Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   What if atheists had to buy Bibles for Christians? What if Jews were told they had to buy their employees pork? What if Quakers had to support and arm the National Guard? Well OK, so that last one is called taxes, but you get the point   (americanthinker.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Quakers, Bibles, National Guard, Jews, Orthodox Jews, atheists, First they came...  
•       •       •

4843 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2012 at 7:38 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



502 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-04 04:58:16 PM  
White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Yeah, what if atheists had to buy Bibles for Christians?
 
2012-11-04 05:00:11 PM  
What if anyone could claim an exemption from any law because of their religion?
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-11-04 05:06:56 PM  
No one is forcing the Catholic Church to employ anyone. If they don't want to follow the sane rules as every other employer, they can go all-volunteer. Alternatively, they can STFU & DIAF.
 
2012-11-04 05:09:40 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-11-04 05:10:20 PM  
What if Christisn Scientists tried to claim that all they had to provide for workman's comp claims was a prayer meeting?
 
2012-11-04 05:10:21 PM  
FTFA: Obama's HHS mandate says that Catholics who run businesses must pay for insurance that covers items not necessary for health, they don't cure or prevent any disease or infirmity since as any doctor knows pregnancy is not a sickness

The 800 hundred women a day1 who die as a result of their pregnancies would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-11-04 05:11:34 PM  
All of those things definitely seem perfectly equivalent to healthcare needs.
 
2012-11-04 05:12:25 PM  
Nobody forces the Catholic church to run a business. If you don't want to abide by the same rules as everyone else, don't start the business.
 
2012-11-04 05:19:52 PM  
What if the assholes at American Thinker used their heads for something other than booger mining?

/the world will never know
 
2012-11-04 05:22:42 PM  
So by this logic, anyone should be allowed to opt out of having their tax money spent on military spending, right?
 
2012-11-04 05:22:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nobody forces the Catholic church to run a business. If you don't want to abide by the same rules as everyone else, don't start the business.


Precisely. Business is a voluntary venture. If the regulations conflict with your religious beliefs, then it is incumbent on YOU to find a different business, and not saddle society to bear the bad fruit and burden of providing you an exception.
 
2012-11-04 05:25:16 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: cameroncrazy1984: Nobody forces the Catholic church to run a business. If you don't want to abide by the same rules as everyone else, don't start the business.

Precisely. Business is a voluntary venture. If the regulations conflict with your religious beliefs, then it is incumbent on YOU to find a different business, and not saddle society to bear the bad fruit and burden of providing you an exception.


Hell, if church-owned businesses are exempt from any laws they deem to not fit with their teachings, why can't any company start a shell religious organization with teachings of employee abuse, not paying taxes, and caveat emptor? Not like they wouldn't do it.
 
2012-11-04 05:27:35 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Obama's HHS mandate says that Catholics who run businesses must pay for insurance that covers items not necessary for health, they don't cure or prevent any disease or infirmity since as any doctor knows pregnancy is not a sickness

The 800 hundred women a day1 who die as a result of their pregnancies would like to have a word with you.


Not to mention women with painful and horrific menstral disorders treated by the hormones found in Birth Control Pills.

"they don't cure or prevent any disease or infirmity since as any doctor knows pregnancy is not a sickness"

STFU you ignorant twat! Birth control pills are not JUST prescribed for contreceptive means.
 
2012-11-04 05:32:19 PM  
Yeah, I get the point. American "Thinker" however, clearly does not.
 
2012-11-04 05:34:58 PM  
"If?"

latimesblogs.latimes.com

www.parker-portfolio.com
 
2012-11-04 05:35:51 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Obama's HHS mandate says that Catholics who run businesses must pay for insurance that covers items not necessary for health, they don't cure or prevent any disease or infirmity since as any doctor knows pregnancy is not a sickness

The 800 hundred women a day1 who die as a result of their pregnancies would like to have a word with you.


