home
RSS
Supreme Court delays contraception mandate for two Catholic nonprofits
December 31st, 2013
06:33 PM ET

Supreme Court delays contraception mandate for two Catholic nonprofits

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Washington (CNN)–
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily exempted two Catholic Church-affiliated nonprofits from requirements to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a brief order late Tuesday, hours before the controversial Obama administration mandates were set to go into effect.

The Little Sisters of the Poor – a charity congregation of Roman Catholic women in Denver – and the Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services had filed a lawsuit objecting to the contraception mandate, saying it violated their religious and moral beliefs. Some religious-affiliated groups were required to comply with contraception coverage or face hefty fines.

Sotomayor said the two groups were exempted from the mandates until at least Friday, when the federal government faces a deadline to file a legal response in the case.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bishops • Catholic Church • Christianity • Courts • Pope Francis

soundoff (1,682 Responses)
  1. We know that God does not listen to sinners

    how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!…For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne… I will sit also upon the mount…I will ascend above the heights…I will be like the most High

    reminiscent of our pharisee demons

    PRIDE PRIDE

    January 3, 2014 at 2:25 am |
    • Kebos

      "Cast wary eye toward those who state scripture for thy be the work of devils and demons stating not my message of everlasting salvation. These shall be the first cast into the pit of damnation."

      January 3, 2014 at 7:57 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      more hokey, greeting card sayings.
      like safety blankets for Christians.
      they can spit them out on demand.
      and somehow think that they proved a point.

      January 3, 2014 at 9:21 am |
  2. We know that God does not listen to sinners

    how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!…For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne… I will sit also upon the mount…I will ascend above the heights…I will be like the most High

    reminiscent of our pharisee demons PRIDE

    January 3, 2014 at 2:17 am |
  3. We know that God does not listen to sinners

    particularly our pharisaical no-it-alls. every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD

    January 3, 2014 at 2:12 am |
  4. We know that God does not listen to sinners

    We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will.

    January 3, 2014 at 2:03 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      When did I realize I was God?

      Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized that I was talking to myself ...

      January 3, 2014 at 9:22 am |
  5. Lionly Lamb

    Does one think John D. could have foreseen it coming?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wP7Chi9MPSg

    January 2, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      I am sitting here laughing. Rocky Mountain high indeed !!!

      January 3, 2014 at 12:01 am |
    • truthprevails1

      Planning a move now Lionly? 🙂

      January 3, 2014 at 8:45 am |
  6. Akira

    Must I always do everything?

    The bible is true and accurately describes god's view point.

    January 2, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      And now moving again to the 21st century:

      1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

      “New Torah For Modern Minds

      Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

      Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

      The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
      prob•a•bly
      Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

      2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

      The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

      earlychristianwritings.com/

      For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

      Current RCC problems:

      Pedophiliac priests, an all-male, mostly white hierarchy, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

      2 b., Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

      Current problems:
      Adulterous preachers, pedophiliac clerics, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology,

      January 3, 2014 at 12:03 am |
    • Rodents for Romney

      Actually what it represents is what your brain interprets it to mean, and you as'sert YOUR opinion as that of your deity.
      Name ONE thing the Bible says, (and which your deity says), which you personally disagree with, but agree with anyway, only because the Babble says it.

      That's what I thought.
      Nothing.
      It's YOUR opinions, in YOUR head.

      January 3, 2014 at 12:45 am |
  7. Akira

    Especially the brain of a human being. They grow on trees. Don't ask where the trees come from, we r dealing with people with limited attention spans.

    January 2, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
  8. bostontola

    A question for someone who believes the bible is the word of God and it is literally true:

    Did God create the earth as it looks today, i.e. with the continents where they are, shaped as they are, etc?

    January 2, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
    • lol??

      I give up. Who's there??

      January 2, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
    • lol??

      Of course. I will have a pepperoni pizza. Large

      January 2, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
      • bostontola

        I'm going with salad myself.

        January 2, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • lol??

          Waldorf?

          January 2, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
        • The Wiggles

          Fruit salad,Yummy yummy
          Fruit salad,Yummy yummy
          Fruit salad,Yummy yummy
          Yummy yummy yummy yummy
          Fruit salad!

          January 2, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
        • bostontola

          Greek salad, quite delicious.

