Losing it. :confused:

One is good at wordsmithing, but Mr Long is just to bright for anyone to dispute. I love reading his posts.

You still haven't found what you're losing. I hope you find it soon.

You should have added............"and missing the point".

Who knows for sure. What I do know is he always writes in a way that makes sense to me. When I read your posts, I see opinions based on beliefs and not always facts. But I am only one opinion.

Richie: No, I am NOT missing your point. I understand it all too well because your opinion seems to be *exactly* the same as myt wife's - virtually TO THE WORD.

When a Church operates something "outside it's walls", there are rules they have to follow.

A Church-operated hospital could not:

- deny admittance to minorites.
- violate EEOC laws
- refuse to pay Social Security taxes on employee wages (yet they CAN do that INSIDE the Church)
- refuse to pay unemployment insurance premiums.
- violate labor laws concerning employee shifts.
- give alcohol to minors (which the Church CAN do as part of the Mass Ritual INSIDE the Church)

Now, like it or not, for the moment, the Obamacare law is the law of the land. Until that law is repealed or otherwise struck down, the law includes coverage for birth control.

I will express my appreciation, however, for not having repeated the ridiculous canard that some conservatives are spouting about making the government pay for birth control and/or sex. The Fluke case was about Georgetown University putting it in their health insurance. The odd thing is that, when my daughter went to Arcadia University, *I* had to pay the health insurance premiums - we were offered inclusion in a plan for group coverage obtained by the University. The University didn't pay it, *WE* did. I'm forced to assume from the tenor of the outrage that there's something different going on in the case of Georgetown.

I actually meant The Villager's II's post should have continued with the words I wrote and not you.

But saying that, I guess I now have confirmation to what I suspected. The Church is not entitled to it's religious convictions once it sets foot outside the walls of the cathedral, in your opinion.

This is a frighteningly un-American viewpoint, in my opinion. The Church has now been pushed in the "world of DJ" to only have it's First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Religion within the walls of their places of worship, and when and if they emerge and mingle with the populace are under the thumb of the State. I have to say OMG!!

And once the State has their thumb on them outside the walls of the church building, it is only a matter of time before the State demands to be in charge within the walls of the cathedral and the hearts of the people.

Richie: My position is not as severe as you make it out to be.

I used one example in particular - serving alcohol to minors - to point out how some "religious convictions" are not 'ok' outside the church walls.

The clause in the Constitution says 'nor prohibit the free exercise thereof'.

Let me ask you - if a Muslim-operated Church were enforcing *it's* "morality" outside the walls of the mosque, would you be as ardent a defender?

I'll tell you this - if, for example, the government tried to force the Catholic Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, *THAT* is something I would protest against.

I guess, as we've gone 'round and 'round, the basic difference is what you and I consider to be the free exercise of religion.

Will it go round in a circle....will fly high like a bird up in the sky....:grumpy:

this conservative amendment rights garbage is just that garbage. Too much government in our lives until the republican governor of Virginia passes a law telling women what they can and cannot do but god forbid we tell the almighty catholic church that they should cover birth control. Total hypocricy. I'm sick of the charade.

You need to be more specific about Muslims. If their practice does no harm to another person, I would say they have a right to their belief under our Constitution.

It doesn't hold water with this argument. The Church in not participating in a practice they consider repugnant is not harming anyone. They're simply not paying for something or providing it. Any person is free to acquire the item in question at any time, in any place, without Church interference.

You're wrong here DJ. There's no way around this simple First Amendment protection.

It's like I said - the First Ammendment is colliding with the Fourteenth.

It can boil down to is "operating a hospital" considered the "free exercise" of religion?

If it is, then Richie, yes, I'd say the argument is more in your favor. I would also imagine that it would be up to the Supreme Court to make a 'final' decision on that if someone were to challenge it. (Not that any decision could necessarily be truly 'final')

My opinion is that it's not an integral part of a religion. An *extension* of it, yes. And the reason I have that opinion is that so many other laws DO apply to a Church-run hospital (or other charity).

There's no way to make an argument that the 14th Amendment, even if it were applicable in this argument, would override your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

The Church has the right to operate a hospital and to keep their faith in the operating of said hospital. It's not mandatory to go to, or work at this hospital. Your "wants" do not override the church's rights.

By the same token, it is not mandatory that the Church operate a hospital.

Like I said - this is where I see the disconnect. The Church cannot do certain things (the most flagrant example I can find is serving alcohol to minors) outside the walls. Likewise, the Church could not keep women from positions of authority in a hospital the way they do inside the Church (no female priests, Bishops, etc). They *have* to follow the laws.

When the Church wanted to expand St. Joseph's in Nashua NH, they have to apply for permits, follow labor laws, building codes, etc. They did that with no problem.

They had a WANT to expand the hospital - not a RIGHT.

Why does the Church's hospital have to follow every law I can think of except this one on the insurance mandate? They ARE violating their moral code when women are in positions of authority - because that's not the way the Church runs their internal business.