History
- Member for
- 18 weeks 4 days
Get E-Mail Updates
randrews4
Top Stories This Week
- A North Carolina Christian’s Response to Pastor Charles L. Worley
by Andrew Simpson 05-23-2012 - 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - A 'Bizarre and Peculiar' Ruling
by E.J. Dionne Jr. 06-01-2012 - What is the Chief Political Concern of the Bible?
by Tim Suttle 05-24-2012 - The Problem with Certitude
by Gary L. Tandy 05-25-2012 - Dear Pastor Charles Worley: We Condemn Your Words of Hatred and Cruelty. REPENT!
by Eugene Cho 05-23-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - Jennifer Grant Asks 'What is an Evangelical?'
by Jennifer Grant 05-23-2012
by Karen Sue Smith 01-01-2012
Fifty years after Vatican II, will a new generation of lay Catholics lead prophetic change in the church and in the world?
by David Cortright 05-01-2010
... and make us all more secure. A pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament.
by David Cortright 08-01-2006
Official rhetoric has helped fuel an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran. Do recent negotiations mark a change in direction, or just a temporary detour from the highway to military attack?
Comments
Catholic institutions would not be forced to SUBSIDIZE contraceptives. Since contraceptives are cost effective, Catholic institutions would be forced to BENEFIT from contraceptives. This probably does not ease the conscience of the Catholic hierarchy, but it does offer a way out of the quagmire. Why require employers to offer contraceptives? Why not require insurance companies to offer an optional no-cost rider that covers contraceptives. No institution would be forced to offer contraceptives. Insurance companies would benefit from lower overall costs for clients who opt for the rider. Individuals get to make up their own minds.
I read Sojourners newsletters often and I usually appreciate their perspective. I am an environmental advocate who has been studying global warming since the 1960s. I belive most environmental questions can be evaluated with a cost/benefit analysis with planty of weight given to environmental costs. I'm struggling to figure out why there is such ardent opposition to an oil pipeline. Is this just a chance to stick it to big oil? Rejecting this pipeline will not significantly decrease the amount of oil we use. It will only increase the cost of transporting the crude oil to refineries. It may mean we import a bit more oil from the middle east. Would you prefer to have oil transported by trucks, trains, and ships instead of in a pipe? Building a pipeline is about as objectionalbe as building a new highway.