Robert Ariail for February 12, 2012

  1. Missing large
    Tue Elung-Jensen  almost 12 years ago

    Not really Obama that broke down that wall, and anyone with half a mind knows that. He didn´t go in and say they should keep paying it nomatter what, but that the costs would be moved from them since they were against it – however they keep whining that the costs will go back to them nomatter what instead of coming up with a proper alternative.

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    Pogostiks Premium Member almost 12 years ago

    Who is calling for no teaching of sex or homosexuality in the PUBLIC schools? Who is talking about changing curriculum to include CREATIONISM?Who is trying to get rid of the possibility of abortion – even for those who AREN’T Catholic? Who is fighting gay marriage even if it is a CIVIL ceremony,Anyone STILL want to pretend it’s Obama who is destroying the wall between Church and State? One more LIE by the Right Wing “Christians”.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    dannysixpack  almost 12 years ago

    the employees and participants of the church have constitutional rights. the church has none so long as it runs a business outside of the jesus store.

    many have the framing wrong here. we the people have the right to follow our beliefs. that means choice. choice of church, choice of medical procedures, choice of contraception.

    the church just wants government to give backing to their dogma.

    no go. see what happens when george bush breaks down some of the wall and gives ‘faith based initiatives’ money?

    should a church have to contribute to unemployment insurance? well that depends, does it have employees?

    should the church have to withold income taxes on its employees? well that depends, does it have employees?

    let the church get out of business. Let’s the churches parishioners decide which church dogma they CHOOSE to follow.

    the church heirarchy can start by following criminal law, and reporting their pedophiles to the authorities AND to the people who they have the ultimate responsibility for. the pope? NO THE PARISHIONERS.

     •  Reply
  4. Rf
    travburg1  almost 12 years ago

    Sad, so much anti-Christian hate here.

     •  Reply
  5. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  almost 12 years ago

    They say Hate the sin but love the sinner. I’m not a Christian, and though I find some Christian doctrine disturbing, I love many Christians.

     •  Reply
  6. Qwerty01s
    cjr53  almost 12 years ago

    Especially when trying to codify it into our laws, Federal, State and local.

     •  Reply
  7. Qwerty01s
    cjr53  almost 12 years ago

    And you were probably really happy when shrubster, cheney, wolfowitz, rummy etc were totally shredding the Constitution. Just because you continuously bleat that President Obama is doing that, HE ISN’T and you haven’t provided any proof of it.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    jim.bullard  almost 12 years ago

    I have the opposite take on this issue. If we are going to have health care for all it should be equal for all. Religions should not be able to say “No. We don’t want this group to have (Fill in the blank) because we don’t believe in it.” No one is saying that believers have to use contraception but it should not be unavailable to them because a religious leader doesn’t want it.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    agate1  almost 12 years ago

    So do the lions.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    agate1  almost 12 years ago In response to the irrational argument you support. The appointments have been made by many other presidents, by Bush far more frequently than President Obama!

     •  Reply
  11. Missing large
    justdaveL  almost 12 years ago

    The Mussies are ALREADY EXEMPT, Ol’ Balmy made shure of that!

    The First AmendmentThe wording in the Constitution appears to be simple and straightforward.The First Amendment contains two principles related to religion:“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    It couldn’t be any more simple, the use of the word “respecting” is used the same as the word “CONCERNING” or “ABOUT”.Look up “respecting” in the dictionary! Remember you MUST use the words as generally used during theperiod when the Constitution was written. That is the ONLY way they would have used any word,it would be impossible for anyone to use a word definition that had not been invented yet.

    (I could find no Dictionary dated earlier than 1913, so it will have to suffice.)Dictionary definition “Respecting” as of 19131. To take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence,to care for; to heed.2. With regard or relation to; regarding; concerning; as, respecting his conduct there is but one opinion.[1913 Webster]

    “regard or relation to; regarding; concerning;” is the key definition here.

