Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Catholic Church circulates anti-Obama letter

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 30, 2012, 6:25 p.m. EST by moochild (-43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What do you think the MSM's reaction would be if the Bush administration were to create a law that all Muslims were forced to eat bacon, egg & cheese sandwiches daily? Obviously not good - so why hasn't anyone made a peep about the Obama administration's blatant attack on Christianity, specifically Catholics, where institutions would be mandated to cover things that blatantly violated their beliefs. What are they? Find out here. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/30/catholic-church-circulates-anti-obama-letter/

131 Comments

131 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Glen Beck . . . please. Why not just fish for opinions in the nearest outhouse. He's like Rush Limburger's retarded brother.

[-] -3 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Many annoying people speak truth too. Beck is a twit, but sometimes he is a correct twit.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Glenn Beck is an a$$hat.

Moo Child.

He's deserves nobody's respect! None!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

I think Obama is wrong on this one.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

I knew you had a bit of sense in you

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Not bad for a presumptuous twit, eh? (JK, I never hold a grudge.)

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

did I use the word twit? my apologies

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

I wasn't looking for an apology. I was joking with you, but okay, I'll take it.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

LOL

[-] 0 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

Thanks for your comment and your honesty.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

I have some Buddhist monks that live near me. The other day I saw a crowd staring at something in the Home Depot. I noticed they were looking at a Buddhist monk wrapped up all in orange. Should we tell the Buddhist monk he shouldn't wear his saffron robes, too? Where would it stop?

[-] 0 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

It's all getting out of hand

[-] 1 points by Jehovah (113) 2 years ago

Screw the Catholic Church.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

And BO.

Take that, DHS and SS.

[-] 2 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 2 years ago

Hallelujah!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Glenn Beck???!!!!!???!!

Tell him to go back to Israel and wait for the flotilla.

This should be deleted as conspiracy theory.

Plus it left off bigfoot.

[-] -1 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

Please read the article eh??

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Absolutely not.

Becks lack of veracity is notorious, and I won't give his site the pleasure of a hit.

He's like FLAKESnews, only flakier.

Don't feel bad, I don't shop at Wallyworld either.

IOW? Find a trustworthy source.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Don't bother with snooz. He's incorrigible.

[-] -1 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

I dealt with him b

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

The largest tax free corporation in the world.is not worried about Hope a Dope.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The bible-thumpers are lashing out because we have a leader that respect my constitutional right to not live under the rule of religion. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran, because that sir is what a theocracy looks like. A society were decisions are made based not on fact, human benefit, or reason, but rather on faith and superstition and where the end of humanity is not only acceptable but accepted as the inevitable.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Theocracy? Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? The HHS rule is unconstitutional, but this administration has shown little fidelity to the Constitution. The Supreme Ct will have final say, and the Obama Administration will lose again.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

...

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

The same rose-colored lenses worn by the 9 justices of the Supreme Court who unanimously found the Obama Administration to have violated the 1st Amendment rights of religious institutions just a couple weeks ago.

But this administration is more interested in pandering to its base than in the Constitution.

And why on earth are you posting excerpts re Treason?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

...

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

You're on the wrong thread. Figure out your point (if you have one) and then come back.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Sorry, then I don't understand what HHS rule you are referring to. The point remains, your use of slapping people on this forum with the lives and behaviors of politicians is a faulty argument and anyone using such tactics to belittle there opposition is a slug.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

You're drunk. Figure out what a thread's about before you start spouting off.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I noticed you hinge your arguments on establishing a false pretense that your opponent is to defend the actions of politicians aside from any statement you are trying to get across. In my eyes, you aren't here to make valid points and try to get your ideas out to other people, you're here to fluff your ego off of belittling people. And not because you make valid points but because you're being a dick and not everyone lives in a reality so negative as yours so they don't know how to deal with you. Care to buy some gold?

