Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.
Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.
Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.
Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.
Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.
Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.
Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.
Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.
Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.
Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.
Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.
The first comment from that link nailed it, How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men?
Laws? What laws? Are we referring to the tenets of the Catholic faith? The answer to that would be, "by choice". No one holds a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic, so if they don't like the rules of that particular religious club, they're more than welcome to take their whining asses off and find one whose rules DO suit them. There's certainly no shortage to choose from.
Enjoy your red herring. No one said that anyone puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic.
However, you missed the point. Christianity has biblical laws or moral codes of conducts, especially for women. However, these biblical laws and moral codes of conducts are made by unmarried men.
This went right over your head.......whooosh.
Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.
Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.
Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.
Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.
This whole notion that this violates the First Amendment doesn't hold water. The Catholic Church voluntarily chooses to operate secular institutions (such as hospitals and schools) that are open to the public, yet want to force their beliefs upon the public. Plus, they receive a plethora of state money for their charities.
Its like a group of Christian Scientists opening up a restaurant and refusing to offer their diabetic employee coverage for insulin, and then screaming about their First Amendment rights regarding this mandate.
I think the federal mandate is much more unConstitutional than this.
I'm sorry, but where does the First Amendment say, "Unless you're operating a secular institution"? Where does it say, "only in the context of church"? Or "unless you're receiving government money"? Where was I when exercising religious freedom was Constitutionally restricted to only certain times or facets of life? Last time I checked, I and every other citizen of the United States has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs 24/7.
Admittedly, I haven't checked the "living Constitution" today, so it might have sprouted a new penumbra I'm not aware of.
You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.
Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.
This whole notion that this violates the First Amendment doesn't hold water. The Catholic Church voluntarily chooses to operate secular institutions (such as hospitals and schools) that are open to the public, yet want to force their beliefs upon the public. Plus, they receive a plethora of state money for their charities.
Its like a group of Christian Scientists opening up a restaurant and refusing to offer their diabetic employee coverage for insulin, and then screaming about their First Amendment rights regarding this mandate.
I think the federal mandate is much more unConstitutional than this.
I'm sorry, but where does the First Amendment say, "Unless you're operating a secular institution"? Where does it say, "only in the context of church"? Or "unless you're receiving government money"? Where was I when exercising religious freedom was Constitutionally restricted to only certain times or facets of life? Last time I checked, I and every other citizen of the United States has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs 24/7.
Admittedly, I haven't checked the "living Constitution" today, so it might have sprouted a new penumbra I'm not aware of.
You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.
Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.
Laws? What laws? Are we referring to the tenets of the Catholic faith? The answer to that would be, "by choice". No one holds a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic, so if they don't like the rules of that particular religious club, they're more than welcome to take their whining asses off and find one whose rules DO suit them. There's certainly no shortage to choose from.
Enjoy your red herring. No one said that anyone puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic.
However, you missed the point. Christianity has biblical laws or moral codes of conducts, especially for women. However, these biblical laws and moral codes of conducts are made by unmarried men.
This went right over your head.......whooosh.
Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.
You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.
This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!
By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.
By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.
Enjoy your red herring. No one said that anyone puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to be Catholic.
However, you missed the point. Christianity has biblical laws or moral codes of conducts, especially for women. However, these biblical laws and moral codes of conducts are made by unmarried men.
This went right over your head.......whooosh.
Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.
You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.
This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!
By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.
What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, bitch and moan that weare the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.
Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.
Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.
Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.
Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.
No one is forfeiting civil rights. For fuck's sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.
Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.
Get rid of the federal mandate or Catholic charities need to stop accepting aid from the state, which they get billions for. This is a blatant case of hypocrisy. Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals cannot invoke their Constitutional right when they are piggybacking off of the state.
Catholics can't have your cake and eat too. Catholics can't accept aid from the state and then have their religious figures determine the moral conduct of the organization according to their religious doctrine.
Catholics cannot accept funding from the state and use that funding to promote Catholicism. In fact, that is a violation of the First Amendment. However, many people are insistent of putting the horse before the cart.
Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.
The strangest thing about the insistence that the government can do this if you accept money from them is that it is not about money. If it were the Catholics would just stop taking the money and keep doing things their way, this rule applies even to groups that do not take money from the government. It just shows how stupid and/or desperate the idiots are to defend their politics.
I'm sorry, but where does the First Amendment say, "Unless you're operating a secular institution"? Where does it say, "only in the context of church"? Or "unless you're receiving government money"? Where was I when exercising religious freedom was Constitutionally restricted to only certain times or facets of life? Last time I checked, I and every other citizen of the United States has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs 24/7.
Admittedly, I haven't checked the "living Constitution" today, so it might have sprouted a new penumbra I'm not aware of.
You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.
Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.
As I understand it, it's damned hard to operate any sort of institution WITHOUT state money getting involved these days. Are you suggesting that Catholic hospitals should stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients? No, of course you're not. What you're suggesting is that those damned Christians should shut the hell up about their rights, and keep their religion in their churches where it belongs, instead of acting as though it has some bearing on everyday life, or something.
Anyways [sic], I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. But if you still need a little more time and diversion to grow a pair, perhaps you could show me where the "red herrings, strawmans [sic], and other logical fallacies" are in the question, "Where does the Constitution say that government money invalidates civil rights?"
And then, when you've actually explained and justified your bullshit accusations, perhaps you'll be warmed up enough to answer the question, rather than simply repeating your assertion.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to stop being an intellectual poltroon, though, since it's clearly going to take a long time.
By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.