    Dictionary definition “Establishment” as of 19131. The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation.2. The state of being established, founded, and the like; fixed state.3. That which is established; as:(a) A form of government, civil or ecclesiastical; especially, a system of religion maintained by the civil power;as, the Episcopal establishment of England.(b) A permanent civil, military, or commercial, force or organization.[1913 Webster]

    “a system of religion maintained by the civil power” is the key definition here.“Civil Power” refers to any kind of Law Enforcement agency.

    The Supreme Court can find new “interpretations” of the Constitution that no one else has ever seen,but they have blinders on when it comes to recognizing the meaning of just three little words:“MAKE NO LAW”

    So now we can read it as:“Congress shall MAKE NO LAW maintained by the CIVIL POWER, REGARDING or CONCERNING Religion”.

    That means one way or the other;“NO LAW will be made about religion, that is to be enforced by civil authorities.”

    That means: neither ‘for it’ or ‘against it’!

    That also includes the Supreme Court, who according Constitution,is not allowed to be “Legislating from the Bench”.

    The framers wrote the Constitution as a secular document not because they were hostile to Christianity but because they did not want to imply that the new federal government would have any authority to meddle in religion.

    Voluntary student-initiated Bible study and prayer clubs were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 1990, whenthe justices upheld the Equal Access Act, a federal law that permits students to form religion clubs at publichigh schools.

    The ruling from the 1960 Abington decision, Justice Tom Clark wrote for the court majority, “It might well besaid that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion andits relationship to the advancement of civilization.It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we havesaid here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

    Now, about that, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”What is so hard to understand about that?


     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    justdaveL  almost 12 years ago

    The Supreme Court has used the term, “The legal separation of Church and State”.The only place you will find anything resembling that,in any LEGAL DOCUMENT was in Communist Russia.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOVIET UNIONArticle 124 of the Soviet Unions 1947 Constitution has been translated by most scholars to read,“In order to ensure to citizen’s freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state,and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.”Now, If you believe that last sentence, you do not know your history.First the ‘Reds’ separated the Church from the State, then the People were forcefully separated fromparticipation in the Church, then the remaining Religious were ‘separated’ from their LIFE, or sent to Siberiato be worked to death.

    The same position was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947 in their infamous‘Separation of Church and State’ ruling.Why is the United States of America kowtowing to laws created by the CCCP?Soviet Russian Communism is now dead, but still alive and well in the USA.

    There is no United States Constitutional “separation” obligation to scour God from classrooms and civic life.

    Granted, no one in their right mind would want some “Church” running their Government.…Or the Government running their Church.However, there is a middle ground in which, we must have people of high moral character, like those obtained from traditional religious values running the Government.

    (But certainly NOT those “Religious Values by Popular Vote” as found in the current Episcopal Church,where practicing homosexuals are elected as Bishop)

    Where in the Bible does it say that GOD will allow YOU to decide, (or vote on) which of the Ten Commandments are currently relevant?

    They were not created to be a pick-and-choose salad-bar.Where does it say that GOD’s Commandments shall be periodically updated?


     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    dannysixpack  almost 12 years ago

    ^your bible has nothing to do with the us constitution.

     •  Reply
  14. Jollyroger
    pirate227  almost 12 years ago

    The separation was breached when churches created universities and hospitals. Deal with it.

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    Prof_Bleen  almost 12 years ago

    Sigh—the extremists always seem to claim that their bizarre beliefs are shared by all Christians. The vast majority of American Christians use birth control.

     •  Reply
  16. Flag usa 50 exotic
    JohnMBurt  almost 12 years ago

    “Waaaaah! You’re oppressing us by not letting us oppress people!”

     •  Reply
  17. 2nd lady with umbrella by valita r.
    marmar4  almost 12 years ago

    Does the church condone insurance paying for Viagra??

     •  Reply
  18. Qwerty01s
    cjr53  almost 12 years ago

    Why don’t you complain about the shrubster doing that?