Complications from a condition is not a sickness. Also notice that only 1% of all those deaths are in the developed world. That's only 8 a day across the entire First World.
 
2012-11-04 05:36:44 PM  
We all pay for things we don't like or use, but also pay for things we do like or use. Welcome to civilized society, assholes.
 
2012-11-04 05:38:08 PM  
i1079.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-04 05:40:04 PM  
Remember when viagra was developed and Catholic business lost their minds because health plans covered it regardless of whether the man was married or single?

Good times.
 
2012-11-04 05:45:15 PM  
i.imgur.com

Still cracks me up everytime.
 
2012-11-04 05:50:42 PM  
This week on False Equivalency Theatre...
 
2012-11-04 05:52:53 PM  
How about this, if you don't want to pay taxes you don't have to, but you have to pay a fine every time you drive on our roads, call the police, call the fire department, enter any government building, ride in an airplane, flush your toilet....

Fark these people. Taxes ARE patriotic.
 
2012-11-04 05:56:40 PM  
What if gay people who have no children and are forbidden from adopting were required to pay taxes to educate other people's kids?

Simple soplution to this one: declare all churches businesses. Tax them the same as anyone else. If a part of their business is charitable work, let them write it off like other businesses do.
 
2012-11-04 05:57:02 PM  
Freedom isn't! Free!

/so shut up and pay your taxes
 
2012-11-04 06:04:12 PM  
Pretty sure Jews do pay for pork through taxes. Does no government cafeteria serve it?
 
2012-11-04 06:05:12 PM  
what if wharrgarbl?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-04 06:09:58 PM  
If the birth control mandate sticks, I look forward to seeing how many conscientious/religious employers drop health insurance entirely and pay the (much cheaper) penalties for doing so.
 
2012-11-04 06:12:05 PM  
my cousin's wife posted this on facebook. I was too stunned by the wharrgarbbl to respond.
 
2012-11-04 06:13:07 PM  

DamnYankees: Pretty sure Jews do pay for pork through taxes. Does no government cafeteria serve it?


Heck with pork -- I bet there's not a public school cafeteria in the US that's kept strictly glatt kosher. So orthodox Jews are being "forced" to pay for lunches that they can't touch.

(fun fact -- the people at American Stinker have no clue that their complaint about Jews and pork also applies to Muslims. Not a farking clue.
 
2012-11-04 06:16:29 PM  
Here's the gem of the collection, so I will start with it:

What if the government told everyone they had to contribute to this or that Church--pick any Church you don't belong to. On what principle could we object; certainly not the separation of Church and State since if the government can force people to violate their faith there is no separation of Church and State?

The Constitution of the United States of America expressly forbids the Government to make any establishment of religion. As those of you who read the story of the Pilgrim Fathers know, the Pilgrims were "dessenters" who were forced to pay tithes to the Established Church in England and who fled to Holland, which was freerer than any other country in that day (the Wars of Religion).

An Established Church also meant that people were forced to attend church or be subject to fines and punishment, that they could only pray in the forms established by the Book of Common Prayer, that priests were hunted down and imprisoned or tortured and killed, and that you had to be a member in good standing of the established church to get a university degree, to become a clergyman or doctor or lawyer, to serve in the public service, to swear oaths and serve on juries, etc.

It is nonsense to equate the alleged wrongs that a health care programme does to the religious sensibilities of some to the establishment of religion. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of an establishment of religion because it prevents some religionists from imposing their sectarian views on abortion, health care, and so forth through a government act saying what will and will not be considered proper medical care.

If the government obliged people to pay for blood transfusions (they do) it would not be an establishment of religion to expect Jehovah's Witnesses to pay their taxes any way. The government does all sorts of things that may offend some people's deeply held beliefs about religion, politics, morality, science and so forth. It is not a self-serve buffet. You do not get to pick and choose if and when to pay taxes or what the Government does with the money. If you did, the Quakers would not be paying taxes because they are pacifists and do not approve of the use of armed violence by the state any more than by Quakers.

