US bishops gather to preserve religio...

US bishops gather to preserve religious liberty as decision on health care law awaits

There are 83 comments on the Fox News story from Jun 14, 2012, titled US bishops gather to preserve religious liberty as decision on health care law awaits. In it, Fox News reports that:

No housekeeping as usual. No perfunctory dotting the I's and crossing the T's. American bishops gathering in Atlanta for their biannual meeting have a sense of urgency as the deadline to comply with the controversial Health Care mandate is just weeks away.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#67 Jun 16, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
they shall establish no law to restrict the free exercise of religion. That's what the law is. The rights of Christians format stop at the church house door. They also apply to any charities they own.
Hey cretin, a university or a hospital is not a house of worship.

The First Amendment also says the government may not elevate the beliefs of any one religion over others.

When it comes to tax dollars we don't have to support RCC-misogynist dogma.

This is trivial, fourth grade stuff, you stupid, racist, homophobic theocrat.
conservative crapola

Bethlehem, PA

#68 Jun 16, 2012
Is bishop rugby attending?
McGruff

Elizabethtown, KY

#69 Jun 16, 2012
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>1. You don't complain about Ann Coulter or drug addict Rush L. using invective, you brain dead racist.

2. The other racist wants to lie. Now he's been found out. That's a general finding about him - being so religious and all - being a lying racist. He made the big deal about denying it. Which he did rather badly, due to his immense stupidity.

3. It's important to know he devalues an entire group of people based on skin color, independent of other considerations.

4. Scratch a racist, find a homophobe. They go together.

You fcking lying filth.
you still haven't answered ho's post. I don't care what you call me. It reflects on you and not me. I don't care who is or isn't a racist. It is irrelevant to the subject. You can't answer his post so you call names. I understand. You are a liberal. And there is no worse name to be called than that.
McGruff

Elizabethtown, KY

#70 Jun 16, 2012
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>Hey cretin, a university or a hospital is not a house of worship.

The First Amendment also says the government may not elevate the beliefs of any one religion over others.

When it comes to tax dollars we don't have to support RCC-misogynist dogma.

This is trivial, fourth grade stuff, you stupid, racist, homophobic theocrat.
it doesn't have to be a house of worship. The constitution doesn't mention a house of worship. And yes Chatholic Charities are a part of their church. And no obammy can't tell them what to do.
Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#71 Jun 16, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
it doesn't have to be a house of worship. The constitution doesn't mention a house of worship. And yes Chatholic Charities are a part of their church. And no obammy can't tell them what to do.
Hey racist, your and the other pos's racism speaks to your other bigotries, including homophobia. His claim not to be a racist speaks to his lying.

The Catholic social service agencies have already been reigned in by the courts - the RCC agencies were going to stop doing adoptions in MA when they were told they could not discriminate - bigots that they are - against glbt parents in adoptions.

I also gave the example of the bigoted church which got in trouble for discriminating in how it rents out its banquet facilities to the public.

The government may not use tax dollars to support any one religion's (hateful, ignorant) dogma in places of public accommodation. That includes hospitals and universities. This is simple fact, no matter how much you sexually sick, stone age bigots yelp.
McGruff

Elizabethtown, KY

#72 Jun 16, 2012
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>Hey racist, your and the other pos's racism speaks to your other bigotries, including homophobia. His claim not to be a racist speaks to his lying.

The Catholic social service agencies have already been reigned in by the courts - the RCC agencies were going to stop doing adoptions in MA when they were told they could not discriminate - bigots that they are - against glbt parents in adoptions.

I also gave the example of the bigoted church which got in trouble for discriminating in how it rents out its banquet facilities to the public.

