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.

(The Hill)   HHS contraception mandate is hurting religious beliefs. "Because believers should never be forced to choose between following their faith and following the law"   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, United States, Supreme Court of the United States, mandate, Court, President of the United States, President Trump, religious freedom, HHS mandate  
•       •       •

1272 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Aug 2017 at 6:54 PM (48 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-08-11 02:44:14 PM  
I believe the bible says something about that very subject. Maybe you should read it.
 
2017-08-11 02:45:12 PM  
Maybe they shouldn't be letting their faith stand between me and my doctor.
 
2017-08-11 02:49:43 PM  
I'm pretty sure the mandate doesn't force you to take contraception.
 
2017-08-11 02:50:00 PM  
Does this mean that Warren Jeffs can now get out of jail and go back to molesting?
 
2017-08-11 02:51:37 PM  
Hmmm.  Watched a CoPs with a Jamaican fellow explaining to the cop that his religion dictates the smoking of de gange.  Cop was sympathetic but ultimately said "it's illegal here, mon"

Or dads that honor kill the crap out of their daughters.  Those dads, well, they go to jail.  If they haven't fled back to their homeland.

JW's cannot order their children to refuse blood transfusu
 
2017-08-11 02:51:59 PM  

daphne: Hmmm.  Watched a CoPs with a Jamaican fellow explaining to the cop that his religion dictates the smoking of de gange.  Cop was sympathetic but ultimately said "it's illegal here, mon"

Or dads that honor kill the crap out of their daughters.  Those dads, well, they go to jail.  If they haven't fled back to their homeland.

JW's cannot order their children to refuse blood transfusu


*transfusions

And on and on
 
2017-08-11 02:55:40 PM  
You know what? Yes. Yes they should. F*ck 'em.

/tired of being nice to people who "believe" shiat
//I "believe" shiat too
///two can play at this game
 
2017-08-11 03:03:15 PM  
I read that as 'The HMS Contraception' and wondered why Royal Navy would need that with all the rum, sodomy, and lashings.
 
2017-08-11 03:13:11 PM  
My sincerely held belief and my religion (FSM) require drinking at lunch like our holy pirate saints and the government will punish me if I drive back to work after consuming the required sacrament.
 
2017-08-11 03:17:02 PM  
And it's against my religious beliefs for priests to violate the commandment against bearing false witness.

You are not mandated to provide contraception.  You're only mandated to provide contraception or to sign a piece of paper saying you object to providing contraception.

Frankly, it's stunning to me that professional Catholics would rather lie than put their name to a document which openly states their beliefs.
 
2017-08-11 03:19:19 PM  
So the solution here is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

Says the lady whose position is "Everyone else in the country should have to live by my religious belief system."
 
2017-08-11 03:22:14 PM  

toraque: I read that as 'The HMS Contraception' and wondered why Royal Navy would need that with all the rum, sodomy, and lashings.


'The HMS Contraception', Kink.com's new offering in the BDSM/roleplay/bi category.
 
2017-08-11 03:29:08 PM  
Judge not lest ye be judged. Before removing the mote from thy neighbor's eye, attend the beam in thine own. Love thy brother as you would love thyself. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Pray not like the hypocrites do.


/Do the birds have jobs? Consider the lily.
 
2017-08-11 03:38:04 PM  
Modern American religious practice boils down to two fundamental tents:

1. "But I don't wanna!"
2. "But you shouldn't get ta!"
 
2017-08-11 03:38:10 PM  
"Priests for Life" being forced to choose between the law and contraception? WTF would be the purpose of a celibate man taking contraceptives to begin with?  If a priest has a personal interest in a woman's use of contraceptives he's not following the religious doctrine he claims to be observing and not facing the dilemma King alleges FFS.

Providing an exemption to the mandate of contraception coverage for priests and lay religious is perfectly fine, even though any violation of their religious freedom would be purely hypothetical as they would neither be expected to need or use those drugs for their contraceptive purposes.  There are no group policies offered by any insurance company AFAIK that exclude contraceptive coverage on the market, and even though policies they do buy also cover treatment for erectile and other sexual dysfunction which would be necessary only if they were violating the tenets of their religion.  That hasn't resulted in any objection by Priests For Life AFAIK.

While the Church is perfectly free to impose discipline on its members for violating its doctrines related to sexual conduct and the use of contraception, it does not follow that it as an employer should be allowed to impose religious discipline on the health insurance benefits received by its secular employees who do not belong to the Church.  There is an intervening free will involved that separates the actions of those employees outside of their employment and the Church.  It cannot refuse to pay their employees the wages due them because the employee might do spend that money on something the Church does not approve of and claim that the First Amendment protects it in doing so, so why should it extend to other forms of compensation their employees receive?
 
2017-08-11 03:42:36 PM  

Karac: And it's against my religious beliefs for priests to violate the commandment against bearing false witness.

You are not mandated to provide contraception.  You're only mandated to provide contraception or to sign a piece of paper saying you object to providing contraception.

Frankly, it's stunning to me that professional Catholics would rather lie than put their name to a document which openly states their beliefs.


