Evidence for God from Science

Contrary to what some here think, religious persecution is alive and well in the good old U. S. of A.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/judges-nu ... bey-obama/

Immediatly thought of this

• Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"—"That's my seat, I was there first"—"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"— "Why should you shove in first?"—"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"—"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
  
  Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise.

What people will scream, Rick, is "THIS ISN'T RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!! THIS IS blah blah blah." And they'll try to tell you why this isn't really religious persecution after all. And, I would quite readily accept a bet that pretty much every example of religious persecution in the history of ever followed pretty much the same line of thought, or else this similar one: "Sure this is religious persecution in the strict sense, but not what you are thinking about. You are talking about a 'bad kind' of religious persecution like [insert example]. But this isn't that at all. This is just blah blah blah."

The underlying premise that everyone is accepting is that religious persecution really is bad, really is wrong. But THIS isn't really that at all. It either isn't religious persecution in any sense of the word, and you and the Little Sisters are just misinterpreting it (which seems to me the court's position), or else, yeah, it may be religious persecution in some narrow, trivial sense, but it's not real persecution. It's just a necessary evil to ensure the common good or something like that.

The fact remains, this is religious persecution by our government. You are not allowed to be a thorough going Catholic/classical Christian employer or Catholic/classical Christian ministry anymore. To hell with your standards. If you try to operate your business or ministry in accordance with your faith, the government will shut you down.

It's despicable.

Seriously.
Well I can say I don't think its persecution in some narrow, trivial sense but in the sense that there is no persecution at all going on.
This article is a very dishonest, sensationalised poor piece of journalism if it can even be called journalism. This is the problem with these issues, not presenting the facts accurately and completely misrepresenting the issues.
No matter how many times this article refers to abortion inducing drugs, it should be made very clear, that the drug in question and the ONLY drug is the contraceptive pill. NOT ABORTION INDUCING DRUGS. That is a lie, and is there for one purpose to sensationlise and propagate fear. It's pretty easy to spot, the media have been doing it for years, here we have an issue with the contraceptive pill being mandated to be covered by employer funded health insurance, nothing at all to do with abortion or abortion inducing medication, but yet ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION is splashed all over the article as if it actually has some reason for being mentioned. That's one way to get conservative Christians in a flap mention ABORTION. Well relax people, take a deep breath, nuns are not being forced to hand out abortion pills to their employees. Even though this dishonest article has no issue with presenting it that way.
I will post a little more honest article addressing the same issue, it may bring some clarity. It is unbiased and I tend to find that is usually the safest most accurate way to get your news.
Now before I go on, I have to make one thing clear that people should already know but there is so much disinformation out there I just thought I should mention that the contraceptive pill is NOT abortive. Don't take my word for it, do some research.
What the issue here is employers have been mandated to cover the contraceptive pill in their employer funded healthcare. Women don't have to take it, nobody is forcing them, they are not being handed out like lollipops, the same procedures are in place, they must go to their doctor, get a prescription then go to the pharmacy. But it is covered, so that it is affordable. What a brilliant idea. The right wing conservative Christians should be jumping up and down in their pews, a solution to all those unborn children being murdered. It's profound, help stop the flow of unwanted pregnancies, lessen the abortion rate.
Now the next very important issue that this article neglects to bring to light, is religious groups like little sisters are exempt but not completely. They can refuse to offer contraception under their funded insurer but they have to sign it off to a third party. So basically 'your uncomfortable having it under your elected insurer, so it can transferred to another, you just have to sign here'. Bang. Done.
Not good enough according to these nuns.
Now it's religious persecution.
What a load of rubbish.
Religious stupidity more like it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07 ... rage-case/

Melanie,

Some contraceptive pills are abortifacients. Specifically, if the pill, which is supposed to prevent fertilization, is taken after fertilization occurs. Then it becomes an abortifacient.

It's worth noting, however, that most contraceptive pills have a reduced chance of flushing out a fertilized egg (VS the case of not being on birth control), in the event that an egg does become fertilized.
Though the emergency "morning after" pills may be sketchier than the regular contraceptives.

No Rick
That is false.
The contraceptive pill stops ovulation occurring. No ovulation no pregnancy. This mandate only covers the contraceptive pill.

Just to touch on what FI just said here is a little biology.
When a woman ovulates and the sperm successfully reaches it target the zygote must then make its way down the Fallopian tube and attach itself to the uterine wall. Majority of the time this attachment does not occur and the zygote is expelled through mentsruation. The woman is unaware. The figures show that this happens up to 80% of the time but a more conservative estimate is at the very least half the time. So fertilised zygotes are naturally aborted often. The contraceptive pill largely eliminates this happening as it stops ovulation from occurring therefore a much slighter chance of zygotes naturally aborting.

Why would Nuns need the pill?
-
-
-

They run homes for the elderly, it is for their employees

B. W. wrote:Why would Nuns need the pill?
-
-
-

Hehe that made me laugh.

It is not false, mel. But more to the point, even if it were, it wouldn't affect the original point. Perhaps you can say that some organizations like Hobby Lobby have concerns that are honest but scientifically misinformed, but you cannot say that about the Little Sisters. They object on religious grounds to any and all contraceptions, not just abortifacients.

Now, I am not in their camp, but I am terribly worried that their camp is under attack. It's a short step from telling them they can't practice their religion to telling me I can't practice mine.

I beg to differ. It was gross mispresentation of the issue. I think that's pretty clear.
They can be against it they just can't stop their employees having the right to change their policy to a third party to obtain it. Nor should they.
This has nothing at all to do with them practising their religion. That is not under attack.

You are mistaken. In Catholic theology there is a notion called material cooperation with evil. This absolutely meets that test. To give you a very real example, I work at a Catholic hospital. Following a written document we all have to read and know called the Ethical and Religious Directives (the ERDs for short), we cannot even hold fundraising events with organizations that materially support abortion providing services. So, for example, there are local organizations that focus on women's health that give money to, say, Planned Parenthood. Even though these organizations designate their money to go to non-abortion services (e.g., paying for free exams), we--the hospital, I mean--are not permitted to work with them (them being the local organization). The reason is that it would constitute a material cooperation with evil. In fact, let me just quote the article directly:

• Catholic health care organizations are not permitted to engage in immediate material cooperation in actions that are intrinsically immoral, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and direct sterilization.

That is directive 70. There is a footnote to that directive that states,

• “Any cooperation institutionally approved or tolerated in actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end . . . is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature (or intrinsically) evil.”

You can read all this for yourself here.

Now, you may disagree with their understanding of the matter. But you do not get to tell the Catholic Church (or any other Christian) how to understand their faith. And neither does the government. That is just religious persecution.

We see it differently Jac.
That is why they have the exempt to sign it off with a third party. A middle ground of protecting the rights of their religious beliefs whilst protecting the rights of the employee.

And I am telling you that is a violation of their religious beliefs. I posted official documentation showing how it violates their beliefs. I gave you personal experience within the industry explaining how I know it violates their belief. I appreciate the fact that YOU may think that's silly, but do YOU really want to claim that somebody else is the arbiter over whether or not a belief is reasonable? Do you have any evidence that they've misunderstood their own faith that you can educate them on? I don't think your opinion of what they ought or ought not to believe is really of very much weight here.

Now, as it happens, I agree with their belief. But that isn't what this is about. My point is just that there are very, very, very smart people who are convinced that signing that little form constitutes a grave sin. How would you feel if you were told that you were being FORCED to do something you were convinced was a grave sin because someone else thought it was silly?

That's religious persecution, mel. Freedom for everyone or freedom for none. You don't get to have it and then deny it to others just because you disagree with them.