          January 2, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
    • Jesus' Beloved

      GEN 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.Peleg and Joktan who lived in the days when the tower of Babel was c.onstructed. And it is interesting to c.onsider that the earth was divided in that periodof time. Did the division have to do with c.ontinents or was it just a symbolic division of territory between various groups? Well, it may be fanciful to think of it in terms of land masses being fractured, but is it really? Co.nsider the meaning of the name Peleg which is Strongs ref. # 6389.
      Strong’s Ref. #6389 Derivation: Variation of 6388 Peleg earthquake; Peleg, a son of Shem
      Strong’s Ref. # 6388 Derivation: Derived from 6385 a rill (i.e. small channel of water, as in irrigation)
      Strong’s Ref. # 6385 Derivation: A Primary Word palag to split (lit. or fig.)
      Isn't it amazing that Peleg's name means earthquake

      January 2, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
      • Franklin

        Interesting. Insane, but interesting.

        January 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
      • bostontola

        JB,
        That is interesting. Do you believe the continents are moving and changing shape?

        January 2, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
      • Reality # 2

        1. origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

        “New Torah For Modern Minds

        Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

        Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

        The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine docu-ment. “
        prob•a•bly
        Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

        January 3, 2014 at 12:07 am |
      • Rodents for Romney

        None of it was true. The human writers had no clue when they cooked it up.

        January 3, 2014 at 12:47 am |
    • Jesus' Beloved

      One of the encyclopedias has this to say about the formation of the continents.
      Many earth scientists believe the continents once formed part of a single giant land mass called Pangaea. The world's single ocean called Panthalassa, surrounded Pangaea. ... Pangaea began to break apart. It split into two land masses called Gondwanaland and Laurasia. Gondwanaland then broke apart, forming the continents of Africa, Antarctica,
      Australia, and South America, and the Indian subcontinent. Laurasia split into Eurasia and North America.

      January 2, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
      • bostontola

        Scientists believe that continents move over 100's of millions of years, is the bible in accord with that notion?

        January 2, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          The Bible doesn't follow science. The Bible has never been updated, and will never need updating- ie. it doesn't change to fit the latest scientific discovery. If more scientists were taking a closer look at exactly what the Bible says, and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, they wouldn't waste as much time trying to come up with their own ideas of what they believe might have happened, when they're clearly told what happened.
          Science will eventually confirm what the Bible says.

          January 2, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
        • tracie

          In other words no, right JB? It doesn't confirm zippo.

          January 2, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          The Bible was written by ignorant desert dwellers who had no notion of continents, and geology. It's ALL wrong.
          There is NOT ONE thing in it that was not (thought to be) common knowledge in the ancient Near East. Nothing.
          If there was, why nothing about cancer, antibiotics, genetics ... something useful. All useless BS.

          January 3, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • andrew

          Not to Catholics as they believe the word day to be a literal 24hour day. That is not the case with the Hebrew word 'yohm' which can simply be a undefined, unspecified period of time... billion upon billion of years

          January 15, 2014 at 1:35 am |
  9. JWT

    So what the businesses are saying is that they don;t trust the followers of their religion to obey their religious laws. And their rules don't apply to other people. These business owners are just wrong.

    January 2, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
  10. lol??

    Are the lawless still inventing scientific laws here??

    January 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
    • lol??

      I made the perfect pepperoni pizza on the barbecue.

      January 2, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
  11. At Barnes and Noble

    At Barnes and Noble

    a photo is better than a thousand words !

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152092272477418

    January 2, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
    • lol??

      Is Duck Dawkins getting all the little rubber duckies in a row?? Better demand proof. Proof that he isn't a psychopath. You can use a bwain PET scan and see what shows up in the pudding, 'sides plain ol' duck soup. Should be easy to check his papers from the country of Freedonia, too.

      January 2, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
      • midwest rail

        Calm down, Mrs. Teasdale.

        January 2, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
      • Groucho Marx

        Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

        January 2, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
  12. Cpt. Obvious

    If prayer worked nobody would ever need health insurance....especially the religious freaks. They could just pray away the cancer or pray a spiritual sp.er.m barrier in place or pray away the g@y.

    How about we let the religitards not offer health insurance when they can pray away any disease that comes before them? That sounds fair to me.

    January 2, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
    • Fan2C

      Sort of reminds me of the old Arab proverb:

      "Trust in God, but tie your camel at night."

      The thing is - tying the camel works just as well without trust in any god.

      January 2, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      How about we make the religious organizations pay for the kids that were born because they didn't want their employees to have access to birth control.

      January 2, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        Well, yes. That makes sense, too. There's nothing to stop the company from praying that none of their employees get pregnant, so yes, that works, too.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
    • John D

      Most hospitals in my city were founded and funded by religious orders. Often with the help of volunteers. There are still some Christian denominations that do this today. They seem to practice the idea of "Faith without works is dead." They certainly don't just try or preach praying things away.