It's actually against their religious beliefs too.  It's driven by temporal politics and not by spiritual matters at all.
 
2017-08-11 03:51:59 PM  

stan unusual: Providing an exemption to the mandate of contraception coverage for priests and lay religious is perfectly fine


Ironically enough, a government mandate which required Catholic priests or nuns to take birth control wouldn't violate their religious beliefs.  They believe that such contraception is murder, but they're not supposed to be having sex anyway so it would be kind of hard for them to claim to have suffered damages.
 
2017-08-11 03:52:02 PM  
Ever since January 21, every time a policy is passed or a law enacted that legally codifies some sort of discrimination, bigotry or just general but heinous f*ckery using the excuse that it violates one's "sincerely held religious beliefs", I have this visceral reaction to go out and cockpunch the first MAGA-hat wearing asshole I find.
 
2017-08-11 03:59:22 PM  

stan unusual: While the Church is perfectly free to impose discipline on its members for violating its doctrines related to sexual conduct and the use of contraception, it does not follow that it as an employer should be allowed to impose religious discipline on the health insurance benefits received by its secular employees who do not belong to the Church.


Act 1: A secular employee of a Catholic church takes a birth control pill.  That pill was not purchased by an insurance company and not the employer.

Act 2: A priest rapes an altar boy.  He is protected by his superiors moving him to a new parish so that he will not be prosecuted for his crime and, since they didn't warn the new parish, so that he can re-offend.

The people who wrote this article would claim that they personally had committed a sin if they were the employer of the person in the first act.  However, I do not recall anyone making such a claim when they were the employer of the people who committed the second act.
 
2017-08-11 04:01:20 PM  

docpeteyJ: Ever since January 21, every time a policy is passed or a law enacted that legally codifies some sort of discrimination, bigotry or just general but heinous f*ckery using the excuse that it violates one's "sincerely held religious beliefs", I have this visceral reaction to go out and cockpunch the first MAGA-hat wearing asshole I find.


Why do you limit yourself like that?  Are titpunching or clamslamming out of the question if the first MAGA you see is a lady?
 
2017-08-11 04:14:41 PM  

Karac: docpeteyJ: Ever since January 21, every time a policy is passed or a law enacted that legally codifies some sort of discrimination, bigotry or just general but heinous f*ckery using the excuse that it violates one's "sincerely held religious beliefs", I have this visceral reaction to go out and cockpunch the first MAGA-hat wearing asshole I find.

Why do you limit yourself like that?  Are titpunching or clamslamming out of the question if the first MAGA you see is a lady?


I'm not hitting a woman*.  Women are mean.  You ever see women fight?  Damn. I mean, I'll break up two guys fighting, but two women?  Oh HELL no.  My Momma didn't raise no fool.

*actually, I've only ever hit a woman once, but that was after she kicked me in the crotch hard enough to lift me off my feet. Gal should have sought out a career as an NFL placekicker.
 
2017-08-11 04:46:03 PM  
I wonder why their religion needs babies.  What do they do with them?
img.fark.netView Full Size


Or for the real fundamentals,
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-11 04:50:13 PM  
If you don't believe in contraception you're an ignorant savage, but no one is forcing you to use it.
 
2017-08-11 04:51:42 PM  
Render unto God what is God's.  Render unto Orange Julius Caesar only what you think you should, if it's not too inconvenient and it isn't icky, and especially if it stigginits to the libs.
 
2017-08-11 04:56:49 PM  

Karac: docpeteyJ: Ever since January 21, every time a policy is passed or a law enacted that legally codifies some sort of discrimination, bigotry or just general but heinous f*ckery using the excuse that it violates one's "sincerely held religious beliefs", I have this visceral reaction to go out and cockpunch the first MAGA-hat wearing asshole I find.

Why do you limit yourself like that?  Are titpunching or clamslamming out of the question if the first MAGA you see is a lady?


I think because men are much more severely prosecuted for such satisfaction. Now, me, at the end of my rope from shiatty HC and their asshole ways, would gladly khitbash the next MAGA b*tch I see.  Call it I Don't Care Anymore
 
2017-08-11 05:07:10 PM  

Karac: stan unusual: While the Church is perfectly free to impose discipline on its members for violating its doctrines related to sexual conduct and the use of contraception, it does not follow that it as an employer should be allowed to impose religious discipline on the health insurance benefits received by its secular employees who do not belong to the Church.

Act 1: A secular employee of a Catholic church takes a birth control pill.  That pill was not purchased by an insurance company and not the employer.

Act 2: A priest rapes an altar boy.  He is protected by his superiors moving him to a new parish so that he will not be prosecuted for his crime and, since they didn't warn the new parish, so that he can re-offend.

The people who wrote this article would claim that they personally had committed a sin if they were the employer of the person in the first act.  However, I do not recall anyone making such a claim when they were the employer of the people who committed the second act.


I'd also add that how an employee, secular or otherwise, uses his compensation is none of the employer's business.  The employer is not buying the contraception, or booze, or weed, or lottery tickets, or casino chips, or hookers... the employee is.  The sin is on the employee.

If I worked for a church, I'd certainly need booze, weed, and hookers.
 
