Faith

Atheists Appeal to Obama Admin, Calling Faith-Based Birth Control Exemptions ‘Gov’t Endorsement of Religion’

Atheists Led by Secular Coalition Speak Out on Contraceptive MandateThe Secular Coalition for America (SCA), a national group representing non-believers and secularists, has made no bones about its intent to increase its atheistic political power. On Tuesday, the group issued an official comment and press release slamming the efforts of Christian groups that are seeking wider exemptions under the Obama administration’s highly-contentious contraceptive mandate.

(Related: Atheist Lobbyists Launch Massive Effort to Organize for Political Power in All 50 States)

Rather than defend the religious liberty of organizations that would be forced to violate conscience, the SCA has decided to embrace the Obama administration’s initial feelings on the issue. The lobbying group claims that the exemption, in its current, narrow form, already provides adequate cover to religious groups.

“The current religious employer exemption adequately accommodates religious institutions,” SCA Executive Director Edwina Rogers is quoted in the release. “Any additional expansion would effectively be a government endorsement of religion—an idea fundamentally opposed to the core American values protected by the First Amendment.”

Atheists Led by Secular Coalition Speak Out on Contraceptive Mandate

Republican strategist and lobbyist Edwina Rogers (Image Credit: Bravo Television)

According to the SCA, the government should not allow any employer, regardless of religious beliefs, to decline contraceptive services that are FDA-approved. This essentially means that some Catholic institutions that do not embrace birth control, if the SCA gets its way, would be forced by the federal government to violate conscience.

(Related: 150 Christian Leaders Send Protest Letter Accusing Obama Admin of Creating ‘Two-Class Religious Scheme’)

The official comments submitted by the organization and co-signed by numerous atheist groups read, in part:

The Secular Coalition again would underscore our desire that the Health Resources and Services Administration guidelines include contraceptive services for women without any religious exemption for any and all group health plans and employers. However, the final rule published on February
15, 2012 maintained only a narrow exemption for religious employers with direct religious activities as their function and the Secular Coalition supports this narrow accommodation. The current religious employer exemption adequately accommodates religion; any expansion becomes endorsement.

We are concerned that the current comment period and any subsequent expansion of the religious employer exemption will only serve to further expand the definition of a “religious employer” as defined by the rule. Congress has passed and the Supreme Court has upheld Free Exercise protections for explicitly religious organizations. The final regulations
published in February demonstrate a concerted effort by the Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to abide by those precedents and limit the scope of any exemption in the Affordable Care Act.

According to the press release and the letter, itself, numerous secular collectives signed on, including: American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Atheist Alliance of America, Camp Quest, Council for Secular Humanism, HUUmanists Association, Institute for Humanist Studies and the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, among others.

Atheists Led by Secular Coalition Speak Out on Contraceptive Mandate

“We are troubled by the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their definition of religious freedom on all Americans,” Rogers also said. “The secular character of our government is a core value of our nation that protects all citizens—religious and non-religious.”

In contrast to the atheist push, earlier this month, 150 Christian leaders wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius expressing fears over the government’s involvement in defining religious groups. In it, they lamented the Obama administration creation of a “two-class religious scheme.”

Based on this most recent public comment on behalf of atheist activists, though, secularists seem completely unconcerned about the intermingling of church and state that was highlighted by the aforementioned Christian leaders.

Comments (121)

1 2
  • deerjerkydave
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:23pm

    Maybe we should throw out laws against murder and anti-theft laws since similar laws are found in the Bible. Let’s be clear, these secular atheists are really just a bunch of religious bigots.

    Report Post » deerjerkydave  
    • Dirk Prophet
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:25pm

      Murder and theft are outlawed in all cultures. Prohibitions against contraception is a particular Catholic superstition.

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 7:30pm

      Not just superstition but natural law. All Christians held the same belief until about a century ago.

      Report Post »  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:58pm

      I guess the punishment for rape should be forced marriage of the victim to her rapist, since this law is found in the bible.
      (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
      And killing children for being disobedient.
      (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
      And death for cursing father or mother.
      (Matthew 15:4)
      And women shouldn’t be allowed to teach men or boys.
      (1 Timothy 2:12)

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 10:54am

      @Antitheist

      Your claim here is false. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

      Protects women’s right to support and family by forcing the man to provide for her the rest of her life. Nothing in the verse says that the woman must agree to the marriage against her will.

      Your statements are misogynistic, ethnocentric and racist and false. Please explain why you think these things are wrong?

      Report Post »  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 11:56am

      Deuteronomy 22 28-29 could very well be interpreted to command a woman to marry her attacker, as it states “He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”. “Must marry”= he has an obligation to do so. Also, I don’t see how this law would protect the woman, as marriage isn’t a guarantee of family or even of a life of sufficient provision. And even if the woman refuses to marry, it would be in her best interest to marry, since a deflowered woman at that time was considered trash and refuse, and no other knowing man would take her. No matter which way you put it, it seems the woman is the loser here. As to the other passages, that is not my “racism” or “misogyny”, that is the bible’s racism and misogyny.

