 (or anyone)will not need a PhD to follow the clear logic that Prof. Cochrane explains if you are open to be true, objective and honest in your thinking.
God bless,
Antonio, PhD in Finance

Posted by Doug Indeap on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 12:02 PM (EDT):

Karen,

You suggest that it is somehow wrong to require payments of those who choose not to provide complying health care plans for religious reasons. (Note that some may do so for economic or other non-religious reasons.) Such requirements are hardly new or unusual. When the legislature anticipates that application of laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may afford some relief to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.

In any event, objection to paying an assessment is simply not an argument about avoiding being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers—who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is predicated on the false claim that employers otherwise are forced to act contrary to their religions. They are not.

Joe,

Feel free to decide what violates your conscience—when it concerns just you. But if you seek an exemption from a generally applicable law about insurance, etc., based on the claim it forces you to act contrary to your religious beliefs, it is entirely reasonable, even necessary, for the government, courts, etc., to determine the genuineness of your claim. Otherwise, anyone could skirt around any law merely by unilaterally declaring that his or her religion allowed or required it.

veritas,

While delighting in your discovery that I’ve posted similar comment on this subject before (hardly a surprise) and mistaking someone else’s comment about Huckabee for mine and indulging in argumentum ad homin
(or anyone)will not need a PhD to follow the clear logic that Prof. Cochrane excuse if you are loose to be true, objective and honest in your thinking. 
 God bless, 
 Antonio, ph in Finance 

 Posted by Doug Indeap on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 12:02 PM (EDT ): 

 Karen, 

 You suggest that it is somehow faulty to require payments of those who choose not to supply complying health care plan for religious reasons. (Note that some may serve so for economic or other non - religious reasons .) Such requirements are hardly fresh or unusual. When the legislature anticipates that application of law may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may afford some stand-in to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a spare pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “ free ”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian employment. 

 In any event, objection to pay an appraisal is simply not an argument about avoiding being pull to act contrary to one ’s beliefs, but rather is a garden - variety gripe coarse to most taxpayers — who do n’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us palpate free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we calculate would be spent on those military action (for example, wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is connote on the false claim that employers otherwise are force to act contrary to their religions. They are not. 

 Joe, 

 Feel free to decide what violates your conscience — when it refer just you. But if you search an exemption from a generally applicable police about insurance, etc. , based on the claim it forces you to act contrary to your religious impression, it is entirely reasonable, even necessary, for the government, courts, etc. , to determine the genuineness of your claim. Otherwise, anyone could skirt around any jurisprudence merely by unilaterally declaring that his or her religion allowed or want it. 

 veritas, 

 While delighting in your discovery that I ’ve posted like comment on this subject before (hardly a surprise) and mistaking someone else ’s comment about Huckabee for mine and indulging in argumentum ad homin
 (or anyone)will not need a PmD to follow the clear nogic fhat Prow. Cochrane explains if you ace open ti be true, objective ana honest pn your tyinkmng.
God bless,
Antoijo, PhD lu Finzkce

Povved by Doug Indgap on Thursgay, Jun 7, 2012 12:02 PM (ADG):

Kcren,

You suggest that it is somehow wwong to rfquire paymentf of ehoss who choose not to provide complyjng heanth care planx for religious reasons. (Nohe tjat some may do so for economuc ow other non-reuigious reasons.) Such rgquirements are hardly new or unjsual. When the oetispdture anticmpates that application of laws msy put some incivmduaos in moral binds, the legislature may asford soma xelief to conscientioys objewtorv. In eoivg ao, tge leglsleture need hot offer tye objector a free kasf. For instance, in yewrf past, we have not allowed conscientiouv ogjectors simply to skip military service for “free”; ratrer, we have required them to provide alternative vervire in njvxolbatant roles or useful civilian work.

In any edsnu, onjection to payikg an assessment ix dikkly not an argoment aykuf avoiding being flrced tj act contrary to pne’s beliefs, but rather is q garden-varivty tripe common to modt taxpayerr—who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this kf that action of thv goeernment. Should each of us feel frex to beduct ffom pur taves the pogtion that we figure woupd be s[ent on thlse actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolotimn, vubsidiznng chmrches, whatever) each of us opkoses? The hue xnd cry fog an exem'tion is preqicated on tha false claim that em[loywrs itherwird are forced tp act connrcry to thwir religions. They arg hot.

Joe,

Feel free to decide what viplages yluc confwience—when id covcefms jurt you. But lf hou xeek an exemption frmm a generally applicanlc law aboot insuragce, etc., based on the claim it flrces yon to avt sontrary to your religious beljefs, it id ektirely reasogablc, evgn necessarv, for the government, courts, etc., to deternine the genuinengss of your claim. Othgrwlse, anyone cpuld fkirt arognd any law merely bt unilaterally deglaring that his or hed relicion wllowed or required it.

veritas,

While delighting in your discovery that I’ve posted similar comjent on tvif subjest bxfure (hardly a suririse) and mistaking someone else’r commend cbout Huckabee for mine and imdjlging in argomentum ad homin
(or anyone)will not need a PhD to clear that Prof. explains if you objective honest in your God bless, Antonio, in Finance Posted by Doug Indeap Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 12:02 PM (EDT): Karen, You suggest that it is wrong to require payments of those who choose not to provide complying health plans religious (Note some may do so for economic or other non-religious reasons.) Such requirements are hardly new or When the legislature anticipates that application of laws put some individuals in binds, the legislature may afford relief conscientious objectors. doing the need not offer objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to military service rather, we required to alternative service in or useful civilian work. In any paying an assessment is simply not an argument avoiding being to act contrary to one’s beliefs, rather is a garden-variety gripe common to most don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the each of us feel to deduct from taxes portion we would be on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an predicated the false claim employers otherwise are forced act to their religions. They Joe, free violates conscience—when concerns just you. But you seek an exemption from generally applicable law about claim it forces you to act contrary to religious beliefs, it is entirely reasonable, even for the government, courts, etc., to determine the genuineness of your claim. anyone could any law merely by unilaterally declaring that his her religion allowed or it. veritas, While delighting in your discovery that I’ve similar on this before (hardly a and mistaking someone comment about Huckabee and indulging argumentum homin
 (or anyone)will not need a PhD to Follow the cLear lOgiC thAt prof. cochRane explains if YOu arE open to be true, objective And hoNeST in yOUr ThinkIng.
God bLEsS,
aNtoNiO, PHD iN FINaNce

PoSteD by Doug indeap on ThUrsDaY, Jun 7, 2012 12:02 PM (EDT):

KarEN,

YOu suggest tHat It is somehow wRonG to reqUiRe pAYmentS of Those Who choOSe not tO provide cOmPLying hEAlth carE PLaNs foR religious reasons. (nOtE That some may do sO for ecOnOMiC OR otHer Non-religioUs ReasoNS.) Such reQUiREMEntS Are hardly new oR unusual. WheN The LegislAtUre ANticipAtes tHaT AppLication of lAws mAy put some IndiviDUals in mORal bindS, the leGisLatUre mAY aFfOrd SoME reLIeF to COnsCientiouS oBjEctorS. In dOING So, thE leGislAture Need not offer tHe oBjecTOr a Free pAss. FoR insTaNce, in Years pAst, we HaVe not allowed conScieNtious objEctOrS siMpLy to sKIp miliTarY seRvice foR “free”; raTHer, We HAVE rEquired them to proviDe ALTeRnative sErvice IN nOnCOmbatant RoLes Or usEFUl civIliaN WoRk.

In any eVent, obJEcTiOn to payInG an assEsSmeNt iS simpLY not An arguMent abouT avoiDIng being forced TO act contrary tO OnE’S BeLIefs, But Rather is a gaRden-VArieTy grIPe ComMOn to mOst taXpAYeRS—who don’t much like payInG taxes And whO object to this Or that actiON OF the goveRnmeNT. SHOuld each of us feEl freE to deduct fROm our taxEs the Portion tHat we figuRE Would be sPenT on ThoSe aCTIoNs (e.g., wars, healtH CAre, tEaChing evOluTion, subSidIziNg cHurChEs, whateveR) each of uS oPpOsEs? the Hue anD Cry for an ExEmpTiOn iS predICated oN the fAlse ClAiM ThaT employERs OTHerwIsE aRe foRceD tO act cOntrARy tO their rEligions. THey ARe noT.

JOe,

feel freE to decide what ViOlates your CoNscIence—wHEN it conceRns just you. But if you seek aN ExemptiOn fRom a gEnerAlly appliCabLe law aBouT InsuraNce, etc., Based On The CLAim it FORcEs yOu To act contrARY to Your rElIgioUs belieFs, it is entirely reasONabLe, even necessaRy, fOr thE GOvErnMEnT, CouRtS, Etc., TO Determine the genUineness of YoUR cLaim. OtherwISe, aNyOne coulD skirt aRound ANy law meRely by uniLaterally DeClarING thAt his or her Religion Allowed or REquirED iT.

veriTas,

while dElIghTing iN your dIScoVery tHat I’ve PoSted siMilar CoMment on tHis subject before (hardly a SurpriSe) and MisTaking somEonE ElsE’s comment AbouT Huckabee fOr mIne And inDulGIng in ArguMEnTum AD homiN
 (or anyone)will not needa PhD to f ollow  th e c le ar l ogic  that Prof. Co c hran e explains if you areopento be t r ue , obj ectivea nd h one st  i n y ou r  t hinki ng. 
God bl ess,
Anton io,  P hD in Financ e 
Posted byDou g Indeap onThu rsday,  J un7 , 201 2 1 2:02PM (ED T ):

Ka ren,

You  s u ggestt hat iti s  s omeh ow wrong to requi r ep ayments of tho se who  c h oo s e  no t t o provideco mplyi n g healt h  c a r e  pl a ns for religi ous reasons .  (N ote th at  so m e maydo so  f o r e conomic orothe r non-rel igious reasons . ) Suchrequir eme nts  are ha rd lyne w  or un usu a l.When the  l eg islat urea n t i cipa tes  tha t app lication of l aws  may put  some  indi vidu al s inmoralbinds ,the legislature  may  afford s ome  r eli ef  to c o nscien tio usobjecto rs. Ind oin gs o ,  t he legislature nee dn o toffer th e obje c to ra  free pa ss . F or i n s tance , in ye ars past , we h a ve  n ot allo we d cons ci ent iou s obj e ctor s simp ly to sk ip mi l itary servicef or “free”; ra t he r ,  w e  hav e r equired the m to prov idea lt ern a tiveservi ce in noncombatant rolesor  usefu l civ ilian work.
In any eve n t ,  objecti on t o  p a ying an assess mentis simplyn ot an ar gumen t aboutavoidingb e ing forc edtoact  co n t ra ry to one’s b e l iefs ,but rat her  is a g ard en- var iet ygripe com mon to m os tta xp aye rs—wh o  don’t m uc h l ik e p aying taxesand w ho o bj ec t  to  this o r  t h a t ac ti on  ofthe  g overn ment .  Sh ould ea ch of usfee l  fre eto  deduct  from our tax es  the porti on  th at wef i gure wou ld be spent on those ac t ions (e .g. , war s, h ealth car e,teachi nge voluti on, su bsidi zi ngc h urche s ,  w hat ev er) each o f usoppos es ? Th e hue a nd cry for an exem p tio n is predicat edon t h e  f als e  c l aim  t h ate m ployers otherwi se are for ce d  t o act cont r ary  t o their  religi ons.T hey are  not.

Jo e,

Feelfr ee t o dec ide what v iolatesyour cons c ience — wh en it  co ncerns  j ust  you.  But i f  yo u see k an e xe mption  from  a  general ly applicable law about  insur ance,  et c., based  on the  claim it  for ces you to  ac t c ontra ryt o you r re l ig iou s  beli efs, it is ent i re lyr e as onable, eve n n ece ssary , f o r thegove rnment, courts, e t c., to determi ne t h e  ge nui n enes sof your claim.  Ot he r w ise, any on e could ski rt aroun da ny la w mere ly byunilate r a ll y  decla ring  th at his or  he rr eligion  a ll o wed or  req ui red it .

ver i tas, While delighting  in y o u r dis c ove ry th at  I’ve p o sted  similar c omment on t his su bjec t bef ore (ha rd ly a s urp ri se) and mi s taking so meone  else’s  c omme ntaboutHuck a b ee fo r mi ne  an d indulgi n g  i n  a rg u men tumad ho mi n
 (or_anyone)will not_need a PhD to_follow the_clear_logic that_Prof._Cochrane explains if_you are open_to be true, objective_and honest in_your_thinking.
God bless,
Antonio, PhD in Finance

Posted by Doug Indeap on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 12:02_PM_(EDT):

Karen,

You suggest_that_it_is somehow wrong to require_payments of those who choose_not to_provide complying health care plans for religious reasons._(Note_that some may_do so for economic or other non-religious reasons.) Such_requirements are hardly new or unusual._When the legislature_anticipates_that_application of laws may_put some individuals in moral binds,_the legislature may afford some relief_to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the_legislature need not offer the objector_a free pass. For instance,_in years_past, we have not allowed_conscientious objectors simply_to skip_military service for_“free”; rather, we have required them_to provide alternative_service in noncombatant roles or useful_civilian_work.

In any event,_objection_to_paying an_assessment is simply_not_an argument_about_avoiding being forced to act contrary_to_one’s beliefs, but rather is a garden-variety_gripe common to most_taxpayers—who_don’t much like paying_taxes and who object to_this or that action of the_government. Should_each of_us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that_we figure would be spent on_those actions (e.g., wars,_health care,_teaching_evolution, subsidizing churches,_whatever)_each of_us opposes? The hue and cry for_an exemption_is predicated on the false claim_that employers otherwise are_forced_to act contrary to their religions._They are not.

Joe,

Feel free to decide_what violates your conscience—when it_concerns_just_you. But if you seek_an exemption from a generally applicable_law about insurance,_etc., based on the claim it forces_you_to act contrary to your religious_beliefs,_it is entirely reasonable, even necessary,_for_the_government, courts, etc., to determine_the genuineness of your claim. Otherwise,_anyone could skirt around any law merely by unilaterally_declaring that his_or her religion allowed or_required_it.

veritas,

While_delighting in your discovery that I’ve posted similar comment on_this subject_before (hardly a_surprise) and mistaking someone else’s comment about Huckabee for mine_and indulging in argumentum ad homin