be back in just a few years - or civil marriage will be abolished, one or the other. There really *is* such a thing as a slippery slope, and once marriage isn't only one man and one woman, literally anything goes. My greatest fear is that somehow the legal age of consent will be substantially dropped. Sure, not today or tomorrow, but I fear it's coming.

Posted by: Pentangle at December 26, 2013 10:34 AM (EYxo0)

92 I think the best we can hope for is that judges are smart enough not to thwart the will of the people, but then you have other problems, like tyranny of the majority. It's almost like this governin' stuff is hard and complex. *** Presidentin' is hard.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 10:34 AM (DmNpO)

93 The Feds literally chased (with an army) the LDS church out of the US and into the territories. Posted by: bonhomme at December 26, 2013 02:32 PM (4QSOR) Well since the LDS 'church' was trying to set up a theocracy in US territory, what do you think should have happened instead?

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 10:34 AM (uk1X0)

94 You will love this totally related post: http://tinyurl.com/msmkx2m

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at December 26, 2013 10:34 AM (BZAd3)

95 AllenG your comment on human sacrifice reminded me of an article I read in a pagan religion magazine about conducting an abortion as a human sacrifice.

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 10:36 AM (GRLuN)

96 Well since the LDS 'church' was trying to set up a theocracy in US territory, what do you think should have happened instead? Please to be explaining.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:36 AM (4QSOR)

97 re 72: I can almost imagine pajama boy leading a choir of MSNBC hosts, hands folded, facing towards the Oval Office, chanting:

Deshil Holles Eamus. Deshil Holles Eamus. Deshil Holles Eamus.

Send us bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening and wombfruit. Send
us bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening and wombfruit. Send us
bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening and wombfruit.

Posted by: Mallfly at December 26, 2013 10:36 AM (bJm7W)

98 New post up but I am fascinated by this topic so I might hang here for a few.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 10:36 AM (DmNpO)

99 Bottom line is birth control is not health treatment and should not be part of any medical insurance whether you are religious or not.

Posted by: polynikes at December 26, 2013 10:39 AM (m2CN7)

100 Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 02:36 PM (GRLuN) Not for nothing do some here liken abortion to the worship of Moloch.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:40 AM (PYAXX)

101 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 02:36 PM (DmNpO) Ditto. I think the line comes from where RFRA was trying to put it. The only time government should be able to step in is when it has a truly compelling interest* and there is no other way to achieve that interest. Gov't has a compelling interest in people not killing each other, and really the only way to stop that is to ban human sacrifice. With contraception, even if you make the argument it is compelling (which the waivers destroy that argument), then there are other obvious ways to get contraception to people w/o forcing religious orgs and people to do it. An easy way, if gov is going full take over anyway, is to make contraception producers sell it for free and spread the cost to other drugs. *admittedly, a legal weasel word.

Posted by: AMDG at December 26, 2013 10:40 AM (t7OO0)

102 There is no doubt that providing me with French champagne and Belgium chocolates would vastly enhance my health and well being, so therefore, I want those supplements to be provided to me under ACA. What's that you say? I don't need those items and if I must have them, I should pay for them myself? The hell you say. If I have to pay for Sandy's BC pills, STDs, and/or abortions, then she can damn well pay for my bubbly and truffles--the selfish little twit. Oh sex is a right, you say? Why? Is just an urge to splurge via the horizontal merge, so why is it mo' betta to the point that it requires public support for all its phases, phrases, and fruits?

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at December 26, 2013 10:41 AM (gO6xH)

103 Well since the LDS 'church' was trying to set up a theocracy in US territory, what do you think should have happened instead? Compound question fallacy. But I'm curious what you mean. What exactly do you mean by "trying to set up a theocracy in US territory"? Do you mean they were trying to overthrow the gov't? If so, uh, evidence? Do you mean they set up a self-governing society? If so, yeah? And?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:42 AM (4QSOR)

104 "There is no doubt that providing me with French champagne and Belgium chocolates would vastly enhance my health and well being, so therefore, I want those supplements to be provided to me under ACA. "

Me, too! Well, not the champagne, but since I can't have that, I have a right to TWICE the chocolate you get.

Posted by: Pentangle at December 26, 2013 10:43 AM (EYxo0)

105 As much fun as I have here at the HQ, it really is posts and threads such as these that keep me coming back year after year. You folks are so wise and smart and make such compelling arguments. There simply is no better hang on the internetz.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 10:44 AM (DmNpO)

106 *admittedly, a legal weasel word.

