Now Foster Friess is quoted as explaining how wealthy people should self-tax. Similar to Mitt Romney's self-deportation for illegal immigrants. What's next - self-incarceration for criminals? When it comes to contraception, Foster Friess is a real pill.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Just got results of a search for fastest growing religion in the 21st century...so far I have found it to be...Islam, Buddhist, Scientology, Catholicism, etc,etc,etc...depending on which website you choose to read.
Islam is growing at a faster rate-2.9% compared with Chrisitanity-2.3%. However, Islam is smaller to start with and Christianity is adding 11 Billion followers more per year.
Christianity is even making gains in Islamic countries, and promises to be the largest religion in the 21st century!

http:///http://religionannarbor.word...wing-religion/

There is no way christianity is adding 11 BILLION followers a year. 11 BILLION???

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Truth or not; there's no merit or justification in attempting to compel the Catholic Church, against it's teaching, to provide birth control pills, and to provide them free of charge, to boot. There is nothing stopping Catholic women from purchasing these pills of their own free will.

Did I miss something? I thought all this hullabaloo was in response to a new HHS regulation that required the health insurance policies provided to employees of private hospitals, including those owned and operated by various Catholic dioceses, to include coverage for birth control prescriptions.

The church is not being compelled to provide birth control pills, nor are the hospitals they own. And the female employees of those hospitals aren't being forced to take the pills. If they feel strongly enough about their religious beliefs, it will simply be a feature of their coverage that they can choose not to use.

Wow! The far right has really twisted this story to make it sound like the President himself is forcing Catholic women to take birth control pills that violate their religious beliefs. Seems like a far stretch from what's actually happening to me.

I wonder what percentage of Catholic women actually follow that precept of the Church these days anyway?

Who cares who takes birth control or doesn't take birth control, but don't you just know the White House loves this controversy. Why would any woman vote for a republican while they're busy discussing who should take birth control and state-ordered trans-vaginal probe?

I found the poll that has Gingrich as most disliked. It's here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im...2/14/rel2c.pdf

This is no fluff piece. This is 25 pages of statistics on the poll that was commissioned. You can really dig into the numbers.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Did I miss something? I thought all this hullabaloo was in response to a new HHS regulation that required the health insurance policies provided to employees of private hospitals, including those owned and operated by various Catholic dioceses, to include coverage for birth control prescriptions.

The church is not being compelled to provide birth control pills, nor are the hospitals they own. And the female employees of those hospitals aren't being forced to take the pills. If they feel strongly enough about their religious beliefs, it will simply be a feature of their coverage that they can choose not to use.

Wow! The far right has really twisted this story to make it sound like the President himself is forcing Catholic women to take birth control pills that violate their religious beliefs. Seems like a far stretch from what's actually happening to me.

I wonder what percentage of Catholic women actually follow that precept of the Church these days anyway?

What are u smokin' Kahuna. You've completely missed the point. It's kind of crazy, actually.

President Obama wants the Catholic Church to be required to pay for birth control. It's against Catholic teaching. It's a Constitutional issue and nothing more. President Obama want to breach the First Amendment and it's provision of freedom of religion.

Nobody is outlawing birth control pills and no one cares one whit whether a woman takes them or not. That is between she and her doctor and her own conscience, if it's a question of faith.

If the State can compel a Church to act against it's own teachings and beliefs, can they also compel a Roman Catholic doctor to perform an abortion, or for a Roman Catholic Hospital to allow the procedure on it's premises?

It's the Constitutional issue of Freedom of Religion.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Now Foster Friess is quoted as explaining how wealthy people should self-tax. Similar to Mitt Romney's self-deportation for illegal immigrants. What's next - self-incarceration for criminals? When it comes to contraception, Foster Friess is a real pill.

Do you purposely misunderstand things?

Mr. Friess is correct here. If rich liberals really believe they are taxed too little there is a provision in the nation's tax laws where they can send more money than they are required. They can send as much as they like.

This is what he's talking about.

It's therapy for guilty rich people. Don't hold your breath waiting for any rich liberals to voluntarily "self tax" themselves in a "fair" way.

