NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[michaelskis]

So this is what our Senate does instead of actually, oh I dunno... their jobs?!

So, party leaders have arranged for a single Republican lawmaker to show up every three days and gavel the Senate to order, wait around for about 30 seconds, gavel it to a close, then leave.

FFS, plus here is another fun fact, Obama has had 32 recess appointments compared to 240 for Reagan, 171 for GW, and 138 for Clinton. But once again Obama is the scourge on the earth and blah, blah... I love how nobody has the cojones to call Congress out on their crap and tell them to actually do thier job. Stop these stupid political tricks and actually take a stand on something and let it have an up or down vote. :-@

I agree. Yet another reason that I think that they all suck at their job.



On a slightly different note, Ann Coulter needs is out of her freaking mind. How in the world does soccer result in moral decay? That is just stupid.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

On a slightly different note, Ann Coulter needs is out of her freaking mind. How in the world does soccer result in moral decay? That is just stupid.

Probably because God gave man hands and arms to separate him from the beasts of the field. For us to forsake these hands and arms in order to play soccer is to forsake our maker!

FWIW, soccer is still boring and even being in the World Cup does not make it interesting to me. And Ann Coulter is truly an idiot (but that was known before this soccer brouhaha).

 

[michaelskis]

Some corporations have religious rights, a deeply divided Supreme Court decided Monday in ruling that certain for-profit companies cannot be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

The 5-4 decision on ideological lines ended the high court's term with a legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.

CNN LINK (because it is bias of it comes from FOX)

I think this is the a good ruling. It still gives people the freedom to do what they want, just allows business owners to not fund insurance that covers contraceptives if it is in violation of their religious beliefs. I have heard the "but the pill is used for more than just birth control" but no one has been able to supply statistics on the percentage of women were prescribed the pill for reasons other than birth control.

 

[rcgplanner]

CNN LINK (because it is bias of it comes from FOX)

I think this is the a good ruling. It still gives people the freedom to do what they want, just allows business owners to not fund insurance that covers contraceptives if it is in violation of their religious beliefs. I have heard the "but the pill is used for more than just birth control" but no one has been able to supply statistics on the percentage of women were prescribed the pill for reasons other than birth control.

This is as Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent yesterday, "a legal minefield". This could give companies an opening to stop following all types of laws because of "religious freedom." While the ruling said that religious beliefs cannot be used to break a law that the government has a compelling interest in backing said law. Of course SCOTUS didn't give any examples of what laws would be of compelling interest to the government. Just wait until a company attempts to stop paying minimum wage because of their "religious objections" to it.

The most interesting thing is that the plaintiffs were using their personal religious objections to deny certain contraceptives, using their business as a cloak. This seems to go against the whole reason why corporations are given personhood. The whole idea behind corporate personhood is to allow a corporation to enter into legal contracts and do things like purchase property. It is also the thing that prevents the owners from losing their personal property in claims against the company. Yet these owners are using their personal beliefs to break the law. Slate put this concept perfectly:

In the Hobby Lobby case, the owners of the craft store chain make the same mistake. The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees. Yet Hobby Lobby's owners aren't required by the law to do anything. The legal duty falls on Hobby Lobby, the company, not its owners. If Hobby Lobby fails to provide the required insurance, the company, not the owners, is responsible.

Sounds like a case of having your cake and eating it too. This is a decision that is going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

 

[Hink]

Personally I don't think corporations should have rights like individuals do. I don't agree that a corporation can have religious values. I don't agree that a corporation can give unlimited amounts of money.

I think the decision was beyond a poor one and will only work to solidify the democrats in 2016. Why would someone elect an R, when the 5 R judges in the Supreme Court continually rewrite legislation?

Just another blow to the 2016 republican candidate.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Hopefully this decision just moves us one step closer to universal health care.

 

[ColoGI]

Sounds like a case of having your cake and eating it too. This is a decision that is going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

Hopefully this decision just moves us one step closer to universal health care.

