Comments for Return to Rome

Comment on The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws by R$R

R$R — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:05:19 +0000

Any religion that seeks to have their specific cultural beliefs implemented into the United States legal system, is infringing on the rights and freedoms of all the people in the United States who don’t believe, nor wish to believe in the Muslim religion. Although most Americans don’t care what their fellow countrymen wish to follow as a religious belief. Who has given the Muslim the right to tell other Americans they must follow their culture, moral laws, and or religious beliefs? This is America, not a Middle Eastern country. We have a culture of tolerating any and all sorts of different religions. However, trying to shove a specific religious culture and laws into the mainstream America, is anti American in it’s own right. Many, if not the majority of Americans don’t believe in Islam, nor want to believe in that religion, nor should they have to, our acceptance of the Islamic religion is no different than a our acceptance of homosexual marriages. We are tolerant as Americans only so far as it does not infringe on other religions or other religious beliefs in America. If our law makers are bending to the will of one religion. Where does the infringement of other religions stop? In a cultural war?

Comment on Aristotle, Ethics and God by TEKNO

TEKNO — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:01:23 +0000

Francis J. Beckwith, “The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins. “ First Things On the Square (20 June 2007) this is my favorite one!

Comment on Catholic Social Thought and the HHS Mandate by Linda

Linda — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:35:46 +0000

Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance
http://tinyurl.com/7evoxuz

Private Insurance Coverage Contraception Cost Effective
http://tinyurl.com/6r8p3gn

Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance
http://tinyurl.com/7vu3xwl

In addition, health insurance companies will be adding millions of customers in 2014 when that mandate employers with 50 or more employees must offer health insurance.

Comment on Wall Street Journal: Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal by Linda

Linda — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:31:05 +0000

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores, 1997, which is why states can use Employment Division v. Smith, 1990 as a precedent.

http://tinyurl.com/764cn9v

Comment on HHS mandate UNACCEPTABLE!: list of signatories grows on the Snead, Glendon, George, Garvey, and Levin letter by Rev. Paul M. Esser

Rev. Paul M. Esser — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:15:25 +0000

Senior Priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee

What an outrageous affront to us who are citizens of the United States and are people who live and practice our faith. I join with all persons of good will who sign this letter.

Comment on HHS mandate UNACCEPTABLE!: list of signatories grows on the Snead, Glendon, George, Garvey, and Levin letter by David Blankenhorn

David Blankenhorn — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:43:40 +0000

If the leaders think it will help, honored to add my to the list:

David Blankehorn, President
Institute for American Values
1841 Broadway, Suite 211
New York, New York 10023
212.246.3942
blankenhorn@americanvalues.org

Comment on HHS “compromise” is Unacceptable, says former Vatican ambassador, Catholic University of America president, and others by Catholic Social Thought and the HHS Mandate « Return to Rome

Catholic Social Thought and the HHS Mandate « Return to Rome — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:31:58 +0000

[...] while the insurance company is required to provide these services “free of charge.” But, as one group of scholars stated, “it does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated [...]

Comment on The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws by lora

lora — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:56:25 +0000

Nice article: im a law student , this is very helpful for my studies…

Comment on Read All About It!: President Obama to exempt religious organizations..[+Update] by EMRVentures

EMRVentures — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:23:22 +0000

That update is not accurate either. It claims that what was changed is not clear, and only goes back to 2009. The link I sent above shows the 2008 language containing the exact same religious exemption language as currently exists in the statute. President Obama has not exempted religious organizations, as your headline claims.

Comment on Read All About It!: President Obama to exempt religious organizations..[+Update] by pgepps

pgepps — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:47:47 +0000

I don’t think this argument adds weight to the issue in question; it seems likely to muddy the waters. The changes probably are indicative of a rhetorical shift, but the HHS issue is a substantive policy matter, only secondarily a matter of rhetoric. When I was researching my chances of loan forgiveness as a professor at a conservative evangelical college serving urban minority students a couple years back, I came to the conclusion that because I worked at a 501(c)(3) as an English professor, I would be eligible; if I worked at a 501(c)(3) as a chaplain (and possibly as a Bible professor? there’s where the interpretation gets quite murky) I wouldn’t. The HHS regulation has the character of an intentional seizure of a whole sector of activity plus usurpation of the right to define religion–an unusually egregious instance of a usurpation that has been part of our system for some time.