Let's add ad homs to your list of logical fallacies. While one can argue Peter was married, he certainly didn't view women as equal to men, but rather the inferior creature.
Perhaps this can explain your over-the-top behavior.
Enjoy your cherrypicking. I wouldn't want you to strain anything by producing the intellectual courage to deal with the answer to your question: How can women abide by laws written by unmarried men? BY CHOICE.
You didn't just miss the point, you turned around and ran your chickenshit ass in the other direction so you wouldn't have to face it. Christianity has dozens and dozens of different denominations and sects under its umbrella, all of them with different doctrines and memberships rules. Any woman out there is entirely free to pick and choose the denomination whose rules suit her best. Or she can choose a religion that isn't Christian. Or, quite frankly, she can skip going to an organized church, stay home, and make up her own frigging rules. No one's stopping her. If she's abiding by this or that denomination's rules, it's because she CHOOSES TO.
This went right over your head . . . WHOOSH!
By the way, idiot, I believe most of the men who penned the Bible were actually married, and in many - if not most - Christian sects, married clergy are the norm.
What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, bitch and moan that weare the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.
What slays me is that Republicans only see the world in black and white. They cannot handle dissenting opinion without thinking that everyone is a radical statist progressive.
Nonetheless, lets just throw out the fact that I said that we should toss out the federal mandate, which is essentially, a Republican re-cycled idea.
Please show me where any of this is found in the Constitution, because I simply cannot remember anywhere it's written, "If you take government money, you forfeit all civil rights". I'd really appreciate it if you could help me locate that particular Article or Amendment.
No one is forfeiting civil rights. For fuck's sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.
Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.
Oh, I love it. "If you're against birth control, don't use it . . . but you have to buy it for other people!"
How's this? If you want birth control, BUY IT YOURSELF.
Did you really not know what the topic was, or is it just that intellectual cowardice preventing you from acknowledging it?
What just slays me are the freaking libs who constantly whine, bitch and moan that weare the ones shoving our beliefs down their freaking throats.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Hypocrisy thy name is progressive.
What slays me is that Republicans only see the world in black and white. They cannot handle dissenting opinion without thinking that everyone is a radical statist progressive.
Nonetheless, lets just throw out the fact that I said that we should toss out the federal mandate, which is essentially, a Republican re-cycled idea.
What slays me is that liberals only see the world in liberal. They simply refuse to see anything conservative at all. It's not even a matter of them handling dissenting opinions, because they're too cowardly to even recognize that such things exist, let alone deal with them. Case in point, Valox the Coward.
Nonetheless, let's just throw out the fact that you still haven't told us what part of the Constitution supports your belief that the First Amendment is conditional.
You want your state money while you enjoy your separation of church and state, all while promoting your religious views.
Anyways, I see that you are just randomly applying to posts while spouting off a bunch of hyperbolic BS mixed in with red herrings, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.
As I understand it, it's damned hard to operate any sort of institution WITHOUT state money getting involved these days. Are you suggesting that Catholic hospitals should stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients? No, of course you're not. What you're suggesting is that those damned Christians should shut the hell up about their rights, and keep their religion in their churches where it belongs, instead of acting as though it has some bearing on everyday life, or something.
Anyways [sic], I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. But if you still need a little more time and diversion to grow a pair, perhaps you could show me where the "red herrings, strawmans [sic], and other logical fallacies" are in the question, "Where does the Constitution say that government money invalidates civil rights?"
And then, when you've actually explained and justified your bullshit accusations, perhaps you'll be warmed up enough to answer the question, rather than simply repeating your assertion.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to stop being an intellectual poltroon, though, since it's clearly going to take a long time.
yawn...your self-righteous and antagonistic behavior is tiring.
No one is invaliding your civil rights. No one is saying that you have to take birth control. You are still free to be Catholic and refuse to use birth control. However, in your hyperbolic nonsense, you are painting yourself out to be a modern day Rosa Parks. It is quite amusing, but tiring.
This is a problem with the federal mandate, which you are incapable of grasping. Religious organizations who are serving the public, who hire people outside of their faith, and accept state need to accept the federal mandate like any other private entity. They need to provide insurance that is required like any other private institution that falls under this mandate.
Just because you invoke your religious freedoms does not mean they are being violated. You are free to refuse birth control, but it should be offered under said circumstances. Catholic institutions who operate in the above regard should not receive preferential treatment.
For instance, if it was against Catholic doctrine to offer chemotherapy to cancer patients, would you be throwing the same hissy fit over a Catholic institution who serves the public, employes non-Catholics, and receives state aid?
No one is forfeiting civil rights. For fuck's sake, if you are against birth control, don't use it.
Stop bitching and moaning like you are some Rosa Parks who is losing civil liberties.
Oh, I love it. "If you're against birth control, don't use it . . . but you have to buy it for other people!"
How's this? If you want birth control, BUY IT YOURSELF.
Did you really not know what the topic was, or is it just that intellectual cowardice preventing you from acknowledging it?
Just because you are a Catholic, own a restaurant, and employ people who fall under the CRA, is not a valid reason to declare that your First Amendment rights are being violated over this mandate.
I am all for giving people the liberty to buy their own birth control if an employer does not want to fund it. I was never against this principle. (In fact, I would like to see more free market regarding health care, followed by a P.O, followed by single payer). Unfortunately, you are too dense to comprehend.
You are completely oblivious about the context of this conversation, which falls under this federal mandate (which adamantly I oppose). Under this context, Catholic institutions the serve the public, hire outside their denomination, and receive state aid should not be given preferential treatment.