Scalia said that universal health care would be a great workaround for this issue (while granting corporations more rights than wimmin employees (men still get their d--k pills and pumps)). Nevertheless, going to get worse before it gets better. A few more steps down in our descent into government-aided plutocracy.

 

[michaelskis]

Personally I don't think corporations should have rights like individuals do. I don't agree that a corporation can have religious values. I don't agree that a corporation can give unlimited amounts of money.

I think the decision was beyond a poor one and will only work to solidify the democrats in 2016. Why would someone elect an R, when the 5 R judges in the Supreme Court continually rewrite legislation?

Just another blow to the 2016 republican candidate.

Per the Dictionary Act:

1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Scalia said that universal health care would be a great workaround for this issue (while granting corporations more rights than wimmin employees (men still get their d--k pills and pumps)). Nevertheless, going to get worse before it gets better. A few more steps down in our descent into government-aided plutocracy.

I've read a couple of things now indicating that at least a few of the conservative justices would likely support a universal health care single-payer system. I feel that maybe Obamacare's real purpose wasn't to actually fix the system, but to demonstrate that it cannot be fixed in any kind of efficient manner without a full-scale fundamental conversion to single-payer.

 

[ColoGI]

I feel that maybe Obamacare's real purpose wasn't to actually fix the system, but to demonstrate that it cannot be fixed in any kind of efficient manner without a full-scale fundamental conversion to single-payer.

I have winger family & friends who swear that Obummercare is a disruption tool to finish the job and impart th' soshelizm to our freedomland to take their guns. They use this sort of argument to start their KINSPEERCY rant.

Not asserting that is what you are doing, but merely framing it in such a way that all the coverage and angst & ennui from several years ago when this was going on indicated no such thing, and this is revisionism. BHO simply made a mistake and charged Congress to do the details of his big picture to get costs under control. Now, whether the activist justices on the USC are giving a solution that is politically a non-starter is another story, but if anyone needed a reason to vote in November, this is it.

 

[michaelskis]

I have winger family & friends who swear that Obummercare is a disruption tool to finish the job and impart th' soshelizm to our freedomland to take their guns. They use this sort of argument to start their KINSPEERCY rant.

Not asserting that is what you are doing, but merely framing it in such a way that all the coverage and angst & ennui from several years ago when this was going on indicated no such thing, and this is revisionism. BHO simply made a mistake and charged Congress to do the details of his big picture to get costs under control. Now, whether the activist justices on the USC are giving a solution that is politically a non-starter is another story, but if anyone needed a reason to vote in November, this is it.

I have heard this too. Personally, I think he wants to fix the system, but he went about it the wrong way.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I have winger family & friends who swear that Obummercare is a disruption tool to finish the job and impart th' soshelizm to our freedomland to take their guns. They use this sort of argument to start their KINSPEERCY rant.

Not asserting that is what you are doing, but merely framing it in such a way that all the coverage and angst & ennui from several years ago when this was going on indicated no such thing, and this is revisionism. BHO simply made a mistake and charged Congress to do the details of his big picture to get costs under control. Now, whether the activist justices on the USC are giving a solution that is politically a non-starter is another story, but if anyone needed a reason to vote in November, this is it.

Let me restate then, since I am actually a big supporter of a single-payer nationalized system... I said purpose when I probably should have said legacy. I think it was an honest effort at reform, but was done knowing deep down that it ultimately would not solve the underlying issues in the healthcare system--it tried to treat symptoms rather than the disease. He tried to use the tool he thought conservatives would support rather than the right tool for the job. I think the US will eventually have a single payer, and Obamacare will be looked at as the catalyst that demonstrated single payer as being the only comprehensive, rational, pragmatic answer. But I digress.

I hope people's memories are long enough to remember this during the elections and that they actually understand the long-term significance of the ruling. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are dumb or simply won't care until it directly affects them.