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • thunersaurus
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 4:28pm

      I wish there were like buttons here. ^^

      Report Post » thunersaurus  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 6:23pm

      @Antitheist

      Only he has the obligation. I see no reason to assume that his obligation is hers as well. Marriage at the time was the only realistic route to family or prosperity.

      You quoted the rest out of context and you know it. That’s not exactly intellectually honest is it?

      Report Post »  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 7:14pm

      When the other option is not being able to find a husband due to not being a virgin, does the woman really have a choice?

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 22, 2012 at 6:17pm

      @antitheist.

      You claimed: “this law is found in the bible.”

      It is not as you now implicitly admit by stating that there is no other realistic option for the woman.

      Report Post »  
    • Poggle The Stick
      Posted on June 24, 2012 at 9:57am

      @Antitheist

      I’m a young teenager who is absolutely disgusted with you; I believe that it the most intellectual comment I can make about you.

      I don’t HATE atheists, but over the last 5 years (VERY recently) atheists have been rubbing their faces and campaigns in our faces. I respect you as a human being, however, as I do a Mormon or even a gay person.

      I recall from the Bible the story where Jesus is being tempted by Satan who thinks he can rub the Bible in Jesus’s nose. JUST like what Satan did, you‘re reading the wrong quotes in the wrong order or you’re not reading the whole thing. You’re biasing the Bible; THAT’S JUST SO PLAIN DISGUSTING!!!

      I’m only a thirteen year old – and I can see through your evil tricks and lies and your manipulation (and I don’t take all of the credit! Jesus protects me.)

      Report Post » Poggle The Stick  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 24, 2012 at 2:26pm

      @poggle the stick
      It’s funny that you mention temptation by the devil to Isa (jesus), because that same mythological aspect of christianity is found in both the stories of buddha and zoroaster, both of which predate the jesus myth. Just google jesus like figures, you will be surprised at the similarities between jesus and horus and others. I subscribe to the more realistic idea that while jesus may have existed, he was in no way divine or some exalted demigod, an idea shared by our third president, Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson Bible). Yes, I have read the bible in an appropriate order, and my feelings were repulsion, shock, awe, and boredom, respectively. I felt repulsion and shock at the brutality, depictions of incest, and sheer illogical nature of the old and new testaments. Just like you implied that I was lacking context in the bible, I am telling you that you lack biblical context in the facts surrounding the formation of the bible, such as the fact that many cannon books were excluded (council of Nicaea) and the unreliable nature of English translations of the bible.

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 24, 2012 at 2:42pm

      @warpspeedpetey
      It‘s not that I’m implying that marriage of the victim to her rapist is possibly the best thing for her, it’s the punishment itself that I find bizarre and immoral. Usually punishments have some sort of implementation of something unpleasant to the criminal, as to discourage the potential criminal from committing it in the first place (this is the same logic employed by people who support the death penalty and other harsh penalties for crimes). And I don’t believe the compulsory marriage of rapist to victim fits that qualification. The law just seems so backwards especially compared to Deuteronomy 25 11-12: 11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
      Is this the biblical humor Christians keep alluding to? Because it is hilarious that a woman’s hands should be cut off if she touches the genitalia of another man while defending another man but a man does not face similar unpleasantness and instead is almost rewarded when he touches the genitalia of a woman with his with no previous provocation.

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • From Virginia
      Posted on June 24, 2012 at 10:35pm

      @Dirk Prophet – Murder is absolutely legal in islam. Honor killings and the killing of infidels is allowed with no punishiment to the murderers.

      Report Post »  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 25, 2012 at 2:04am

      @ From Virginia
      Deuteronomy 17:2-5
      2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.
      Worshiping other gods hmm, seems pretty close to an infidel right? Oh wait, what now? stone them to death? Stone the infidel? I guess Christianity isn’t too different from Islam is it?

      Exodus 22:18: Do not suffer a witch to live. Oh look another command to kill.
      Exodus 31:14 You must keep the Sabbath day, for it is a holy day for you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Yet another example to kill.
      Don’t forget the ever so popular Leviticus 20 13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
      So, do these commandments to kill mean that murder is also legal in Christianity?

      Report Post » antitheist  
  • alwaysgrams
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:53pm

    Why should the SCA be allowed to force their doctrines on people of faith. Believe what you will, but don’t force on anyone else.

    Report Post »  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:21pm

      B/c they’re just Marxists who want to turn this country into another Soviet Union.

      Report Post »  
  • Tulsa-time
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:42pm

    SCA is a religion too. Why should their religious assumption be privileged?

