To quote Thomas Paine..."These are the times that try men's souls..... Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered"

Thirteen Catholic Senators Vote Against Religious Liberty | LifeNews.com

I commend them.

Good for them. They believe in a separation of church and state and therefore, do not let their religious beliefs get in the way of their duty to country.

So, my feeling that Catholic people are fine upstanding American Christians. It is the leaders of the chruch that is twisted in their thinking.

They have excommunicated themselves.

It sounds as though the original poster of this thread is in favor of the USA being a Theocracy where the Catholic church is the ultimate ruler. That idea makes me want to throw up.

Originally Posted by Bavarian

They have excommunicated themselves.

Along with a vast percentage of catholics.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

To quote Thomas Paine..."These are the times that try men's souls..... Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered"

Thirteen Catholic Senators Vote Against Religious Liberty | LifeNews.com

What's this got to do with religion or religious liberty? It was a straight party line vote. The Catholic Democrats voted yea and the Republican Catholics voted nay.

This was a simply another vote on whether the Republicans would support anything done by the Obama administration.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

What's this got to do with religion or religious liberty? It was a straight party line vote. The Catholic Democrats voted yea and the Republican Catholics voted nay.

This was a simply another vote on whether the Republicans would support anything done by the Obama administration.

What you say is true if you discount the issue of religious freedom. To vote against religious freedom cannot be a partisan issue. In today's U.S.; I guess even First Amendment Rights are partisan.

removing the R or D would cause many to roll over into a funk and disabled without the ability to distinguish!!

btk

I was just thinking how my father wanted me to go to law school, as he did. Maybe, I should have after hearing the testimony of as Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, and that we should pay for their birth control. I thought law school would be boring.

Geez, Richie, not you too...

Go ahead - find the quote where Fluke said they were having so much sex they were going broke.

Here's what she said according to an article I found on digitaljournal.com

Fluke had appeared before Congress on February 23. She told Congress that the Jesuit institution, Georgetown University, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. She said that without an insurance coverage, contraception can cost female students more than $3,000. According to BBC, Fluke's testimony included the case of a student who needed birth control services in a case of ovarian cysts but because Georgetown University does not cover birth control in its student health plan, the student could not convince the insurance company she was ill.

My own daughter needed birth control to regulate her periods. Among other things, that reduces her risk of developing cancer later in life. I'm fortunate in that my insurance plan can cover her for a little longer. Also, it's not like what SHE needed cost $3000 - but when you're in entry-level jobs, everything you pay for hits the budget harder.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I was just thinking how my father wanted me to go to law school, as he did. Maybe, I should have after hearing the testimony of as Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they’re going broke, and that we should pay for their birth control. I thought law school would be boring.

Funny story.

I went to BYU Law School for about 10 days back in late August-September of 1982. Anyway, if you have seen any movies about the First Year of Law School, the professors call on you and try to make their students squirm by pushing their logic to absurd extremes. This is called the Socratic Method. Kind of like being on cross- examination as a hostile witness while your friends and family look on. It is very humiliating for a while.

The school had a rule that anyone with a baby-- not sure how they defined "baby"-- would not be called on during the First Year of Law School.

No Socratic Method for those whose babies were keeping them up at night.

Well, I really wanted to get married and have a baby all before the First Lecture of Criminal Law.

I had already attracted a very stunning Mormon girl who was looking to nab a Mormon law student. She made moves on me as soon as she knew I was a law student. She did not know I was not a Mormon. We had to arrived at the conversation about "Where did you do your mission?" All good Mormons are required to do Missionary Work.

And, I had a Puerto Rican ballet dancer as an on-campus roommate who was a recent convert to Mormonism who wanted to convert me as soon as he learned I was not a Mormon. I could not get much studying done in that environment.

I dropped out of BYU Law School after 10 days or so.

Very different culture as women were concerned at BYU when compared with the U of MN Law School which I went to in 1986 after getting a Masters Degree at the U of Denver in Librarianship in 1984. I graduated from the U of MN Law School in 1989 despite the Socratic Method.

Originally Posted by djplong

Geez, Richie, not you too...

Go ahead - find the quote where Fluke said they were having so much sex they were going broke.

Here's what she said according to an article I found on digitaljournal.com



My own daughter needed birth control to regulate her periods. Among other things, that reduces her risk of developing cancer later in life. I'm fortunate in that my insurance plan can cover her for a little longer. Also, it's not like what SHE needed cost $3000 - but when you're in entry-level jobs, everything you pay for hits the budget harder.

The key word in your post should be that her statement "included" what you posted. She said other things besides your cherry-picked comment.

She spoke of her fellow students going broke paying for contraceptives. She tried to make the point that the Catholic College she's going to is unreasonably using it's First Amendment protections to deny it's female underclassmen from the consequences of the all the sex they are having by denying to pay for their contraceptives.

I don't care how you sugarcoat it, it's the gist of her comments. You can find her "testimony" if you look for it.

He still has no right to call her or anyone else a slut and prostitute. Also watched the entire session and she did not say anything close to your claims. You are lying about what she said.