Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > U.S. Federal Policy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 18th, 2012, 08:39 PM   #1
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vpqw0f2xbg[/youtube]
tadpole256 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 18th, 2012, 10:29 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mikelew007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,481
King Obama and the Church of Obamacare? God bless the hype, makes for good television. Last time I checked though, Catholics are still free to not use contraception or any form of birth control, even though they do in overwhelming numbers. And when you think about it, wouldn't contraceptives be a good thing for an organization that opposes abortions even more? T
hey, the insurance companies, and not those suddenly-hypersensitive employers (Ok, for real, mostly the Catholic hierarchy, and Republican Congressmen searching desperately for a cultural issue to cling at who actually are the most upset. Need them votes, yo. ), are being required to cover it with their insurance policies. Considering how many non-Catholics work in the system, including in Catholic-owned hospitals and universities, it's rather arrogant to demand everyone abide by their religious doctrine. Should we pick apart at what we can and cannot insure based on everyone's religious objections, even when they fly against the face of reality, or is the Catholic Church above US law?



Or am I totally wrong this?
mikelew007 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 08:00 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Only in wingnut land (and the confederate south) are the religious views of an employer allowed to trample the religious liberty of all the employees, or to constrain how an employee chooses to use the earned benefits of his labor.



Should a Scientologist who runs a coffee shop be permitted to exclude mental health care from the heath care package and thereby force his employees to buy that coverage in the individual market? Can a Jehovah's Witness who runs a grocery store refuse coverage for blood transfusions to his employees?



Similarly, can a Jehovah's Witness deny sick time to a person who needs a blood transfusion? Or are we going to "force" that employer to pay for something which "violates his religious views"?
skrekk is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 11:55 AM   #4
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Will you stop listening to Fox News right-wing lies tadpole please. The facts tell a different tale.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNn4XdNRXKU
Fayt is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 01:39 PM   #5
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,354
I'm shocked that Tad is the one that posted this.



There is clearly no issue with the solution to the first amendment incident that we had over the birth control coverage mandate, an issue that was ginned up by the Bishops to begin with. The Sisters are satisfied and the church is satisfied. And one way to actually make this stupidity by the right go away is to challenge them on it exactly in the manner skrekk did in the post by him above. And the best thing to do would be to have universal coverage and take health insurance out of the employment equation all together.
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 01:44 PM   #6
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
I'm shocked that Tad is the one that posted this.



There is clearly no issue with the solution to the first amendment incident that we had over the birth control coverage mandate, an issue that was ginned up by the Bishops to begin with. The Sisters are satisfied and the church is satisfied. And one way to actually make this stupidity by the right go away is to challenge them on it exactly in the manner skrekk did in the post by him above. And the best thing to do would be to have universal coverage and take health insurance out of the employment equation all together.


I never said I agreed with it...



I thought it would spur some interesting discussion...
tadpole256 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 01:45 PM   #7
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Will you stop listening to Fox News right-wing lies tadpole please. The facts tell a different tale.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNn4XdNRXKU[/media]


Oh Fayt... It's cute that you think that because I post something means I endorse it...
tadpole256 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 01:46 PM   #8
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1329691167' post='384558

I'm shocked that Tad is the one that posted this.



There is clearly no issue with the solution to the first amendment incident that we had over the birth control coverage mandate, an issue that was ginned up by the Bishops to begin with. The Sisters are satisfied and the church is satisfied. And one way to actually make this stupidity by the right go away is to challenge them on it exactly in the manner skrekk did in the post by him above. And the best thing to do would be to have universal coverage and take health insurance out of the employment equation all together.


I never said I agreed with it...



I thought it would spur some interesting discussion...


Aaaahhhh, I see. That makes sense.
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 01:48 PM   #9
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Sometimes you have to stir the pot...
tadpole256 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 01:57 PM   #10
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Only in wingnut land (and the confederate south) are the religious views of an employer allowed to trample the religious liberty of all the employees, or to constrain how an employee chooses to use the earned benefits of his labor.



Should a Scientologist who runs a coffee shop be permitted to exclude mental health care from the heath care package and thereby force his employees to buy that coverage in the individual market? Can a Jehovah's Witness who runs a grocery store refuse coverage for blood transfusions to his employees?