The "separation of Church and State" is a consequence of the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of a religion. The Government should not, said the Founders, impose a religion on free people. People can and should choose their own faith, beliefs, even if they are not those of the Sovereign (people in this case, King in other countries).

It would be a violation of the Constitution if the Government obliged to subsidize a religion, church, sect, synagogue, mosque, temple. It does, in fact, give lavish amounts of money to religious organizations, charities, crypto-political committees, churches, etc. This might violate the separation of church and state and even the prohibition of establishing one or several religions above others. But this kind of legislation does the exact opposite. It guarantees that those who do no submit to a religious authority or those who submit to a religious authority which unlike many fundamentalist churches or the Roman Catholic Church, does not have an all-or-nothing policy on abortion, are protected from the establishment of sectarian doctrine as state law and government policy.

This is the exact opposite of what the blogger is saying. He clearly does not understand the Constitution, the meaning of establishment (or else he would not use an example of establishment, namely obligatory tithing) or what the law actually does.

No Roman Catholic is being forced to pay for abortions. The tax base is ample and the taxes of those who might want or allow an abortion is adequate to demand. You are not really paying for the individual services or goods provided by the Government. Your taxes go into the common fund. They are not set aside for any particular purpose. You can not trace one red cent from the taxpayer to the government service or good provided. Yes, you might be paying higher taxes than you would if the Government did not do anything that an eigheenth century Tory or Whig government would not have done, but you are not paying anybody's salary, not even the salary of the cop who gives you a ticket for doing something you think you should be allowed to do--but not other people.

I do not believe for a second that Obama is interested in establishing a religion, even one of the dozen or so belief systems that are attribruted to him by loonies, propaganadists, liars, dupes and morons. He is not going to make the USA a communist, fascist, socialist, muslim, radical black Christian, or Antichristian Hell. He has neither the intent nor the means to do this and the level of crazy needs to be lowered.
 
2012-11-04 06:23:54 PM  
Nice treatise, brantgoose. But this controversy is not about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It's about the Free Exercise Clause.
 
2012-11-04 06:25:22 PM  
Crazy: "What if the government told atheists they had to buy Bibles for their Christian workers and that the atheists would have to ensure that there were Bible groups in place so workers would know how to use the Bible? It'd be ok since the atheists wouldn't actually have to read the Bibles right?"

Fact-based: So you're saying that no atheist has ever had to hand a Bible to say, a witness who has requested one to swear an oath in Court? I bet you are wrong.

That no atheist has ever worked as a maid in a hotel and has had to make sure there is a Gideon's Bible or some such gee-gaw in every room? I'm pretty sure you are wrong. By "pretty sure" I mean 100% sure.

You're saying that this sort of injustice is not perpetrated with your approval and consent and sanctioned by law and custom? Once, again, I doubt it deeply and sincerely.

And what about schools? No teacher has to teach the religious prejudices of morons to children. They're free to teach science without religion in Biology Class? to teach Evolution where it belongs, in every science cirriculum? To insist that Church and Sunday School crap be taught in churches and sunday schools rather than the science, history, or math class room?

Is this what you believe? I wish it were so, chum-p!

Or are you babbling some other crap? It seems to me that people like Reagan handed out Bibles à tort et à travers. What about that Bible-shaped cake? To the Iranian Ayatollahs, with love!

Yikes! Just yikes!
 
2012-11-04 06:34:43 PM  

GAT_00: So by this logic, anyone should be allowed to opt out of having their tax money spent on military spending, right?


strangely enough, USSC ruled on this back in the 70s during the vietnam war. Turns out that YOUR taxes get mixed in with EVERYONE else's taxes. and then they money gets spent. so you can biatch as much as you want about what you want taxes spent on, but in the end, your representative decides, not you.
 
