PDA

View Full Version : Follow the law, or follow your faith: Obamaís outrageous order



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-22-2016, 08:59 AM
http://nypost.com/2016/03/21/follow-the-law-or-follow-your-faith-obamas-outrageous-order/

follow the law, or follow your faith: Obamaís outrageous order
by frank pavone march 21, 2016 | 8:52pm


long before the patient protection and affordable care act ó a k a obamacare ó became law on march 23, 2010, pro-life advocates, myself included, recognized that it could lead to serious moral clashes between faith and law, particularly in the areas of abortion and contraception.

And we were right. The law empowered the department of health and human services to compel employers to provide contraception and abortion-inducing drugs and devices to their employees through their health-insurance plans.

The case of priests for life vs. Hhs, one of seven cases comprising zubik vs. Burwell, now challenges that mandate in the supreme court, with oral arguments on march 23.

Of the 37 plaintiffs in the current supreme court case ó including the little sisters of the poor, the archbishop of washington, dc, and geneva college ó we were the first to challenge the hhs mandate, which violates not only our beliefs, but is a head-on collision with the very purpose of our ministry, which is to lead people away from abortion rather than expanding access to it.

As our case progressed, it reached the us court of appeals for the dc circuit, on which president obamaís new supreme court nominee, judge merrick garland, joined a 6-3 vote to deny us a hearing by the full court. As we pressed on, priests for life vs. Hhs made it to the supreme court.

The contraception rule is unevenly enforced. Parish churches are exempt, and yet religious nonprofits like priests for life, who send our priests into those same churches and share in the same faith, arenít.

By what standard do uncle samís bureaucrats determine that some priests are more catholic than others?

The government did come up with what it calls an ďaccommodation.Ē but the government itself describes the accommodation as a way for objectors to comply with the mandate, hence leaving our religious freedom still burdened.

Well, this objector will not comply.

A priestís mission is to nurture the exercise of religion in those to whom he ministers. Yet the mandate would require us to violate that religion, in full view of those we teach to live it.

Itís an unusual place to find myself after almost 28 years in the priesthood, as the feds sit in judgment on our beliefs. The government may disagree with our religious objections, but isnít free to discredit them.

The government wants our help to assure that nobody who wants coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives will lack it. Yet in all the years of priests for life, not a single employee has ever objected that our insurance doesnít cover these things.

In fact, when i first announced our lawsuit in february 2012, all our employees applauded. No one on our staff wants priests for life to compromise its faith, even though this court battle could cause them to lose their health insurance or even their jobs.

If we refuse to abide by the mandate, weíll be fined so heavily that it could threaten our existence.

Iíve led the new-york based priests for life since 1993. Its goal is to restore protection to children in the womb. We train the clergy and their churches in providing alternatives to abortion for those who feel they have no choice, and compassionate counseling through rachelís vineyard, the largest ministry in the world for healing after abortion.

Our silent no more awareness campaign gives voice to women and men who regret their abortion experiences and say so publicly. Weíre a registered ngo at the united nations. Rev. Martin luther kingís niece, alveda king, leads our african-american outreach, and is a co-plaintiff in our case.

The government doesnít dispute the sincerity of our beliefs, nor the fact that itís pressuring us to violate those beliefs. This is a textbook case of a burden on religious freedom that the law does not allow.

Our case is not about making abortion or contraception illegal. Itís simply an objection to being forced to choose between following our faith and following the law. Every american should be free to do both at the same time.

Fr. Frank pavone is the national director of priests for life.

more of the destruction and division that the obama has promoted with his nation destroying agenda.. -tyr

fj1200
03-22-2016, 09:55 AM
Didn't you argue previously regarding torture that the government wasn't beholden to Christian views or some such thing?

jimnyc
03-22-2016, 10:01 AM
Not for nothing, but you know he has you on ignore, so what's the point? I know Drummond has you on ignore as well, but also made a reference to you within a post, which also defeats the purpose. But if someone places another on ignore, then they should ignore that person. I just don't get the point now that things got his far.

Abbey
03-22-2016, 10:02 AM
As our case progressed, it reached the us court of appeals for the dc circuit, on which president obama’s new supreme court nominee, judge merrick garland, joined a 6-3 vote to deny us a hearing by the full court.

How interesting...

fj1200
03-22-2016, 10:17 AM
Not for nothing, but you know he has you on ignore, so what's the point? I know Drummond has you on ignore as well, but also made a reference to you within a post, which also defeats the purpose. But if someone places another on ignore, then they should ignore that person. I just don't get the point now that things got his far.

Is that a new rule? But I digress, ignoring someone is not carte blanche authorization to say something that perhaps doesn't gibe. :) But now you've quoted it so maybe he'll explain the possible incongruity.

jimnyc
03-22-2016, 10:34 AM
Is that a new rule? But I digress, ignoring someone is not carte blanche authorization to say something that perhaps doesn't gibe. :) But now you've quoted it so maybe he'll explain the possible incongruity.

