@RanchHand"IMO, Individual Freedom is more important than
Religious Freedom, why? Because Individual Freedom ENCOMPASSES Religious
Freedom. When you have your Individual Freedom, you also have your Freedom to
worship how, where or what you may."I do not know where in the
constitution it enumerates individual freedoms. The constitution addresses We
the People not Me the individual.
Re: L KaiserAgreed. Birth control pills can also used to lessen the
symptoms and progression of endometriosis.
Requiring insurance companies to cover birth control pills = An attack on
Religion?Seriously? Has the right wing finally caved and
just started letting Rush come up with all of their ideas now?You
know what a great way to help avoid abortions across the world
is....contraception. Have it available, educate, and doesn't that help lessen a
major worry for Conservatives everywhere?Better, cheaper, more
available contraception = Less unwanted pregnancies.That's the
equation that makes sense here.And if it wasn't for the rights
hatred and continued attempts to destroy America to destroy President Obama,
that's an equation they should be all for.This does not require
ANYONE who does not believe in contraception to purchase/use it. Republicans are always talking about personal responsibility. Here's a great
example where they should be getting behind that idea. You want contraception,
your insurance covers it. You don't want contraception, continue on your life
as nothing changes.Period.
@Mike Richards;Why is it that you always cry foul when you think
Constitutional religious freedom is being infringed, yet are perfectly willing
to deny an individual their Constitutional freedom?IMO, Individual
Freedom is more important than Religious Freedom, why? Because Individual
Freedom ENCOMPASSES Religious Freedom. When you have your Individual Freedom,
you also have your Freedom to worship how, where or what you may.Your idea of "religious freedom" is the freedom to enforce your
version of religious views on everybody else.
@ Mike Richards, you did not answer the questions I raised. It was a good faith
question. You evaded the issue. Pity.
Come on right-wingers. You always have a "war" going on don't you.
It's how you keep your flock together. If the government wanted to really go
after religion, they could of in the past or in the future, eliminate the tax
breaks which amount to nearly 100 billion $ for property and tax breaks for
giving, etc. And I'd like to see those parking spaces in front of the big NY
cathedral done away with because they are not afforded other churches. See,
there are a million ways that the government could really hurt the churches, but
they haven't. Tone down the silly rhetoric, it does not become you.
LDS Lib, let me see if I follow your logic here. If the war was started by the
GOP, it was the party's fault. But if the war was started by a Dem, it was the
defense contractors' fault. You know, like WWII--Lend-Lease began in earnest
well before the US declared war. That president? FDR (Dem and liberal by his
own account). Let's not forget your Cold War reference. What president started
that with his Truman Doctrine? Oh yeah, Truman (Dem). He also brought us the
Korean War, which you failed to mention. What about Vietnam? JFK (Dem)commits
troops, and LBJ (Dem) brings the troop totals to almost 700,000. I also noticed
your history lecture conveniently omitted Clinton's (Dem) Bosnia and Somalia
escapades. We still have a military presence in the Horn of Africa and the
Balkans today. You didn't mention Obama in Libya either. Hmmm.Here's the point--you're Ike-esque fear of the military-industrial complex and
its death-grip on US foreign policy is directed at the wrong party. Also, thank you for your service. You are part of the real 1% (those who have
worn the uniform).
What about all the woman who use the contraceptive pill for "off label
purposes". Millions of woman in america a year are Prescribed it by their
doctor and are simply taking the contraceptive to lessen the painful effects of
the menstrual cycle, for some woman the pains and effects can be quite
debilitating. Contraceptives are highly effective at giving these woman
comfortable lives and relieve or eliminate these ailments. Their taking it has
nothing to do with birth control or contraception. What about these woman, do we
deny them relief and comfort?
Did everyone just the hear the latest salvo fired against religion from the
Obama camp? This time it was Biden defending Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. Wow.
They are just sticking it to us Christians. It's funny how the Deseret News
likes to report on all things Mormon and Mitt Romney but still hasn't reported
the story on Joe Biden defending Romney.