    Report Post »  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 12:10am

      Don’t be so unintelligent, classifying them as a religion would grant them special tax privileges that are only afforded to churches. This is why I laugh when people say that christianity isn‘t a religion and say it’s a relationship, fine, have it that way, but don’t cry when you start paying taxes.

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • Tulsa-time
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 1:26am

      I’m already crying… Gushing since President Obama was elected… If we must become all One, then what will I have left to call my own?

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 10:56am

      @antitheist

      What would those be beyond the usual 503c exemptions afforded to everyone?

      Report Post »  
    • antitheist
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 12:42pm

      Well, the automatic waiving of the 990 requirement for starters.

      Report Post » antitheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 6:35pm

      @antitheist.

      Neither are state institutions.

      http://www.guidestar.org/rxg/help/faqs/form-990/index.aspx#faq1943

      What is an IRS Form 990?

      Form 990 is an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS. It provides information on the filing organization’s mission, programs, and finances.

      Report Post »  
  • betterthantv
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:35pm

    According to the SCA, the government should not allow any employer, regardless of religious beliefs, to decline contraceptive services that are FDA-approved.

    I could care less what the SCA says, does or wants. But this statement is pretty telling. It assumes that the debate is over and that contraceptive is all of a sudden a “right”. What happened to the employer’s rights to decide what he or she will provide for his/her employees? This whole argument is bogus!

    Report Post » betterthantv  
    • The_Cabrito_Goat
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:54pm

      It is telling, and shows two things:

      1. Never go into an argument before looking at it, because often times when dealing with progressives, the argument is rigged from the beginning. Your only option is to reframe the argument to be more fair, or risk being pigeon holed.

      2. Progressive mindset can be summed up this way: Do as I say, not as I do. These atheists could care less about the feelings, let alone rights of their Christian countrymen, and so either willfully, or obliviously ignore both.

      Report Post » The_Cabrito_Goat  
    • alinmatt
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 8:06pm

      @betterthantv, You are right. The real issue isn’t about who is or isn’t required to provide birth control. It is about the over reaching hand of the government. The government (especially the federal government) has no constitutional right to be this involved in any private institution. While I don’t believe in the Bible, I absolutely do not support this action on the part of the SCA. Religious freedom is an important part of our country’s history and the first amendment. Secularists are just as capable of religious persecution as any religious group. It is important to protect the rights of others in order to protect our own rights.

      Report Post »  
  • ThankBabyJesus
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:32pm

    Secular education is found only in Christian countries and yet Christianity not taught in school. How perverted! Christians then do not have the possibility to learn about Christianity in school their own country. Secularism is then not tolerant.

    Report Post » ThankBabyJesus  
    • alinmatt
      Posted on June 21, 2012 at 9:06pm

      Christian countries now teach secularism, because the theocratic monarchies that once ruled them led to century after century of religious war and persecution. As a result of religious persecution, people flocked to America to practice their beliefs freely. Because of this, there were many different religious views (typically within Christianity) during the framing of the constitution. The only way to unite the colonies under one government was to draft a constitution that gave no religious preference. Thus, a secular constitution was born, despite the fact that many founders were Christians. That is why the first line of the first amendment deals with religious freedom. Our constitution, by definition, is secular.
      The problem with these guys in the SCA is that they are ignorant of the fact that it is unconstitutional for the government to be involved in this in the first place. And unfortunately, Americans in general have become constitutionally lazy, which leads many of them to argue constitutionality from the false premise of socialism.

      Report Post »  
  • JJBlazeReader
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:22pm

    ..
    These groups are creating a ground swell for a third awakening.
    Those who decry religious freedom undermine their own freedom but they don’t care if they bring everyone down with them. Sick rational.
    ..

    Report Post » JJBlazeReader  
  • IMCHRISTIAN
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:58pm

    Atheists, why don’t you leave us alone to worship as we have for centuries. God loves us all but he will not be mocked, This is a land of the free to worship or not worship as we believe, Are you afraid of something? Most of us believe in life before and after birth. I think that you just want what we would call evil to be paid for not by you but by us. We will always fight for the little ones as they have no voice and you want to voice DEATH for their future.

    Report Post »  
    • Dirk Prophet
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:46pm

      Who stops you praying or worshiping the way you want? Do you believe that denying employees medical benefits by employers is a form of worship? Medical insurance, as part of employee benefits package, should include procedures approve by the FDA. You can‘t have employers who think that cancer is God’s choice and so should not be covered. If you want to be part of the market and economy in the US, you should have to abide by social rules and not impose your religious values over people’s religious values.

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 7:46pm

      ****Who stops you praying or worshiping the way you want?

      You are trying to.

      ****Do you believe that denying employees medical benefits by employers is a form of worship?

      Yes. In the same way following all of G-ds commands is a form of worship

      ****Medical insurance, as part of employee benefits package, should include procedures approve by the FDA.

      Why? Because you say so? Because you want it like that?

