A question for Biden’s fans

  • Thread starter Thread starter RhodesianSon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scousekiwi said:
I live in Cambridge, which is full of Americans, so I often get things sent my way from various US-based sources, often local news from somebody’s home town.
Click to expand...
Did any of your sources tell you what we who voted against Hillary Clinton were up against?

Here’s an example. The Obama administration in 2010 decided to impose the HHS contraceptive mandate. This means that all employers would be obligated to pay for their employees’ contraceptives (and in some cases abortifacient contraceptives).
No exceptions for religious objections.

Now, my family’s income mostly derived from a Catholic institution. DH and I lived for 6 years in anxiety wondering what would happen to this income, whether the institution would be forced out of business, what would happen to our family.

Good people would suffer so the Democrats could suck up to the pro-aborts.

But I’m sure your sources ignored this and characterized the Trump voters as thugs and racists and ignored the attack on our freedom of religion.

That’s just one example
 
I certainly remember reading about the seven cases heard by the Supreme Court under the title Zubik v. Burwell. I am not a lawyer, and I am unfamiliar with the private health insurance market, so I cannot claim to have understood it all.
 
And what do you think of a president who attacks freedom of religion?

Were we supposed to just sit there and take it?
 
I don’t give a flying flip what most of Europe thinks of America; most of them are heading in directions I don’t want our country to go down, so if they’re upset with Trump, that’s largely a good thing, in my opinion.
 
As ever, it’s a question of competing rights. One person’s freedom of religion says that they shouldn’t have to pay for healthcare with which they disagree on moral grounds, while another person’s right to access healthcare says that they should not be denied access to certain services because of somebody else’s religious beliefs. Just suppose that you worked for an employer who was a Jehovah’s Witness. Should your employer be entitled to refuse to insure you for any treatment that could possibly involve blood products (e.g. blood disorders, childbirth, and many surgical procedures)? Would you consider that a wonderful example of free exercise of religion or an unwarranted abridgement of your right to access healthcare?
 
You are assuming that everybody is in a position to choose where to work. If you live somewhere where employment is scarce, you will take any job that is available. If you are not very qualified, you will not have many jobs to choose between. There are some communities where most jobs are dependent upon one main business such as a mine or a factory.

If you have a system where people’s healthcare is tied to their employment, it becomes a problem if the employer wants to restrict what healthcare is available to their employees. You end up with a situation in which a Methodist employer will not insure you for an abortion, a Catholic employer will not insure you for contraception, an Amish employer will not insure you for cosmetic surgery, a fundamentalist evangelical employer will not insure you for antimalarials, and a Muslim employer will require you to receive all your treatment from a clinician of the same sex.
 
So you’re completely fine with the government dictating your religious belief?

Scary

But again, in your defense, your religion doesn’t really make you stand up against the popular culture, so you wouldn’t understand.

And in your case, don’t care.
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
So you’re completely fine with the government dictating your religious belief?
Click to expand...
The government doesn’t dictate my religious beliefs at all. I live in a country where the Church of England is the established religion, but where more Catholics than Anglicans attend church every week and more than 5% of the population are Muslims. That does not, to me, sound like the government dictating my religious beliefs.

The issue is one of conflicting rights. This issue was raised in another comment concerning same-sex marriage. I am genuinely sympathetic to both points of view. I appreciate that many people (including many Anglicans) feel very strongly that same-sex marriage goes against their religious beliefs and that they cannot do anything to “collaborate” in such a marriage taking place. But I also appreciate that homosexual and bisexual people have a right to marry people of the same sex. In the UK, that right is conferred by Parliament; in the US, that right is conferred by the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Therefore, I can only suggest that we must seek a modus vivendi that acknowledges rights on both sides.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
But again, in your defense, your religion doesn’t really make you stand up against the popular culture, so you wouldn’t understand.
Click to expand...
Yet again I get the impression that people on CAF hold Anglicanism in particular contempt. This is not the first time that I have been made to feel that Anglicans are not really welcome here. The only other denomination that seems to attract so much negativity are the Baptists. However, the attitude towards the Baptists is more one of hostility, seemingly based on the perception that Baptists are hostile towards Catholicism. In the case of Anglicanism, I sense hostility, but, more than that, I sense contempt.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
And in your case, don’t care.
Click to expand...
How would you possibly know what I do and do not care about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top