ElrondPA

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

We are citizens of two kingdoms. As citizens of the United States, religious liberty is recognized as a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and indeed the first freedom recognized there (and don't think the order is happenstance). There is no reason for us to give that up just because we also are citizens of heaven and have freedom in Christ. And arguing that two wrongs make a right isn't a Christian position.

Actually, the Obama administration has even admitted there's a religious liberty issue: They've exempted churches from the new rules. But religious institutions that hire and serve non-members, such as colleges, hospitals, and social service agencies, aren't exempt, not to mention believers who want to act according to their conscience. In other words, if you want to be insular, you can keep your religious liberty. If you want to reach out to the world the way Christ commanded, you have to give up your liberty. The gamesmanship is on the Democratic side. I don't doubt there are some Republicans who think there's political potential in this (just as there are Democrats who like the political benefit in some circles of sticking it to the Catholic church); that's inherent in the two-party system. But denying that there is a constitutional issue here is either ignorant or gamesmanship in itself.

The blatant dishonesty of the Democratic senators arguing against the amendment that would undo the Obama rule was mind-boggling. They suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses might provide insurance that wouldn't cover blood transfusions, for instance. If the rule is repealed, we'll be back to CURRENT law. Have you ever heard of the kinds of horror-show situations that the Democrats suggested? Me neither.

Given the way we in the "straight" world often change partners, that's hardly relevant. Besides, that's conjecture anyway on your part.

No, there is a difference in kind, and it's not conjecture. Several sociological studies have found that 50-75% of male homosexuals in a "committed" relationship engage in sexual activity with others, with the knowledge and approval of their partner. (I haven't seen similar studies on lesbians.) This is coming from gay-friendly researchers, some of whom even claim that heterosexuals should "learn" from this. See the NY Times article on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

the last I heard adultery is not illegal

But it's illegal to lie about it under oath in a court proceeding. 

I know of no good "conservative" reporting.

That's as clear a statement of bias as I've ever seen.

The major media are perfectly happy to ignore facts that don't fit their preferred point of view, particularly where sex is concerned. How often have you heard the major media, in conjunction with the "gay marriage" project, point out that gays overwhelmingly don't see a "committed relationship" (marriage or otherwise) as sexually exclusive, so "gay marriage" really isn't the same thing as heterosexual marriage with a switched 46th chromosome? (I'll give credit to the NY Times for admitting this one time.) What major media outlet (aside from the Wall Street Journal) raised any question about Ms. Flake's claim that it costs $1000 a year for the pill, when in fact it's available in generic form for $9/month at any Walmart pharmacy (and others)? Who noted that her sob story about someone needing oral contraceptives for a medical condition was dishonest, because Georgetown's medical insurance pays for the pills in that situation? And the media endlessly played the "Where are the women?" sound bite without mentioning that the second set of witnesses included women. I will say, though, that the Republicans were politically stupid in providing the opening; they should have arranged the witnesses differently.

The fact is that the major media want to promote 1) the philosophy of libertine sex without consequences and 2) the Obama re-election. It's not necessarily a conspiracy, in the sense that they're getting together and agreeing on what to do. It's simply that virtually everyone in positions of authority at the three traditional news networks, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the like has the same point of view. It's well documented that journalists with the national media vote 90% Democratic.

And as far as Bill Clinton goes, what was made up out of thin air was Hillary's $100K gain on $3K invested in futures trading. I don't think he had anything to do with Vince Foster's death, but there's abundant evidence (on blue dresses and elsewhere) that he was a philanderer.

The "compromise" Obama offered is anything but. It is a fig leaf to pretend the problem has gone away. Where do the insurers get the money to pay for the "free" contraceptives? The same place they get it for all the other policies where employers don't object--from their customers, including those who do object. Why the Catholic Health Association thinks this makes a moral difference is beyond me (unless they really don't believe the church's moral teaching in the first place, and want to see no evil). And who's going to pay even using the fig leaf solution when the employer is self-insured, and there's no general pot of insurance company money to siphon from?

We are complaining so loudly not because we are "at war," but because First Amendment rights are being flagrantly violated--ours, and those of others. I actually disagree with the Catholic Church's moral position on contraception, but I absolutely agree that they have the right to take that position, and not to be forced to pay for people who choose a different position. This is a naked power grab by the administration, running roughshod over religious liberty in order to curry favor with the Planned Parenthood crowd and get them excited for the upcoming election. But it's not surprising once they arrogate to themselves the right to decide what sort of health insurance everyone must receive; the bureaucrats know best, and we must all bow to their superior wisdom, ignoring any trifles like freedom of conscience.

I agree that kicking churches out of NYC schools is also a serious issue. I don't know anyone who is fighting on the contraception issue who would disagree, and I think it's unfair to suggest that we're trying to make it an either/or situation. (It's not our fault if the anti-religious media is trying to change the subject.) Let's stand for religious liberty, the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, on all fronts.

This is another example of environmentalists preferring symbolism to reality. Canada has decided to permit the oil to be extracted. Killing (or delaying) the Keystone pipeline will not cause one drop less of oil to be extracted from the Alberta oil sands and burned. Instead, it will actually harm the environment further, because oil that otherwise could have traveled on a highly efficient and safe pipeline will instead be transported to China (or, perhaps, California) by tanker, while we get more of our oil by tanker from other places. A bad pipeline spill measures in the hundreds or maybe a few thousand gallons; the Exxon Valdez dumped 7.2 million gallons. And ships (including tankers) are among the dirtiest of air polluters even when they don't crash.

But it lets the U.S. environmental community feel self-righteous because they're not putting any of that dirty oil sands-derived gasoline in their Prius; instead, the oil comes delivered by tanker from dictatorships and human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.