      ****You can‘t have employers who think that cancer is God’s choice and so should not be covered.

      Why? Aren’t people free to work for the employer of their choice?

      ****If you want to be part of the market and economy in the US, you should have to abide by social rules

      Don’t we make the social rules? Are you following the social rules with your atheism?

      ****and not impose your religious values over people’s religious values.

      Why not? We already enforce Christian morality by law. We don’t let people murder, rape, or rob on a religious basis. Do you think those things should be acceptable then? Are things immoral simply because they hurt someone? If that’s the case is rape alright if the victim is drugged and unaware of it? What if I robbed you but then paid all your bills like gas, food , and electricity? You weren’t hurt. Would that be morally acceptable?

      I suspect you have no clue whats going on.

      Report Post »  
  • Knorlan
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:47pm

    WOW can atheists twist this anymore than they already have? The first amendment says; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now can someone tell me where it says government can define religion? Or where it says separation of church and state? Better yet where it says the government can make a religion conform to a mandate against its faith?
    No one can, because it does not say any of those things. This amendment only limits the power the government has over free speech, religion, and assembly in a peaceful manner. What many fail to grasp is that when this was written Great Britain had, and still does have, a state religion. What our founders did not want was our faith ruled by the government because nowhere in that amendment does it say religion can’t be present in government only that government may not make laws about religion or make any law that restricts its practice. We as Americans need to understand our laws and by doing so, we can better counter and invalidate the arguments of those that seek to change our nation.

    Report Post »  
  • MRMANN
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:22pm

    Atheists’ faith-based abortion support–atheists’ faith vs. nonatheists’faith–which faith will prevail? Both are faith, what are the atheists being so sanctimonious about?

    Report Post »  
  • jblovesAmerica
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:22pm

    it seems to me-the America i have known for 65 years is being taken apart by several small special interest groups-Anti-Religion/GLBT groups etc-
    I have a great idea.
    lets isolate into separate an unequal groups-you pay for your interests-i’ll pay fro mine.
    GLBT want same sex marriage rights hospital/health care okay -you represent 6.6 million folks-pay fro your own care and marriages. i will not.
    Atheists hate religion -fine-go to a Non religious Hospital form your own hospitals-its okay
    form your own military-while in combat in 1967-i loved my God and asked for him to keep us all safe-i’ll not ask him to help you-your troopers can pray to????? for help and good luck.
    Religious Hospitals will not abort or distribute contraceptives-i will support-you will not-i think that’s fair.
    i don’t care what you believe or think-you should not care what i do-and we pay as we believe.
    now that’s fair.
    lets separate the Government on the Local/State/ Federal in the same way.
    you go your way-we shall do the same.
    Liberals pay in what they believe in-same for conservatives.
    i think its just may work
    Takers vs Makers-lets see who survives is happy and peace loving.
    OWS shows me i would rather hang out with TEA PARTY Folks
    see this is really easy-your side of the street and mine.

    Report Post »  
  • SpeaknUp
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:05pm

    There’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids government “endorsement” of religion. Many of the Founding Fathers endorsed religion all the time. The Constitution merely forbids the federal government — Congress, particularly — from making any LAW forbidding free worship or dictating a national church.

    Until Americans understand their own Constitution, we’re going to continue to see this kind of garbage pretending to save us all from some contrived harm. Americans are being assaulted by un-American ideology — and they’re rolling over and taking it, mostly out of ignorance of both our Constitution and our history.

    Report Post » SpeaknUp  
  • just_around
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:37pm

    how ironic seeing as Atheism is a religion, which is a lifestyle lived based on a set of beliefs…

    Report Post »  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:07pm

      Welcome to class. The exercise for today children is coming up with clearly false or misleading statements. Here are some examples.

      Atheism is a religion
      Obama is a great president
      excrement smells great
      Biden is a genius

      Can you think or any more obviously false statements kids?

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • betterthantv
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:38pm

      Ok CONSERVATIVE ATHEIST I’ll take the bait. If Atheism is not a religion, then what is it?

      Report Post » betterthantv  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:05pm

      Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

      Not believing in something cannot be described as a religion as much as the religious would like it to be one.

      It simply means I don’t believe in god. That’s it. Doesn’t mean I necessarily subscribe to any other ideology or belief system. Doesn’t mean I hate religion or god. It means only that on singular thing.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
  • e7achh
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:30pm

    WTF

    “SCA Executive Director Edwina Rogers” = “Republican strategist and lobbyist Edwina Rogers”

    Report Post »  
  • Elias The Artist
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:09pm

    I am troubled by the insistence of certain political groups. To impose their definiion of tolerance on me

    Their freedom to be them includes my freedom to be free from them (thank you mr. Wilkow)
    I would saythat these atheists can just go to hell. But since they dont believe in that i’ll just say that they can go to their therapists and get their meds adjusted and just stay the hell out of my life.

