The American Spectator

stan chaz| 2.13.12 @ 6:41AM

I was raised as a Catholic....or perhaps lowered. :-) Whatever. But seriously: I strongly disagree with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops statement, which denounces President Barack Obama's attempts at compromise as "needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions". On the contrary, the Bishops comments are themselves a needless religious intrusion upon the proper and legitimate functions of government...functions that serve to promote women's rights, and equality, and fairness for ALL. No one is coming into our Churches and trying to tell parishioners what to believe. BUT If the Bishops want to start businesses that employ millions of people of varying faiths -or no "faith" at all- THEN they must play by the rules. Just because a religious group in America claims to believe something, we cannot excuse them from obeying the law in the PUBLIC arena, based on that belief. They can legally attempt to change the law, not to deny it outright. And if they want to plunge overtly into politics from the pulpit, then they should give up their tax-exempt status. Did I miss something, or when it comes to the "sanctity of life", is every single righteous Catholic still a card carrying conscientious objector, refusing to take up arms, totally against the death penalty, and contraception in all its forms? Oh well, hypocrisy is at the heart of politics, and politics masquerading as religion even more so. This country is an invigorating mixture of all the diversity that life has to offer, drawing its strength FROM that diversity. We need to work together to preserve, enrich, and strengthen this unique experiment - NOT to tear it down with poisonous, paralyzing, and un-Christian demonization of each other.
Edit Reply

drudge ette obama| 2.13.12 @ 6:44AM

Stan, you are a bore. Better stated that you were raised in a home where someone tried to give you religion. You learned arrogance, instead.

Appleby| 2.13.12 @ 6:55AM

Stan, you clearly know noting at all about Catholicism regardless of what sort of family you were allegedly brought up in. Shame on your parents for not adhering to their baptismal vows made on your behalf.

Killing babies is not a "health issue" except for the dead baby. Pregnancy is not a disease. And people like you are out on the street corner throwing condoms at passersby on a daily basis; birth control is far more available for "free" from just about everywhere these days. And sad to say, there are plenty of churches that believe God sets no standards and will be happy to shower you with birth control.

The all-out war on the Catholic Church has nothing to do with free birth control or "reproductive health" -- it's one more giant cry of "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!" from a pocket of kiddies whose only aim in life is to poke a stick in the eye of Mom and Dad.

It's well past time you grew up, Stan. While there's time.

Sam Vaughn| 2.13.12 @ 3:49PM

Stan, it's people like you that made Hitler possible. I'm guessing you'd be ok with forced sterilization for those you don't think make a contribution to the State.

JP| 2.13.12 @ 7:29AM

The strawmen continue... The Bishops never claimed the WH was telling parishoners what to believe. The contention is forcing Catholic organizations (almost all non-profit) that they must offer a service that thier religion deems sinful. This is akin to the USDA forcing Muslim schools to serve pork chops for lunch. And the Bishops do not open businesses. But they do perform charities. And the acceptance of Catholic hospitals of Medicare patients (the elderly) and Medicaid patients (the poor) does not mean Catholic hospitals have to check thier 1st Amdendment Rights at the door. Additionally, Catholic Churches are also enjoy the right to express thier political views (check the Constitution). The tax exempt status does not mean they cannot offer up protests and dissent when needed.

Purp| 2.13.12 @ 2:05PM

Name one large Catholic Affiliated Institution that does not already offer contraceptives insurance? The largest Catholic University? That would be DePaul University - and it does already offer this service.
Catholic Charities, the Jesuits and Catholic Health Association already have said this accommodation by the President is quite acceptable to them.
So where's the problem? A bunch of tired old, mostly white men who are not affected by anything that affects women only, birth control and other contraceptive support.
Perhaps they should concern themselves with the pre-pubescent boys they have in their care and are obviously very poor at protecting and let the Catholic women make this decision on their own.
Those that listened to the Bishops in 2008 didn't vote for Obama then, and they still won't now.
I guess the GOP (Grand Ol' Pedophile) Party and the Bishops have something in common - dictating to women, because THEY know better, right?

irish19| 2.13.12 @ 3:10PM

You, as usual, completely miss the point. The fact that some Catholic-run institutions choose to offer these services does not mean that all Catholic-run institutions should be forced to offer them.

Purp| 2.13.12 @ 6:37PM

Name one that does not. As an employer, they must follow labor laws and U.S. laws. That has nothing to do with religion. Moreover, religious institutions and THEIR employees, Churches, Mosques and Synagogues are not affected by this at all. This is much ado about nothing - except Obama bashing syndrome.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 7:32PM

Hey Perp is back from "occupy" CPAC. Double overtime at MoveOn.

Jerry from Cleveland| 2.13.12 @ 11:40PM

Purp wrote, "Name one that does not."

In about 30 seconds of Googling, I found that Duquesne University does not. (Google: Duquesne Highmark)

W| 2.14.12 @ 4:41PM

Jerry
Don't believe any "fact" posted by the Purp. Clintonian, at best.

W| 2.13.12 @ 4:41PM

As usual Purp, your facts are suspect. What is your authority that Catholic Charities, "the Jesuits," and Catholic Health Association supports Obama?

It does not matter whether they support it or not because the issue is the First Amendment exercise of religion. It affects more that Catholics, and even if some left wing Catholic group approves of it, it is irrelevant to the issue.

One group or groups cannot waive the First Amendment for the rest of us.

Purp| 2.13.12 @ 6:46PM

http://www.chausa.org/Pages/Ne.....ce_Rights/

http://www.catholiccharitiesus.....x?pid=2540

And, there is plenty more positive reaction - BUT you won't hear about it on Fixed News.

You obviously don't know what the First Amendment is all about. Nothing precludes any religious organization from labor or public health laws. For that matter, why are they given special tax status? THAT probably is a violation of separation of Church and State.

