Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:49 PM Feb 2012

Riddle me this, Batman...

If the Republicans succeeded in passing their amendment to allow any employer to limit health insurance packages however he wants, as long as it is motivated by faith or moral conviction...

[font color=green]What if an employer is affiliated with the Church of Christ Scientist?[/font color]

I guess they wouldn't be offering any health insurance at all!

Do any other notable religions still object to tranplants and blood transfusions? Some used to. I don't know how that has shaken out.

Behind the contraception angle, the Republican amendment is really about something bigger—don't all Republicans this year state a strong moral objection to the entirety of 'Obamacare'?

It's the point of the wedge of their coming (2013) "opt out" strategy for Obamacare as a political issue. States empowered to opt out. Employers opt out. Employees opt out... they want to eliminate the mandate by continual erosion of the "mandatory" in mandate.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Riddle me this, Batman... (Original Post) cthulu2016 Feb 2012 OP
Good point, Robin. nt Honeycombe8 Feb 2012 #1
you're seeing the tip of the iceberg in their paradigm shift. unblock Feb 2012 #2
Yes. As Grayson said, elleng Feb 2012 #3
At this point the Riddler Drale Feb 2012 #4
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions. n/t. white_wolf Feb 2012 #5

unblock

(52,253 posts)
2. you're seeing the tip of the iceberg in their paradigm shift.
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:56 PM
Feb 2012

by recasting "freedom" and "religious liberty" as being something that pertains to businesses instead of to workers and other actual people, they are building a framework to justify far worse things, such as slavery.

after all, what is slavery but a business exercising its freedom to manage its employees in a manner of its own choosing? and hey, it even has support in the bible! so anti-slavery laws and such restrict an employer's right to practice religion by preventing the ownership of slaves.

of course, i know they're not about to put this argument front and center next week or even next decade. they're far more methodical and gradual. but nevertheless, the path they are putting us on goes in this direction, and every step that way is an eroding of the rights of actual individuals -- done in the name of advancing the rights -- of businesses.

Drale

(7,932 posts)
4. At this point the Riddler
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:57 PM
Feb 2012

or any Batman villain might be a less crazy candidate for the repukes to run.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Riddle me this, Batman...