2017-08-11 05:17:36 PM  

eurotrader: My sincerely held belief and my religion (FSM) require drinking at lunch like our holy pirate saints


Ugh. Rum and lime juice at lunch?
 
2017-08-11 05:50:50 PM  

abb3w: eurotrader: My sincerely held belief and my religion (FSM) require drinking at lunch like our holy pirate saints

Ugh. Rum and lime juice at lunch?


Add mint and ice and it is a refreshing sacrament. Sailor Jim or pussers.
 
2017-08-11 06:57:45 PM  
Me? Down to me?

Honoured.

The West Wing: President Bartlet owns religous nut
Youtube f3VHK1NXIBw
 
2017-08-11 06:58:35 PM  
My sincerely held religious beliefs say that I can hold your family hostage and threatens their lives unless you work for free. Who is the so called "government" to stand between me and my religion?
 
2017-08-11 06:59:42 PM  
Pacifists still have to pay for wars.

Also religions don't say you can't provide contraception for other.
 
2017-08-11 07:01:43 PM  

docpeteyJ: Ever since January 21, every time a policy is passed or a law enacted that legally codifies some sort of discrimination, bigotry or just general but heinous f*ckery using the excuse that it violates one's "sincerely held religious beliefs", I have this visceral reaction to go out and cockpunch the first MAGA-hat wearing asshole I find.


I'll go with you.
 
2017-08-11 07:03:25 PM  
Not so sure about the "Have to" part.
 
2017-08-11 07:04:13 PM  

Corvus: Pacifists still have to pay for wars.

Also religions don't say you can't provide contraception for other.


Apparently dick pills for old men whom God has chosen, in his wisdom, to render impotent, are A-okay.
 
2017-08-11 07:04:58 PM  

daphne: transfusu


That's how covfefe spreads.
 
2017-08-11 07:05:36 PM  
Yeah! Why can't I sacrifice a human on my altar to Baal?!!! Why do the laws always impede on my religious freedoms??!!
 
2017-08-11 07:05:42 PM  
I think it's past time that those of us WITHOUT such religious beliefs started making more of a stink. If not legally, then in the various medias. Any time something like this comes up, people need to be called on it, and publicly.

You don't like contraceptives but you want to be a pharmacist? Well, princess, you need to pick one, because *I* want to be able to go to any pharmacy and get my prescription filled. It's not--or shouldn't be--on ME to switch pharmacies, why can't these fainting goats switch jobs? Nobody forced them into a profession where they would have to make these morally difficult choices. Find a job that lets you be godly and leave the rest of us alone.
 
2017-08-11 07:06:13 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2017-08-11 07:06:14 PM  
Religion poisons everything.
 
2017-08-11 07:10:32 PM  

docpeteyJ: Ever since January 21, every time a policy is passed or a law enacted that legally codifies some sort of discrimination, bigotry or just general but heinous f*ckery using the excuse that it violates one's "sincerely held religious beliefs", I have this visceral reaction to go out and cockpunch the first MAGA-hat wearing asshole I find.


Any excuse at all to post this gif:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-11 07:15:42 PM  
Think I will create a religion that does not believe in taxes.  And I think I will throw something about free sex in there as well.
 
2017-08-11 07:15:54 PM  
So The Hill publishes Level 10 Derp?
 
2017-08-11 07:19:10 PM  
II'm now from the Church.Humanist.Universal.Divinity. and our religion says we should eat people to gain their power until we reach godhood.  Is she saying I shoudn't have to follow the laws that are stopping me from following church teachings?
 
2017-08-11 07:21:16 PM  
I have very strongly and sincerely held religious beliefs about the suitability of babies for human consumption.

Sadly, baby-eating is currently against the law in most (?) states.

I should never have to choose between following my faith and following the law.
 
2017-08-11 07:22:21 PM  
Perhaps they should look into getting a less shiatty religion

or the religion could look at being less shiatty
 
2017-08-11 07:23:43 PM  
Look asshole, aren't you religious types the ones who always go on about "free will"? It's up to the individual person if they choose to sin or not, it is nowhere on your mandate that you need to choose for them. Providing contraception coverage IS IN NO WAY FORCING THEM TO USE IT.
 
2017-08-11 07:24:07 PM  

darkeyes: Think I will create a religion that does not believe in taxes.  And I think I will throw something about free sex in there as well.


Why leave it free, when you can make it compulsory?
 
2017-08-11 07:24:20 PM  

Karac: So the solution here is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

Says the lady whose position is "Everyone else in the country should have to live by my religious belief system."


Honestly. The goal is "everyone should have the same options" not "everyone has to choose the same option"
 
2017-08-11 07:24:21 PM  
Remember the part of the Constitution that says no law can be passed if it conflicts with someone's religious beliefs?

Does it not say that? Huh.
 
2017-08-11 07:27:25 PM  

Karac: So the solution here is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

Says the lady whose position is "Everyone else in the country should have to live by my religious belief system."


Authoritarians don't see the law as a code that everyone agrees to follow, they see it as chains to be put upon others. Once you realize this, you realize why it's so important that certain types of people never, ever be allowed to have authority.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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