2012-11-04 06:35:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Nice treatise, brantgoose. But this controversy is not about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It's about the Free Exercise Clause.


Owning a business is not related to the free exercise of religion. At all.
 
2012-11-04 06:37:07 PM  
I bet that those same christian groups have no problem covering boner pills in insurance plans.
 
2012-11-04 06:37:31 PM  
I can't answer every damn fool thing in the blog post, after all, as they say, a child may ask questions that wise men can't begin to answer, and fools are well within their rights if they do so worse than a pest of a child, but here's another gem in the rough:

What if the government told Orthodox Jews that they had to pay for pork in the cafeteria at their business and they had to provide chefs to teach workers how to cook pork? It'd be ok since the Jews didn't have to eat the pork right?

Oh, the poor Orthodox Jews. And yet, I'm fairly sure that Orthodox Jews can not impose Kosher on their tenants. If they could, New York City would not contain an ounce of pork, shellfish or bacon.

Take the Reichmann Brothers--please! No, just kidding. They have their uses even in a liberal society whose values they may not share. Heck, maybe even Conrad Black (who partnered with said Reichmanns in order to buy and silence the liberal voice of the Jerusalem Post), may have some utility despite his glaring defects in other respects.

Can and do the Reichmanns ban pork from Canary Wharf? No. Can you get a ham and swiss with mayo on white bread in New York? Yes.

I think we can cease to worry about Jews being forced to pay for ham. Jews are selling tons of the stuff in grocery stores across this continent. Some of them close on Saturdays, some don't. It's just business, bubbula!

And why are right-wingers so deeply concerned about the welfare of Jews nowadays, when within living memory, my living memory, they were dyed-in-the-wool Antisemites like (or much worse than) Richard M. Nixon.

Ironically, the same Richard M. Nixon who did so much to flip American foreign policy, making a loyal Beach Head out of Israel, and a Loyal Customer and Supplier out of Red China, yea, unto this very day.

I am sure that many Orthodox Jews are only too happy to supply pork in the cafeterias if that keeps the goyim working man happy. It's not like they're being forced to eat it by the Roman Catholic Church with the power of the sword of State behind their backs ready to be unleashed at a nod of the head.

How soon they forget.

What they did to others.

How long they remember.

The imaginary crimes of others that they themselves made up.
 
2012-11-04 06:42:19 PM  
www.cdadc.com

What if potato?
 
2012-11-04 06:42:43 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: If the birth control mandate sticks, I look forward to seeing how many conscientious/religious employers drop health insurance entirely and pay the (much cheaper) penalties for doing so.


You look forward to companies refusing to provide health insurance because they want to enforce their religious views on their employees?

You need a hobby.
 
2012-11-04 06:44:14 PM  
Even Jesus obeyed the laws of the land when he was alive, and paying taxes was required by Roman law. "Pay Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God." - Matthew 22:21. I'm sure those Quakers have a bible laying around somewhere.
 
2012-11-04 06:53:39 PM  

ArkAngel: Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Obama's HHS mandate says that Catholics who run businesses must pay for insurance that covers items not necessary for health, they don't cure or prevent any disease or infirmity since as any doctor knows pregnancy is not a sickness

The 800 hundred women a day1 who die as a result of their pregnancies would like to have a word with you.

Complications from a condition is not a sickness. Also notice that only 1% of all those deaths are in the developed world. That's only 8 a day across the entire First World.


Actually complications can be from a sickness.
And how many are too many, you going to bet your daughters life? Your wife's? Leave it God's hand?
How much more do we collectively pay for the unwanted and unloved kids over the course of their lives?
You going to step up and adopt them all? Take care of them, feed them, cover their medical bills because they were born sick, nurture them, make sure their educated, help put them through post secondary education, so they can actually get a job, are you still with me there?
 