"The church is not being compelled to provide birth control pills, nor are the hospitals they own. And the female employees of those hospitals aren't being forced to take the pills. If they feel strongly enough about their religious beliefs, it will simply be a feature of their coverage that they can choose not to use." this is a quote from kahuna but sorry i don't know how to highlight.

this paragraph is not correct...the catholic church and many other churches self-insure and provide their own insurance to employees (some even based on those employees living by less risky christian mores.) this mandate would force christian churches to provide insurance for not only contraceptives, but sterilization and the morning after pill, which actually causes an abortion.
the government has no authority to force any religious group to go against their teachings... THAT is the point.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Do you purposely misunderstand things?

Mr. Friess is correct here. If rich liberals really believe they are taxed too little there is a provision in the nation's tax laws where they can send more money than they are required. They can send as much as they like.

This is what he's talking about.

It's therapy for guilty rich people. Don't hold your breath waiting for any rich liberals to voluntarily "self tax" themselves in a "fair" way.

Did I also purposely misunderstand Mitt Romney saying illegals should self-deport?

Originally Posted by janmcn

Did I also purposely misunderstand Mitt Romney saying illegals should self-deport?

I wish illegals would self-deport. It would save everyone a whole lot of trouble.

You had to divert the subject because you're embarrassed that I pointed out how you misunderstood what Mr. Friess was talking about. (oops) Very predictable behavior, but not gracious.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

What are u smokin' Kahuna. You've completely missed the point. It's kind of crazy, actually.

President Obama wants the Catholic Church to be required to pay for birth control. It's against Catholic teaching. It's a Constitutional issue and nothing more. President Obama want to breach the First Amendment and it's provision of freedom of religion.

Nobody is outlawing birth control pills and no one cares one whit whether a woman takes them or not. That is between she and her doctor and her own conscience, if it's a question of faith.

If the State can compel a Church to act against it's own teachings and beliefs, can they also compel a Roman Catholic doctor to perform an abortion, or for a Roman Catholic Hospital to allow the procedure on it's premises?

It's the Constitutional issue of Freedom of Religion.

Lets be fair now. Do you realize that you have told no less than 6 posters that they are misunderstanding the point of this issue. Could it be that YOU have totally missed the point. Some people can be so POSITIVE they are right, they go blind to the truth. Let me add one more to the side of fairness and say the church is very wrong on this issue and should not be allowed to stand in the way of womens rights.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Lets be fair now. Do you realize that you have told no less than 6 posters that they are misunderstanding the point of this issue. Could it be that YOU have totally missed the point. Some people can be so POSITIVE they are right, they go blind to the truth. Let me add one more to the side of fairness and say the church is very wrong on this issue and should not be allowed to stand in the way of womens rights.

NO, I have not missed the point; in fact, you did, and I am 100% right here.

This is a Constitutional issue. It's a First Amendment issue pertaining to Freedom of Religion.

The Roman Catholic church has a long held belief against the use of hormonal contraceptives. This form of birth control was banned by the Church since this drug's inception. The Church only allows it's married parishioners to use the "rhythm method" of birth control. (I say married only because the Church also teaches against pre-marital sex....duh)

The Church cannot prevent any woman, Catholic or otherwise, from purchasing these drugs and using them against it's teachings. They have no right to do that.

BUT, also the Church cannot, by law, be compelled to provide these pills to women. It's against the Church's religious beliefs to do so. It's really that simple.

Tell me what I don't understand and what point I'm missing where it concerns this First Amendment protection.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

NO, I have not missed the point; in fact, you did, and I am 100% right here.

This is a Constitutional issue. It's a First Amendment issue pertaining to Freedom of Religion.

The Roman Catholic church has a long held belief against the use of hormonal contraceptives. This form of birth control was banned by the Church since this drug's inception. The Church only allows it's married parishioners to use the "rhythm method" of birth control. (I say married only because the Church also teaches against pre-marital sex....duh)

The Church cannot prevent any woman, Catholic or otherwise, from purchasing these drugs and using them against it's teachings. They have no right to do that.

BUT, also the Church cannot, by law, be compelled to provide these pills to women. It's against the Church's religious beliefs to do so. It's really that simple.

Tell me what I don't understand and what point I'm missing where it concerns this First Amendment protection.

Well, with my background in law, I am 100% sure you are wrong. So there we go.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Well, with my background in law, I am 100% sure you are wrong. So there we go.

Explain, please

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Explain, please

Again, something so simple and you get confused.