Exactly. IOW, I (Supreme X) think this is important. For example, Sotomayor might think the state has a compelling interest in putting self-absorbed, completely biased mediocrities in high positions. Like the Supreme Court.

It comes down to what the Supremes personally value. That wasn't always the case, but the courts are so politicized now that there isn't even a pretense anymore.

Posted by: pep at December 26, 2013 10:45 AM (6TB1Z)

107 Do you mean they set up a self-governing society? If so, yeah? And? Posted by: bonhomme at December 26, 2013 02:42 PM (4QSOR) yea, made up of all LDS members. The mormon church did not want any non-mormon officials. If that is not a theocracy, what is?

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 10:47 AM (uk1X0)

108 And what they say about the victim card is true, mormons refuse to let go of their victim card just like any other group.

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 10:50 AM (uk1X0)

109 "Once the courts get into the business of deciding whether religious beliefs -- like objections to signing a form facilitating the provision of contraception coverage -- are "meaningful" or not, you can kiss free exercise of religion goodbye" Is the government already in that position when, for instance, the IRS decides which religions are exempt from taxes and which are not?

Posted by: Socrateae at December 26, 2013 10:51 AM (1jViy)

110 Honestly, if severability doesn't mean what we think it does, I really would like to know what it does mean legally. In case such things ever have meaning again in my lifetime.

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 26, 2013 10:52 AM (naUcP)

111 The only time government should be able to step in is when it has a truly compelling interest* and there is no other way to achieve that interest. Actually, I reject that, too. What, for instance, is "the Government's" compelling interest in halting murder? And, given that no law yet has succeeded in stopping murder, what else would be allowed under "compelling interest?" It is a weasel word (well: phrase, I suppose). The standard must be "what best preserves the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property?" In that case, murder must be punished because it violates another's Right of Life. Theft must be punished because it violates another's Right of Property. The Government must allow free speech because to do otherwise is to violate the citizens' Right of Liberty. Government focused on anything except preserving and balancing those Natural Rights will lead, inevitably, where we are now.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:52 AM (PYAXX)

112 Not for nothing do some here liken abortion to the worship of Moloch. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 02:40 PM (PYAXX) So the ancients sacrificed humans to ensure prosperity by way of a good harvest, and the moderns urge women to abort to ensure prosperity by way of protecting education and career opportunities. I used the word "urged" because many women have experienced pressure to abort, in fact, I suspect nearly all women who have chosen to abort experienced pressure. I've wondered if a step in the right direction would be to outlaw pressuring a woman to abort (except it would be messy to define what constitutes "pressure.")

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 10:53 AM (GRLuN)

113

Pentangle - I'm in agreement that the next dominoes to fall will be polygamy and age of consent, in part due to Muslim pressure as well as the general libertine trend toward "love and consent" being the only criteria. Our fetishization of the youth vote/youth culture will also increase pressure to give ever-younger people more "independence." With minors being given day after pills and abortions without parental notification or permission, it's clear where the Left stands on this question. Look for the "they're not your children, they're society's children" teachers and social workers in the vanguard of that movement.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 26, 2013 10:53 AM (il1Hy)

114 yea, made up of all LDS members. The mormon church did not want any non-mormon officials. What are you talking about? You're saying Buchanan sent an army to the Utah territories because a Mormon settlement had all Mormon leaders? Further that they "wanted" all Mormon officials? What steps did the Mormons take to exclude others from serving as officials? I mean if they wanted a Theocracy, they must have fought really really hard to exclude non-Mormons, right?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 10:56 AM (J79eW)

115 Government focused on anything except preserving and balancing those Natural Rights will lead, inevitably, where we are now. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 02:52 PM (PYAXX) "Where we are now" -- that is absolutely chilling.

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 10:56 AM (GRLuN)

116 I used the word "urged" because many women have experienced pressure to abort, in fact, I suspect nearly all women who have chosen to abort experienced pressure. They absolutely are. When we first learned my wife was pregnant with our first child, we didn't have insurance (that changed quickly afterwords, but I was between jobs). So, knowing of no other options, she had her very first OB visit at a PP clinic. To say they were "pressuring" her to abort would be to understate the case, and they were obviously taken aback when we told them, "No, we're keeping it." I've wondered if a step in the right direction would be to outlaw pressuring a woman to abort (except it would be messy to define what constitutes "pressure.") Well, if their reactions are indication, laws requiring women to both undergo and view (or hear) the results of an ultrasound prior to having an abortion are a huge step in the correct direction. Almost like most women *aren't* okay with ending a human life.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:56 AM (PYAXX)

117 I'm going to save time and just live with the assumption that whatever happens, it will be bad and it can only get worse.

