Yes, but it shouldn't come down to "Yahweh or the highway." (With thanks to Stephen Colbert.) Religion should not rear its quid pro quo head where social services open to all are concerned. I don't know to what extent "consumers" always have alternative choices. Think about that one, and the instances where it might not necessarily apply. Religion is a right and it should be kept inside its houses of worship, and prevented from seeping out into the secular world where it can hold sway over the political process. Remember the part about separation of church and state, notwithstanding the church's ongoing effort throughout history to expand its purview.
I don't think you know Catholics well enough at all. 1. Sadly, the Church fails when it comes to helping men find wives or vice versa. 2. You can network through the Knights of Columbus but again the Church is not even close to good at networking. In some pariahes if you spend a long time working at church events the priest may be able to hook you up. But overall the church does not network nearly as well as other institutions. 3. The Priests who run the Catholic Church since Vatican 2. over these last 60 years have been socialists and they have been liberalised no doubt about it. And we have seen what good that has done for the good of all. 4. The very larger majority of people who attend Catholic Church in the United States are not socialists 5. Regarding the cult concept, sure catholics are a cult if a billion people on the planet, who can trace their churches history and practices back to apostles of Jesus are a cult.
Govt should be staying out of these choices as well. Who the hell is govt to tell a church hospital or church school that is must pay for drugs which cause the killing of human life. WTF is wrong with your thinking?
Church hospitals and church schools are not churches and should not be used as Trojan horses by those churches.
your making distinctions which make no difference. who is the govt to tell people it must provide drugs to people which kill human life. condoms... that might be one thing... but this is entirely something else. 2. secondly you are now invading rights protected from the govt by the constitution.
I believe your legal prowess has already been amply demonstrated in the Georgia birther thread. But thanks anyway.
you are such a coward. I predicted a trial or a hearing. I was right. You loons said never. I warned that it could have been a mistake for the plaintiffs to put on a trial when Obama defaulted. The judge pretty much said so when he said ordinarily he would have granted a default.
Let's not overlook the part about you not believing Obama has a legal leg to stand on with the birth certificate he had already furnished. Or are you finally over that nonsense?
More bullshit from you. I have said from the beginning, I have no idea where Obama was born and neither do you because he has never supplied proof to anyone under oath. I also said the U.S. Supreme Court has not defined NBC. As I told your loon friends Obama has not "furnished" any proof to any state election board or court. In georgia he took a default rather than provide proof. I wanted just one hearing on the merits because I thought this would have ended. Obama would provide proof and it would either be enough or not enough. I did not expect a default... and then a screw up by plaintiffs. But, as a process guy who does care about the constitution, we got our hearing. Lawyers screw up, that is part of the system. Plaintiffs lawyers screwed up. But by having this hearing, loons and everyone else now know Obama would rather take a default than provide proof of eligibility to a court. We will see how state election boards react to that fact.