    Report Post »  
    • AndYetItMoves
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:13pm

      What a perfect distillation of the modern christian ethic, and a demonstration of the average Christian’s capacity for intelligence, humor, and understanding their own doctrine. Thank you.

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:28pm

      Oh, you understand Christian doctrine? Please, I am eager to hear your exposition on the subject.

      Report Post »  
  • unwine99
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:20am

    The SCA is correct on this one.

    Report Post » unwine99  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:28am

      agreed. it seems like common sense.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:43am

      Little thing called the constitution protects these religious groups from government fiat.
      You remember the consitution? That’s what you atheists hide behind to assault christians. But come Christmas day..you’re all at home and not at work..recognizing a christian holiday.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:57am

      AVENGERK – would this Constitution you speak of protect your right to perform human sacrifice if your religion called for it? what if my religion called for the branding of newborn babies with a huge ‘A’ on their chest? would the Constitution allow for that?

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:39pm

      @Philly

      You can’t have it both ways. Either religious freedom is absolute or you are imposing religious values of one faith on the members of another faith. Oh, values are secular you say? Who decided those values. Group opinion? Then the Nazi’s group opinion was a moral value? The Golden Rule you say? Who decided that? Is it group opinion? Then the Nazi’s…..I guess there really is no such thing as secular values. So we are a Christian nation and you are happy with that until it comes to sexual immorality right?

      Report Post »  
  • Warpspeedpetey
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:08am

    From the “Atheists are Ignorant” files…

    ***“We are troubled by the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their definition of religious freedom on all Americans,” Rogers also said. “The secular character of our government is a core value of our nation that protects all citizens—religious and non-religious.”***

    Wow! I can’t believe how ignorant these people are. How can we impose a freedom? What a ridiculous statement. How exactly does that work? Did we maliciously impose freedom on the slaves after the Civil War?

    Report Post »  
  • phillyatheist
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:03am

    i’m loving this SCA! in 20 years they will be HUGE.

    this contraception mandate thing is one of the stupidest things i’ve seen religious leaders get worked up over. it’s even more amazing that their supporters, many of whom use said contraceptives, eat this hook line and sinker. grow a brain people, and realize they’re using you. think for yourself, don’t let a bunch of robe wearing asexuals do it for you.

    Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:21am

      Yeah comrade, who needs those silly rights! We should outlaw all those harmful things. Like big gulps, trans fats, candy in schools, promiscuity, hate speech, rights to conscience……

      What do you mean stop? You want the government to stay out of your bedroom?

      So the government in your kitchen, Church, family, and work place is acceptable because those behaviors in those places can harm society but the behavior in your bedroom that harms society should be allowed?

      LMAO

      Report Post »  
    • tzion
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:21am

      If a religious leader can be forced to fund that which they oppose on a religious basis then you can be forced to do the same. For example, you wouldn’t want to be forced fund renovations to a church. No government body in this country should have the power to do this, let alone actually utilize it.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:28am

      TZION – “For example, you wouldn’t want to be forced fund renovations to a church.”

      i already do.

      “Free Inquiry magazine has an article (PDF) about tax exemptions for churches and other religious organizations and how much revenue it eliminates. The total figure: $71 billion a year.”

      like it or not, we all pay for things that we don’t like or goes against our conscience.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • henryKnox
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:33am

      The SCA seems to be missing the point all together. The gov’t should not provide exemptions for religious institutions alone. They should provide exemptions for every institution that chooses otherwise. Freedom isn’t for just a few, freedom should be for everyone. If the gov‘t would stick to their constitutional duties then we wouldn’t have to debate which Americans are free and which are subservient to the gov’t.

      Report Post » henryKnox  
    • Vercetti1611
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:42am

      TZION – “For example, you wouldn’t want to be forced fund renovations to a church.”

      i already do.

      “Free Inquiry magazine has an article (PDF) about tax exemptions for churches and other religious organizations and how much revenue it eliminates. The total figure: $71 billion a year.”

      like it or not, we all pay for things that we don’t like or goes against our conscience.
      ======================================================================

      Here is the problem with your post. You are assuming by tax exemptions, that these institutions are not paying their “fair share” and so you are subsidizing it. The government has no right to tell them how much of their money they get to keep after they get their cut. This is the problem with the progressives in this country now: undue taxation is seen as a source of revenue that needs to be increased as opposed to a burden that limits people’s freedom. There are many tax exempt institutions that I do not agree with, but I don’t think that I am subsidizing them by not taxing them.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:50am

      VERCETTI – you seem to recognize what i am saying, yet somehow have come to a different conclusion. i don‘t understand how you can’t see that by not paying taxes on billions of revenue that all Americans are subsidizing religion. that is revenue that the gov’t could be getting but is not. also, churches don’t pay property taxes, even though they hold a lot of primo real estate, yet they utilize all the services that other tax payers fund.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • CougarNick78
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:57am

      The Nazi Party was hugh also, Komrad…. As was the USSR….. How many millions did those atheists kill or worse?