The government may not use tax dollars to support any one religion's (hateful, ignorant) dogma in places of public accommodation. That includes hospitals and universities. This is simple fact, no matter how much you sexually sick, stone age bigots yelp.
I understand. You can't discuss the issues so you call names. How liberal of you. The church won't but insurance that covers contraceptives. That's a fact. And Barry Obbammyy and you don't have to agree with it.
Xstain Fumblementalist

Philadelphia, PA

#74 Jun 16, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand. You can't discuss the issues so you call names. How liberal of you. The church won't but insurance that covers contraceptives. That's a fact. And Barry Obbammyy and you don't have to agree with it.
Hey sick liar fer jeebus, I have discussed the issues at length. You are a liar.

No church ever had to cover the cost of birth control for employees in its health insurance. Ever. You are a liar.

Even the RCC owned, public institutions under discussion don't have to themselves pay for birth control in their secular employees' insurance plans. The insurance companies agreed to cover this to accommodate the RCC misogynisitic homophobes in dresses. You are a serial liar.

And a bigoted half wit.
McGruff

Elizabethtown, KY

#75 Jun 17, 2012
Xstain Fumblementalist wrote:
<quoted text>Hey sick liar fer jeebus, I have discussed the issues at length. You are a liar.

No church ever had to cover the cost of birth control for employees in its health insurance. Ever. You are a liar.

Even the RCC owned, public institutions under discussion don't have to themselves pay for birth control in their secular employees' insurance plans. The insurance companies agreed to cover this to accommodate the RCC misogynisitic homophobes in dresses. You are a serial liar.

And a bigoted half wit.
again you can't debate the issues do you as a typical liberal just spew hate filled names. Pity you can't discuss the issues.

The Catholic church hasn't paid for BC is true. That's what this is about. Obammy says they have to. But they don't and they won't. It isn't going to happen.

So obammy is just a typical liberal fool and idiot. Who hates America and the freedoms that we have.

“your life is great”

Since: Aug 09

you poop in clean water

#76 Jun 17, 2012
has the Catholic Church publicly declared their position on immigration?
Cat74

Westmont, IL

#77 Jun 17, 2012
Not everyone has a position on Immigration, but since the Catholic Church is for enforcing our laws I imagine they want the illegals treatd as illegals, and sent home.

“your life is great”

Since: Aug 09

you poop in clean water

#78 Jun 17, 2012
hahahahahahha
guess you're not a Catholic huh Cat?
.
(you may want to google it, Catholics love illegal immigrants, especially latino ones, because they tend to be Catholic)
drinK the HivE

New York, NY

#79 Jun 17, 2012
What Is There 2 Compare?- Is There Another Serious Answer?...

http://i49.tinypic.com/2quucqo.gif
KKKafeteria KKKristains

Philadelphia, PA

#80 Jun 17, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
it doesn't have to be a house of worship. The constitution doesn't mention a house of worship. And yes Chatholic Charities are a part of their church. And no obammy can't tell them what to do.
When they get tax dollars in any number of ways, have secular employees, are not houses of worship and are places of public accommodations they are no longer in the religious realm and the RCC misogynists in dresses do not get to impose their sick sexual mores in such venues.

Because were are not a theocracy. The government doesn't support the advancement of a particular religious dogma in the public realm. It violates the Establishment Clause, you sick racist, homophobic, sexist bigot.
Cat74

United States

#82 Jun 17, 2012
When Rush used drugs, and he no longer does, he paid for them himself. Our Street people buy drugs with the taxpayers money. That is the difference. Of course that will go on until we elect some people who respect the rule off law. Democrats will be painted as anti law enforcement, because they ignore more laws then they obey.
KKKafeteria KKKristains

Philadelphia, PA

#83 Jun 17, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
When Rush used drugs, and he no longer does, he paid for them himself. Our Street people buy drugs with the taxpayers money. That is the difference. Of course that will go on until we elect some people who respect the rule off law. Democrats will be painted as anti law enforcement, because they ignore more laws then they obey.
Hey stupid freeek, the point about "tough on drug users...until I get caught" Rush L. is that the other racist bigot doesn't complain about the drug addict's invective.

Okay, you stupid pos? Was that simple enough for you?

...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks.

--Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)

These tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don't you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what's wrong?

