I would Never Have Voted.....

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Cunt didnt read it

DUMB CUNT!

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/14/98-percent-catholic-women-birth-control_n_849060.html

98 Percent Of Catholic Women Use Birth Control Banned By Church

First Posted: 4/14/11 Updated: 6/14/11

(Reuters) -- Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.

"In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones.

She said most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the intrauterine device (IUD).

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

So what? What does that have to do with the Constitutional issues involved?

Elected representatives basing their vote on a bill because of their religious beliefs is a direct violation of the first amendment.

 

[Wrong Element]

The church leadership has openly allied itself with the Republican Party, even against a Catholic presidential nominee. All well and good as long as your side wins. Obama owes them exactly jack shit.



* Lifelong Catholic and birth control devotee here.

 

[phrodeau]

So what? What does that have to do with the Constitutional issues involved?

What, your proposed violation of the Eighth Amendment?

 

[Liar]

So what? What does that have to do with the Constitutional issues involved?

Cliffnotes please. In the simplest of terms, what are the Constitutional issues involved?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

*Shakes head, astounded*

Snotty snark instead of answer. Good jorb.

 

[Sean]

Cliffnotes please. In the simplest of terms, what are the Constitutional issues involved?

I already pointed out the first amendment conflict, but I'm pretty sure Vettebigot doesn't like that one.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

I already pointed out the first amendment conflict, but I'm pretty sure Vettebigot doesn't like that one.

I'm guessing he meant that HHS is infinging on the Catholics' freedom of religion, but he's not telling me, so who knows.

ETA: Ah, he just told. I retract.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

*Shakes head, astounded*

Just trying to stop you from playing the snark game and speak straight.

 

[Sean Renaud]

They all take federal funding. Once you do that you immediatly lose your right to discriminate according to your religious beliefs. Let one that is funded exclusively by private donations file a suit and I'll stand right there beside ya but if otherwise they need to shut the fuck up and do their jobs and do them properly.

 

[Sean]

Congress making law that limits the "free" exercise of religion is a violation of the First Amendment.

How does funding abortion for those that want it limit anyone's ability to exercise their religion?

 

[koalabear]

*Shakes head, astounded*

lmafao at the usual trolls, good thread vette.

 

[Angellica1612]

Elected representatives basing their vote on a bill because of their religious beliefs is a direct violation of the first amendment.

I just looked it up, to refresh my memory.

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

This means the government cannot create a 'state church' and enforce membership in it on citizens. It also means it cannot prohibit the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of a religion. It prohibits the government from interfering in a citizen's right to follow whatever faith they choose. It does not state that an elected official cannot base his decisions on his own faith.

 

[Sean]

I just looked it up, to refresh my memory.

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

This means the government cannot create a 'state church' and enforce membership in it on citizens. It also means it cannot prohibit the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of a religion. It prohibits the government from interfering in a citizen's right to follow whatever faith they choose. It does not state that an elected official cannot base his decisions on his own faith.

Yes it does if that decision affects anyone else's religion.

 

[TexasWife25]

I just looked it up, to refresh my memory.

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion...

This means the government cannot create a 'state church' and enforce membership in it on citizens. It also means it cannot prohibit the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of a religion. It prohibits the government from interfering in a citizen's right to follow whatever faith they choose. It does not state that an elected official cannot base his decisions on his own faith.

So your comfortable with a congressman or judge basing all their decisions on say, sharia law?

just curious

 

[Liar]

So, the argument is, Government can't make regulations for an industry , if said regulations may infringe upon the religion of a business owner (manager? employee?).

Are there any Amish food producers? And if so, are they forced to use ungodly modern technology to test for e-coli?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

lmafao at the usual trolls, good thread vette.

You do know what a troll is, don't you?