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

you are clueless. why are you on this thread? Figure out yet what HHS rule we're talking about?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I told you. I'm on this thread because I like to pick out people being dicks and debating by insult and fallacy, then fuck with them.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Riiiight... and the fact that you deleted some of your posts in this thread has nothing at all to do with their being wildly off-topic and evidence of a deeply disordered mind. Get off the sauce.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Interested in some gold? lol

[-] 0 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

This is why our Country will never get along because of you libs. You libs are going to be kicking and screaming and peeing your panties when Odumbo gets ejected out of office

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you respected your faith, you wouldn't cheapen it by selling it to your political agenda. Us libs are why you live a quality life, tell yourself what you like. If you were shipped off to Iran with your cross tattooed on your forehead, you would be begging for the help of liberal minded people. You only dislike them because your religion is popular on this particular piece of dirt, but liberals fight for free expression regardless of whats popular on any given piece of dirt.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

What a load of pure unadulterated us-vs.-them bullshit that is.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Which ones us, and which ones them?

There's so many of us and them, it gets hard to keep track.

So please, help a guy out 'n' 'splian.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

It is us v them dip shit. You try to sound so intelligent then you hit me with some utopian bullshit? Really? The clash between the secular and the zealots has only been going on for a few years or so.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

utopian bullshit? none of that on this thread or anything else I've written. you're confused again, old man. Find your way to the bathroom and clean yourself up.

[-] -2 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

hahahhahaha now that is comical

[-] -2 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

Lib's fight for free expression ?? It seems that for lib's this cuts one way, theirs. history shows conservatives are notable for this one.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

really? show an example.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Actually it's the border line Nazis in the GOP pissing all over themselves, because someone not a member of the master race is in the White House.

They've been pissing their pants for over 3 years now.

[-] 0 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

master race?? what are you one of them black pussy panthers or something??

[-] -2 points by TlOUAISE (-25) 2 years ago

This is one of your best posts yet. Well written and to the point.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

:) thx

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

haha, when you're getting bouquets from Tiouaise, you know you're in the crapper

[-] 0 points by socialsynergy (32) 2 years ago

The catholic church has some serious credibility problems. They protected pedophile priests for years, fearful of the harm to their wallet and reputation. Pride comes before the fall.

Priests/Nuns do not get married despite that no biblical such doctrine exists. This is arguably the worst form of contraception and a policy that seems would invite undesirable people to the church.

Catholics and other religions make judgment that does not belong to them. They act in the same ways they condemn.

But the worst thing the catholic church has done is become a political apparatus like a corporation divined by God. This is the biggest mistake. They act like the corporation for Christ.

How many have given money believing somehow the church can get favor from God? How many honestly believe a priest can forgive sin? Not a chance.

We all have a right to practice what we believe without having someone elses belief shoved down our throats.

Insurance is a rather ungodly/unholy business after all - anyone of any decency regardless of faith would not work long in such an industry. Perhaps the catholic church should stand up against all insurance products given their unholy nature (not just the contraceptive issues) - otherwise - shut up with the hypocrisy.

Catholics should make a moral stand and walk away from all insurance products (no excuses or shut it)- problem solved.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

They cannot walk away from insurance product because they are employers and as employers are mandated to provide insurance. Now with the healthcare act they mandated to cover birth control which is contrary to their beliefs.

As an atheist I have no problem with birth control but I am not in favor of the government mandating something that is contrary to someones beliefs. It is a violation of the first amendment for the government to pass a law that prohibits a person or group from following their religion.

[-] 0 points by socialsynergy (32) 2 years ago

If they the "church" declared it (insurance) to be against their religion in totality (not just - i don't like this part-but will keep this) - they perhaps could walk away from it.

They could pay a little extra to their employees (that they already pay on their behalf) and let them have the choice of insurance product (if they could be exempted for religious reasons).

I believe in God and I am also against government mandating something contrary to an individuals beliefs.( You see believers and non believers are not that much different - laugh)

Part of the problem is that people try to solve problems of complexity with simplicity - it never works.

Sick people are bad for business. People that feel better do better.

Obama's goals with healthcare are not that big of an issue for me - it is how he is trying to implement the end result that is the problem IMHO.

How many prisoners get better healthcare than a single parent working 60 hours a week?

How you get the result is as important as the result.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You hit on the heart of the problem.

They cannot walk away from it because they are required by law to provide it. Not only that but they are told what they have to cover as an employer. This is the requirement that Obamacare brought about. This is what they are protesting. They would prefer your method.