W| 2.13.12 @ 9:13PM

As ususal Purp, you misrepresent. Catholic Charities did not endorse the plan, it said only it sa step in the right direction. You have no authority for the "Jesuits" unless you found some Jesuit priest. CHA does not speak for the Church.

This is not a labor law like hours of work or pay. You do know the laws relating to labor unions do not apply to Catholic Schools, Purp?

You know nothing about law, the first amendment, and show it with each post.

You need to stop pasting the DNC emails from DebbieWassermanSchulz, and start thinking on your own.

Purp| 2.14.12 @ 10:57AM

There are many more links of support for the President from Jesuits and others, but AS won't allow more than 2 links posted. I would have thought you'd know that already.

Employer Healthcare falls under labor laws, sorry Charlie, you are woefully misinformed.
I paste nothing from the DNC, have never seen their site or posts, but you knew that too, didn't you, since you know more about them than I do.

W| 2.14.12 @ 3:37PM

You should be sorry, Purp.
What labor laws states that an employer must provide health insurance, and any specific coverage? Don't say Obamacare because that will be either repealed or ruled unconstitutional.
Regarding the Jesuits, who is authorized to speak on behalf of the Jesuit Order?

Tony in Central PA| 2.14.12 @ 9:58PM

In the Catholic Church, the bishops are the ones who make the call about something like this, not self - identified Catholics or affiliated organizations. The matter isn't up for a vote.

The question for you, Purp, is this : other than the fact that the mandate really does conflict with Church teachings and diminishes Constitutionally - provided religious liberty, what could the bishops be attempting to gain ?

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 5:45PM

Hey Purp, guess what... just because some institutions or individuals are agreeing with Obama does not make it right. To agree with Obama and go along with this mandate means they are COMMITTING A SIN. So basically you're saying it's okay to participate in an evil act because a large group of people think it's okay.

As for your pedophile comment, the Catholic Church actually has the lowest percentage of pedophile/abuse cases out of all other religion institutions by about .2%, and religious organizations as a whole have a lower percentage per capita than the population as a whole. It's a sin, it's an evil act, but they are still human! Charge the offenders, punish them accordingly, just like everyone else.

Purp| 2.13.12 @ 6:51PM

Committing a sin, according to whom? Because of an Encyclical ... give me a break.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 1:19AM

No, we will not give you a break, as you intend not to give me or my First Amendment Rights a break.

Trish| 2.13.12 @ 7:58PM

Er...um....the uber liberal DePaul was not MANDATED by the Dem fed gov to provide this insurance or feel the iron fist of the government. I am not a tired old white man BUT I will not submit to the abdication of the first amendment by a totalitarian administration.

Purp| 2.14.12 @ 10:58AM

You know nothing about the First Amendment, you just think you do.

calvin| 2.13.12 @ 8:48AM

Stan;
You seem to think that having rejected your faith heritage that you now have some credibility, sort of like a kid who gave up the clarinet in sixth grade having an opinion on whether Benny Goodman's recording of the Mozart Concerto was any good.
Your proof you are right you find in the realization that a lot of other lost people who have nothing else in common with you share your disbelief. Welcome to the tower of Babel.
The irony is that non-Catholics see the importance of the RC Church at a critical moment in our history. It is sad you cannot see that.

David W| 2.13.12 @ 9:56AM

There is nothing in the Catholic Church's position (and I am not a Catholic) that stops women, religious or not, from using contraceptives, other than by reminding them of the Church's position, which is of a faith/moral perspective (in other words, using "free will"). However, what the Church is saying is that Obama/Gov't is forcing, by law and by actual force, the Church to pay for something that officially it considers morally reprehensible (abortion and/or contraception). If a woman chooses to have sex (otherwise known as "making babies") then it is up to her to take the necessary steps to prevent conception. No one should be forced to pay for her "elective" act.

It is difficult to understand how there are those who are totally unable to understand the Church's position. If someone receives a number of speeding tickets, should my car insurance premiums go up to help pay for their risky behavior? Of course not. Their insurance goes up to cover their risky behavior - my premiums don't (normally) go up as a result.

A woman, under the Church's moral "interference", is still free to use contraceptives or even have an abortion. The same cannot be said for the Government's interference.

Oh by the way, I'll give up my support for the death penalty (which has resulted in dozens of death of people convicted of crimes by a jury of their peers) when you give up your support of the "unborn" death penalty (where the unborn is guilty of no crime other than being conceived). And if, for some reason, someone attacks me and in order to defend myself I happen to end their life, I feel much more confident in the safety of my soul than I would if I supported the right to kill unborn babies.

Purp| 2.13.12 @ 2:37PM

OMG - "If a woman chooses to have sex (otherwise known as "making babies") then it is up to her to take the necessary steps to prevent conception. No one should be forced to pay for her "elective" act." - This is exactly what women are po'd about. Who the h*ll are you to tell women that THEY are the ones responsible for "making babies"... I suppose you think it is all done by immaculate conception? Did you forget the man's role in "making babies". With your stilted attitude, I can see why you stand with the celibate priests.

"If someone receives a number of speeding tickets, should my car insurance premiums go up to help pay for their risky behavior" - you're wrong on this line too. Insurance rates are set by the prevalence of occurrences of accidents and traffic violations. If there are more of any, you're rate will be higher, since you are in a riskier pool area. That's a factoid that doesn't fit your stilted view of the world, so sorry, but you're completely out of touch with reality from what I can tell.
Your last paragraph sounds great, but it's simply your opinion and has no weight more than any one else's. Life does not begin at conception. Are not eggs alive? Is not sperm alive? Of course they are - can they live outside the body - of course they can't. Well neither can an embryo live on it's own. It is alive only as long as it is in the body, otherwise imagine all the sperm you've killed, 1/2 a baby, OMG - Maybe all you righties should have paid more attention in Biology and Science - you might actually have a better understanding of the issue.

Mimi| 2.13.12 @ 10:11AM

STAN...
"STRENGTH from diversity" ...he knows not Catholics , Christians, Jews or any with religious hearts...those are not included in his idea of diversity.
"PRESERVE" He tears the country apart through RACE, CLASS and Now heartfelt religious conviction.
Your guy is a divider he's not on the side of a lot of us...he's the "ONE" tearing it down with poisonous, paralyzing demonization. Obama the well known divider, destroying the country...We will not continue down this terrible path....ENOUGH !!

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 10:32AM

Stan, this is the American-Taliban we are talking about.

SeymourGlass| 2.13.12 @ 1:28PM

King: are you referring to the Church, or to the President?

J.C.Eaton| 2.13.12 @ 2:02PM

Net-job, the persistence of your stupidity is exceeded only by its' comprehensiveness. Again tho, Congratos, you win going away for dumbest post of the day.

apnep| 2.13.12 @ 11:11AM

Last time I checked, if you accepted employment somewhere you accepted the job on the employer's terms. Since when does every place of employment have to offer an candidate the same benefits as other places of business? You are not gauranteed pension, 401K, stock options, fully paid for health insurance with all the bells and whistles. If you want contraception so bad, go buy it yourself. Or here's a better idea, just don't have any sex at all if you can't afford it. And excuse me, but Obamao DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to mandate JACK.

Hobbes| 2.13.12 @ 12:31PM

"The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.
The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.
Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action."

So is Obama legislating opinion or action? That is the discussion we should be having.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 1:36PM

The President isn't requiring ANYONE specifically to do anything. No ONE who believes Contraceptives is wrong is REQUIRED to use them.As far as requiring a institution to pay for them, well that is a benefits package, in essence a part of Compensation, and money is fungible. If I worked for a Mormon hospital would I not be entitled to use my pay to buy beer? Could they forbid that, on my own time? I don't think so...

chuck| 2.13.12 @ 2:44PM

They certainly would not pay you in beer.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 5:52PM

They can't determine how you spend the money they pay you, but at the same time you have no right (and neither does the government) to force the employer to pay for benefits they don't wish to pay for. The very idea of government forcing anyone, employer or citizen, to pay for health insurance is absurd.

If you don't like the benefits provided by a company, GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE! You have that choice. If you like the paycheck at a company and they don't provide all the benefits you want, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 10:29PM

IF YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE LAW WITH BENEFITS THAN SIMPLY DON"T OFFER THEM AT ALL, WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO DO?...

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 1:14AM

Why is it your job to tell me what benefits I can and cannot give?

Why can you not just grow up and get a clue?

Alan Brooks| 2.13.12 @ 1:02PM

Mostly, you're just using the issue as a wedge: THAT, not the issue itself-- is why I don't respect your position.

Jobe| 2.13.12 @ 1:45PM

Good one! I mean, this is irony, isn't it.

Sam Vaughn| 2.13.12 @ 3:46PM

People like you made Hitler possible.

Seapuss| 2.13.12 @ 6:42AM

Obama's original position was that Catholic institutions must provide and pay for a health insurance policies that cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. The new position is that Catholic institutions must provide and pay for a health insurance policies that cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, but we'll all pretend that they don't.

Barack, Barack, why do you persecute me?

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 8:40PM

Barack: "What is truth?"

drudge ette obama| 2.13.12 @ 6:43AM

White House counsel Lew could not have been more foul this weekend. On Fox News Sunday, his hand work was bizarre and his attempts to control the conversation even more so. This guy was one strange fellow - worse than Valerie Jarrett - maybe not.

Seapuss| 2.13.12 @ 6:46AM

"Just because a religious group in America claims to believe something, we cannot excuse them from obeying the law in the PUBLIC arena, based on that belief."

Stan, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution both say you are wrong.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 7:14AM

Obviously, you hate Black People. You hate women. You hate Children, and you probably can't see that well, with all of the Swastikas on your forehead.

Everybody knows that the Constitution is Old and Dusty. Everybody knows that it was written by a buncha Racist 1%ers. Everybody knows that, like GOD, the Constitution is dead. We need to get rid of Electoral College, give the Big States more Senators, and let Illegals and Felons Vote early, and often. We need to start looking to Mexico, Myanmar, the Amazon Tribes, and Sudan, when determining the Constitutionality of Our Laws.

We need free Condoms, Free Abortions, and Free Pot. We need legalized Prostitution. We need to Ban the Boy Scouts, and replace them with a NAMBLA Force, that is just as big, and just as well financed, as the Boy Scouts. Voter I.D. is Racist.

We need to take 99% of the 1%'s Money, and everybody needs to get the same stuff, whether they got outta bed before noon, or not. We need Free Apartments, Free Food, Free Cars and Free Gasoline, so we can drive around talking to our friends, on our FREE PHONES with our FREE MINUTES.

If you're against this?

You hate Black People.

Isn't that right, stan?

Teaghan| 2.13.12 @ 8:02AM

Good Morning Tim!

I fear it's too late guys. We're screwed.

How will we ever turn this thing back.

Ret. Marine| 2.13.12 @ 8:51AM

That's pretty simple, it's called the Supreme Court for a reason. This whole episode, obamacare, is unConstitutional, no matter how you try and brand it. It has to go, or expect a more than serious fight to be at our door steps, soon. Don't believe it, if this regime thinks is can just take a stomp on one guarentee, the First Right of all citizens, Religious, then it is not a stretch to think they might want to try for the Second, by this very in your face public announcement, of screw the Constitution, it's my way or the highway, Lew, pretty much made this quite clear, question is, who is listening of our main concern, protected Rights and this thugs attempt to stomp on them?

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 10:51AM

I wouldn't worry about it.

We're a Country of 360 Million. Surely, there's someone Doing Target Practice, somewhere.

It wouldn't be the first time.

I'm just saying.

Dr. X| 2.13.12 @ 2:01PM

Well, Mr. Pennell, I'd advise you against making such comments. You can bet money that you just earned yourself a notation in a Secret Service file in an office somewhere deep in the bowels of Washington, D.C. (In fact, every post on every article on this website probably gets monitored. Just sayin'.)

There are plenty of people out there target practicing, but none are going to take out the Big O. Lots of people get paid good money to prevent that, and they're pretty damn good at it.

But even if the Big O were to have a fatal misfortune -- let's say, for the sake of the argument, an aneurysm -- would it change anything? NO. You have to remember that O is merely a front man, a puppet, an affirmative action boy for the Cultural Revolution that took place in this country beginning in the 1960s. And the radicals WON, beyond a doubt. There are tens of millions who voted for him, tens of millions who are on the government teat, and tens of millions of radical lawyers and professors and professional activists who are the real problem. Without O, they'd still be there, working their incessant, unconstitutional mischief.

You WILL need to maintain target practice -- not for the reason you infer, but rather, for the civil war and anarchy that's going to break out when this whole Ponzi scheme collapses and the "takers" whose "consciousness" has been stoked by O and his ilk are out in the streets to get the "rich fat cats," meaning YOU and ME.

Remember the L.A. riots? Hurricane Katrina? THAT'S what you'll need your target practice for. O will be safely and comfortably ensconced in a bunker surrounded by legions of S.S. (Secret Service?) officers while O's welfare-teat voters try to rape your wife and burn your house down. You'll be on your own against that, pal.

irish19| 2.13.12 @ 3:15PM

Besides which, how can you say that the thought of President Biden doesn't make your blood run cold?

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 4:12PM

I don't know WTF you're talking about, Pal.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 5:54PM

All returning veterans were added to the list of possible terrorists in DHS' 2009 release. So too was anyone who believed in state or personal government over federal government, and anyone who is anti-abortion. Most of the people on this site are already on the list.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 8:43PM

And make a martyr of him for his narcissism? No, the wretch must be rebuked at all turns and ridiculed to his dying day.

PJ| 2.13.12 @ 8:53AM

Vote for almost anyone but Obama!

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 8:44PM

I'd vote for a pet rock.

Colin| 2.13.12 @ 9:42AM

In the meantime, "Beaver" Boehner and his buddy "Lumpy" McConnell continue foot stomping behalf on our behalf: "Boy, that sure does that make us reeeally mad. We're not kiddin' 'ya."

Question: Where's Marshal Dillon when you need him? I guess the answer for the trembling town folks; hunkered down behind locked doors is... it looks like he left the building with Elvis.

Epilogue:

But be of good cheer and positive outlook. Ron Paul is on his way to save the town, and restore serenity to the streets of Mayberry. At least that's what the trolls tell us.

Aren't modern pharmaceuticals wonderful?

Good luck, Chester.

Herb| 2.13.12 @ 11:12AM

Tim, you think your parody is funny. I think it's extremely funny.

But the OWS crowd believes everything which you wrote in jest, and that's our problem.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.13.12 @ 11:35AM

Who said I wrote it in jest?

I'm a firm believer that, every now and then, we need to remind ourselves of exactly what we're up against. I find that, using their own words against them, is the best way to go.

I'm glad you liked it, but it wasn't meant to be Funny?

It was meant to be Frightening.

Herb| 2.13.12 @ 3:44PM

Oh, frightening it is, and I did note that what reasonable folks find laughable is taken with deadly seriousness by the urban zombies of OWS.

By the way, ever notice how the term "zombie" is suddenly very current usage? Preppers use it a lot to refer to the hordes of unprepared when the stuff hits the fan, for example.

This is serious stuff, nothing less than our own civilization is at stake and the last time I had that chilling thought was in 1968.

But if soldiers in combat can laugh, why can't we?

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 7:12AM

" LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Obama Administration’s announcement that religious organizations must pay for contraception and sterilization under the national health care law:

“Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.

“I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates."

Fred Farkel| 2.13.12 @ 8:33AM

That day will not come. Someone else will have to withdraw that unconstitutional declaration by the Marxist dictator.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:59AM

Hey Fartel,
You Israel Firster Smear Bund Cowards Are Busy Bankrupting America, Using Our American Warriors For Your Cannon Fodder & Pissing Away American Treasure Policing The Middle East For Your Israel Firster Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

da monk| 2.13.12 @ 9:48AM

Hey Clint: Since Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish are you including him in you anti-Semtic rant?

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 11:19AM

Jesus Was Catholic, Who Was Killed By The Joooooos1

StephenF| 2.13.12 @ 12:30PM

Come on man this is rubbish. There is no place for comments like this.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 6:46PM

That Wasn't My Post.

That's The Israel Firster Poseur Punk PosterTrying More Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Tactics.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 5:57PM

Nope, he was Jewish.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 6:46PM

That Wasn't My Post.

That's The Israel Firster Poseur Punk PosterTrying More Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Tactics.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 6:49PM

Don't Try To Lump All Jews In With The Few Israel Firster Smear Bund Clowns,Who Are attempting To Destroy The GOP And America, da Skunk.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

johnadamsxii| 2.13.12 @ 7:14AM

The worst thing about Obama's 'accomodation' is that is makes religious freedom a privilege granted by the government instead of a fundamental right that government cannot infringe upon.

Mimi| 2.13.12 @ 10:19AM

PERFECT ...John...the quote of the day!

Jobe| 2.13.12 @ 1:57PM

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives IS that liberals think all rights come from government, and conservatives believe that they come from the Creator.

The Big E| 2.13.12 @ 6:34PM

You forget that BHO thinks he IS the Creator.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 8:48PM

Actually, such things as Creating are beneath a being so Obamarific as Obama.

Dwight Mann| 2.13.12 @ 7:20AM

Enticing the far wing of the conservative movement behind Santorum (or Newt) is an interesting theory. We must be on guard, as it relates to our alienating, and electability prospects. Something about this seems well to obvious. Barack/Axelrod are two shrewd individuals.

Mimi| 2.13.12 @ 10:27AM

Dwight...they lied to the BISHOP...soon to be Cardinal...They didn't ask, they required them to turn from God, and commit GRAVE SIN...By there command. They may be SHREWED but they areon the EVIL, WRONG side in this.
The can of 'worms' was opened...the Catholic church WILL NOT COMPLY with the unjust law, that causes them to make a mortal offense against the God they SERVE!
Mark my words....This IS the end for OBAMA...and very well may BE the END of the DEMOCRAT PARTY!!!

DaveD| 2.13.12 @ 7:20PM

From your lips to God's ear.

Indy| 2.13.12 @ 7:32AM

I read this at NRO but it is not being reported elsewhere:

"The bottom line is this: “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.” [Emphasis added.]

Translation: The Obama administration Friday afternoon put into federal law the very regulation that drew objections from almost 200 Catholic bishops, some 50 religiously affiliated colleges and universities, 65 North American bishops of Orthodox churches, numerous other Jewish, Evangelical and Lutheran leaders, and even some liberals — and without changing so much as a comma.

From this point forward, any changes to this regulation have to go through the formal regulatory process all over again.

The administration admits as much in the preamble to these regulations when it states that Treasury, Labor, and HHS “plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employer’s plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.”

Thus, instead of delaying final regulations until they could be revised to reflect the prospective changes President Obama outlined Friday, the administration went ahead and locked into regulation its original position, accompanied by a (non-binding) promise to revisit the issue."

There is more at the link http://www.nationalreview.com/.....haislmaier

and for institutions that self-insure? The press cheerleads the "accomodation" and gives a huge victory to POTUS, it's all a farce but sadly many voters will fall for this. I think this ends up in the courts because POTUS won't back down, Planned Parenthood cheerleads and the press thinks this issue is about birth control. The First Amendment is under attack.

Teaghan| 2.13.12 @ 8:04AM

The entire Constitution is under attack.

Dr. X| 2.13.12 @ 7:56AM

If the Government can force the Bishops to pay for abortifacients, then it can force them to pay for, if not actually perform, abortions. Government can then refuse to license and certify Catholic Hospitals if the bishops fail to comply.

The Bishops are going to have to decide if they will capitulate to the government and betray their moral values, or risk the Second Great Persecution and lose a significant portion of their flock and go underground.

Remember... the Founders consciously modeled this country on Rome...

Jobe| 2.13.12 @ 2:37PM

The Catholic Hierarchy in the United States has allowed this administration to ratchet up to this point by supporting the liberal program of the other obama supporters, and shilling for obama in its own publications. Now, all of a sudden, they have had an epiphany! Lo and behold, the obama socialist/communist anti-faith organization has come for the Catholics. Problem is, this Catholic thing is merely the tip of the ice berg. The entire obama presidency is an affront to those of us who believe that the Constitution is the basic law of the land.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 9:05PM

Actually, the composition of Catholic bishops of today are trending far more to the right than in the 1970's. The brand loyalty that Catholics had for the Democratic Party in the 1960's has long since been tarnished, and every year the hierarchy and priesthood grows more conservative (as the hippies are forced to retire).

I very much doubt that Archbishop Dolan was genuinely surprised. Even so, he has every right to express his disappointment at this treachery by Obama.

Clint| 2.13.12 @ 8:22AM

The fall of Rome and other dominant civilizations manifest similar pathologies: imperial overreach, runaway spending, erosion of money's purchasing power, personal debauchery. At the most fundamental level, national suicide follows moral decay.

Derek Leaberry| 2.13.12 @ 11:56AM

Very true.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.13.12 @ 8:29AM

The problem is the law, not the current mandate. This law can be deconstructed to five words: "As the Secretary Shall Determine."

The Bishops must understand that this is only the first offensive. If ObamaCare stands, the Church will also be paying for grandma's poison pill. When they pay premiums at Catholic schools, or are refused reimbursement for life sustaining services at Catholic hospitals; they will be faced with the same problem with euthanasia.
This abomination must go, both Obama and his unconstitutional laws. Pelosi, Biden and Sebelius should be ex-communicated. They are socialist who were accidentally born to Catholic families.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 9:07PM

They can be refused the Eucharist, but I believe that formal excommunication may be a tricky endeavor in the eyes of canon law.

A shame really.

tsd| 2.13.12 @ 8:30AM

Barack Obama, the great divider! A country divided against itself cannot stand. Is this any surprise from a guy hell bent on tearing our country apart? Our only weakness is an attack from within, from the great community dis-organizer!!

Mike Hawk| 2.13.12 @ 8:35AM

The Oborg has no authority to do what he did. It is extra-Constitutional as well as Un-Constitutional.

The Big E| 2.13.12 @ 6:39PM

He can command whatever he wishes until someone with the power to stop him tells him, "No!"

Wh0's going to do that?

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 9:10PM

If he is truly unlucky, a Just Judge.

Derek Leaberry| 2.13.12 @ 9:05AM

Most "Catholics" inclined to go to weekly Mass and live a Catholic lifestyle already vote Republican even if they have a hard time stomaching the Republican candidate. The two-thirds of "Catholics" who aren't Catholics in a meaningful way(eg, the Kennedys, the Cuomos, the O'Malley's, EJ Dionne, Mark Shields) could care less about what the bishops say or the church itself. They usually vote Democratic even though that party is the party of abortion, homosexuality, perversion and socialism. A chief reason why Massachusetts and Rhode Island are so messed up is the multitudes of "Catholics" who have turned their backs on Catholic teaching. As Obama knows, he will lose no votes thumbing his nose at the Catholic church.

Mimi| 2.13.12 @ 10:46AM

It almost seems hopeless...Where is the MORAL AUTHORITY in this country?
We have endured all kind of OUTRAGES from this guy....Are we the people the 'Moral Authority ' we need ....is it up to us?....or will our Representatives in Congress take up arms.
The word IMPEACHMENT comes to mind....strange... before this not just a road to take. Now it may be the road we are forced to burden ourselves with...and a long time in coming.
This imboldened attack on the constitution must be answered. Where is the " MORAL AUTHOITY" in this country???

Derek Leaberry| 2.13.12 @ 11:18AM

There is no moral authority in the country that commands a political majority. Gramscian Marxism is the prevailing moral authority in the Western world. Satan reigns in the hearts of the majority.

TrueBlue| 2.13.12 @ 6:02PM

Sadly the House can call for impeachment, but the Senate is the one that holds the proceedings. The Dems would never hold a serious trial, so Obama would get off, and then he couldn't be brought up on those charges a second time.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 9:13PM

However, he is certainly energizing his enemies.

Robert Mandraccia| 2.13.12 @ 9:22AM

Amazing that insurance companies are being forced to pay for contraception(not cheap!!) while routinely turning down other procedures on women such as breast reconstruction and breast reduction, both of which DO involve HEALTH issues.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 9:14PM

Or breast cancer treatment drugs. So much for "women's health".

Aindyin| 2.13.12 @ 9:23AM

According to Obamas logic if I hire a hit man to kill someone I'm not guilty since I didnt pull the trigger.

WL| 2.13.12 @ 9:28AM

Well...in about 10 months, we are about to see just how gutted the Catholic church is...

The Bamster pretty much told em to shut up and go away...now he's out there saying the debate is over...

So, if the Catholics (include other churches as well) vote for this guy again...he'll know what he suspects...that they are pretty much morally bankrupt as a segment of the population, and can be rolled at will.

We'll see in 9 months.

WL| 2.13.12 @ 9:30AM

That comment was not intended to disparage the Catholic church in any way...I have hope for them on this one...

But the facts are the facts...and if Christianity votes for Obama after ALL OF THIS...

We are NEVER gonna fix anything...because the whole thing is too far gone.

Patrick| 2.13.12 @ 9:16PM

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

Sandra| 2.13.12 @ 9:29AM

What is the mandate that the Catholic Church has to run hospitals, feed the hungry, visit those in prison, care for the widowed, the orphan or the forgotten? What is it?

Matthew 25:31-46

We are COMMANDED to do these things, for it is how we treat others, is how we treat our Lord.

I pray for mercy and wisdom for those that should know better, but were lead astray by the glamour of evil.

Indiana Alex| 2.13.12 @ 9:34AM

This issue exemplifies the miserable leadership of this administration, and the terrrible legislation that it has spawned.

Both Obamacare and Dodd/Frank purposely do not spell out much of what will later become "law", but instead place the power for determining law into the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are accountable only to the Administration.

The left is currently happy with this sort of tyranny, as they always seem to be, provided the heavy hand of government edict implements policy with which they agree.

They don't understand that another day may bring a government that uses that same tyranny to implement completely different policies.

Then again, they don't seem to understand much at all.

RouxBella| 2.13.12 @ 10:08AM

Wonder if the US Bishops are thinking... If only...what if...I should have! Gullible! 0bama's agenda was in plain sight during his campaign. They refused to see him for what is is/was. A marxist. A progressive. So here we are! US Bishops. Thanks for not doing your homework.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 12:41AM

Many bishops that have been vocal against this blasphemous tyranny were either too junior or too few to have opposed it vocally enough to drown out the aged hippy bishops. That is, of course, besides those bishops who weren't bishops in 2008-10.

Further

Al Adab| 2.13.12 @ 10:25AM

This issue rose at just the right time. It clearly defines the chasm between Left and right. The Left, without moral compass or basic principles beyond power simply cannot comprehend those who do not adhere to a moral relativistic view. On the right those who still believe in moral absolutes stand for individual conscience against the dictates of a government that does not respect, indeed holds in contempt, their values. This is truly the battle of our time.

W| 2.13.12 @ 11:18AM

Al Adab
This issue shows that Obama and his crew will do anything to extend goverment control. If they can obliterate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, then we have a State Church of Secularism, with the president as head of the State Church.

It is good that Obama did not back down, and just tried to be clever by having the insurance companies provide the benefits. He believes the voters are too stupid to understand that ultimately the employer pays for the insurance premium and therefore the employer is paying for the benefits.

So him not backing down and trying a clever lie will keep the issue alive, and it is up to the Republican candidates to use this to show how radical Obama is.

In addition to telling the Catholic institutions what they must do, now he is ordering private insurance companies to provide a benefit without charging the recipient. The first is an attack on the First Amendment; the second an attack on the free enterprise system. Both are equally bad.

Where does he get the authority to order a private company to offer a service or product without charging for it? And people doubt he is a socialist? He is Il Duce Obama.

billcarson| 2.13.12 @ 10:27AM

I'm not as enthusiastic as this writer. Everything he writes will only be true if the bishops will summon some courage to fight Obama. I am deeply fearful that many of them will hide. In my diocese of Santa Fe, NM, our bishop refused to have the letter about the HHS ruling read from the pulpit. He stuck the letter in the middle of the diocesan paper, without any accompanying article or feature story. He hasn't said a word publicly. He is hiding because he is afraid of the many liberals in Santa Fe. If a big chunk of bishops hide like mine, Obama will win. If you think about it, there are only a handful of bishops who are jumping in front of microphones and TV cameras to say something.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 12:43AM

Well, pray that your bishop be given the grace and courage to speak.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 10:35AM

Remember Kiddies(No offense to real children) ONLY the American-Taliban gets to determine what the US Govt. does, not your elected officials.

W| 2.13.12 @ 11:06AM

This may be a good sign that you lefties/Dems regard Catholics as the American Taliban. Now you may understand that Catholics the same Constitutional rights that you insist the real Taliban terrorrists we capture must have.

You can start with the First Amendment exercise of religion, such as when you insist that the terrorrists at Gitmo be provided with the Koran, prayer rug, the correct diet, and so on.

You have more concern for the "rights" of the real Taliban than you do for Americans who are Catholic.

Martin Owens| 2.13.12 @ 11:24AM

What about somebody who thinks abortion is morally wrong, but only runs a grocery store or a gas station?
This is the statist version of" accommodation" : we'll only infringe on your rights a little bit, this time, provided you acknowledge our right to cancel them at any time.

Like the hobo said to the chicken as he stuffed her under his coat- "if you'll agree to be quiet, I'll only eat half of ye".

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 1:12PM

What about a person who doesn't want to serve gay's or blacks or unwed mothers? Why stop here? We can modify insurance plans to get rid of ANYTHING we don't like, I for example wouldn't want to pay for ANYTHING that costs over $5,000,not for any other reason but it would save my company some premiums. But i am sure i can always 'pretend' I have a moral objection.Not to mention i just KNOW one of my employees is going to use his pay to buy SOMETHING I don't agree with, what do i do than fire him? MYOB

W| 2.13.12 @ 1:38PM

King
You are being purposely dense. The First Amendment prohibts the government from restricting the free exercise of religions. That is the issue here. There is no constitutional prohibition on premiums or costs.
What does serving gays, blacks, or others have to do with the free exercise of religion?
Read the First Amendment.

J.C.Eaton| 2.13.12 @ 2:13PM

W, you're wrong about The Net-job....he's NOT being purposefully dense...he IS purposefully dense. In fact he is a very dull man, in the sense that he is not sharp.To seek serious insight from this trog is to search for that which will never be. Best,

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 12:47AM

Sharp as as a bowling ball.

Purp| 2.13.12 @ 6:56PM

Nothing Obama has done or will do restricts free exercise of religion. Contraception is not a religious freedom or tenet. Show me in the bible where it is a sin ... Show me where Jesus said it is wrong. If Catholics or any other religion don't choose to use contraception, so be it. But as an employer of non-catholics and catholics alike, the Church must follow laws of the state. The one exception is those that work in the Church itself, not an affiliated institution. Only right wing ideologues believe otherwise.

W| 2.13.12 @ 9:15PM

Are you now a sola scriptura believer, Purp? Do you believe in the Bible?

Purp| 2.14.12 @ 11:00AM

Of course I do, don't you? If only you studied the Bible, you would understand a bit more about the Christian traditions.

W| 2.14.12 @ 3:41PM

Purp,
Since you profess to know the labor laws, do you know which labor laws apply to religious institutions and which do not?
What specific Christian traditions are you referring to?

Citizen Jerry| 2.13.12 @ 1:18PM

Of course this "accommodation" should be rejected. All it does is shift the onus from Holy Cross to Blue Cross. And there is no such thing as a free lunch, even though dear leader said there is.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 1:36PM

The President isn't requiring ANYONE specifically to do anything. No ONE who believes Contraceptives is wrong is REQUIRED to use them.As far as requiring a institution to pay for them, well that is a benefits package, in essence a part of Compensation, and money is fungible. If I worked for a Mormon hospital would I not be entitled to use my pay to buy beer? Could they forbid that, on my own time? I don't think so...

George S| 2.13.12 @ 2:18PM

In the same breath you state the president isn't requiring anyone specifically do anything yet defend the president's requirement that institutions pay for something specifically. That's why arguing with liberals is no different than reasoning with mental patients. There is no thinking, just robotic rambling.

Garfield| 2.13.12 @ 2:00PM

I reject the statement the article when it says Santorum and Gingrich are no different than Romney on this.

1. Gingrich has been a private citizen since 1998, he has no voting record on this. He dropped his support of the Individual mandate long before he decided to re-enter politics.

2. Santorum has no record on this either. He is also against the individual mandate.

3. Both Santorum and Gingrich are Catholics.

4. Romney actually did what Obama is now doing while he was governor of Massachusetts.

To claim that Gingrich and Santorum harbor the same views as Romney makes me wonder if the author of this article has been in a coma for the last decade.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 2:27PM

I found the root of the problem reading these comments. You Religious people apparently aren't content to be moral YOURSELVES, you feel a need to FORCE that morality unto OTHERS. That isn't personal morality, that's FASCISM.

billcarson| 2.13.12 @ 3:21PM

You are completely wrong, sir. The whole argument revolves around the orders from your messiah that businesses and institutions buy a very specific list of medical services and drugs whether they want to or not. The FORCE (I'll use caps like you because it makes me appear more thoughtful, haha) exclusively comes from the government.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 4:26PM

The Govt. requires very specific stuff in most areas, building codes, how to process meat, milSpec, what can be in kids toys, what can be called butter, ice cream, cheese and a million other things.Morality is for a YOU and ONLY YOU, you can't decide that for others.

DaveD| 2.13.12 @ 7:23PM

But it is O.K. for YOU to jam YOUR morality (or lack therof) down my throat. Up yours.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 10:26PM

It's Not YOU DECISION ASSHOLE, what OTHER people do...JUST DEAL WITH YOURSELF.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 12:59AM

Well Mr. Pottymouth, what I do with my charity is my decision, not yours or your God-King Obama.

As I am a Catholic, I will not help people destroy themselves and others with MY time, MY talent, or MY treasure.

YOU are the one forcing ME to pay for something that I regard as inhuman, cruel, destructive, just because YOU think that your moral compass is superior to my own.

Should Have Impeached| 2.13.12 @ 3:28PM

I'm glad the Bishops didn't fall for Obama's BS. I was gettin' worried, what with reports of other Catholics "thanking" Obama for his benevolence. (Yeah, sure....)

Bottom line: Catholics should not be forced to pay for and/or offer services contrary to their official moral beliefs... no matter what "some" Catholics do in defiance of those beliefs. That is indeed a matter of their own consciences.

To force compliance to secular laws that defy religious beliefs is so clearly UNAMERICAN there's not even any question about this. That's one of the things that distinguishes American freedom from dictatorship.

Obama is a dictator, and so is everyone who votes for him.

Neo| 2.13.12 @ 4:09PM

Frankly, it really doesn't matter if you agree with the bishops on contraceptives, to see that this "accommodation" is utter garbage.
This is the same kind of garbage that has the finances of the country so fouled up beyond all recognition ... it's "off budget" .. $550 billion in "future Medicare savings" is not a "cut".
If their words is their bond, then is all junk bonds.

jstwndring| 2.13.12 @ 4:41PM

Sadly, the Catholic Church is getting what it deserves. They supported this monstrosity from the beginning, and now they complain about only an aspect of it that they find disagreeable. If President Obama rescinded just this part if it, they'd be fine with the rest of it. Seriously? This is what it takes for democrats to realize there is a problem, and still, most if it goes right over their heads. Absolutely clueless.

W| 2.13.12 @ 4:51PM

It is not the Catholic Church that is getting anything. You and the rest of us are having our First Amendment rights restricted. The Church is just the most visible target because it complained.

jstwndring| 2.13.12 @ 4:56PM

Well, I complained too, but, I'm not a democrat, so, I don't count.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 1:07AM

Not all Catholics are democrats.

Not all non-retired Catholic clergy (or perhaps even most anymore) are either.

The problem is, is that the Church doesn't get involved in matters of *prudential* politics. Therefore, if some batty old nun supports Obamacare, unless there is undeniable evidence to it performing evil, people think that the Church is for it. But who's worried, the nun gets a pen for her effort.

Now that the Church is faced with a policy decision that is undeniably evil, it is no longer a matter of prudence, but objective evil. The bishops now MUST act.

Anne Stinneford| 2.13.12 @ 6:51PM

Forget about the Pope's divisions--let's talk about the Bishops' elementary and secondary parochial school students. If the archbishops of the major cities announced that they would close these schools rather than comply, thus causing thousands of additional (and better educated) students to flood the public school systems, which their parents already pay for in property taxes, the screaming from Obama's own political bases--the teachers' unions, the municipal workers--would be heard in DC loud and clear, and many smug left wing politicians would learn an immediate lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

Rick| 2.13.12 @ 6:55PM

Obamas' polices do to work its just headwins. He will NOT loose! Your a bigget and your poles are rasist!

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 10:30PM

IF YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE LAW WITH BENEFITS THAN SIMPLY DON"T OFFER THEM AT ALL, WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO DO?...

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 1:09AM

It's not your right to tell us what kind of benefits we give.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 10:52PM

I DARE anyone to go into ANY Catholic Hospital without insurance and see if they let you skate on the bill...Non-profit my ass.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 1:09AM

Happens all the time.

Kingofthenet| 2.13.12 @ 11:19PM

Why doesn't the Catholic Hospitals just staff the place ENTIRELY with Nun's, they won't need to provide Contraception... maybe just a bit of Listerine to wash out the taste of PUSSY.

Patrick| 2.14.12 @ 1:10AM

And once again we see that you are incapable of seeing anything other than at the most bestial level.

Kingofthenet| 2.14.12 @ 2:39AM

I meant from the little girls they RAPE, you know it JUST isn't the Priests that are the Pedo's don't you know?

POST American| 2.14.12 @ 12:32AM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

MEANWHILE, the former Rat--zinger,
NOW 'Benedict' --calling last October for
World Government ---run by a World Bank.

"The Vatican has been TOTALLY
infiltrated since the 1950's."
-MALACHI MARTIN

In short, the Church is ---NOT, in
any way shape or form, speaking
GOD's TRUTH ---to the powers
that be.

------------Have they ever even mentioned
the deadly EUGENICS legacies of the
Rockefellers? --Harrimans? ---ROT-childs?
--Ted Turners? --Buffets? --Maurice Strongs?
-----------------------GATES?-----------------------

Have they taken ANY sustained, high
profile stand AGAINST the slave labor
practices and fierce EUGENICS of
the Globalist 'Mere--ICK--CULL'
------------RED China?--------------

Have they said ----ANYTHING? ---EVER?

Mark MacInnis| 2.14.12 @ 5:22PM

I will believe the heirarchy of the Catholic church in the US is seriousl about "being disappointed" by this administration and this president's heinous acts when they change their rhetoric from "We are saddened and disappointed." to "We will advise our faithful church body to VOTE FOR YOUR OPPONENT."

Which is the only damned language this administration understands.

Until then, their words are, as it says in Ecclesiastes, "dust in the wind."

Tony in Central PA| 2.14.12 @ 10:03PM

Its not going to happen. The Catholic Church in America has avoided endorsing candidates and always should.
Having said that, the Church will provide fact sheets about candidates in certain races at certain times and present their voting records on issues like abortion. Candidates are given the opportunity often to provide commentary.

Minnesota Mama| 2.16.12 @ 12:54PM

A business is a business, and a church is a church. If you operate a business, you must comply with the law. Period. A hospital might contain a chapel, but it is not, in and of itself, a house of worship. Requiring a business to comply with the law is not interfering with individual right to worship as he or she sees fit. If you want to claim that a business is the same as a church, then a church should be taxable the same way a business is. It's not anti-religion - it's common sense. How many businesses out there masquerade as churches? Some of the recently created "religions" such as Scientology fall within that sphere. Which religions rate special accomodations? Should Muslim stores be allowed to ban seeing-eye dogs from their premises or cabs because they are "unclean"? It's a violation of their deeply held religious beliefs. The religious preferences of the owners of a business cannot be the basis on whether that business will comply with a law.