Similarly, can a Jehovah's Witness deny sick time to a person who needs a blood transfusion? Or are we going to "force" that employer to pay for something which "violates his religious views"?




The whole question of employer-subsidised health insurance is riddled with flaws and only postponing the day when American finally joins the rest of the industrialised world and comes up with some form of Universal health Care.



Until then it's unthinkable that the US Government should ignore the First Amendment and force any religious organisation to help fund behaviour which contravenes its doctrinal position.



Contraception is freely available to anyone at millions of pharmacies all over the country. If you disagree with your employer's stance then either pay for it yourself or get a new job.
garysher is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:08 PM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1329670850' post='384512

Only in wingnut land (and the confederate south) are the religious views of an employer allowed to trample the religious liberty of all the employees, or to constrain how an employee chooses to use the earned benefits of his labor.



Should a Scientologist who runs a coffee shop be permitted to exclude mental health care from the heath care package and thereby force his employees to buy that coverage in the individual market? Can a Jehovah's Witness who runs a grocery store refuse coverage for blood transfusions to his employees?



Similarly, can a Jehovah's Witness deny sick time to a person who needs a blood transfusion? Or are we going to "force" that employer to pay for something which "violates his religious views"?




The whole question of employer-subsidised health insurance is riddled with flaws and only postponing the day when American finally joins the rest of the industrialised world and comes up with some form of Universal health Care.



Until then it's unthinkable that the US Government should ignore the First Amendment and force any religious organisation to help fund behaviour which contravenes its doctrinal position.



Contraception is freely available to anyone at millions of pharmacies all over the country. If you disagree with your employer's stance then either pay for it yourself or get a new job.


It hasn't done that. But the republicans are trying to say that any employer can claim a moral reason to not cover a medical procedure, medication or treatment. That is not a first amendment issue, but denying an employee coverage because they don't share your religious values, might just be.
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:32 PM   #12
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1329692271' post='384567

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1329670850' post='384512']

Only in wingnut land (and the confederate south) are the religious views of an employer allowed to trample the religious liberty of all the employees, or to constrain how an employee chooses to use the earned benefits of his labor.



Should a Scientologist who runs a coffee shop be permitted to exclude mental health care from the heath care package and thereby force his employees to buy that coverage in the individual market? Can a Jehovah's Witness who runs a grocery store refuse coverage for blood transfusions to his employees?



Similarly, can a Jehovah's Witness deny sick time to a person who needs a blood transfusion? Or are we going to "force" that employer to pay for something which "violates his religious views"?




The whole question of employer-subsidised health insurance is riddled with flaws and only postponing the day when American finally joins the rest of the industrialised world and comes up with some form of Universal health Care.



Until then it's unthinkable that the US Government should ignore the First Amendment and force any religious organisation to help fund behaviour which contravenes its doctrinal position.



Contraception is freely available to anyone at millions of pharmacies all over the country. If you disagree with your employer's stance then either pay for it yourself or get a new job.


It hasn't done that. But the republicans are trying to say that any employer can claim a moral reason to not cover a medical procedure, medication or treatment. That is not a first amendment issue, but denying an employee coverage because they don't share your religious values, might just be.

[/quote]



Which non-religious employers have claimed moral reasons for not providing coverage?



Why should a religious organisation be forced by the government to subsidise behaviour it considers to be doctrinally immoral?



Obama is already on shaky ground by trying to mandate employers to provide health insurance, if he tries to force them to forego their religious convictions he will never get away with it.
garysher is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:40 PM   #13
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256' timestamp='1329691494' post='384560

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1329691167' post='384558']

I'm shocked that Tad is the one that posted this.



There is clearly no issue with the solution to the first amendment incident that we had over the birth control coverage mandate, an issue that was ginned up by the Bishops to begin with. The Sisters are satisfied and the church is satisfied. And one way to actually make this stupidity by the right go away is to challenge them on it exactly in the manner skrekk did in the post by him above. And the best thing to do would be to have universal coverage and take health insurance out of the employment equation all together.


I never said I agreed with it...



I thought it would spur some interesting discussion...


Aaaahhhh, I see. That makes sense.