 

[otterpop]

Scalia said that universal health care would be a great workaround for this issue (while granting corporations more rights than wimmin employees (men still get their d--k pills and pumps)). Nevertheless, going to get worse before it gets better. A few more steps down in our descent into government-aided plutocracy.

I read the Hobby Lobby's health plan covers vascetomies. WTF? So they are totally okay with funding medical procedures that prevent the little soldiers from going on the offense. They just think it is wrong to require them to fund medical procedures that provide a defense. Contraception is not abortion.

I can see their argument about the morning after pill. That is a slippery slope as far as whether it is contraception or abortion. Depends on whether the morning after when the pill is taken, whether it actually ended conception or did not. But there is no way to know that. But I would err on the side of allowing the morning after pill, but then I am a guy and it is not my decision.

Conception doesn't mean full-term birth. Many, many times conception is soon followed by natural processes that terminate the pregnancy without the woman even being aware she was ever pregnant. Or ends in miscarriage.

It may be years before our nation accepts that birth control, in its many forms, is a woman's health issue. Companies should cover them regardless of thier religious leanings. They should not expect the rest of us to cover the cost of providing their employees with health care. Until then, I am willing to pay my share for the corporate irresponsibility to their own employees.

 

[Mastiff]

I think this is the a good ruling. It still gives people the freedom to do what they want, just allows business owners to not fund insurance that covers contraceptives if it is in violation of their religious beliefs.

So if you worked for Jehovah's Witnesses, should they be required to cover your blood transfusions? What does a Christian Scientists' company have to cover?

 

[mgk920]

I want to know if the executive branch could turn around and sue Congress for failing to act in good faith on confirmations & circumventing the intent of their confirmation authority.

How would that have gone over in 2007 and 2008?

^o)

Let me restate then, since I am actually a big supporter of a single-payer nationalized system... I said purpose when I probably should have said legacy. I think it was an honest effort at reform, but was done knowing deep down that it ultimately would not solve the underlying issues in the healthcare system--it tried to treat symptoms rather than the disease. He tried to use the tool he thought conservatives would support rather than the right tool for the job. I think the US will eventually have a single payer, and Obamacare will be looked at as the catalyst that demonstrated single payer as being the only comprehensive, rational, pragmatic answer. But I digress.

I hope people's memories are long enough to remember this during the elections and that they actually understand the long-term significance of the ruling. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are dumb or simply won't care until it directly affects them.

I don't often chime in on this thread, but however this whole mess (and it is a *MESS*!) shakes out, IMHO, there must be a federal-level clause, perhaps as a stand-alone law or even higher, that unequivocally states that there is an inviolate, basic and unrestricted right for individuals (singly and collectively) to freely contract with health care providers, to include doctors, clinics, hospitals, drug/equipment/device makers and retailers and any other facilities and groups, for the provision of their own health care services, including treatment methods and payment plans, regardless of any other rules and regulations that a government at any level may dictate.

Mike

 

[michaelskis]

So if you worked for Jehovah's Witnesses, should they be required to cover your blood transfusions? What does a Christian Scientists' company have to cover?

Nope. But then again, I don't believe they should be required to cover any of my insurance. If they do, that is a benefit.


Interesting side note, over the weekend I learned that Hobby Lobby is only saying that they won't cover 4 types of contraception meant to abort a fetus. They do cover 16 other types of birth control. (LINK)

 

[wahday]

Interesting side note, over the weekend I learned that Hobby Lobby is only saying that they won't cover 4 types of contraception meant to abort a fetus. They do cover 16 other types of birth control. (LINK)

You are correct that the plaintiffs in the case were only objecting to those 4 forms. However, the ruling applies to ALL forms of birth control (diaphragms, hormone pills and injections, sterilization, etc). It was a strange ruling in my mind because the justices clarified that they were only seeking to address the specific issue of contraception and made the explicit point that this ruling could not be applied to other areas:

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs," the court said. "Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

Still, this wording both holds the door open for the possibility of an additional challenge on these other areas ("does not hold that all insurance-coverage mandates ...must necessarily fall") and raises a serious question about what constitutes "illegal discrimination as a religious practice." Some have already argued that this ruling IS a discriminatory action against women. Of course, those same parties might argue that many religions already do discriminate against women as a matter of course - not allowing them to become clergy, read form the Holy Book (whichever one you adhere to), etc.