No, it's not. But do you seriously need a new rule for every little thing? What was the point in you and the "finally" once you were placed on ignore, but then you continue to reply anyway? Maybe it's you that needs to place others on ignore, since you can't help yourself?

I think it's clear, at least as of now, who the more aggressive person is in looking to continue the issues.

jimnyc
03-22-2016, 10:36 AM
Is that a new rule? But I digress, ignoring someone is not carte blanche authorization to say something that perhaps doesn't gibe. :) But now you've quoted it so maybe he'll explain the possible incongruity.

Additionally, I have removed both your quote, and mine. If someone is trying to utilize the ignore function, I will help them if necessary.

fj1200
03-22-2016, 10:54 AM
I think it's clear, at least as of now, who the more aggressive person is in looking to continue the issues.

I don't shy away from honest discussion. It just never comes back to me.


Additionally, I have removed both your quote, and mine. If someone is trying to utilize the ignore function, I will help them if necessary.

Awesome. Ignorance lives on. He probably still thinks Arab countries didn't contribute to Operation Desert Storm.

jimnyc
03-22-2016, 10:58 AM
I don't shy away from honest discussion. It just never comes back to me.

That doesn't matter. Honest turned into fighting a long time back and got ruined. Then things finally went to ignore. I simply fail to see a reason to rock that boat with the potential to bring things right back to that fighting.

Um, no. Fights died is what happened. And it should be left at that, not :poke:with issues that were just put to bed.

fj1200
03-22-2016, 11:05 AM
I stopped fighting long before ignore. The whining didn't cease though.

jimnyc
03-22-2016, 11:09 AM
I stopped fighting long before ignore. The whining didn't cease though.

And someone is whining now, and forcing you to reply and try to instigate things back up again? I fail to see that happening.

fj1200
03-22-2016, 11:11 AM
And someone is whining now, and forcing you to reply and try to instigate things back up again? I fail to see that happening.

Asking questions is not instigating.

jimnyc
03-22-2016, 11:15 AM
I give up then. I will just encourage the other 2 to continue on their path and try to stay with the ignoring. I think anyone reading beyond that point will get the point of what is happening going forward. It's difficult to judge when 2 folks are fighting/arguing, as to what is going on and who started what. Most simply don't care, don't want to get involved and just want to see it cease. But if the ignore feature is used, and only one person is reviving things that everyone knows was a long standing issue, I think they'll know who is responsible for what actions.

fj1200
03-22-2016, 11:18 AM
I'm neither fighting nor arguing. I asked a question they are free to ignore.

BTW, I have someone on ignore who repeatedly doesn't ignore me. :dunno: What do I do? I continue to ignore them. :)

revelarts
03-22-2016, 02:32 PM
But to the point in general FJ,
Yes, people are selective when they want "christian values" to be put toward the front where laws are concerned.

everyone is to some degree.
but we should try to be consistent.

torture is obviously not a "christian value"
abortion and euthanasia.. not a "christian value"
Lying and Stealing (whether on corporate level selling known worthless paper for billions or lying about a car repair.) ...not a "christian value"

But here gov't is FORCING religious people to do things against their faith/conscious that's not a "harm" to others. it's just wrong.

Heck the Amish get an exemption to ride horse and buggies on the highways.
If the gov'ts moving SO far away from it's Christian base then we'll need to get exemptions or more christians will just be going to jail.

Abbey
03-22-2016, 03:10 PM
Not to worry- as soon as Muslims are numerous enough here to demand religious exceptions, they will start being freely granted.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-22-2016, 04:16 PM
Not to worry- as soon as Muslims are numerous enough here to demand religious exceptions, they will start being freely granted.
Already have!! Their exemption from obamacare was written into the damn law!!
Just as special status is already given to them at airports--the women not being searched, etc.
Very likely many hundreds of special "exemptions " (we peons know nothing about) already exist for those vermin!! -:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:-Tyr

fj1200
03-23-2016, 10:43 AM
Already have!! Their exemption from obamacare was written into the damn law!!

Not exactly.


Claim: Muslims in the U.S. are specifically exempted from legislative requirements to purchase health insurance.

<noindex style="color: rgb(26, 26, 26); font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;">
<tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit;">
http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif
FALSE




</tbody>
</noindex>

Origins: One of the more controversial aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care reform legislation (commonly known as "Obamacare") passed by the <nobr style="color: rgb(26, 26, 26); font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;">U.S. Congress</nobr> in 2010 is its requirement mandating that all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a monthly fine. One rumor which has grown out of this aspect of the PPACA is the claim that some religious groups, particularly Muslims (but also including Scientologists, Amish, and Christian Scientists), are specifically exempted from health insurance requirements of the PPACA.

The fact is that the PPACA legislation does not specifically exclude any particular religious groups from its provisions. The bill contains a general "religious conscience" section which sets forth guidelines under which religious groups who have established conscientious objections to certain forms of insurance may seek exemption from its health insurance requirements:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.ASP

Gunny
03-23-2016, 12:36 PM
I've only got 2 brain cells and I think this thread just killed one of them.:laugh2: