[NeedKarma]

Those 70 million want their contraception! You lose! LOL!

[tomder55]

Then they will vote appropriately..

[NeedKarma]

Correct. I sense that they would be less full of indignation than you due to their being less full of hate.

[tomder55]

You know nothing .

[speechlesstx]

I enjoy spirited debate, don't you? Also it good to expose faulty arguments when they surface. I don't drive an F1 car but I enjoy watching the races.

The only faulty arguments so far in this discussion are yours. This decision has been roundly criticized by both left and right. Even USA Today said yesterday in response to Sebelius' spurious argument that it still protects religious rights that the "Contraception mandate violates religious freedom".

They are right, it does violate religious freedom. It's that simple to most everyone but you.

[NeedKarma]

You should read the article, it's not as cut and dried as you try to make it appear to be. Also it's an editorial piece.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I'm not impressed with WHO likes the decision and WHO doesn't. There are a lot of Catholics on BOTH sides of the aisle. MOST people don't view the First Amendment like I do. As you know, I'm pretty much an absolutest.. I believe our government cannot tell a church HOW to be a church...

But, when a church decides to be something OTHER than a church, then they should be treated exactly like the other entities involved in the same activity... If a church WANTS the protections the Constitution grants them, they need to BE a church. So, I dispute the headline above. A hospital, even if it's run and owned by a church, is still a HOSPITAL and NOT a church.

excon

[tomder55]

So my solution is the right one . Shut them all down and let's see the government screw ups try to run them.

[speechlesstx]

I'm not impressed with WHO likes the decision and WHO doesn't. There are a lot of Catholics on BOTH sides of the aisle. MOST people don't view the First Amendment like I do. As you know, I'm pretty much an absolutest.. I believe our government cannot tell a church HOW to be a church...

BUT, you think forcing them out of their ministries is OK because money exchanges hands? That's what this is you know, a ministry, an extension of the church.

But, when a church decides to be something OTHER than a church, then they should be treated exactly like the other entities involved in the same activity... If a church WANTS the protections the Constitution grants them, they need to BE a church. So, I dispute the headline above. A hospital, even if it's run and owned by a church, is still a HOSPITAL and NOT a church.

Again, it is a MINISTRY of the church. It is an EXTENSION of the church, and it has been that way for ages. I'm with tom, let's just close all church ministries that aren't specifically a house of worship; hospitals, clinics, day cares, schools, orphanages, feeding centers, food pantries, homeless shelters, disaster relief teams, domestic violence centers, etc. and let the government - or you - take care of everyone. You're not going to like the results when the church is taken out of the equation.

[NeedKarma]

Nope, the free market cures all ills - remember?

[speechlesstx]

Also it's an editorial piece.

Duh.

[excon]

Again, it is a MINISTRY of the church. It is an EXTENSION of the church, and it has been that way for ages.

Hello again, Steve:

And, if I wanted First Amendment protections, I'd say that too...

But, I've been to a church, and I've been to a hospital.. They AIN'T the same thing. They're not even close.

Let me ask you this.. Let's say I started the Church of Blessed Marijuana. Would I be protected? Why not? Under the First Amendment, I absolutely believe that I SHOULD be protected. But, if I opened a medical cannabis dispensary, I'd need a city license, and I'd need to pay sales tax... No??

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

And, if I wanted First Amendment protections, I'd say that too...

But, I've been to a church, and I've been to a hospital.. They AIN'T the same thing. They're not even close.

You still ignore history. If it weren't for the church you might not even have a hospital. Here's the story of one of ours:

On February 13, 1901, four young women from the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio arrived in Amarillo to start a health care facility that would meet the medical needs of the 1,422 citizens of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle. The facility was named St. Anthony’s Hospital. These remarkable women faced many challenges and hardships including cold winters, the remoteness of the building with no means of transportation, and most of all an atmosphere of mistrust by the citizens of the Panhandle.

Patients began to seek out St. Anthony’s Hospital during an epidemic of typhoid in 1907. The sisters took responsibility for nursing the patients, and the general public began to realize the devotion of the sisters. St. Anthony’s Hospital went on to establish the area’s first nursing school, cardiac unit, and hospice facility.

Between 1950 and 1960, the population of Amarillo increased by 84%, which created a need for more hospital beds and physicians. The Amarillo Area Foundation began planning for a new hospital with support from the Baptist General Convention of Texas to bring about this much needed facility. On February 28, 1968, the 68 beds of High Plains Baptist Hospital were opened to the public. Its accomplishments include establishing the area’s first day surgery center and pioneering in rehabilitation services and occupational therapy.

In February 1996, High Plains Baptist Hospital and St. Anthony’s Hospital announced the final step that consolidated the two former competitors into a new healthcare system. Today, Baptist St. Anthony’s Health System (BSA) combines the services, employees, and physicians of both former hospitals into a major employer that offers full service health care, employs more than 2,700 people and has a medical staff of more than 450 physicians.

BSA, a co-ministry of Baptist Community Services of Amarillo, Texas and CHRISTUS Health of Irving, Texas, fosters an environment that allows employees to provide superior patient care in alignment with our mission—to provide quality healthcare in Christian love, service and dignity.

It is a fantastic hospital, one of the best in the country and I wasn't using mere words looking for first amendment protection - history is on my side. You'd be OK with it shutting down rather than violate its beliefs. We wouldn't.

Let me ask you this.. Let's say I started the Church of Blessed Marijuana. Would I be protected? Why not? Under the First Amendment, I absolutely believe that I SHOULD be protected. But, if I opened a medical cannabis dispensary, I'd need a city license, and I'd need to pay sales tax... No??

Start your church and give it a go. I'd love to follow the story.

[excon]

You still ignore history.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't ignore history.. I just don't believe that history should dictate the present. We had a history of slavery, and changed it. We had a history of not letting gays serve in the military. We changed it. We had a history of letting old people starve on the street, and we changed that too.

I have NO problem with treating EVERYTHING that isn't a church, exactly like it ISN'T a church. I don't mind if it goes AGAINST what we've always done.

excon

[speechlesstx]

What you have a problem with is understanding the church is not a building.

[NeedKarma]

Church is a non-profit faith-based organization, your hospital is not.

[speechlesstx]

Church is a non-profit faith-based organization, your hospital is not.

Um, yes it is. By every legal definition it most definitely is.

[tomder55]

The Rastafarians have won court cases in Guam ,but have not in the states yet. A panel of the 9th circus ruled that protections granted by the 1993 RFRA Act permits the personal use and possession of cannabis ; but not the sale or importation, for religious purposes. The court specifically found that the federal territory's controlled substance statute substantially burdened the free exercise clause .

I think that eventually the Supremes will have to rule on it . Some Native religions have gotten exceptions for peyote ;an otherwise controlled substance .Native Americans are allowed to answer "no" on the armed forces application question, "Have you ever used illegal drugs?", with respect to peyote.

[NeedKarma]

Um, yes it is. By every legal definition it most definitely is.

It's a non-profit? Really?

[speechlesstx]

Um, yes, We have a lot of non-profit hospitals in this country but I've already said that several times.