Zealous Donkey

If the courts can decide against the Church in this case then the Bill of Right are absolute Bullshit, it would reduce the free exercise of religion to such a narrow scope as to be unrecognizable to what the founders intended. If the court can do this then they completely devoid of any restrictions to their power.

They are not letting them do whatever they want, they are trying to stop them from doing what they have always done.

Of course there are limitations, but certainly not in this case. These beliefs have been at the core of the Church for longer than this country has been in existence. If a religious organization is trying to circumvent the laws by declaring new religious reasons to be exempt from laws, then that is a case for the courts to decide.

Well it does directly go to sexual needs. The noncontraceptive medical use of birth control pills was already covered. If it were up to me I wouldn't cover that, but Georgetown does.

Freedom of relgion is covered in the Bill of Rights. Religious institutions are allowed by law to carry out their missions as they see fit without interference from government.

Why would you compel an orginization who is providing top notch education, health care, charity to the poor to do something that they are completely opposed to doing? We do have freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country. Especially when she has many other choices available to her. She is trying to dictate one "correct" point of view whcih is identicical to hers. I look at her with disdain for taking such action. To force these institutions into this situation is immoral. It amounts to religious bigotry and persecution.

She was lobbying congress to compel an institution to engage in an activity to which the institution is morally opposed. The institutions opposition is not secret and has been well known for hundreds if not thousands of years. For her to knowingly try to get those in power to compel an institution to sell its soul under the guise of saving a few bucks may not make her a slut, and it may not be against the law for her to do so, but it is still pretty darn sleazy.

Alinsky is very well known in every activist group of the left, for you to pretend that this is a bogey monster created by Fox is ridiculous. BTW I haven't watched longer than 5 minutes of Fox News in the the last 5 years. Barack Obama, and every single person in his administration is very, very well schooled in Alinsky.

I am sure there are isolated cases where both sides attempt different forms of fraud.The party that introduced Alynsky tactics into the political scene certainly would support wide scale fraud of any kind. The whole theme is the ends justify the means.

Election fraud is the issue. In my state it is especially bad. St. Louis and Kansas City have had a fraud machine in place for years. Other major cities do as well. That is your opinion, it is not a fact. If you can't show an ID and prove you are who you claim to be, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. It still won't stop all fraud, but it will make it alot harder.

Good Stuffhttp://reason.tv/video/show/remy-cough-drops-the-mandate-f"Look! I'm probin' somebody!"

Dude! Lighten Up! What's wrong with you? Did you get another tooth pulled? I had one pulled in January and I was off kilter for over a month.

Yes, actually my point was that Joe Paterno was a media villain but hundreds of Hollywood producers, actors, ect sign a petition in support of Roman Polanski who admitted to drugging and raping a young girl yet none of the people who sign this petition are harassed and run out of their jobs. Catholicism is completely responsible for priests that have abused children, but the public school system isn't responsible for the many more sexual abuse cases that occur in that system. If you want to have an honest debate about these things, I am game. Please don't misrepresent my arguments though.

Your so completely full of shit. So why doesn't she make arrangements with one of the many other insurance companies that routinely cover such things? She doesn't have to associate with such "archaic" religious organizations if she doesn't want to. This has nothing to do with health or birth control this is an attack on religion. Of course she isn't honest enough to come out and say that, so we get this bullshit about it being about women who take the pill for things other than birth control, yeah right.

What??? Abortion and Contraception are two seperate things for conservatives. You said he wanted to outlaw birth control.

He never said he wanted to outlaw it, in fact he has supported public funding for BC in the past. He simply stated that he was going to speak out about how the attitudes towards sex in the country have led to an increase in unwed mothers, which is causing a lot of expensive social problems. BTW the Catholic Church doesn't' want to outlaw birth control either. That is a different debate, but he doesn't want to outlaw birth control. And if he chooses not to use it himself, it is none of your damn business. It is the left-wingers who want you to pay for the consequences of their irresponsibl

Well Rick Santorum gets the sweep Tuesday night. He won the Missouri Primary and the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses. Gonna start getting a lot of media coverage. What do you think the chances are that Santorum has the misfortune of having a gigantic bag of shit dropped on him sometime this week. Remember Bachman, Cain, Paul, and Gingrich? It will be interesting to see how Rick handles the coming shit storm.

She was also against abortion. She called it "barbaric" I think is the word she used. She called them a disgrace to civilizaion.

The war on drugs? Hey I am for legalization but are you serious? What about the drug use? Alcohol is legal, do you think alcohol has any affect on families?I am just saying the if you think you are going to be doing a great service to families by legalizing drugs, then I think you are mistaken. Like I said, the war on drugs is a joke and I am for legalization, but I don't think this is going to be a great day for family values.

and how are tax dollars supporting it?

Hell there have already been cases in Britian, Sweden, Canada, Australia. There is definately a push towards this. Why does the gay lobby insist on changing the definition of marriage. If they simply want the same legal rights under the law, fine, call them civil unions and be on with it. They won't do it becuase they have a different agenda.

Your cheating there, if you never get married of course you won't get divorced. Unwed mothers is just as big if not a bigger part of the breakdown. I think you can correctly pin the vast majority of the problem of the breakdown of the family on the left, though it is apparent that many Christian Churches are failing to distinguish themselves from society at large which means it contributes to a problem it is supposed to be helping resolve. Call em civil unions, and get the government out of marriage all together in you solve that problem. The problem is that homosexual lobby wants to make C

Your cheating there, if you never get married of course you won't get divorced. Unwed mothers is just as big if not a bigger part of the breakdown. I think you can correctly pin the vast majority of the problem of the breakdown of the family on the left, though it is apparent that many Christian Churches are failing to distinguish themselves from society at large which means it contributes to a problem it is supposed to be helping resolve. Call em civil unions, and get the government out of marriage all together in you solve that problem. The problem is that homosexual lobby wants to make C

Curious, do you think a higher divorce rate is a good thing?