Also, for clarity, this ruling only applies to private corporations.

 

[ColoGI]

Interesting side note, over the weekend I learned that Hobby Lobby is only saying that they won't cover 4 types of contraception meant to abort a fetus.

These forms of birth control, of course, as everyone knows, do not abort a "fetus", "zygote", "baby", "future Republican" or anything else. No need to pretend otherwise.

 

[michaelskis]

These forms of birth control, of course, as everyone knows, do not abort a "fetus", "zygote", "baby", "future Republican" or anything else. No need to pretend otherwise.

You believe what you want. My God and I believe that life begins at conception.

 

[Linda_D]

You believe what you want. My God and I believe that life begins at conception.

You may believe that but you don't know that God believes that.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

You may believe that but you don't know that God believes that.

Shhhhhhhhh, mskiis knows the mind of the Almighty. Interestingly, the Almighty thinks exactly the same way he does on every single topic.

 

[michaelskis]

You may believe that but you don't know that God believes that.

You know what, you are right. On this, I base my belief on biblical teachings, starting with Exodus 20:13.

 

[ColoGI]

You believe what you want. My God and I believe that life begins at conception.

This is why policy based on fairy tales is bad policy.

But the SCOTUS knew that and simply used it to provide cover for their action.

 

[michaelskis]

This is why policy based on fairy tales is bad policy.

But the SCOTUS knew that and simply used it to provide cover for their action.

This ruling is anything but simple. There are two key components, first of all the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was a democrat lead bill introduced by Chuck Schumer in 1993, was almost unanimous in both the House and Senate and was signed by Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993, which reinstalled the Sherbert Test when reviewing religious freedom violations. These state that the court must determine in an individuals religious freedoms have been violated by determining if the following conditions have been met:

• whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
• whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

• that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
• that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

Second, is the Dictionary Act definition of "Person" which also includes corporation.

In this case, since it is a private corporation which does not hide its desire to spread christian principles, (ie, Closed on Sunday's...) then they ruled that the RFRA standards would apply, and had been met.

Shhhhhhhhh, mskiis knows the mind of the Almighty. Interestingly, the Almighty thinks exactly the same way he does on every single topic.

Not quite. I don't have a problem with gay marriage even though the bible does. I also don't have an issue with preventative birth control. Only abortive birth control. As I said before, I am pro-choice until the point of conception.

 

[Linda_D]

You know what, you are right. On this, I base my belief on biblical teachings, starting with Exodus 20:13.

The Bible, specifically the Old Testament, also proscribes the eating of pork, the use of the same utensils and containers for both meat and dairy products, and wearing fabrics made of more than one kind of fabric fiber yet the very same Christians who focus on punishing people, especially women, who don't abide by their "Biblical" version of "morality", totally ignore those other prohibitions and many others, NOT to mention the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, who only gave His followers one commandment.

 

[michaelskis]

The Bible, specifically the Old Testament, also proscribes the eating of pork, the use of the same utensils and containers for both meat and dairy products, and wearing fabrics made of more than one kind of fabric fiber yet the very same Christians who focus on punishing people, especially women, who don't abide by their "Biblical" version of "morality", totally ignore those other prohibitions and many others, NOT to mention the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, who only gave His followers one commandment.

So are you saying that murder is acceptable?

As for the one commandant that Jesus gave, it was a NEW commandment as explained in John 13:34, for us to love one another... how are we loving an unborn fetus of we murder him or her?

