NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
How exactly can you call something a religious practice if almost no one of that religion practices it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Warren Jeffs and his cult of Mormon fundies think what they do with young girls is justified by their religion.
How did that work out for him?
This argument is completely without logical merit
TERRORIZE your State democrats
Suggest a spending cut.
.
Neither party has ever cut spending a goddam dime. At least the Democrats taxed enough to keep the debt down. There'll never be a logical answer to why Reagan and the Bushes gave big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and borrowed from foreign banks to fund it. In 2009 Reagan and the Bushes had borrowed 80% of all the national debt. When Obama took over the annual interest payments on the Reagan-Bushes debt was $450,000,000,00. Multiply that by three and then in fairness subtract that from Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes. OK
TERRORIZE your State democrats
Suggest a spending cut.
.
Neither party has ever cut spending a goddam dime. At least the Democrats taxed enough to keep the debt down. There'll never be a logical answer to why Reagan and the Bushes gave big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and borrowed from foreign banks to fund it. In 2009 Reagan and the Bushes had borrowed 80% of all the national debt. When Obama took over the annual interest payments on the Reagan-Bushes debt was $450,000,000,00. Multiply that by three and then in fairness subtract that from Obama's debt and add it to the Reagan-Bushes. OK
Oh please I dont want to hear your BS
Democrats have been stealing SS since 69, they made it law for it to go to the general fund, those same cowards would not come to the table for reform with everything on the table. Repubs are not much better at cuts, I recall the recent negotiations both sides came forward and boasted the biggest cuts in history, result 29 billion in new spending.
The only real difference between us is you are an Obama kneepad. I see the problems from both sides, you are just a piece of shit.
Yes. How is it that the guvmint has enough people to go around and force Catholic women to use birth control?
Why does the Catholic church not ex-communicate any woman known to be using birth control?
And lets face it. If this provision goes into effect, the Catholic's will then know exactly who obtains birth control. (within their social services operation)
Then they could work tirelessly to get these women out of the church.
They shouldn't be allowed in the doors if they have the scent of birth control on their breaths.
What is wrong with the Catholic church. Why can't they clean house of all these hypocritical Catholics that agree that the church does not want them to use birth control, but they do anyway.
Those women have got to go. Fire em.
And it is great that the priests didn't have to practice birth control. They just liked to hit on the boys.
I would hate to think they will knuckle under on this one, but let's not forget, this is Obama, who knuckles under about as often as France.
Your hysterical over reaction to the Church's attitude towards birth control is.... frankly.... crap.
birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives
POLITICO Breaking News
-------------------------------------------------
The White House plans to announce a compromise on its new rule requiring employers to provide contraceptives as part of health insurance coverage, aimed at allaying the concerns of religious organizations, a senior administration official confirmed to POLITICO. The announcement is expected as early as Friday.
Sorry. No link. Yet.
I would hate to think they will knuckle under on this one, but let's not forget, this is Obama, who knuckles under about as often as France.
You are unfortunately right about Obama, but I feel compelled to speak up for the French. They do not deserve that reputation. It derives from ONE instance of surrender, and that occurred only AFTER they'd gotten the shit kicked out of them and the Germans were occupying Paris. Nor is there anything cowardly or inept about French soldiers.
The ones who do seem to be incompetent, and I have no idea why, are French generals. The Germans kicked the crap out of the French in 1940 mainly because their generals didn't have a clue how war had changed, become more mobile, since 1914-18, even after it had been demonstrated several times already. This is typical. At the beginning of WWI, French soldiers marched off to face machine guns and rifle fire in bright red and blue uniforms. Might as well have worn targets. In the entire history of France, French troops have been led by exactly ONE first-class military genius -- and he wasn't French. (He was Corsican.) There is something in French culture or language or something that discourages competence in strategy and tactics. I don't know why that is.
But French courage and resolve should not be dismissed. They've proven that often enough over the centuries.
Certainly most Catholics use contraceptives--however it is not up to the Federal Government to force their church to do something that the church feels is morally WRONG. This is a constitutional issue regarding religious freedom of the church.
If the Church feels it is "morally wrong" to hire black people, why not allow the church to be exempt from equal rights laws? What if the church feels it is "morally wrong" to let 5 year olds go to waste without working their 12 hrs a day? Should we believe that the 1st amendment somehow exempts the church from child labor laws?
Of course the 1st amendment doesn't cover these things. So there's no reason to try to posit this as such an issue. We already understand that the 1st amendment doesn't cover any and all actions and behaviors. The church is free to teach whatever doctrine it wants. It is free to teach its followers that birth control is a sin. But that does not exempt the church from having basic obligations in its employer-employee relations.
If the Federal Government can force the Catholic church to provide something that they feel is morally wrong--then it won't be long until they can FORCE you to take something or do something that you personally feel is morally wrong. IOW--there is no limit to what they can force you to do.
This argument is completely without logical merit. Continuum fallacies are not with standing.
Obama is walking all over the U.S. Constitution in this matter.
No, he's not. The constitution does not protect an employer from requirements that health coverage include things that the employer may not want the employee to choose.
Your hysterical over reaction to the Church's attitude towards birth control is.... frankly.... crap.
and..... your hysterical over reaction to the health care law as it applies to birth contril is..... quite frankly.......bullshit.
You in the catholic faith don't want to practice birth control, then DON'T.
No one is forcing Catholic women to not get pregnant. But it must really make for a tuff argument when most catholic women use birth control.
And yea, you all would sure like to get all that pesky molestation stuff right behind you.
And I am sure lots of Catholics ( except for the ones molested or parents of those molested) would go along with you.
So what. Still happened. And probably still happening. Still people suffering for those actions. You go ahead and forgit about it. Maybe do the rosary for the sins of the priests. That will fix it.
And pray for all catlolic women to get pregnant as well.
Certainly most Catholics use contraceptives--however it is not up to the Federal Government to force their church to do something that the church feels is morally WRONG. This is a constitutional issue regarding religious freedom of the church.
If the Church feels it is "morally wrong" to hire black people, why not allow the church to be exempt from equal rights laws? What if the church feels it is "morally wrong" to let 5 year olds go to waste without working their 12 hrs a day? Should we believe that the 1st amendment somehow exempts the church from child labor laws?
Of course the 1st amendment doesn't cover these things. So there's no reason to try to posit this as such an issue. We already understand that the 1st amendment doesn't cover any and all actions and behaviors. The church is free to teach whatever doctrine it wants. It is free to teach its followers that birth control is a sin. But that does not exempt the church from having basic obligations in its employer-employee relations.
This argument is completely without logical merit. Continuum fallacies are not with standing.
Obama is walking all over the U.S. Constitution in this matter.
No, he's not. The constitution does not protect an employer from requirements that health coverage include things that the employer may not want the employee to choose.
Hello, there were more than a few Catholics involved in the Civil Rights movement, like Jews, we know of discrimination.
I suspect you are full of shit
and dont want anyone remembering what the liar you were just a few days ago.
we can discuss how full of shit you are.