[-] 1 points by socialsynergy (32) 2 years ago

I knew you would come back with that. This problem goes beyond Obama care. The problem is with the nature of law. Today we use law as a replacement of honor, religion,decency, control or morality. Law has little to do with justice. This is the failing of law; it is not just. If the law ceases to be just then we have a form of lawlessness that has been legitimized. This is dangerous for everyone.

When we use laws in the way that we do, they always become so convoluted that they inevitably conflict with other laws. Endless arguments about nonsense - while common sense takes a back seat.

Lawyers do not think in the same way as average people. Few average people understand this.

Just about every nasty inhumane act in history was supported by law.People forget this.

It is always the few that stand up and challenge injustice by breaking laws that bring about change. When you break a law in the name of justice it is much different than breaking the law for profit or gain. How many courts understand or make such a distinction? In most cases the law allows for no such distinction.

Our laws around the world are outdated and not fit for a modern society, just like our monetary systems. They have not modernized because those working within the system see little wrong with it - it would be like admitting fault and lawyers are trained never to admit fault. Most lawyers are trained to hold the view of whoever pays them the most money (kind of like a banker)(laugh).

Can we have justice with such a system? Can we expect people that have been trained like a lawyer to change their own profession. I would say no in most cases.

The law is just another tool that should benefit society in someway. We are not getting good value out this apparatus at the moment. This issue about contraception in a small way demonstrates this.

I think its time for the Catholic church and their supporters to join with the 99%. other religions too - today contraception, tomorrow who the heck can tell when your dealing with lawyers. (laugh)

IMHO -At the heart of these global protests is justice in one form or another - all faiths have a moral obligation to come forward and demand change in the name of justice. Or don't complain when they get screwed - like they have been and are now.

People across all faiths and political spectrums can agree on one thing. Things are not good.

When the American founding fathers agreed to pay all debt of the nation - the nation did not run the type of monetary system we use today. If we did (use the monetary system of today back then) the American founding fathers would have never agreed to pay all debt (the money men were not stupid-it was very calculated). How sleazy to create a monetary debt monster of today; while knowing that America has an obligation to pay debts. All very legal you know; just a tad bit immoral. And not a shred of justice.

You see, laws often are used in a way they are not intended to be used because we fail to take in to account the spirit of the law or the intended purpose.Instead we focus on the words and throw out all common sense.

Contraception/religious views is not the problem here- it is the law broadly speaking.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

As I recall, the Catholic Church endorsed Bush. I believe the article was entitled The Unholy Alliance. So much for the Catholic Church. There is something seriously wrong with your religion when many of your priests and cardinals are child molesters or aid them.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

What planet do you live on? The Catholic Church never endorsed Bush

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

OK. It wasn't an official endorsement, but Ben and Bush sure were chummy.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

So chummy that Bush no doubt loved it when Benedict said "nothing positive comes from Iraq", right in the middle of the US troop surge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6536773.stm

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I agree, Ben had his regrets, like most Bush supporters.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Regrets?? Of what? Bush was already in his 2nd term when he was elected pope.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

What planet do YOU live on, BonTon?

FYI, the Catholic Church is VERY DEEPLY involved in American politics and practically did endorse Bush, because of its obsession with - you guessed it! - abortion.

SO MUCH SO, in fact, that some analysts claim that it contributed to the so-called "Bush victory" in 2000. ("Google "Bush election Catholic Church".)

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Another moron. I googled as you suggested; I got plenty of hits about individual Catholics' political involvement. Are you suggesting there's something nefarious and unamerican about that?

Google 'know-nothing party platform' and see if it fairly describes your preferences.

OWS Forum Hint: Using CAPS doesn't make you seem smarter.

[-] -1 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

I hate it when they use capital letters. These folks do not seem to have any true understanding of Catholicism....also alot of anti-catholic/christian bigotry is apparent. .

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

It isn't a question of understanding true Catholicism. Insurance must cover women's health. Period.

[-] 0 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

The services being discussed for medical coverage are not 'health" issues...You are propagating ' planned parenthood' misspeak.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Women's health care encompasses this. It isn't inherently important that you like/dislike it.

[-] -1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"Another moron." Niiiiiiice!

I will be more technical, if you don't mind:

Trolololololololololololololololololololololololololol

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

"Oh my," cried Alice, "Someone doesn't agree with me. Must be a Troll! Help! Help!"