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Moderator note:

Discussion of Biblical interpretation by both sides in a political debate... this is sure to end well... :-x

 

[Planit]

Separation of church (religion) & state (politics).

And I don't need a debate / dissertation / ramble / tirade summary.

 

[michaelskis]

Separation of church (religion) & state (politics).

And I don't need a debate / dissertation / ramble / tirade summary.

Given how intertwined the recent SOTUS decision is with RFRA provisions, I think that both are relevant in this context.

 

[Planit]

Given how intertwined the recent SOTUS decision is with RFRA provisions, I think that both are relevant in this context.

and therein lies the problem...bye now.

 

[michaelskis]

and therein lies the problem...bye now.

Good Point. Get the government out of health care and problem solved.

 

[Linda_D]

So are you saying that murder is acceptable?

As for the one commandant that Jesus gave, it was a NEW commandment as explained in John 13:34, for us to love one another... how are we loving an unborn fetus of we murder him or her?

Not everybody believes in the Bible or God, and even those who do, do not necessarily believe in the Christian God. Not everybody believes that life begins at conception, either. We don't live in a theocracy, so one group's religious beliefs don't trump other people's religious or philosophical beliefs. It's about recognizing and defending the right of other people to hold to their own beliefs even if they are different from your own. Freedom of religion rings pretty hollow when one religious group imposes, or tries to impose, its beliefs on non-believers and tries to punish those who don't toe its sectarian line.

 

[michaelskis]

Not everybody believes in the Bible or God, and even those who do, do not necessarily believe in the Christian God. Not everybody believes that life begins at conception, either. We don't live in a theocracy, so one group's religious beliefs don't trump other people's religious or philosophical beliefs. It's about recognizing and defending the right of other people to hold to their own beliefs even if they are different from your own. Freedom of religion rings pretty hollow when one religious group imposes, or tries to impose, its beliefs on non-believers and tries to punish those who don't toe its sectarian line.

I agree, we don't live in a theocracy and that we shouldn't let one group's religious or philosophical beliefs trump other people's religious or philosophical. So why is it that you want to let one groups philosophical believes trump another's religious beliefs? Hobby Lobby did not tell other companies to not fund abortive birth control. They just said that they would not fund insurance plans that covered it. They didn't tell their employees not to use it, they just said that if you do, you need to find another way to buy it.

If anything, there is an abundance of philosophical concepts that limit religious freedoms. People of some faiths or beliefs are too afraid to speak what they believe in fear of persecution because they don't agree with the majority. I am a somewhat libertarian / independent on a forum board dominated by liberals. If I say anything negative about Obama I am told that I am wrong and that he is the greatest person EVER. But how many people bashed Bush in the same manner, frequently rightfully so I might add.

You say defend, yet you oppose the idea that the owners of Hobby Lobby defending their long publicized religious beliefs?

 

[ColoGI]

You say defend, yet you oppose the idea that the owners of Hobby Lobby defending their long publicized religious beliefs?

Everybody knows that is the convenient excuse and that in reality they went looking for an excuse.

Now that SCOTUS has put their thumb harder on the scale tipping to plutocracy, the floodgates will open and corporations will find more excuses to put profits before people.

A female-owned company needs to object to d--- pills and rogaine and coverage for injuries from gun fetishes. We'll see how fast things change back then.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

You say defend, yet you oppose the idea that the owners of Hobby Lobby defending their long publicized religious beliefs?

But corporations are not people. Nobody is trampling on the owner of hobby lobby--He is able to express his beliefs individually. He does not have the right to plug his beliefs into a corporate megaphone. Religion is a right to individuals, as corporations are not sentient beings. They are a legal construct, and nothing more. Giving corporations rights to impose religious beliefs through benefit limitation, keeping in mind particularly that employees that may have different beliefs pay a portion of the premium, is distorting the Constitution. This is a case where SCOTUS would've been well-served to simply shut up.