     •  Reply
  19. Bill watson1b
    BillWa  almost 12 years ago

    The seperation of church and state only works one way. When Christian wants to be political, the left screams seperation of church and state. When a left leaning religious person wants to use politics, there is no outcry. And Mr. Runnels, the TRUTH is eternal, it doesn’t matter if it is the fifteenth or the twenty first century.

     •  Reply
  20. Missing large
    dahawk  almost 12 years ago

    I wonder why we haven’t heard from the ACLU yet on this. They were very quick (and successful) in getting the mandate that kosher food be served in company cafeterias that have Jewish employees! This is a slippery slope we are headed down. Wonder what would happen if the government required companies ran by Muslims to provide pork on their cafeteria menu for those non Muslim workers? The company would certainly then have to hire non Muslim cooks!!

     •  Reply
  21. Ishikawa  gun
    AdmNaismith  almost 12 years ago

    As soon as the Catholic Church stops f*(%ing children, then they can lecture women about birth control or tut-tut my big fat gay marriage. So have they stop f*(%ing the children, yet? I didn’t think so.

     •  Reply
  22. Georg von rosen   oden som vandringsman  1886  odin  the wanderer
    runar  almost 12 years ago

    I wonder how people would feel about this if the Catholic church, like the Jehovah’s Witlesses, had a religious objection to blood transfusions and wanted to exempt its hospitals from performing the procedure or it’s secular employees from having their insurance cover it.

     •  Reply
  23. Missing large
    dannysixpack  almost 12 years ago

    @runar – i brought up this point in another thread. it is a good one.this is why it is the INDIVIDUAL right that is protected, NOT the "church"s doctrine.

    maybe the church should become a corporation, then it could be treated as a person. but then they’d have to pay corporation taxes and be subject to government regulation………..

     •  Reply
  24. Dscf0120b
    pswhitlark  almost 12 years ago

    Separation of Church and State only seems to matter when there is something relating to GOD they want to get rid of, but let them want to impose something on the “Church” and all bets are off. Maybe if you think of it this way… You are a vegan and you have a vegan restaurant, the government wants you to serve animal products at this restaurant, and even give some of it away for FREE, but your moral code doesn’t allow it. There are some vocal groups the are also demanding you serve animal products, claiming that it is a matter of health, and that it is also a “right”. Get it?Well, the government has no right, under the Constitution to make you serve animal products on your menu let alone tell you what to charge. If they did, we would be living in a dictatorship. We don’t need demands from “on high”, micro-managing businesses. We need people to be able to run their business as they envisioned, with as little government interferance as possible.

     •  Reply
  25. Missing large
    cwibbenmeyer  almost 12 years ago

    @StephenRunnelsYou are kidding about no exemptions, right?

     •  Reply
  26. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 12 years ago

    If they bill you for “services” it’s a business, not a church, period. Must comply with law as a business.

     •  Reply
  27. Missing large
    dannysixpack  almost 12 years ago

    no one is requiring the church to provide free birth control on premises. it is between individual employees and their health insurance company.

    the jesus store, under the original rules, has the right to NOT OFFER health insurance of any kind and just pay the flat fee for NOT providing health insurance, which in many cases is cheaper than providing the health insurance.

    but the church wants the state to impose church doctrine on employees.

    should jehova’s witness and christ scientist organizations be allowed to opt-out of providing blood transfulsions for their employees?

     •  Reply
  28. Missing large
    lmanningok  over 11 years ago

    Anybody know how much we taxpayers are forced to give to religious organizations to help them indoctrinate Americans with their myths? Thanks to Dimbulb W’s executive order, we get our pockets picked every year by religious (mostly Christian) organizations, AND THEY DON’T EVEN PAY ANY TAXES.

    The Supreme Court approved Bush’s outrageous end run around our beloved Constitution because the First Amendment addresses only the legislative branch, not the executive. Note: Six out of nine Supreme Court justices are CATHOLIC. If Santorum because president, we will have handed 2/3 of our federal government over to the former Grand Inquisitor to Pope John Paul: Pope Benedict (the same man who protected all those altar-boy buggering priests for decades).

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Robert Ariail