Re: Esquire and LDS Liberal,Just what limits do you put on the 1st
Amendment? No, not the part that PROHIBITS Congress from passing laws concerning
an establishment of religion, but the part that allows you to express your
outrage at the prohibition?You both seem very comfortable telling us
that the rules only apply in an edifice of religion. How about if you only
exercise your right of free speech during church services and how about if you
limit your speech to topics approved by the clergy?That seems only
fair. You want to limit the rights of religion but at the same time you demand
that YOUR right to speak freely be unencumbered.Seems binary to me
(yes/no, black/white, right/wrong).
Is this a battle in the 'war on christmas'?
No attack on religion occurred. This was a minor, sensible adjustment in health
insurance policy. A few Catholic bishops, sadly out of touch with their
constituents, over-reacted. That's it.
Only the most paranoid would think that this administration has an agenda to
remove all religious influences in America. Those on the far right who say they
know what the left wants more often than not twist, distort and misstate a non
existent agenda. Such is the case of folks who comment here.The
question here is not properly framed if one is framing it that religious
institution are being forced to do things that violate their principles. The
truth is that religious institutions are not, but for profit companies run by
religious institutions that have employees who are not part of religious orders
should be required not to discriminate against their employees by offering them
only health care that the company's religious principles approve of. The proper framing of the question is should corporations that earn a profit,
take money from public sources, employ diverse employees have rights that
supersede those of the individuals that work for them? If my religious beliefs
did not approve of blood transfusions can I as an employer offer health
insurance that will not pay of blood transfusions for my employees that want
that services? Ultimately, who is more important the corporation or
the individual? My vote is for the freedom and supremacy of the individual.
How can we take a publication that prints right-wing malarky like this
seriously? The president is not attacking religion.
A doctor said it best. Obama is calling for birth control to be covered under
the "preventive care" umbrella. Birth control is NOT preventive care.
Preventive care is preventing DISEASE. PREGNANCY IS NOT A DISEASE. This OB/GYN
went on further to say that the hormones present in oral contraceptives and
intrauterine devices are, in fact, CANCER CAUSING. How preventative is that for
Yes Obama's war on religion might backfire. Look what the mainstream
"Christians" did to the latter-day saints when their preaching upset
their orthodox apple cart and rattled their respected if shaky religious
structures. This religious mainstream may not be gentle with secular humanists
either. It is foolish to be over confident.I like the best elements
of religion, those that encourage justice and mercy and the like. Various
political administrations seem to be at odds with or competition with religions.
It is only natural they would kick back. Taxpayers too don't like
their money spent on controversial things. Some don't like their money spent on
anything but roads, policing and things like that. I sympathize. They too kick
back at expensive ideological conflicts and crusades waged by administrations at
Army Prof | 2:15 p.m. Feb. 15, 2012 New York, NY It's so good to
know that the War on Terror is a fictional GOP creation. Thanks LDS Lib, for
your remarkable command of what is real and what is fictional. ============ 1st, I commend your service.But, in a
nutshell, yes.I served post Vietnam "war"throughout
the Cold "war"and the 1st "war" in Iraq.Guess what -- Vietnam never invaded us, Russia never invaded us,
and Iraq never invaded us, But everyone was scared about the
boogieman that Defense Contractors made up.FYI - Afghanistan has
never attacked us, Iraq has never attacked us, Iran has never
attacked us, and Syria has never attacked us, but the GOP can NEVER
pass up a good War to go spend money on - real Wars or just rumors of
War.It's all about the $$$money.BTW - WallStreet loves
wars. Look at history.Gadiantons take over and manage a country.They take treasures of the earth [i.e, gold, oil, food], and buy up armies and
navies, to rule and reign.They are the 1%, They are the
Gadiantons, They are Masters Mahan.But go ahead, you
give Obama far to much credit.
It's disingenuous to make the argument about religion to begin with.