It isn't even about the birth control for me--it is about granting a legal construct the same rights that I have as a living, breathing human and, as a result, giving those that own corporations more rights than others.

People forget that the Bible was (mis)used in the past to justify slavery & segregation.

 

[michaelskis]

Everybody knows that is the convenient excuse and that in reality they went looking for an excuse.

Now that SCOTUS has put their thumb harder on the scale tipping to plutocracy, the floodgates will open and corporations will find more excuses to put profits before people.

A female-owned company needs to object to d--- pills and rogaine and coverage for injuries from gun fetishes. We'll see how fast things change back then.

If I female-owned company wants to do that, then I say good for her, especially if that is her religious beliefs.

But corporations are not people. Nobody is trampling on the owner of hobby lobby--He is able to express his beliefs individually. He does not have the right to plug his beliefs into a corporate megaphone. Religion is a right to individuals, as corporations are not sentient beings. They are a legal construct, and nothing more. Giving corporations rights to impose religious beliefs through benefit limitation, keeping in mind particularly that employees that may have different beliefs pay a portion of the premium, is distorting the Constitution. This is a case where SCOTUS would've been well-served to simply shut up.

It isn't even about the birth control for me--it is about granting a legal construct the same rights that I have as a living, breathing human and, as a result, giving those that own corporations more rights than others.

People forget that the Bible was (mis)used in the past to justify slavery & segregation.

According to the Dictionary Act that the federal government uses, Corporations are People.

1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”

You are correct that people have misused the bible time and time again, but people have done the same with everything from Zoning Code to the Constitution. The misuse and misunderstanding does not invalidate the whole.

 

[ColoGI]

It isn't even about the birth control for me--it is about granting a legal construct the same rights that I have as a living, breathing human and, as a result, giving those that own corporations more rights than others.

.

Merka! Your next plutocracy.

 

[Mud Princess]

But corporations are not people. Nobody is trampling on the owner of hobby lobby--He is able to express his beliefs individually. He does not have the right to plug his beliefs into a corporate megaphone. Religion is a right to individuals, as corporations are not sentient beings. They are a legal construct, and nothing more. Giving corporations rights to impose religious beliefs through benefit limitation, keeping in mind particularly that employees that may have different beliefs pay a portion of the premium, is distorting the Constitution. This is a case where SCOTUS would've been well-served to simply shut up.

It isn't even about the birth control for me--it is about granting a legal construct the same rights that I have as a living, breathing human and, as a result, giving those that own corporations more rights than others.

YES! Well-stated. You get it.

 

[rcgplanner]

If I female-owned company wants to do that, then I say good for her, especially if that is her religious beliefs.



According to the Dictionary Act that the federal government uses, Corporations are People.


You are correct that people have misused the bible time and time again, but people have done the same with everything from Zoning Code to the Constitution. The misuse and misunderstanding does not invalidate the whole.

And this is a case where the whole idea of corporate personhood has been twisted. The intent of corporate personhood is to provide corporations the ability to enter into legal contracts and do things like purchase property. It is also the thing that protects the owners of a company from personal liability stemming from the acts of a company. It is supposed to separate an owner from the legal dealings of a company. Yet cases like Citizens United and this Hobby Lobby case have basically said that as an owner you get all the benefits of having your personal assets protected while still injecting your own personal beliefs (speech and religion) and affecting all employees of your company.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the owners of the craft store chain make the same mistake. The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees. Yet Hobby Lobby’s owners aren’t required by the law to do anything. The legal duty falls on Hobby Lobby, the company, not its owners. If Hobby Lobby fails to provide the required insurance, the company, not the owners, is responsible

It is complete bull and another example of those with power getting to live under different rules.

 

[ColoGI]

And this is a case where the whole idea of corporate personhood has been twisted. ...

In the Hobby Lobby case, the owners of the craft store chain make the same mistake. The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees. Yet Hobby Lobby’s owners aren’t required by the law to do anything. The legal duty falls on Hobby Lobby, the company, not its owners. If Hobby Lobby fails to provide the required insurance, the company, not the owners, is responsible

It is complete bull and another example of those with power getting to live under different rules.