Posted by: Null at December 26, 2013 10:56 AM (P7hip)

118 "Where we are now" -- that is absolutely chilling. It should be. It's a chilling thought. And what's worse is that there really is only one way to get back "there" from "here." The ratchet only turns one direction.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at December 26, 2013 10:58 AM (PYAXX)

119 And what they say about the victim card is true, mormons refuse to let go of their victim card just like any other group.Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 02:50 PM (uk1X0)

Imagine that. And just after I got done saying no one alive today owes us anything at all.

I have never heard a fellow member say otherwise. I *have* heard comments that it would be nice if history books were more accurate. But then we get off on all the other crap in history books about the Founders, etc., and the discussion goes off track. We really don't care. If we use stories of courage and endurance from those times to bolster our own today, that's hardly saying we are owed anything. Did your gr-grandma move into a Mormon's house after we left? Guess what? We don't want it back.

Posted by: Pentangle at December 26, 2013 10:58 AM (EYxo0)

120

"Is the government already in that position when, for instance, the IRS decides which religions are exempt from taxes and which are not?"

I'd say yes. Ultimately there's no way to square that circle without either removing the tax exemption for every organization, applying it to every organization, or funding government by consumption taxes rather than "income" taxes. I'd strongly prefer the latter since government taxing churches was one of the evils the First Amendment was primarily intended to address.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 26, 2013 10:58 AM (il1Hy)

121 Posted by: bonhomme at December 26, 2013 02:56 PM (J79eW) dude, go look up Theodemocracy. If you want to deny the LDS church in the 1850's did not believe in it fine, that is your argument

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 11:00 AM (uk1X0)

122 "Is the government already in that position when, for instance, the IRS decides which religions are exempt from taxes and which are not?" Didn't a lot of this start in the '60s and '70s when a whole bunch of "churches" started up for the explicit purpose of saying that smoking pot was a religious experience and therefore protected?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 11:01 AM (45N4D)

123 Planned Parenthood may claim they are a women's health provider but they are really in the business of performing as many abortions as possible.

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 11:01 AM (GRLuN)

124 dude, go look up Theodemocracy. If you want to deny the LDS church in the 1850's did not believe in it fine, that is your argument Appeal from ignorance. You're on a roll.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 11:02 AM (45N4D)

125 Null, just want to say hello and wish you good cheer in spite of the general social decline.

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 11:05 AM (GRLuN)

126 Appeal from ignorance. You're on a roll. Posted by: bonhomme at December 26, 2013 03:02 PM (45N4D) You did not say the LDS church did not embrace Theodemocracy right there. We can move on to the first 118 pages or so missing from the Book of Mormon if you want.

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 11:09 AM (uk1X0)

127 The only time government should be able to step in is when it has a truly compelling interest* and there is no other way to achieve that interest. Government Interest is what people say when they do not want to take accountability for the Government Actions THEY perform. For a Government to have an 'interest' it would have to be a thinking felling entity... which it is not.... When you speak of a 'Government' having interests, vice 'this is what Government leaders WANT to do... you no longer hold those leaders accountable... you suddenly blame something which is beyond the power of persuasion.... and make control by the people more difficult.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 26, 2013 11:14 AM (lZBBB)

128 Excellent post, Gabe. Some of the comments provoke me to make a bleg. There's a lot of hate in the horde for Roberts. (There are elements of the horde that have no forgiveness for apostasy. No matter how brilliant a Peggy Noonan column is there will be five comments saying the scrunt still has Obama's dribble on her chin from 0

. Roberts called OCare a tax, when O had insisted it wasn't a tax. That was a big fuck you to Obama. What is u pardonable around here is that Roberts didn't sieze an opportunity to get the right result (he coulda killed it dead!) by striking down the signature law of a (then) popular president. So he said, fuck you, it's a tax, have fun with it. And he let a structurally flawed monstrosity launch itself into the world where its flaws and failings can be exposed and attacked by other actors. And that's working. So, here's my bleg. If you share this general sentiment can you make a post about it that's a lot smarter than I could do?