2012-11-04 06:57:18 PM  

sno man: ArkAngel: Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Obama's HHS mandate says that Catholics who run businesses must pay for insurance that covers items not necessary for health, they don't cure or prevent any disease or infirmity since as any doctor knows pregnancy is not a sickness

The 800 hundred women a day1 who die as a result of their pregnancies would like to have a word with you.

Complications from a condition is not a sickness. Also notice that only 1% of all those deaths are in the developed world. That's only 8 a day across the entire First World.

Actually complications can be from a sickness.
And how many are too many, you going to bet your daughters life? Your wife's? Leave it God's hand?
How much more do we collectively pay for the unwanted and unloved kids over the course of their lives?
You going to step up and adopt them all? Take care of them, feed them, cover their medical bills because they were born sick, nurture them, make sure their educated, help put them through post secondary education, so they can actually get a job, are you still with me there?


they're. ya ya, preview blah blah
 
2012-11-04 06:57:34 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Nice treatise, brantgoose. But this controversy is not about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It's about the Free Exercise Clause.


The constitution does not protect every single thing claimed as the exercise of religion. As long as any part of Quakers' taxes goes to support the military you can't claim that your religious liberty is being squashed if your health plan must include birth control. Well, you can claim it but we don't have to take it seriously.
 
2012-11-04 07:04:35 PM  

DamnYankees: Pretty sure Jews do pay for pork through taxes. Does no government cafeteria serve it?


Well, don't forget that the pork industry get subsidies, so not just cafeteria stuff.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-11-04 07:13:12 PM  

GAT_00: So by this logic, anyone should be allowed to opt out of having their tax money spent on military spending, right?


By their "logic", you should be able to own slaves if your holy book condones it.
 
2012-11-04 07:23:12 PM  
What if my uncle had been my father's sister?

MY GOD SHE'D BE MY AUNT
 
2012-11-04 07:29:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BarkingUnicorn: Nice treatise, brantgoose. But this controversy is not about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It's about the Free Exercise Clause.

Owning a business is not related to the free exercise of religion. At all.


We have a controversy because some religious business owners disagree rather strongly. They feel they have a right to conduct their businesses in ways that do not conflict with their religious principles.

Employees have a right to reasonable accommodation of their religious principles. Some business owners feel that they should have a similar right to reasonable accommodation of their religious principles.

We don't tell employees, "Get out of the job market if its rules violate your religion." Why should we tell business owners to get out of business if the rules of business violate theirs? Neither position is reasonable.

IIRC, a reasonable compromise was floated: insurers, at a religious employer's request, would pay for contraceptive pills if there was a medical reason for them OTHER than birth control. IDK if that idea is still around. I think it could be made to work.
 
2012-11-04 07:31:40 PM  
When rights conflict, something has to give. When your religion dictates how you live, there's no problem. When it dictates how other people live and without their consent, there's a problem.
 
2012-11-04 07:33:04 PM  

AMERICAN THINKER FARK OFF

 
2012-11-04 07:36:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: cameroncrazy1984: BarkingUnicorn: Nice treatise, brantgoose. But this controversy is not about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It's about the Free Exercise Clause.

Owning a business is not related to the free exercise of religion. At all.

We have a controversy because some religious business owners disagree rather strongly. They feel they have a right to conduct their businesses in ways that do not conflict with their religious principles.

Employees have a right to reasonable accommodation of their religious principles. Some business owners feel that they should have a similar right to reasonable accommodation of their religious principles.

We don't tell employees, "Get out of the job market if its rules violate your religion." Why should we tell business owners to get out of business if the rules of business violate theirs? Neither position is reasonable.

IIRC, a reasonable compromise was floated: insurers, at a religious employer's request, would pay for contraceptive pills if there was a medical reason for them OTHER than birth control. IDK if that idea is still around. I think it could be made to work.


So an employee should have their medical coverage dictated by their employer's religion?
 
2012-11-04 07:40:29 PM  
i293.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 502 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report