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Not much different from, "Oh my," cried BonTon, "Someone doesn't agree with me. Must be another moron."

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Quite different, actually! For one thing, I back up my assertions.

[-] -1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

My, my! Still looking for answers in "Alice in Wonderland!"

Here is Wikipedia on trolls:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Trolololololololololololololololololololololololololol

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

oooooooo Christians will have access to abortions. Pffft. Like Catholics don't make up 99% of abortion seekers.

[-] 2 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

You do realize this isn't about christians having abortions. This is about obama demanding that churches spend money on health insurance that covers costs that go against their religion. Furthermore that insurance is for employees, employees that are suppose to remain abstinent and have no need for abortions and contraception. This is government imposing wasteful spending and insulting a certain group of people.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Where do you come up with your figures that "99% of abortion seekers" are Catholic, Percentages R Us? At least contribute honestly not with the mendacity of a typical fanatic.

You may be anti-Catholic or completely anti-Christian. I don't know which, but fabrications only work against your efforts to make a point.

Here the question should be does the federal government have any Constitutional right to force insurance carriers to comply and Catholic-funded hospitals to provide abortions to continue receiving federal money from, for instance, Medicare?

Whether you're for or against legalized abortions, you should ask yourself if your really want the federal government encroaching even further into the private lives of average Americans.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

When the federal government starts forcing Christians to have abortions to keep them from breeding, I may start to worry about government interference.. though I may not necessarily disagree.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Do you think its the 1% muslim population???? 40% of the people getting abortions are BLACK. 99% of blacks are Christian. The remaining 50% are white or other(10%), EVER MET A LATINO who does not practice Christianity??? So the rest are white folks, DO YOU know how many jews live in the US???? I DO and I can tell you that it would take each female Jew to have 10 abortions a year to even get that demographic into the 1% mark. So who is left?? Christians by a WIDE MARGIN

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

It must be Percentages R Us. Where do you get your figures. "Ninety-nine percent of blacks are Catholic." I really doubt that. They may be Christian, but not Catholic, which is distinct denomination of Christianity.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

99% of abortions are had by people who 'believe' in JESUS CHRIST but only when its convenient for them. You know this, the world knows this, and the 1.3 MILLION DEAD BABIES these ''Christians' MURDER every year, sure as hell know it.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I see. You confuse Catholicism with Christianity in general.

Quite a few Christians, including most Catholics, are very anti-abortion. Most Fundamentalist sects are generally anti-abortion, because they believe personhood begins at conception.

Many, many people, who were born Christian, certainly don't practice their religion, including numerous Catholics, but your postion seems to be to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

No it does not, they are Christians, believe in christ, plain and simple, your trying to argue that there is a substantial difference between a Catholic, a baptist, a protestant , a New Kingdom Life, whatever. There is not. In fact, I grew up in the ghetto, around black people, the MOST DEVOUT CHRISTIANS I have EVER seen bordering on lunatic scientologist behavior, and those SAME people are the ones who have abortions en masse. Self Hating Abortion Having Highly Questionable Motive Christian Apologists.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

besides_ASSHOLE_ no where does it say you have to USE IT!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Bill, don't post after your sixth Colt 45

[-] 0 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

I'm w/ you Bon Ton...

[-] 0 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

You've found something you're experienced at..............:)

Good for you.

Keep at that 12 pack.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

moron alert

[-] -3 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

wrong

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

the only thing more disturbing than that 99% of abortions are carried out by Catholics are abortion having catholic apologists like yourselves

[-] -2 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

Debt ceiling skyrockets, Obama no longer calls Bush 'unpatriotic' for increases

[-] -2 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

Debt ceiling skyrockets, Obama no longer calls Bush 'unpatriotic' for increases

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

This isn't an attack on Christianity. I fail to see how it could be deemed as such.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

And even if it was criticism of Christianity, what would be wrong with that?

ALL religions are imperfect and therefore need to be openly - but not hatefully - criticized.

Myself, I have the same sentiments as Thomas Jefferson on Christianity: THE MORE I LOVE JESUS, THE LESS I LIKE CHRISTIANITY, which for the most part has been a gross betrayal of the Master's original teachings. (Try googling "Thomas Jefferson on Christianity").

