Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's funny...I didn't even put this together until today:


The very same people who are crying foul about government interfering with their religious and personal moral beliefs - when it comes to equal opportunity insurance coverage -

are the VERY SAME people who are trying to get passed, a Constitutional Amendment that will define what is marriage and that will ban gay marriage FOR ALL PEOPLE , not just their own religious followers.


So, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that pretty much the definition of arrogant, hypocritical, and obnoxious behavior?


So, this morally right group has no problem with state and federal laws that will rule all people based on their religion (which crushed other people's religious and personal moral ideals, but will have a hissy fit and cry foul because the government just wants them to provide fair and equal insurance coverage to all people)


And the kicker is...when it comes to birth control...if all the religiously insured feel the same way (about birth control) - nobody will be using that coverage anyways.


But if somebody was to plan on using the coverage...then it sounds like the religious insurance Inc is planning on controlling other peoples lives against their own planning.


Yeah..it's all beginning to look clear now:


It's not about one own religious freedom..it's about ones religious beliefs on others.


Again, if they do not believe in the pill or abortion...then it wouldn't be a problem anyways, would it since they wouldn't be getting/using that option.


Yeah, that just leave only one answer: control!


Next thing you know...they will being starting the Salem witch trials all over again!


Edited for clarity which unfortunately makes the humor of some of the following posts less biting. :) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"So, correct me if I am wrong."


You are certainly wrong in at least some of what you say when you suggest that all this is "pretty much the definition of arrogant, hippocritical, and obnoxious behavior"


One grows weary of folks hurling charges of being "hippocritical" at others.

It's a great word... etymologically fascinating, and very innovative. But you've misused it here. So here is the requested correction:


Hippocritical: Essential to being a hippopotamus.

Example: Arteodactylism, being semi-aquatic, and being herbivorous, are all hippocritical qualities; an animal that does not have them, is not a hippopotamus.

Common misuse: "Hippocritical" is frequently mistaken to mean "to find fault with hippos or judge them as deficient in some way." But this would be foolish, because Hippos don't tolerate it well. And after plasmodium falciparum, they may be the most dangerous critter in Africa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So, correct me if I am wrong"

Ok, you are confusing two seperate arguments that are not the same. One is an attempt to codify the popular belief that mariage is an institution that should be reserved for couples of the opposite gender, the other is the government trying to force institutions with religious convictions to provide services that they believe are morally wrong. Literally, the proposed legislation is trying to force the Catholic church to provide health coverage to its employees for birth control and abortion. I for one, do not believe that we (the government of the people) should be forcing anyone to do anything diametrically opposed to their convictions, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.


"will have a hissy fit and cry foul because the government just wants them to provide fair and equal insurance coverage to all people"

I would support the plan if all it did was provide ACCESS to coverage not MANDATE coverage. This is America and people have the right to be stupid. However forcing people to do something "for their own good" because the government said so seems a little. . .I don't know. . .oppressive, totalitarian, imperious, despotic, take your pick.


And, not for nothing Scoutfish, do you really think healthcare brought to you by the same people who brought you the IRS, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and banking regulations is a good idea?(This message has been edited by pchadbo)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late at night, and tryin' to parse these arguments was a bit too much for me.


However, Callooh Callay's bit about the hippopotamus definitely brought me to the end of a frabjous day.


Does anyone remember the ditty about the amorous hippopotamus? Mud, mud, glorious mud! Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood! Or, well, flinging around. ;)




Link to post
Share on other sites

Yaeh, I like the hippo comment! :)


Point being


the group of people are crying foul that the government says you have to OFFER - not use - the option of buying birth control and/or abortion. they are not mandating that anybody will have to use it.


But in the medical world, people use birth control for more than birth control. Abortions are not only used as birthb control either.

The government did not say you had to take it, just that it would be there IF you wanted to.


And trhe hospital assume that only people with the exact same like beliefs will go to that hospital.


That is false! I went to a Baptist Hospital for my cancer - not because of shared religious beliefs - but because the Dr who performed my first cancer surgery strongly suggested that I go to the next hospital because of their specuializing in my condition.



So, if all the people who use that insurance feel the same way..then what's the problem? If they don't believe in it, then it won't get used.


But if they do......then the group is denying trhem something based on different beliefs.


So the government is basically saying: You are denying something based on a difference of religious opinion, and that amounts to control.