      January 2, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        There is more than one bible verse that explains that god answers the prayers of the righteous and "anything you ask in my name" and that sort of thing, but any decent christian can explain why those verses actually mean the exact opposite of what they really, literally say, so I guess you have to pray that the cancer goes away and then not have any faith that god will do it on his own but go have a human doctor (perhaps a muslim or an atheist) operate to take out the cancer. Makes perfect sense.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
        • John D

          Jesus told his disciples to give up their will and align it with His will. And to ask in His name. Yes.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Where in John 14 (verses 1-14) does it say anything about "what you ask in my name" having to be in accordance with god's will?

          This sort of situation always makes me laugh. Well...yeah...the verse does say that....um.....but...um..what it really means is that...um...well,...um sort of the exact opposite of what it says.....yeah...that's what it means.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • John D

          John: (12) Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. (13) And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (14) You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
          (I think it is implied you believe in Jesus and do what he asks. He is also saying this in reference to His departure from His disciples, which they don't understand at the time. I don't think he is saying that God is like a magical puppy that will grant all your wishes)

          Keep reading:

          John: (15) “If you love me, keep my commands. (16) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— (17) the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. (18) I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          LOL, yes, and how would one "do the works (jesus had) been doing" unless god was answering all their requests? And besides, how technical are you going to be about that, John? Do they have to do the "works" in the exact same order and in the exact same way? Could they heal a leper before somebody with cancer or would they have to make the guy with cancer wait so that they got the order correct?

          There's no power in god belief. None. It does nothing more than mere meditation and/or drugs. Believers just feel smug and self-righteous and good about themselves.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • John D

          I'm not trying to be that technical about it. I'm just trying to place that verse you referenced into context of the situation for better understanding.

          I get it. You don't believe there is any power in the belief of God. I disagree. It is certainly not like taking drugs for me. Meditation? Sure. That is helpful in seeking God's will. I know tons of other people that feel the same way as me. It is not like you have demonstrated you are any different from others you describe as smug and self-righteous and seem to feel good about themselves.

          January 2, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          John, there are two issues that I am concerned with:

          1. There is no measurable way to determine whether god exists or what his will is. There are just many people giving different opinions.

          2. No religion, cult, or philosophy has any measurable power that another religion, cult, or philosophy does not use or cannot access.

          God believers pretend that these two concepts are not factual, even though the evidence points to these conclusions and there is a complete lack of any evidence that would prove either statement false.

          January 2, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • John D

          1. To your own self be true. If you don't want to believe in God, don't believe in God. I believe in God. I have evidence of His existence. If I didn't I would be an atheist.

          2. Right, I've noticed your philosophy has no measurable power.

          January 2, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • TL

          "Catholic Employers Claim That Filling Out an Obamacare Form Violates Their Religious Freedom. " -Slate
          This is what they are complaining about: FILLING OUT THE EXEMPTION FORM IS VIOLATING THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

          Freaking tedious little wibbles.

          They don't even want their employees to be able to obtaining it DIRECTLY from the insurance companies.

          The se.x police. That's what they want to be.

          January 2, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Rodents for Romney

          John,
          What you consider as "evidence" is not evidence. It's confirmation bias. You see what you want to see.
          You have established no standard of evidence.
          I I can give you as good of evidence as there is for the resurrection, for another "event", do you agree to accept it as true ?

          January 3, 2014 at 12:56 am |
        • John D

          Romney,

          I don't think you have enough information or understanding to try and decide for me what "evidence" I have and don't have.

          Thanks for sharing your opinion.

          January 3, 2014 at 2:05 am |
      • Actually

        There is truth in that, and in fairness, they were to a degree founded with good intent. But they are run as ways to make money for their churches, so it is not an altruistic enterprise. Catholic-run hospitals in particular are especially focused on profitability, but there certainly have been times in history where it was not so, such as in early French Canada, where the French government did no social projects.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        John, the issue I see most with christians (and definitely in your case) is that you required rigorous and solid evidence in order to believe in most things (like that someone owns a house they want to sell you or that someone has an alien space ship in their garage); but yet you do not require that same standard for your religious beliefs. Like most christians, when it comes to the "evidence" you accept, you're a hypocrite. You want what you would consider "sub-standard" evidence to be enough to believe as you do in your god, but you would not accept that same "sub-standard" evidence when dealing with large purchases or extraordinary claims in the real world.