--RushLimbaugh.com (8/18/03)

In the audio link below, I go into detail about these non-thinking talking points that "you can't tell people what to do with their bodies" and "you can't legislate morality." First of all, we tell people what they can do to their bodies all the time--no cocaine, no prostitution, no throwing yourself off a building. Second, laws are nothing but defining morality!

--RushLimbaugh.com (6/27/03)
Cat74

United States

#84 Jun 17, 2012
I would still rather live next door to Rush then some Cabreenie Green leftover. His children won't steal everything not nailed down.
KKKafeteria KKKristains

Philadelphia, PA

#85 Jun 17, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
I would still rather live next door to Rush then some Cabreenie Green leftover. His children won't steal everything not nailed down.
Hey filth, of course you'd rather live next to a racist hypocrite and rumored closet case.

That doesn't speak to the point about:

1. The tough on drug crime, radio poobah not being so tough on crime when he gets caught.

2. The other racist complaining about invective while not complaining about the rumored closet case and drug addict in question.

You're too stupid to actually deal with the many hypocrisies. And the Establishment Clause is _way_ beyond your abilities.

“The Black Mermaid”

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#86 Jun 18, 2012
KKKafeteria KKKristains wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey stupid freeek, the point about "tough on drug users...until I get caught" Rush L. is that the other racist bigot doesn't complain about the drug addict's invective.
Okay, you stupid pos? Was that simple enough for you?
...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks.
--Rush Limbaugh TV show (10/5/95)
These tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don't you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what's wrong?
--RushLimbaugh.com (8/18/03)
In the audio link below, I go into detail about these non-thinking talking points that "you can't tell people what to do with their bodies" and "you can't legislate morality." First of all, we tell people what they can do to their bodies all the time--no cocaine, no prostitution, no throwing yourself off a building. Second, laws are nothing but defining morality!
--RushLimbaugh.com (6/27/03)
I have to say I was incredibly shocked to learn Rush was a drug abuser since he came down so hard and mercilessly on OTHER drug users. I wonder how he justified that? Any ideas? Thanks in advance. He certainly was a moralistic hypocrite to the nth degree!
McGruff

Campbellsville, KY

#87 Jun 18, 2012
KKKafeteria KKKristains wrote:
<quoted text>When they get tax dollars in any number of ways, have secular employees, are not houses of worship and are places of public accommodations they are no longer in the religious realm and the RCC misogynists in dresses do not get to impose their sick sexual mores in such venues.

Because were are not a theocracy. The government doesn't support the advancement of a particular religious dogma in the public realm. It violates the Establishment Clause, you sick racist, homophobic, sexist bigot.
it doesn't violate anything. And yes they are a part of the church and their faith. The establishment clause doesn't apply. You are wrong. And the church will not buy BC for anyone. And little Barry obammy doesn't have to like it.
McGruff

Campbellsville, KY

#88 Jun 18, 2012
KKKafeteria KKKristains wrote:
<quoted text>Hey lying, racist sht for brains, I have argued the issues in terms of content. Along with calling you out as a bigot.

Why don't you go whine about drug addict Rush L. or coke whore, imo, Ann "Eva Braun" Coulter employing name calling if name calling so upsets you, you religious freeek pantywaist?
I see you changed names but you still can't discuss the issues. Why can't you discuss the issues? Stock with the issues at hand.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Health Care Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bush Offers Plan to Repeal, Replace Federal Hea... (Oct '15) Aug 31 Polygamy 2
News 'Time to move on' from health care, Senate GOP ... Aug '17 John 87
News With Obamacare repeal dead, bipartisan group of... Jul '17 bottlecap 25
News Many of key players on Trump health care reform... Jul '17 AmericanPie Jamboree 2
News Senate GOP gets new pressure from Trump on heal... Jul '17 frogie 4
News Thousands flock to free medical clinic, as Wash... Jul '17 Doc 1
News Op-Ed Columnist: The Health Care Collapse Is a ... Jul '17 Fundiementally ill 28
More from around the web