In article , dump-on-
says...

On 3/3/12 10:47 AM, BAR wrote:
In article0cOdnXcYyP1yqc_SnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 3/3/12 9:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleyKadnQGdHZuEt8_SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...


Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy?


What's the difference?

The problem is that you lefties are willing to lay down and be walked
all over by the Muslims but, when it is any form of Christianity you
freak out.




Really? I don't recall saying or implying that I am "willing to lay down
and be walked all over by Muslims." You should cut back on those magic
'shrooms.

Don't start projecting your recreational activities onto me or others.

As a student of history (actual history, not the "conservative" view of
history), I don't see the difference between being slaughtered by
christian zealots or by muslim zealots, the two religious groups under
discussion in this thread. Both religions have a long and bloody history
of slaughter in the name of the faith.

Actions speak louder than words Harry. Your actions and your fellow
lefty's action's belie your words.


My actions? What actions of mine in preferring to being slaughtered
by christian or muslim zealots? I don't see the difference. If you are
killed by a religious fanatic, you are just as dead, whether that
fanatic be christian or muslim. Or are you trying to contend that
muslims kill in the name of religion and christians don't? That's nonsense.



I also don't "freak out" about christianity. To me, it's just another
superstition-based collection of beliefs. My objections arise when its
practitioners attempt to force their religious beliefs onto my secular
society. I'm having many good laughs these days watching the "christian"
political zealots fall on their swords over womens' reproductive health
issues.

We don't have a secular society. Never have and never will.

Yeah, we do. You just don't understand what the word means.



Women's reproductive health? This is a joke and most people can see
right through the "issue." The poor student Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old
woman who is going to Georgetown Law on a "public interest"
(http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/) scholarship. Her whole "beef" is
that someone else isn't paying for her birth control pills. Her argument
falls apart when it comes down to the low cost of condoms.

When a 30 year old woman stands up and says I want someone else to pay
for my birth control pills while I attend law school on a scholarship,
she doesn't garner sympathy from the majority of the country.


Ahh. You read Limbaugh's explanation of her testimony, not her
testimony. Lights out. Good night.


http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...etterhead-2nd%
20hearing.pdf

"When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected,
and I have
heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from
yet another
woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously
affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical
burdens
because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to
share their
voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard."

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000
during
law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest
scholarships,
that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. Forty percent of female
students at
Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
One told
us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at
the
pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn?t
covered,
and had to walk away because she couldn?t afford it. Women like her have
no
choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female
student
told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford
it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive
coverage face
the same choice."

Ms. Fluke needs to understand that her employer or school is not
responsible for the cost of her birth control pills. Nor is that
employer responsible for the cost of condoms. If she doesn't want to get
pregnant she can stopping ****ing guys and start studying. It is her
choice and she should be responsible for paying for her choices.

If Ms. Fluke doesn't like the policies of Georgetown University than she
is free to attend another school.


Her insurer is responsible. Don't like it? Move to a religious state.

The insurer is responsible for what is in the policy.

Most, if not all, Catholic institutions choose to not have birth control
pills covered by their health insurance policies. If you don't like it
then you don't have to work for a Catholic institution or attend school
at a Catholic institution.

Remember it is a choice. Ms. Fluke can always choose to go to another
school.