NOw, this same group of people who are crying foul - about the governemnt interfering witrh people's private personal beliefs, as well as moral beliefs, .....wants to pass a Constitutional amendment - which applies to all citizens of the US- regardless of the varying and different ethical, moral , and religious beliefs.


So this "morally correct" group wants to impose laws that affect everybody...no matter what the peoples beliefs are...and make it a legal , apply to all federal and state law.




What happened to "treat others as you want to be treated"?


What happened to "do unto others" ?


There has not been a day that some members of some of ( notice I am not saying all members of all groups)these religious groups have not posted on facebook or the newspaper that they are being persecuted or predjudiced against for their beliefs.



Yet...they are doing the very same thing they cry out against.


Definition of HYPOCRITE

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

hypocrite adjective


And I think even the hippos and hipocrits will agree with this! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Catholic Church is not the only one concerned about the law now. A Protestant association, sorry cannot remember which one, that also has outreach programs and universities that will be affected by the contraception and abortion mandates has also spoken out against it. While this group is not as large as the Catholic Church, they are also raising awareness and protesting ti on the same grounds.


Also I read somewhere that 7 states are now suing over the mandate. Their argument is similar to the others, and they say their are affected by it since it appears that religious organization may drop insurance coverage, forcing many to get onto state programs, hence increasing the money spent by the states on these programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"it appears that religious organization may drop insurance coverage, forcing many to get onto state programs"


What surprises me is that anyone is surprised. Wasn't that the grand plan all along? To force everyone into a single-payer system controlled by the Government?



Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you right now, if we go to a single payer system, we will have MAJOR problems recruiting and keeping physicians.


I personally know of physicians getting so fed up with CMS and insurance companies, that as soon as they can retire, if they haven't already, they will. I know of practices that no longer accept Medicare/Medicaid patients. I know of physicians that are so tired of dealing with the beauracracy that they are selling their practices to become employees of larger healthcare organizations.


And don't get me started on the hospital side of things. We have a department whose only purpose is to handle denials. In fact there are 3rd party companies out there that hospitals can hire to handle the denial process.


But what really steams me is when there is a denial by someone in the gov. with no background in that specialty, denying payment b/c it's not an "acceptable procedure" with the government, when it is an evidence-based procedure that 2 specialists wanted done, a 3rd party company that reviews procedures and handles denials said is appropriate, AND the national organization of specialists states in their latest guidelines that "if ABC happens, then do XYZ procedure as the latest studies show....."


Sorry to rant.


EDITED: Forgot to add, in one of the journals we get, sorry I cannot remember the exact one but I think it's WebMB, there was a survey of physicians that have been out of med school and practicing for a few years, i think it was 5 or less, who have stated that the consensus was that if they knew now all the BS they would have to deal with prior to applying to med school, they would not do it. In fact some would quit their practice if they didn't have all the loans. AND some have found ways to quit practicing, usually as consultants.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

Link to post
Share on other sites

quoted from above:


"Yet...they are doing the very same thing they cry out against.

Definition of HYPOCRITE

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

hypocrite adjective

And I think even the hippos and hipocrits will agree with this!"


end quote and begin prattle:


Hippos might agree with the definition but discount both the validity and the significance of the observation.


Strolling along the Nile one happy day, I spied a hippo. Warily I navigated past muddy puddles teaming with cercariae eager to afflict me with schistosomiasis, and approached as close as I dared.... to challenge this hippo on his hypocrisy in the very manner you suggest...


Says I to the Hippo:

Mr. Hippo, when Pharaoh decrees that meat must be on the menu at the Hippo smorgasbord, the Hippos object vociferously... "Pharaoh's authority does NOT extend to forcing a Hippo to violate his own conscience and his Hippocratic oath! We are herbivores!"

Now that is all well and good Mr. Hippo; you say that Pharaoh forcing you to serve meat is a wrongful imposition of his values onto your behavior. We peacocks can't help but preen our impressive plumage of compassion and tolerance as we wonder why you are so hateful toward poor animals that hunger for meat... but let us presume for the moment that your motives are pure and that you seek only to follow the Golden Rule. WHY THEN!?!? do you support Pharaoh when he refuses to decree that any animal that wishes to be a Hippopotamus, can be a Hippopotamus. You cruelly claim that there are certain traits critical to being a hippopotamus and that any animal lacking these hippo-critical traits, is not and cannot be a Hippopotamus... no matter how sad that makes him and no matter how hard he tries to mimic hippopotamus behavior. You are cruelly trying to force your hippopotamus values onto all. I say that you are not just being hippo-critical, but also hypocritical! If you really wanted to live and let live, as you protest that you do, you'd support a Pharaonic decree allowing any animal that thinks it is a hippopatamus to be a hippopotamus (and you'd probably be kinder to meat eaters by offering meat at your Hippo smorgasbord too). What say you, Mr. Hippo?


