The question of whether institutions with religious ties should be required to offer insurance plans covering birth control and the so-called morning after pill, among other things, hits a number of political hot buttons. Liberal groups have pushed for an expansive contraception coverage requirement on grounds of gender equality in health care. Conservatives generally consider it a violation of the First Amendment and an infringement on religious liberty.
Here's your chance to let the media know your stance on God, as a nation.
NBC is presently taking a poll on whether or not "In God We Trust" should remain on U.S. currency.
Click below and vote.
In a nut shell:
Nancy Pelosi agreed to add a provision (in the public option health care bill) that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the purchase of plans that cover abortion in a new health care exchange. Leaving out the amendment would force taxpayers (who are morally against abortions) to subsidize abortion.
Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.
So..., the question is, should people who are morally against abortions be forced to pay for them?
For example, the ACLU is the poster child of an excessively open mind. They once filed a law suit on behalf of NAMBLA. Now, if that isn't evidence that their brains fell out, I don't know what is ;)
Should religious groups stop using the word "marriage" and create, define and patent a new word?
The government is not going to stop using the word "marriage." They have appropriated it. If religious groups create, define and patent a new word, then
they can define it any way they want and no one else can use it and/or re-define it.
The alternative is to spend Millions in order to reclaim the word "marriage."
So..., to sum up. Women want to work for religious organizations and force them to provide health coverage for contraceptives. This means that the cost will be passed on to everyone else.
There is no argument that the Founding Fathers did not want the Government to force people to follow one specific denomination of Christianity. Did they want no influence of religion at all on the Government? A complete seperation of Church and State? Or, Did they just not want the Government police authority to inforce religious practices?
I am looking for documented proof of answer. Not just an opinion like "They were Christians, everybody knows that" or "They were all Deist".
Give source of quotes or answers.
Bush was responsible for kidnapping and water boarding terrorists in a country that is not our ally.Obama is responsible for killing a few terrorists in a country that is our ally. And for all we know, those terrorists could have been guests of the Pakistani government.Now..., I've been looking at the names of the places over there in Pakistan. Places like Jalalabad, Abbottabad, and Islamabad. And if you just focus on those three places, it appears that Jalalabad is Abbottabad as Islamabad. In other words, it's all bad.But watching the people rejoicing over here in the U.S., it appears that it's all good.So which one is it?
I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone. Except for references to God (like, Thou shall not have any other other God besides me), it forms the foundation of all societies (like, Thou shall not kill). At the very least, a truncated version of the commandments should be OK... unless there's some other hiden agenda....
The people who came to this country were hard workers. Think about it, you leave everything behind and you go to a new country. A backwards country where you can only make it if you know how to build a log cabin, hunt, fish, farm and defend yourself from the indiginous population. The people that came here did not come here to collect welfare and live off the labor of others. At least not until slavery.
Slavers live off the labor of others, directly. People who live off the labor of others sickens me.
But then America took a turn for the better and finally abolished slavery. Now you either live off your own labor or you pay for that labor to get done. This country became very rich. So it was easier to justify some people to live off the labor of others. Namely poor people. They are poor, the rest have the means and so welfare was started.
That's when the nation started down the wrong path again. Here's the thing, no matter how poor you are, you should still be able and qualified to do something. You shouldn't just get a check without having done something first. Even most handicap people can lick a stamp and put it on an envelope. It really doesn't matter what they do as long as they do something. You shouldn't be allowed to sit on your ass at home just waiting for your next check to arrieve in the mail. Why? Because then more and more people will want to go on the gravy train to the point where there's enough of them to demand more and more. Think about the rampant sense of entitlement in this country. Everything is a right.
People are starting to sense that there's something wrong with this country. They are starting to go back and relearn the lessons of our forefathers. Maybe we'll be able to get this nation back on track before the end of the lne.