      Report Post » CougarNick78  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:08pm

      The Nazi Party was hugh also, Komrad…. As was the USSR….. How many millions did those atheists kill or worse?

      The problem is that they weren’t atheists. Hitler believed in god. Stalin believed in god. Oh and Pol Pot was a Buddhist…also NOT an atheist.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:01pm

      @ Conservative atheist…. Just because someone claims to believe in God doesn’t make it so. Hitler delved into the black magic and other so called dark arts. Hitler murdered millions of people because he was a psychopath. Don’t try to lump Christians into his lot.

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:02pm

      @Philly

      Every dollar in the economy is a dollar the government could get but doesn’t. Everyone is subsidizing everything by the measure you propose.

      Further, if it is wrong to subsidize services you don’t use, agree with or of a religious nature than why am I subsidizing abortions, public schools, 503c atheist organizations, evolution research, anti religious speeches on college campuses, LGBT clubs at schools and a host of other things that my property taxes ultimately support?

      Obviously our society does not accept your argument.

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:04pm

      @henryKnox

      Good point.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:11pm

      SLOWBIDEN
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:01pm

      @ Conservative atheist…. Hitler delved into the black magic and other so called dark arts.
      (more evidence he wasn’t an atheist, thank you)

      Don’t try to lump Christians into his lot.
      (I’m not. I’m was only disputing the false claim that he was an atheist.)

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:13pm

      PETEY – you just proved my point. we all pay for things we don’t want. this is at the heart of the HHS mandate. the Bishops are all up in a tizzy over something that is obvious – that they, like the rest of us, have to pay for things they don’t want to. they need to grow up and stop with their temper tantrum.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • NJBarFly
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:18pm

      SLOWBIDEN – Stop calling these psychopaths atheists and we’ll stop calling them Christians. Just because we don‘t believe in God doesn’t mean we support communism, Marxism or genocide.

      Report Post » NJBarFly  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:29pm

      @philly

      I did word that very poorly. My fault, but I don’t agree it makes your point because we are drawing two different conclusions from the same poorly worded argument.

      I was demonstrating that you cannot complain about subsidies under the paradigm you stated without freeing me from subsidizing things I disagree with.

      You take it to mean that it is acceptable to force people to act against their religious conscience because we currently do so in some situations. Obviously one bad act does not justify the other making the premise of the argument false.

      This was entirely my mistake and you were justified in your conclusion that I was proving your point given the context of thread and the way I worded that embarrassingly poor argument. Mea Culpa.

      Report Post »  
  • wildbluyonder11
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:43am

    What gets me is that these atheist groups aren’t in it to make things better for their group, they are simply there to make things worse for religious groups. If you don’t believe, that’s your problem, don’t try to force your ideals on those who do believe. If you have no morals, no core convictions, no sense of your place in God’s plan, again, that’s your problem. These groups like to throw out that “separation of church and state” fallacy around all the time, yet they don’t seem to have a problem with lobbying the government to force policy onto religious groups, they only have a problem when religious groups try to influence the government. If there is this “separation”, as they say, wouldn’t it go both ways? If you don’t want religion forced on you, then we don’t want government forced on our religion. That is ACTUALLY what the First Amendment is all about, keeping the government out of the church, not the other way around. Given the state of our politicians today, I would argue that these people need all the religion they can get.

    Report Post »  
  • Warpspeedpetey
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:39am

    More irrational atheist demands to force their secular religious views down the throats of the religious majority. These silly putzes don’t even have girlfriends why do they need birth control?

    Report Post »  
  • shogun459
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:36am

    These Facists will never stop untill every Christian Bible is burned, every Christian meeting in secret or locked in a re-education camp. Just like China does.
    Bet you anything they are socialists or communists as well.

    Report Post » shogun459  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:58am

      um, no, no, and no. you’re paranoid. and wrong.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:27am

      Got evidence he is wrong there Philly?

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:37am

      PETEY – which part? the whole thing is nonsensical. Atheists aren’t burning Bibles, aren’t forcing anyone into secret meetings, and i‘m pretty sure there aren’t any reeducation camps. if i’m wrong, please provide the evidence that these things are happening.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • henryKnox
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:38am

      You are actually right on. The pathway is lighted so brightly that it is hard to deny. It this was not their goal then why would they be attacking religion? Are their rights being denied? No. They are only concerned about others’ rights. This is really what lets us know their intentions.