If Dems take the House in 2014 or have both Executive and Senate and Reid actually does something about the filibuster, you could very well see an addition to Obummercare that starts to move away from the current poor compromise more to a sane Euro model. That's how I see it moving already.

 

[imaplanner]

So are you saying that murder is acceptable?

As for the one commandant that Jesus gave, it was a NEW commandment as explained in John 13:34, for us to love one another... how are we loving an unborn fetus of we murder him or her?

Numbers 5:11

God actually supports abortion as a punishment for slutty women.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Numbers 5:11

God actually supports abortion as a punishment for slutty women.

I just read the entire passage-Numbers 5:11-31 and it doesn't sat that-according to the ESV version

 

[Hink]

I just read the entire passage-Numbers 5:11-31 and it doesn't sat that-according to the ESV version

It gets pretty close:

16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and [e]he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial [f]in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be [g]immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [h]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [j]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall [k]wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her [l]and cause bitterness. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [m]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [n]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [o]children.

My favorite part is how the bible says that women are under the authority of men...

And you wonder why when people pick and choose passages to follow it doesn't ring true to everone...

 

[Suburb Repairman]

According to the Dictionary Act that the federal government uses, Corporations are People.

Yeah, I've seen all of the screed about the Dictionary Act. And that was intended for matters of civil litigation, not for the application of individual rights. SCOTUS is severely warping the intent of the Dictionary Act. By your argument and apparently that of SCOTUS, two corporations would be allowed to get married, adopt children or run for office. Vote for Walmart!

 

[michaelskis]

Numbers 5:11

God actually supports abortion as a punishment for slutty women.

It says that God will curse her and make her miscarry. Are you claiming that a miscarriage the same as an abortion?



As for the "corporation isn't a person" then I guess corporations shouldn't need to pay taxes either?

The context of this case is different than Wal-Mart and many other corporations in that Hobby Lobby is privately owned. They are not on the sock market. They don't have investors that they answer to. Heck, even their company info says:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.

and

We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.

Link

 

[ColoGI]

G-- actually supports abortion as a punishment for slutty women.

She kills babies all the time. The vast majority of fertilized snowflake babies are murdered because they don't attach.

Silliness of fairy tales as policy aside, you can tell corporations think they have something here as more of them are signaling they think they have a loophole. NPR story yesterday afternoon explored how far corporate persons thought they could take it. Socialized medicine, here we come!

 

[DVD]

Just wanted to throw this out there for all the political junkies. My daughter picked up a book called "Bad Kitty for President", it's a series about some cat and the fun things he does. Anyway, kitty is running for neighborhood president and it explains the whole election process to kids including primaries and the like. The best part, Bad Kitty has a super PAC that runs smear adds against his opponent saying he might be a dog (a sin in kitty land). Bad Kitty gets chastised by the narrator and has this look of "who me" and talks about how he's innocent since the super PAC ran the add and he had no idea what was being done. Just thought it was funny to see how they included every detail of politics.

Now back to your regular bashing of Hobby Lobby which I refuse to shop at due to their beliefs about women being different than my own.

 

[Linda_D]

It says that God will curse her and make her miscarry. Are you claiming that a miscarriage the same as an abortion?

That "bitter water" might very well refer to pennyroyal which was known and used as an abortifacient in the Mediterranean basin from ancient times into the Middle Ages.

 

[michaelskis]

That "bitter water" might very well refer to pennyroyal which was known and used as an abortifacient in the Mediterranean basin from ancient times into the Middle Ages.

And the hand of god might come down as well...

But back to my original question. Do you think that murder is acceptable?

Furthermore, at what point is a fetus "life"?

 

[Maister]

Furthermore, at what point is a fetus "life"?

Moderator note:

C'mon, seriously?