It's so good to know that the War on Terror is a fictional GOP creation. Thanks
LDS Lib, for your remarkable command of what is real and what is fictional.
When I walk outside my bunker tomorrow I won't have to worry, because the
rockets falling on my forward operating base are fictional. I guess the Taliban
and Al Qaida are fictional too. Hmm, I wonder why President Obama is keeping us
over here then. I mean, we got bin Laden last year. Why am I still here? It
must be the big, bad GOP that ordered the "surge" in Afghanistan. Oh
right, that was Obama after he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Well at least the
president ended the Iraq war early. Oh that's right, he followed Bush's
withdrawal agreement to the exact date--not early like he said he would. Sounds
like the War on Terror has a new party, but same old flavor. Wait, am I
dreaming this? No, that explosion was pretty loud...
On Feb. 3, Gerson's Deseret News column was titled Obama's "war on all
religions," but today his article carries the headline "Obama's attack
on religion." Obviously, Gerson and the Deseret News are mellowing out
toward the president.C'mon guys. Don't lose your edge. Here's my
recommendation for Gerson's next Deseret News rant: "Obama's nuclear
holocaust upon religion"
'Class warfare is an art for the zen master of socialism.' - patriot | 10:04
a.m. Feb. 15, 2012 ** 'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP -
Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08 Yes Patriot, thank
you for your comment. Claiming that Obama is a 'socialist'... while George W. Bush and a Republican majority in the House and Senate,
signed the first Wall Street Bail out. Invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan. Signed the TSA and Patriot Act, into law.
And Mitt Rommney signed MANDATORY birth control for religions, in MA, in
2002. Thank you, for criticizing the actions, of the Republican
party, in your partisan attack... against Obama.
Patriot,Thanks for your comment.
Obama attacks and sues the State of Arizona over immigration. Obama attacks
Wallstreet. Obama attacks the wealthy. Obama attacks small business that make
over 250k. Obama attacks all those people in America who "cling to their
guns and religion' and now Obama attacks Christianity. SO THE GREAT UNITER HAS
BECOME THE GREAT DIVIDER!! Class warfare is an art for the zen master of
socialism. We have seen enough of the HOPE - NOW we want CHANGE. CHANGE IN THE
WHITE HOUSE OCCUPANTS THAT IS!!!
@Mike Richards | 8:15 a.m. Feb. 15, 2012 South Jordan, Utah The
Constitution clearly and unmistakably states that Congress cannot interfere with
religion. Period. That case is closed. Anyone who believes differently either
can't read or chooses not to read the plain and simple words of the
Constitution.====================== Using your infamous
All-or-Nothing, Black & White logic.....Can Government interfere
with the FLDS?How about the use of sacramental Hashish? Peyote? Ganja?What about Churches who "allow" Gay Marrige? [I keep hearing you
railing against it]Radicalized Muslims would be free to kill in the name
of Jihad. Jews could stone.and did I forget to mention infant
genital mutilations?This over the top, all-or-nothingism
interpretation to the U.S. Constitution could even legalize animal and Human
Sacrifes.Is that the America you dream about?I thank God
each and every morning we have Supreme Court Judges who use Common Sense to
interpet and protect our Constitution and our country, and not leave it
self-taught ideological zealots who insistantly FORCE their will [as God's will]
and intreprations of it on the rest of us.
First of all these churches are running businesses. Businesses that have
employees. They are not attending church. So this is a valid concern. Birth
control is used for various reasons in women's health care. This is a grey area
as much as the Right wing would like this to be black and white. The
"attack" is not an attack. Its what normal businesses have to deal
with, so no surprise that their business also has to deal with this. At
what point to we keep giving churches tax exempt status? They seem to be more
and more involved in public policy making? Doens't sound like a church to me.
Sounds like a business.