Says the Hippo to me:

Mr. Callooh! Callay!, you have outwitted yourself. You began with a false premise and from it derived a conclusion that wouldn't even follow if your premise were true. You have uncovered no hypocrisy. The comparison of phenomena you offer isn't an apples to apples comparison (mmm... we herbivores like apples). It's not even an apples to oranges comparison (mmm.... oranges are nice too). You've compared apples to um... well, pretty much the opposite of apples, whatever that is (hey these fruity analogies have their limitations and I'm just a hippo - I can't splain everything). And from this false premise you have concluded that there is something wrong with one or more of the Hippo positions on these issues. But that's a non sequitur. Even were Hippos all hypocrites, it would not follow that Hippo positions on any particular issue are wrong. Hippos could be right for wrong reasons, right reasons, or no reasons at all. And even regarding the values about which Hippos can be hypocritical... just because they may fail to live up to the standards they espouse, does not make them bad standards and does not invalidate the utility of advice they may offer based on those standards.


The banks of the Nile are slippery, and the Hippo slipped into verse as he continued to address me:


And by the way, Mr. Callooh Callay!


When Pharaoh reassures us

with gently smiling jaws

we'll immanentize the eschaton

if we but adopt his laws

When he chides us for our fear

of his benevolent guiding hand

And tells us that his love is such

that only fools can't understand...


It's then we ought recall

Caroll's take-off on Watts

that turned his Busy Bee verse round

to express these other thoughts:


"How doth the little crocodile

Improve his shining tail,

And pour the waters of the Nile

On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,

How neatly spreads his claws,

And welcomes little fishes in

With gently smiling jaws!"


And with that, the hippo turned, flatulated, and headed off for deeper waters.

As he waded off, over the noisome miasma of his flatulence, and the aggravating quality of his petulance, I couldn't help but perceive the logic of his argument... and wonder about crocodiles and health care.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callooh, though I'm partial to Eengonyama, after watching the video, I must admit you are correct, good sir. It would be a much better video, though, if all that soccer crap was deleted, and replaced with footage of placid hippos in rivers, or munching on grass at sunset....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well scoutfish, may be a little off, but I know what he is saying..


Religion does try to use the system while screaming church/state seperation if government may stomp on it's turf.. It is just when they use the system, they try not to make it religious, but "what is right" according to their belief system, (which is largely due to their religious beliefs)..


The anti-gay bills about marriage, although it is mainly made up of people who have been raised in a religious belief to this effect. It will be different religions of a similar belief in this particular region. Also it will include some homophobic people with no religious belief at all driving this belief.. (ie. you don't need to be LDS or Catholic (or whatever other religion believes this) trying to try to stop the fact that giving gays equality for marriage is slowly becoming a popular trend.)


Similarly Pro-life is not a single religious group trying to get the state to revert the law that legalized abortions. Again, mostly driven by religious individuals & groups, of this belief.. But, it is a few religions combining in this effort, and a sprinkling of non-religious people who have come to agree with them for whatever personal reasons..


Without these religions getting behind these fights they would be not strong at all.. But, they are not a single religion trying to drive government laws.


Still think Catholics are making a mountain out of a molehill, with the contraception insurance.. And any States jumping on the bandwagon, are doing so simply because they want to protest and put a monkey wrench into the government putting ANY package in place, and this just seems like a good enough bandwagon to jump on..


Personally I have not decided if government control of health insurance will be good or bad. All I know is this conflict is pretty ridiculous although entertaining.


Link to post
Share on other sites

" trying to try to stop the fact that giving gays equality for marriage is slowly becoming a popular trend.) "

If this is so popular, then why has it been defeated repeatedly at the polls? Why is the movement looking to do this through the courts rather than the legislatures where law making belongs?


"Still think Catholics are making a mountain out of a molehill, with the contraception insurance"

What is an acceptable response of the government forcing people to do that they feel is morally and ethically wrong? Moose, what would your resonse if the government said that you had to teach (as part of your BSA training) the value of adult/child relationships as presented by NAMBLA? Yes an extreme example but for the Catholics a similar moral spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...