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

I don't find anything wrong with criticizing Christianity. I do find something wrong with this pretense of persecution. I find it ludicrous.

[-] 2 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Who's talking persecution? We're talkin unconstitutional actions against religious entities (again) by Obama Administration zealots.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

They aren't unconstitutional.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

They sure are, and the Supreme Court will whack the Obama Administration for its 1st Amendment violations again, as it did a couple weeks ago.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

There is absolutely no way Barack Obama can make the Catholic Church use its own money to fund abortions or even birth control, for that matter. It would be antithetical to everything this country stands for. We'd be living in a totalitarian state at that point. It will not happen.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

You mean kind of like how the adoption agencies lost funding?

Do not want to be subject to the rules of the rest of society then do not open other institutions. Pretty simple stuff. Have more than 50 employees and have to have insurance? Then the insurance must cover women's health.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Well, of course you wouldn't

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Smile. :D

[-] -2 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

Listen to Mr Becks radio show

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Why would I do that?

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Let me explains something. Obama didn't tell the Vatican how to operate the Catholic church. Catholic institutions outside of the church receive 2/3 of their funding from tax dollars at the federal/state and local levels.

Two, if you work for these institutions and you are not Catholic then your insurance should still cover this. This is an idiotic Beck game.

[-] 1 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

I see that I am getting some negative feedback. I came to this forum for discussion. Is this what happens when you do not agree 100% with the liberals??

[-] -1 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

yes.....they attack w/ insults...and do not care for honest discourse.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

I'm discussing. Pointing out the obvious, really.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Obama isn't attacking Christianity. You aren't being persecuted.

[-] 0 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

I highly doubt you took time to read any of the links. Here is another one and their is hundreds of them.

http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/obama-attacking-catholic-colleges-againthis

[+] -8 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

I am not going to. This isn't the first time that people have cried wolf.

Let me explains something. Obama didn't tell the Vatican how to operate the Catholic church. Catholic institutions outside of the church receive 2/3 of their funding from tax dollars at the federal/state and local levels.

Two, if you work for these institutions and you are not Catholic then your insurance should still cover this. This is an idiotic Beck game.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

One, what does "outside of the church" mean?

Two, how about, if you work for a Catholic institution, you don't expect it to pay for your abortion?

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Catholic institutions (hospitals/social services, etc.).

Two, how about, Catholic institutions do not receive funding at the Federal/state and local levels?

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@GirlFried: If it's a "Catholic institution," then it is not "outside of the church." Q.E.D.

Sure, cut off funding because you don't like the Catholics. So a few people don't get cared for. I mean, they're just the sick, elderly, poor, etc.

Occupy Catholic nursing homes!

[-] -1 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

Ha ha, girl fried...that is an apt name for this person. you go Bon ton...I like your style

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Little Liar is back. Good stuff. Let's see if you have the capacity to add to the discussion instead of your usual douche bag BS.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I tried to discourage the little soup-Nazi, but it looks like we'll have to endure more cobra venom, and bread recipies. Good God!

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Is Lara your creation? or someone else's?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

My creation? What do you mean?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

I did.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

I'm sorry.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I was reffering to LLT, not you. Perhaps you mistook me.

[-] -1 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

as usual ....so crude...clean it up a little please.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

As usual, your still not capable of holding a conversation.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@GirlFried - pot, kettle, black

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

This discussion is about the insurance policies that do not incorporate women's healthcare into their plans.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@GurlFried - You can call it "women's healthcare," "reproductive services," "family planning services," or any other user-friendly term you can come up with. The bottom line is the same: the government can't force religious institutions to pay for it. (Check out the 1st Amendment.)

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

@BonTon, you still need to come up with a valid line of reasoning for withholding women's health insurance. Start working on that. :D

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@GurlFried - "withholding women's health insurance"?? Who suggested that? The discussion is about forcing religious entities to pay for abortion and contraceptives thru their heath plans.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

It's insurance sweet pea. They aren't churches. Deal with it.

[-] -3 points by moochild (-43) 2 years ago

I have a better idea for you "bottom feeder" Go occupy the unemployment office

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Grow up!

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

No.