FIRST "the smoke-screen and cover-up" to keep youe eyes gluded here,
"Obama's attack on religion a big miscalculation." While Congress
does this behind YOUR BACKS. US House Budget ax falls on U.S. air defenses.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, exposed gaping holes in the
nation's air security, the U.S. military took steps to dramatically increase its
ability to intercept hostile aircraft. Chief among those, Station fighter jets
at strategic points across the continental United States, with the goal of being
able to intercept a hijacked plane or unfriendly aircraft within 20 minutes of
identifying the threat. In the months after the attacks, the United States
nearly quadrupled the number of fighter alert sites from seven to 26. Since
then, however, the number has shrunk to 16 in the continental United States,
including one at Homestead Air Reserve Base in South Florida, plus one each in
Hawaii and Alaska. Now, the U.S. Air Force's budget for the next fiscal year
reduces that further, eliminating the requirement at two sites that jets and
pilots be on alert 24 hours a day. It's not sufficient for the nation's air
defense. Sorry Utah.My views.
Ok. I have presented evidence why Republicans choosing to go against
a product, birth control, that over 80% of catholic women use, is a mistake. Now, let's look at examples of what HAPPENS to people denied birth
control: ** 'Judge releases beaten teen, citing state's abortion
law' - By Emiley Morgan - Published by DSNews - 10/14/09 'A
17-year-old girl who paid a man to beat her in the hopes of terminating her
pregnancy has been...' - article A x17 year old girl, factually
DENIED birth control, pays a man to BEAT her until she looses the pregnancy. This happened, in Utah. Also: ** 'GOP trying to use
tax law to limit abortions' - By Stephen Ohlemacher - AP - Published by DSNews -
03/31/11 Zero job creation. And last: Mitt
Romney passed REQUIRED contraception in religion in MA... in
2002. No claims of Romney's 'war on religion' from Republicans.
This was not a 'miscalculation'. It was drawing out the extreme
fringe of the Republican party to present right before an election.
And guess what? It worked. ** 'Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape
Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam Stein -
Huffington Post - 07/08/10 "One thing she has not backed away
from has been her insistence that abortion should be outlawed universally, even
in cases of rape and incest." article Sharon Angle won the
nomination for the Senate from the Republican party in Arizona. She
lost. Many would consider her '2nd amendment remedies' to be
extreme. And yet: **'Perry shifts views on abortion,
opposes exceptions' - By Phillip Elliot - AP Published by DSNews -
12/27/2011 'OSCEOLA, Iowa Republican Rick Perry is shifting his
opposition to abortion, saying he opposes it even after rape or incest.' -
article Rick Perry ran for the canidacy for the Republican
President of the United States. He dropped out. This
shows the extremist veristions of Republicans, that want to deny abortion... even in cases of rape, and incest.
'Consider the implications of this praise. It means that Obama assaulted the
core beliefs of some of his fellow citizens in order to lure them into
politically self-destructive behavior.' - article I would say, it
worked. As 1) Over 80% of Catholic women USE contraception. How can
the radical Right claim they have the 'majoirty' on their side...
when majority of the target group, women, USE this product? 2) This
is not creating jobs. And who is at the front line? The Republican
party and religion. Painting both to be out of touch with the issues that face
America, and willing to argue over side issues instead of put the well-being of
this country, first. And last, Republicans like to use the phrase
'abortion pill' in these debates.... and yet Roe vs. Wade settled
the question of aboriton, in 1973. And today, 38 years later, we
have examples of Republicans trying to, yet again, deny abortions.
This shows futility as almost FOUR decades ago, we still have to drag this issue
back up for people who (mostly male) will not get pregnant from rape.
@ Mike Richards, may I suggest you read Reynolds v. US (1878) and accompanying
cases. Then tell me how that applies to today, and to your arguments. I would
love to see an explanation on this.
Obama is mocking our entire country. It is truly amazing that we tolerate him.
We have a President that won't salute the Flag? Why are we even considering
anything he says?
In a CBSNews/NYTimes poll issued today 61% of people support this Obama policy.
Getting 60% support for anything these days is pretty rare.
Obama partial list of miscalculations:* increase taxes on the rich
will fix the economy.* shutting down oil drilling* Solyndra*
we're not a Christian nation* Marine corpse men* Keystone veto* I've been in fifty seven states with one more to go.* George Bush took
vacations, so sacrifice and help pay for mine.
Michael Gleason is pandering to a select group of the Fox News audience.The radical right constatnly needs a common boogieman - a strawman - to
keep their scare motivated listeners United - otherwise, they turn upon
themselves.don't believe me?, What the GOP nominations.They
have created these fictional wars war on Religion war, War on
Terror, War on drugs,War on Conservatives, Class war, ect.This particular isses is not about religion at all, but
clearly the completely sepereate businesses owned by Churches.This
quote by Sullivan was spot on:"And if this was a trap, the religious
right walked right into it." Religious conservatives are now identified, he
says, with "opposition to contraception." 50% of Americans
are women, and Pres. Obama just re-assured the Women's vote.The GOP
keeps catering to the Archie Bunker's of America, and alienating everyone else
not just like them.Archie Bunker - Rush Limbaugh, co-incidence?
The Constitution clearly and unmistakably states that Congress cannot interfere
with religion. Period. That case is closed. Anyone who believes differently
either can't read or chooses not to read the plain and simple words of the
Constitution.The President and the Courts know that neither of them
can legislate. That is clearly written in the Constitution. There is no doubt
about that. Only Congress is given authority by the people to legislate.The President is required, by law, to take an oath of office where he
swears that he will uphold the Constitution.All of that has become a
joke to Mr. Obama. He is doing everything that he can possibly do to trash the
Constitution and the limits that YOU and I put on him.The people
retain all authority, all rights and all power that were not specifically
delegated to government. Mr. Obama would have us believe that HE parcels out
authority, rights and power to US. He attacked religion full on.
He tried to enforce an unconstitutional law that dictates to an establishment of
religion what they must do, notwithstanding the fact that their doctrine forbids
them from complying.Mr. Obama failed in his duty.
The left wing has an open and stated agenda of removing all religious influence
from American society. The left wants the public looking only to government for
support, and not to any religious institution. If people look only to
government, that increases the power of government and of the left wing
extremists in office.Only the most extreme claim that there is no
attack on religion. Clearly, forcing a religious institution to violate its core
beliefs is one of the most insidious attacks there is.It is time for
the public to stop apologizing to the left for the irrefutable fact that the
Founding Fathers established this Country on Judeo-Christian principles. Let us
reject leftist propaganda and return to being the nation that the Fathers
intended us to be.
Catholics in a Pew poll cited in this newspaper yesterday are 52-39 in favor of
Obama's decision. Some miscalculation... even the "attacked" group
supports the "attack".
Gerson has overestimated the scope of Obama's contraception blunder. He also
fails to mention that insurance companies WANT to supply contraception, since it
is much less expensive for them than pregnancies, and additional children. The genius in Obama's "blunder" is that after his skillful
retreat the conservatives are now trying to continue the attack against
birth-control, a losing issue for the right, since most Americans support access
to contraception. In addition, Obama's miss step appears to have rallied the
religious right behind Santorum, draining support for Romney and further
dividing the GOP.
There is no attack on religion. Let's make that clear. Statements that there
is an attack are nothing more than partisan politics, particularly from
politicized religious institutions than want government protection for them but
not for competing religious views and institutions. They effectively want a
state sponsored church. The Constitution, for them, is good when convenient,
and to be ignored when inconvenient.
"Attack on religion"? Give me a break, the only people really upset
about this are Catholic leadership and unsavory political types looking for any
political edge against Obama. From what I've heard, the majority of polled
Catholics are not opposed to contraceptives or this mandate. Many of the
religion's leaders, however, are. And as one news analyst put it: "There
are more women in the country than Catholics"Attack on
religion? A mountain out of less than a mole hill. I thought liberals were the
only ones so sensitive and easily offended.