      Report Post » henryKnox  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:11pm

      @Philly

      Atheists did all those things in China and many other countries. Unless you have some evidence that such things are not the intention of atheists here as he said, his point seems made. things like this appeal to the administration do look a lot like proto fascism to me.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:23pm

      “Unless you have some evidence that such things are not the intention of atheists here”

      so i need to provide evidence that something that someone is speculating will happen in the future is going to happen? talk about an unreasonable request. you do realize you have serious problems with logic, right?

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:54pm

      @Philly

      The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Atheists have done these things in every single society they have controlled for almost a century now. We are justified in believing that atheists are dangerous based on the empirical evidence. If you want top state our belief is unjustified you need evidence.

      Report Post »  
  • drrgb
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:36am

    Atheism is a religion for the self absorbed.

    Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:00am

      without all the dogmas, supernatural beliefs, services, rituals, and tithing. works for me.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:10am

      When Self is the god… Death is the End of World… but, wait, the World still Exists!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:25am

      @Philly…….all the dogmas, supernatural beliefs, services, rituals, and tithing

      You do all those things. You have dogmatic secular beliefs, you have supernatural beliefs like empiricism, you have atheist services like the Rally for Reason, you have rituals like trolling and you tithe when you donate to atheist causes. Pot.Kettle.Black.

      Report Post »  
    • drrgb
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:37am

      You do your thing and I will do mine. I just object to you sanctimoniously trying to take away my rights.

      Report Post »  
    • phillyatheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:40am

      PETEY – tithing is giving a percentage of your income on a regular basis. Atheists may donate to secular groups, but it’s not the same as tithing. the Reason Rally was a one time event, not a weekly occurrence. and if we have dogmas, they are reality based as opposed to supernatural.

      Report Post » phillyatheist  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:49am

      It seems that every discussion on religion here ends up with some less than brilliant people making the absolutely asinine assertion that not believing in god is a religion. Yes I belong to that “religion”. I’m also an active member of the “I don’t believe in gargoyles” religion. We also have a prayer group that meets on Wednesday…part of the “I don’t believe in Martians” religion. I have a busy spiritual schedule.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:01pm

      @Philly

      To tithe means to donate ten percent of an amount. It seems a distinction without much difference.

      Many atheist groups have regular meetings. Rally‘s may be more akin to revivals but you’re playing semantic games. You would feel the same way if it Christians were asked to donate ambiguous amounts as well or if they held services infrequently. You do all the things that you are condemning.

      As to atheist dogmas they are not based in reality. I have yet to see an atheist raise any objections to theism that was rational in the formal sense. I mean really. Empiricism? Epistemologists killed that theory nearly fifty years ago because it turned out to be a logical contradiction. The scientific method? That’s is specifically limited to empirical propositions. SM cannot make any statement concerning arguments involving a metaphysical proposition. Can’t prove a universal negative? The Principle of Non-Contradiction is a negative we base formal logic on. Claims concerning extraordinary events? That’s the Fallacy of Incredulity. The Bible isn’t sufficient evidence? Atheists believe in claims that are much less well evidenced like the original Magna Carta, the Battle of Thermopylae. And on and on.

      When I say atheists are ignorant or irrational I mean that in the most formal of senses. they can’t even object to theism without logical error. It’s ridiculous to say that atheist dogma is based in reality.

      Report Post »  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:19pm

      @Conservative

      Atheism is a view point concerning religious truth. So is my religion. You say there is none, I say it’s Catholic. A Hindu says we’re both wrong. Seems to me that atheism meets the bare requirements of religion in that it holds a view of religious truth. That does not make it theism, but the religion label is harder to dodge.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:25pm

      Petey, Petey. Petey. Just about everything you said is absolute nonsense and garbage. It’s pointless to even have a discussion with you on this nutty topic. I as an atheist don’t belong to any atheist groups. Never been to an atheist rally. Don’t donate to any atheist causes(as no such causes exist).

      You, my friend, are confusing atheists with anti-religion activists. Pay attention…being an atheist simply means you don’t believe in god, period. No more, no less. Got it now? Good.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:14pm

      @Conservative.

      You are claiming that atheists do not do all the things listed. Those people are a separate group from atheists called “anti religion activists”. Yet having been an atheist as a teenager and knowing a great many atheists, I know those people also refer to themselves as atheists. Are you proposing that they are not True Scotsman…..er, I mean atheists?

      And you can donate to atheist causes, a great many groups will take your money to advance the atheist agenda.

      Further, by repeating your religious views “there is no G-d” you are making a statement concerning religious truth. That is the exact same thing that religions do. I don’t see how that helps your case.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 6:25pm

      I submit. It’s hopeless. Go on and keep calling a table a chair. Fill yer boots.

      If you and other believers insist on assuming all atheists are the same as anti-religion activists then I guess it’s fine for me to lump all believers in with the likes of those Westboro Baptists right? Or even those believers who strap bombs to their butts and blow people up. Yes, makes perfect sense, after all, you all believe in god. Same, same.