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at December 26, 2013 11:15 AM (1xUj/)

129 I will not debate you because you choose not to confine your arguments to logic. The compound question fallacy and appeal to ignorance fallacies you used previously demonstrate amply you're not interested in rational debate. As to whether the LDS Church leaders anticipated a Theocracy in the future when Christ returned to Earth to reign as King, yes, that's true. But they did not establish, nor did they try to establish a theocracy, even after Johntson's army left them alone in the territories.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 11:15 AM (45N4D)

130 One thing about the birth control debate -- (My denomination does not condemn birth control, but I am convinced it is one of the contributors to the decline of stable families and have therefore come to the conclusion that it is better not to participate.) I want to know why anyone should be compelled to provide birth control for someone else whose sexual conduct we are not responsible for? It's like being compelled to pay for someone else's oil changes.

Posted by: Mindy aka Cupcake at December 26, 2013 11:15 AM (GRLuN)

131 Posted by: bonhomme at December 26, 2013 03:15 PM (45N4D) Pretty sure when Christ returns he does not need the help of the LDS church to establish his kingdom.

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 11:20 AM (uk1X0)

132 I want to know why anyone should be compelled to provide birth control for someone else whose sexual conduct we are not responsible for? It's like being compelled to pay for someone else's oil changes

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at December 26, 2013 11:24 AM (5ikDv)

133 oops try that again

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at December 26, 2013 11:25 AM (5ikDv)

134 So if you want to sacrifice goats or chickens- fine. Don't be surprised when the cops come calling. Actually I don't care if people sacrifice goats or chickens. I sacrifice them to my belly all the time.

Posted by: Republic of Texas 2: Electric Boogaloo at December 26, 2013 11:26 AM (Gk2GE)

135 I want to know why anyone should be compelled to provide birth control for someone else whose sexual conduct we are not responsible for? It's like being compelled to pay for someone else's oil changes

Because job security for lawyers.

It's like AvP.

No matter which one wins , we lose.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at December 26, 2013 11:26 AM (5ikDv)

136 The missing pages of the book of mormon.... Joseph Smith translated the book of mormon. The first 118 pages got lost. So he had to re-translate it. But he could not remember what he wrote so on the re-write he was very vague. No Names, no dates, ect. until he got to the part that was not lost. Then bam! Names, dates, tons of very detailed info. go read the book of mormon yourself and decide for yourself the current version of the book of mormon transition from vague to detailed is about page 130.

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 11:26 AM (uk1X0)

137 Not goats though.

Posted by: Republic of Texas 2: Electric Boogaloo at December 26, 2013 11:26 AM (Gk2GE)

138 Repulsive new St Trayvon post up

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 26, 2013 11:27 AM (DmNpO)

139 Pretty sure when Christ returns he does not need the help of the LDS church to establish his kingdom. Pretty sure God didn't need Moses to lead His people out of Egypt. But he commanded Moses to do that anyway. Are you going to snark, or make a logical argument? What exactly did they do wrong? And how does that action, whatever it may have been, justify sending an army against them. Again, given the army didn't battle them, how did that dissuade them from attempting to establish a Theocracy at that time, not some future date of Christ's return. Given that Utah is not a Theocracy, what changed their minds?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 11:27 AM (o4Xc4)

140 Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 03:20 PM (uk1X0)

You going to answer my point - that we've never asked for redress, or are you just going to spout nonsense? About the Christ returning thing - if you're correct, then you've got no worries, bud. But if we're correct.....
And we have never said that the Son of God needs anything from us. Our doctrine states that when He returns the government will be set up according to the command structure used in the New Testament, with Apostles, 70's, etc. and with Christ at its head. I think He can handle us if we get out of hand.

Posted by: Pentangle at December 26, 2013 11:29 AM (EYxo0)

141 >>>>Are you going to snark, yes mostly. off to the gym. We can take this up later if you choose

Posted by: #7 moron at December 26, 2013 11:40 AM (uk1X0)

142

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history." Cdl George.

I'm wity Cardinal George. This crap has happened so often in the past, Rome, France,

Britain, Spain, Nazi Germany, commie russia.

The anti Christian and especially anti Catholic left in the US are following the same general forumla for persecution. Why do you think the Catholic Church celebrates the maryrdom of St Stephen immediatly following the birth of the messiah? To remind us that this is what we ALL may come to for following Christ. He tells us to be prepared. We need to be...

Posted by: havildar-major at December 26, 2013 11:41 AM (kduZC)

143 We can take this up later if you choose No thanks. Have a good workout.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 26, 2013 11:52 AM (2hTlI)

144 If Citizens United says corporations have free speech, I don't see how they can pull no freedom of religion from the 1st amendment and say they don't also have freedom of religion. You can exercise half of an amendment.

Posted by: Skree at December 26, 2013 01:29 PM (c/1Jl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

160kb generated in CPU 0.0793, elapsed 0.299 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2679 seconds, 272 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.