[/quote]



I don't see the sense either lol, but I guess this is what you call freedom of post? I believe it's in the constitution.
Fayt is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:42 PM   #14
The Chief
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Earth (Mostly)
Posts: 14,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1329691604' post='384563

[quote name='tadpole256' timestamp='1329691494' post='384560']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1329691167' post='384558']

I'm shocked that Tad is the one that posted this.



There is clearly no issue with the solution to the first amendment incident that we had over the birth control coverage mandate, an issue that was ginned up by the Bishops to begin with. The Sisters are satisfied and the church is satisfied. And one way to actually make this stupidity by the right go away is to challenge them on it exactly in the manner skrekk did in the post by him above. And the best thing to do would be to have universal coverage and take health insurance out of the employment equation all together.


I never said I agreed with it...



I thought it would spur some interesting discussion...


Aaaahhhh, I see. That makes sense.

[/quote]



I don't see the sense either lol, but I guess this is what you call freedom of post? I believe it's in the constitution.

[/quote]



It's called stirring the pot...



Poking the bee hive...



Getting the juices flowing...
tadpole256 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:43 PM   #15
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1329692893' post='384572

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329692271' post='384567']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1329670850' post='384512']

Only in wingnut land (and the confederate south) are the religious views of an employer allowed to trample the religious liberty of all the employees, or to constrain how an employee chooses to use the earned benefits of his labor.



Should a Scientologist who runs a coffee shop be permitted to exclude mental health care from the heath care package and thereby force his employees to buy that coverage in the individual market? Can a Jehovah's Witness who runs a grocery store refuse coverage for blood transfusions to his employees?



Similarly, can a Jehovah's Witness deny sick time to a person who needs a blood transfusion? Or are we going to "force" that employer to pay for something which "violates his religious views"?




The whole question of employer-subsidised health insurance is riddled with flaws and only postponing the day when American finally joins the rest of the industrialised world and comes up with some form of Universal health Care.



Until then it's unthinkable that the US Government should ignore the First Amendment and force any religious organisation to help fund behaviour which contravenes its doctrinal position.



Contraception is freely available to anyone at millions of pharmacies all over the country. If you disagree with your employer's stance then either pay for it yourself or get a new job.


It hasn't done that. But the republicans are trying to say that any employer can claim a moral reason to not cover a medical procedure, medication or treatment. That is not a first amendment issue, but denying an employee coverage because they don't share your religious values, might just be.

[/quote]



Which non-religious employers have claimed moral reasons for not providing coverage?



Why should a religious organisation be forced by the government to subsidise behaviour it considers to be doctrinally immoral?



Obama is already on shaky ground by trying to mandate employers to provide health insurance, if he tries to force them to forego their religious convictions he will never get away with it.

[/quote]



Hel-lo! The mandate has exempted religious organizations from paying for certain things that go against the tenets of their doctrine. It does not exempt non-religious organization employers fro having to cover these things. BUT, the republicans in Congress would like to make it so that an employer that is not a religious organization can still deny coverage that go against their moral values. Like they could say that they don't believe that vaccines are in accordance with teir faith so they will not cover them in their plans. Do you see what I am saying? It has nothing to do with what you are saying any longer. That has been taken care of and the church is given the exemption. But the republicans want more, they want all employers to be given exemptions from providing coverage for things they claim are in conflict with their moral principles.
waitingtables is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:49 PM   #16
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1329692893' post='384572

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1329692271' post='384567']

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1329670850' post='384512']

Only in wingnut land (and the confederate south) are the religious views of an employer allowed to trample the religious liberty of all the employees, or to constrain how an employee chooses to use the earned benefits of his labor.



Should a Scientologist who runs a coffee shop be permitted to exclude mental health care from the heath care package and thereby force his employees to buy that coverage in the individual market? Can a Jehovah's Witness who runs a grocery store refuse coverage for blood transfusions to his employees?



Similarly, can a Jehovah's Witness deny sick time to a person who needs a blood transfusion? Or are we going to "force" that employer to pay for something which "violates his religious views"?




The whole question of employer-subsidised health insurance is riddled with flaws and only postponing the day when American finally joins the rest of the industrialised world and comes up with some form of Universal health Care.



Until then it's unthinkable that the US Government should ignore the First Amendment and force any religious organisation to help fund behaviour which contravenes its doctrinal position.



Contraception is freely available to anyone at millions of pharmacies all over the country. If you disagree with your employer's stance then either pay for it yourself or get a new job.


It hasn't done that. But the republicans are trying to say that any employer can claim a moral reason to not cover a medical procedure, medication or treatment. That is not a first amendment issue, but denying an employee coverage because they don't share your religious values, might just be.

[/quote]



Which non-religious employers have claimed moral reasons for not providing coverage?



Why should a religious organisation be forced by the government to subsidise behaviour it considers to be doctrinally immoral?



Obama is already on shaky ground by trying to mandate employers to provide health insurance, if he tries to force them to forego their religious convictions he will never get away with it.

[/quote]



Did you hear Obama's response about the claim that he's forcing religious organizations to give contraceptive services? That's not true that employers will pay for or provide these services.
Fayt is offline  
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:50 PM   #17
Meh Economist
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadpole256 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1329694852' post='384584

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1329691604' post='384563']

[quote name='tadpole256' timestamp='1329691494' post='384560']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1329691167' post='384558']

I'm shocked that Tad is the one that posted this.



There is clearly no issue with the solution to the first amendment incident that we had over the birth control coverage mandate, an issue that was ginned up by the Bishops to begin with. The Sisters are satisfied and the church is satisfied. And one way to actually make this stupidity by the right go away is to challenge them on it exactly in the manner skrekk did in the post by him above. And the best thing to do would be to have universal coverage and take health insurance out of the employment equation all together.


I never said I agreed with it...



I thought it would spur some interesting discussion...


Aaaahhhh, I see. That makes sense.

[/quote]



I don't see the sense either lol, but I guess this is what you call freedom of post? I believe it's in the constitution.

[/quote]



It's called stirring the pot...



Poking the bee hive...



Getting the juices flowing...

[/quote]



I see your logic
Fayt is offline  
Old March 6th, 2012, 10:27 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Regarding Lisa Murkowski's vote for the odious Blunt amendment:

Quote:
http://www.thenewstr...traception.html



If Sen. Murkowski is moderate, her votes should be too



Back from Washington, D.C., for the start of the Iditarod, Sen. Lisa Murkowski learned the hard way not to get between women and birth control. She said she now regrets her support for a measure that would have allowed employers to opt out of providing birth control and other health insurance coverage for moral reasons.



---------------------------------------------

Over the weekend, Sen. Lisa Murkowski learned the hard way not to get between women and birth control.



Back from Washington, D.C., for the start of the Iditarod Sled Dog Race, the senator kept running into female voters who wrote in her name in the last election -- moderate women who did not always vote Democrat or Republican. These women were coming unglued.



The reason: Murkowski's support for a measure that would have allowed not just religious employers, but any employer, to opt out of providing birth control or other health insurance coverage required by the 2010 health-care law for moral reasons.



I called her office Friday looking for an interview but didn't expect to get one. Then an email arrived from her account on Saturday, agreeing to meet me Sunday night at the Millennium Hotel.



We talked for 45 minutes. What Lisa Murkowski told me I already suspected. She's a moderate. She supports abortion rights and contraception coverage. She also doesn't line up completely with the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control. She regretted her recent vote.



"I have never had a vote I've taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me," she said.



She'd meant to make a statement about religious freedom, she said, but voters read it as a vote against contraception coverage for women. The measure was so broad, it's hard not to read it that way. I suspect Murkowski saw that, but for reasons she didn't share with me, voted for it anyway.



In case you haven't followed this latest battle in the culture wars, the vote came last week during a heated debate about the new health care law's requirement that employers offer insurance that covers birth control. At first, only churches -- not religiously affiliated employers like Catholic charities or hospitals -- were exempt from the rule. Republicans, including Murkowski, along with Catholic and other religious groups, objected, saying the rule trampled on religious liberties.



Because of their objections, the Obama administration changed the rule to allow religiously affiliated organizations to exclude birth control from their plans. In those cases, insurance companies, instead of employers, would offer the coverage directly to women without charging their employers.



Murkowski was a leading voice among Republicans supporting religious organizations that said the administration's accommodation didn't go far enough. Murkowski aligned herself with the church position in a letter to the Catholic Anchor newspaper published Feb. 23.



"Unfortunately, the Obama administration unilaterally determined that religious hospitals, charities and schools will be required to go against their deeply-held -- and constitutionally-protected -- beliefs when offering health care services to current employees," Murkowski wrote.



But when I talked to Murkowski, her position had softened. She said she voted for the Blunt Amendment (proposed by Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt), to send a message that the health care law needed a stronger clause for religious conscience. It was supposed to be a vote for religious freedom, she said, but to female voters back home it looked like a vote against contraception. The language of the amendment was "overbroad," she said.



"If you had it to do over again, having had the weekend that you had with women being upset about the vote, do you think you would have voted the same?" I asked.



"No," she said.




Murkowski said she believes contraception should be covered and affordable, except when it comes to churches and religiously affiliated organizations, like some universities and hospitals. She sponsored a contraception coverage bill as a state legislator in 2002. That bill exempted "religious employers." She said her position hasn't changed.



"I have always said if you don't like abortion the best way to deal with it is to not have unwanted pregnancies in the first place," she said. "How do you do that? It's through contraception."



I pointed out that her support for birth control conflicts with the Catholic mandate against it.



"You know, I don't adhere to all of the tenets of my faith. I'm a Republican, I don't adhere to all of the principles that come out of my party," she said. "I'm also not hesitant to question when I think that my church, my religion, is not current."



I have always thought of Murkowski as pro-choice. But I sat through numerous debates at election time where it seemed hard for her take a position. Sunday, she brought up the topic.



"I have taken the position that there are instances where abortion should be made available. They should be made safe and legal," she said.



That said, she didn't think taxpayer dollars should pay for them.



She called the Blunt Amendment a "messaging amendment" that "both sides know is not going to pass."



Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid saw the public debate shifting away from religious freedom, which would have been a winning issue for Republicans, she said. Reid recognized contraceptive rights as a winning issue for Democrats and pushed for a vote.



"The wind had shifted, and Republicans didn't have enough sense to get off of it," she said.



I asked if during her weekend in Anchorage, she'd thought at all about Rush Limbaugh, who recently said a lot of unsavory things about a Georgetown University student testifying for birth control coverage, including that she was expecting taxpayers to pay for her to have sex.



"I think women when they hear ... mouthpieces like that say things like that they get concerned and they look to policymakers," she said. "That's where I feel like I have let these women down is that I have not helped to give these women the assurance they need that their health care rights are protected."



We were starting to wrap up our conversation when she showed me a gold bracelet made to look like the plastic ones her campaign gave out to remind people how to spell her name as a write-in candidate.



"It's a reminder of how I got (to the Senate)," she said. "I didn't get there through the normal route. I got there because Alaskans took a little bit of risk on me."



What she meant was she got there with the votes of people who weren't necessarily Republicans. She felt responsible, she said, "to do right by all of them."



But will she do right? Regrets are one thing, but real votes in the Senate are another. If she's a moderate, she should vote like one. Otherwise, all her weekends in Alaska will end up like this last one: full of apologies.


More and more women are seeing the GOP as the party of misogyny.
skrekk is offline  
Old March 6th, 2012, 10:46 AM   #19
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
More and more women are seeing the GOP as the party of misogyny.


Evidence?
garysher is offline  
Old March 6th, 2012, 11:03 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1331062075' post='388182

More and more women are seeing the GOP as the party of misogyny.


Evidence?


http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/press_ro...1-04-10-GG.pdf



The gender gap in Dem vs Rep voting preference is well known, and widening.



Since you're not from around here and seem completely unfamiliar with our politics, I'm not surprised you were unaware of it.
skrekk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > U.S. Federal Policy

Tags
&, freedom, obamacare, religious


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Republican House Hearing On "religious Freedom" skrekk Current Events 17 June 18th, 2013 12:57 PM
Mississippi official recognizes that gays have religious freedom..... skrekk Gay and Lesbian Rights 13 August 16th, 2012 08:46 PM
Republicans try to deny religious freedom to gay servicemembers skrekk Gay and Lesbian Rights 4 June 10th, 2012 09:30 AM
Church Reacts to Obama's War on Religious Freedom: Let Us Be Catholic garysher Christianity 0 June 3rd, 2012 03:14 PM
Religious Freedom vs Patients' Rights Tirya Abortion 96 August 12th, 2008 06:03 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.