      Your arguments make no sense whatsoever and what’s worse, I think you know it.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 7:08pm

      @Conservative

      They are believers. Just because we don‘t like their actions doesn’t mean they aren’t. Your mostly just hand waving here making assertions without justifying them. You have a view on religious truth right? Then why is it so important to act as though you don’t? Most theists are going to believe atheism is its own religion because of that. It doesn’t make you a theist. I just don’t see the harm in admitting the obvious.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 7:30pm

      Wow, what a pointless discussion. Ok, I’ll try again. You ask if I have a view on religious truth. What kind of nonsensical question is that? What is “a view on religious truth”? Beats me. But somehow, according to you, anybody who has a view on religious truth is in a religion. So in your view then, everybody on earth is part of a religion of some sort. You clearly don’t understand what the word religion means. Look it up.

      If you’re asking me if I believe in god or not, the answer is no. This does not constitute a religion and if you can‘t understand that then I’m afraid I can’t help you. I also don’t believe in Santa Claus, this also doesn’t constitute a religion. You seem like an intelligent person and so I’ll assume you are either being purposely obstinate or maybe just trying to elicit an angry response from me. :o)

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:01pm

      ***What is “a view on religious truth”?

      It is an opinion concerning religion what’s true, what’s not and so forth.

      ***You clearly don’t understand what the word religion means. Look it up.

      re·li·gion
         [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
      noun
      1.
      a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
      2.
      a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
      3.
      the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

      *** If you’re asking me if I believe in god or not, the answer is no.

      This statement is an opinion on religious truth. The same activity at the heart of every religion. That does not mean you‘re a theist if that’s the issue. They are two different things.

      ***You seem like an intelligent person and so I’ll assume you are either being purposely obstinate or maybe just trying to elicit an angry response from me.

      Thank you, but no I am trying to get you to admit that atheism is a religion in some sense even if it is not theist.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative-Atheist
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:35pm

      I’m dumbfounded. You just posted the meaning of the word religion and proved my point but it‘s like you can’t read it or something.

      1. Atheism is not a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It simply means I don’t believe in one of any number of explanations available.

      2. Atheism is not a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. It only means I don’t believe in god.

      3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices…obviously there is no body because atheism is not a particular set of beliefs and practices. It is just a term to describe one who does not believe in god, allah…whatever you want to call him/her/it.

      Don’t you see the contradiction in your argument? You assert that anyone who has an opinion on whether there is a god or not, is part of a religion. That’s absurd. That includes everyone on the planet. Anyway, this is a non debate, there is no question that in fact atheism is not a religion. You can continue to say it is all you like, that’s the beauty of free speech, you’re free to be demonstrably wrong and express it proudly.

      Report Post » Conservative-Atheist  
    • Warpspeedpetey
      Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:49pm

      1. Atheism is not a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It simply means I don’t believe in one of any number of explanations available.

      - You’re arguing the null set is an empty set here. Having a negligible belief is still a belief. You admit to believing that religious explanation is excluded. That is a belief concerning religious truth. Specifically, it’s not true!

      2. Atheism is not a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. It only means I don’t believe in god.

      You admit that atheism is the state of not believing in G-d. You also must admit that there is a large collection of people who share that same belief and practice. This all seems very obvious to me.

      +You assert that anyone who has an opinion on whether there is a god or not, is part of a religion. That’s absurd. That includes everyone on the planet.

      I asserted anyone with an opinion about religious truth is practicing a religion, because the most basic and common property of religion is to have an opinion on religious truth. I don’t think that is absurd merely because it includes nearly everyone. Many propositions concerning humanity involve nearly everyone. Is it absurd to say that everyone has an aesthetic opinion? Of course not. You seem to be defining religion as theism while that is not the case. We will just have to disagree.

      Report Post »  
  • drphil69
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:35am

    So it is unconstitutional to NOT force religious institutions to violate their beliefs. Yeah, I heard the U.S. was founded on that…

    I have an idea, HOW ABOUT THE FEDS LEAVE US ALONE AND STOP DICTATING TO US!

    Report Post »  
  • CougarNick78
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:34am

    Don’t worry, secularists, your champion will trump the rights of the majority and let you reign, for at least a short will.

    Report Post » CougarNick78  
  • Cavallo
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:11am

    Hopefully the bobocare act will be struck down by the SCOTUS, so all of it goes out the window and the religious mandate with it. If not, we’ll just have to hope that Romney gets elected in November, although if bobocare is held as constitutional, then it doesn’t matter at all who gets into power.

    Report Post » Cavallo  
  • lukerw
    Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:07am

    No Act of Congress under the Constitution is Legal… if it cites Religion or Family Status… which makes most Tax Collection and Benefits to be Illegal!

    Report Post » lukerw  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love