Careful what you wish for, I've lived under socialized health care.
I agree with what Margret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money".
Can corporations be Catholic?
- Thread starter myp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- catholic corporations
Careful what you wish for, I've lived under socialized health care.
I agree with what Margret Thatcher said, "Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money".
I'd like to hear more from you about your experience(s) with socialized medicine, and why you feel the way you do about it.
My understanding of Obamacare is that states do have the right to come up with their own plan, as long as it meets guidelines. Vermont took Obama up on it, and has passed single-payer care. I don't know if it's "in effect" yet, but it has been passed by both state bodies, and signed by the governor. Some 400 new businesses have moved into the state because of that.
I'm not "pro" socialism, or "anti" capitalism. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Either extreme is equally destructive (mo). The problem is, how to know which to use when, and how to implement the changes.
Ah well......solutions are in front of us, but there's no political will to use them.
I'd say that corporations cannot be Catholic. A corporation doesn't have the ability to evaluate evidence pro or con as to the existence of God and then of it's own free will choose to believe. Mr. Weingartz may very well be Catholic but his desire to make another "person" accept his faith is just a wee bit hypocritical, after all, the reason he incorporated in the first place was to be seen as a seperate legal entity from his business.
If, no religious organization was involved, it seems to me there would be nothing to discuss. I have not seen another company, organization, or "Person" complain it needs to be exempted from parts of the law for any reason (if however there are please let me know), and if claiming "It's Against My Religion" was something we could use to bypass law....Hell, I would be able to avoid my taxes.
As far as your "Nobody has the right" argument...you might have this backwards, as no one has the right to disobey the law. Be they Individuals, corporation, or churches. Thus we have the courts to punish those that do it anyway.
Liberals are intolerant bigots. As such, they are always looking for excuses to take away the rights and freedoms of their neighbors. So, they argue that people in corporations can't be Catholic and therefor shouldn't have constitutional protections of their rights and freedoms.
Tecoyah, our village hypocrite, so I take it you're against every Supreme Court ruling in the history of this country where the court sided with anyone claiming that a law violated their rights. E.g. RvW?
I understand quite clearly you dislike the "Liberal" mindset, whatever you think that is. But I would like to point out a slight disconnect, to my understanding (From reading your posts) you seem to have chosen a republican lean which has tended more toward removing individual rights than any other. I would also point out that no one forbids a corporation from being Catholic, nor do they make any attempt to place hurdles in the way.
As far as Constitutional protections, it may be you do not quite understand the idea of Freedom FROM Religion, as if you did you may very well find a religion forcing its beliefs into a public hospital environment distasteful.
Your childish insults are not appreciated, and your ability to project invalid opinion onto others seems a poor excuse for conversation.
I understand how Liberals have done their best to turn the First Amendment upside down, from protecting our rights into an excuse to oppress our rights.
You and Mao might value freedom FROM. But, I value freedom OF.
I am sure you do understand this...I am wondering if you might educate me as well, on the data used to form the conclusion. I am curious about the things you see the "Liberals" to have done, as I value the first amendment very much and would hate to see it damaged.
I do not quite understand the comparison to Mao...but likely it was meant as another insult. I do however fully support the freedom of religion, seems fundamental to our way of life...I simply find it important to respect the other side of this sword.
Yes, everyone is free to believe as they will in regard to God...but to do so everyone must allowed to be free from the belief as well.
I do not quite understand the comparison to Mao...but likely it was meant as another insult. I do however fully support the freedom of religion, seems fundamental to our way of life...I simply find it important to respect the other side of this sword.
Yes, everyone is free to believe as they will in regard to God...but to do so everyone must allowed to be free from the belief as well.
Let's review, Tecoyah.
You said, "I have not seen another company, organization, or "Person" complain it needs to be exempted from parts of the law for any reason..."
I replied, "I take it you're against every Supreme Court ruling in the history of this country where the court sided with anyone claiming that a law violated their rights."
No direct reply from you... All your posts are nothing but self-righteous nonsense.
You said, "I have not seen another company, organization, or "Person" complain it needs to be exempted from parts of the law for any reason..."
I replied, "I take it you're against every Supreme Court ruling in the history of this country where the court sided with anyone claiming that a law violated their rights."
No direct reply from you... All your posts are nothing but self-righteous nonsense.
No one has raised any question that you "value" the First Amendment. The accusation is that you value a perversion of the First Amendment that you use as an excuse to oppress others.
Very well...I did not see the need to reply with anything other than the comment I gave you, indicating your ability to imagine opinions invalid and to be honest....a bit out there.
However, as requested:
I have not indicated in any way, an opposition to the freedom to petition the court, claim rights, or question individual freedom in the SCOTUS. You have placed your own taint on my comments to produce discourse...and as I stated this is not a valuable form of communication....Basically you are being a bit unpleasant, and somewhat confrontational.
I most certainly did state,"I have not seen another company, organization, or
And then asked a question...which you have ignored , instead choosing to be a dickish persona taking the low road of attempting (poorly by the way), to debase your supposed debate partner in a childish and rather petty excuse for adult conversation. This being a place that tries to rise above the type of "Debate" you personify, I do not wish to resort to such immature behavior.
I seriously recommend you go someplace more fitting to your style, and intellect...perhaps here http://www.debatepolitics.com/ as I am familiar with many who act as you do on this site.
I love how rightists throw out the word liberal like an insult. 1. Liberal is no more an insult then conservative, moderate, leftist, etc. 2. Many people rightists call liberals are some of the most vehemently anti-liberal people around, they just don't use the term as an insult so it's not always obvious.
Agreed, and in fact I think myself somewhat conservative in many ways...yet a few so very far to the right see me as a "liberal"...whatever they think that means.
All this seems to accomplish is to push me even further from the right, as I do not wish to be considered associated with such a negative mindset.
It has come to the point that being a Moderate is now Liberal...go figure.
There was a time in this country when many people, including GOP supporters, thought that a "good liberal" was the thing to be. Then some radicals co-opted the name for themselves precisely due to the fact that so many identified with the description "liberal". Later on Gingrich absolutely destroyed the name "liberal" and now it's seen by many as an insult. Throughout this entire time period there's never really been a discussion on what "liberal" even means anymore.
If you have a point to make then argue the point itself but resorting to name-calling and attempting to place your debate opponent in a pre-fabbed box of your making just indicates weakness and a lack of substance, especially if the meaning of the name used isn't even clear or agreed upon. The response may have well have been "???????"; they mean the same thing.
If you have a point to make then argue the point itself but resorting to name-calling and attempting to place your debate opponent in a pre-fabbed box of your making just indicates weakness and a lack of substance, especially if the meaning of the name used isn't even clear or agreed upon. The response may have well have been "???????"; they mean the same thing.
Got to love how liberals are socialists and socialists (the real ones) are liberals according to TPers. :giggle:
I think the only elected official in the Federal Gov't that hasn't been labeled a socialist by the TP is the 1 guy who actually got elected as a socialist. Ifyou ever read 1984, it's like GoodTruth and BadTruth with them.
Similar threads