        When it comes to evidence they will accept-christians and muslims are the ultimate hypocrites.

        January 3, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
    • L33ter

      Are you stoopuud Cpt Oblivious? They would pray away you. What is the big deal? Two not for profits ask for exemption. The claim is the sky is falling cuz religious folk are pushing law. Whatever. Now go get over being angry all these years with your dad.

      January 2, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
      • Hypocrisy-spotting 101

        Violation of "judge not lest thou be judged."

        Violation of the Ninth Commandment.

        Violation of "love thy neighbor".

        And some others. You don't follow the instructions of God and Jesus. You are a hypocrite, and an angry resentful one at that.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • L33ter

          Who said I was religious? It was a social commentary. Hope you get over your own self-righteousness finger pointer. Oh, don't be prejudicial either. Someone might label you.

          January 2, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • Hypocrisy-spotting fail

          oops. 🙁

          January 2, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        These are the same religious folk that will get alligator arms when it comes to spending money on these kids. The same religious folk that support repubs that want to cut/gut any social program the poor/babies need to survive.

        January 2, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • lol??

          Margo has the key to Largo.

          January 2, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • lol??

          Waldorf Salad and a boxed Bordeux please.

          January 2, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
      • Actually

        Do you seriously want your boss to limit your health care choices? I have a hard time believing you would be okay letting him make medical choices for you.

        January 2, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          Why is it even his/her business? People bi*tch and moan about the govt knowing your business but have no issue with employers all in your sh*it.

          January 2, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
  13. WHO NEW

    higgs bosom

    NO HINT OF GAWDS

    January 2, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
    • tracie

      No hint of poop either.

      January 2, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
  14. toopalow teddy of bankock

    some clown thinks she will finally become a believer when gawds appears to her in her living room. that what she claims.

    honey, me too. the universe don't cut it. who couldn't do that? i made sandcastles

    January 2, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
  15. WHO NEW

    Larry of long island, any good at math? what is 4 million tons a second times 4 billion years?

    NO HINT OF GAWDS

    January 2, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
    • Observer

      WHO NOSE?

      January 2, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • tracie

      I like poop.

      January 2, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
  16. Ken Margo

    How about this for the religious phonies. Since they want the kids to be born. Take away their tax exempt status and use the money to pay for these children they want to be born. These fools complain about abortions, yet one of the things that can prevent abortions they're against.

    January 2, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
    • Responding to the Pride

      "Take away their tax exempt status and use the money to pay for these children they want to be born." Really? I assume you'll want them taxed as any other business. Fine, lets see this through...as.suming they continue with their original mission, all funds received will be spent out on legitimate business expenses (labor, equipment, leases, etc.). Since it isn't a profit seeking venture (because if it was, it wouldn't be a non-profit anyway), the taxable income would be reduced to zero–resulting in no taxes. So, go ahead, take away their tax exempt status (churches too)–enjoy the windfall (it may amass to, wow, hundreds of dollars).

      January 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        I'm not really sure what business model you mean, but they would still be liable for property tax and income tax on their vast holdings of both. I think the original point was – if they are so adamant that a child should be born over the wishes of the mother, they should have some skin in the game, i.e. put their money where their mouth is and be responsible for the care, education, etc. of each such child.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Oh I'm pretty sure it'll be more than a few bucks. Let's focus on the main topic. Those filing these lawsuits are against abortions. Foolishly the church wants to stop people from having s3x. (ain't gonna happen) If you make birth control easier to get, you'll eliminate unwanted pregnancies and bingo you'll eliminate abortions. So which is worse. Preventing pregnancy or abortion.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
      • tracie

        Wanna force births, take care of them then. No cuts in social programs for needy families. NONE!!! Churches ain't stopping the poverty
        get real.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          I'm sure you hard about Mutt Romneys family pic with a adopted black baby (by one of his kids). The Ironic thing is Mutt Romney's republican party:
          Voted to cut SNAP (welfare) that would have helped to feed babies.
          20 Republican gov. not epanding medicaid leaving many poor babies w/o health insurance.
          Hates Obamacare that helps the poor get insurance
          Trying to suppress the vote to keep blacks and other minorites from voting.
          Trying to end planned parenthood that helps women get tested for various diseases that ENABLE them to have children.

          The scary thought is that people VOTE for these people.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
  17. John D

    A good verse for Christians struggling for answers: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him." James 1:5
    I've experienced this to be true in my life.

    January 2, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      John, if someone prays and asks god for wisdom, and then that person "feels" as though they have some new insight, what method does that person have to determine that what they are feeling is truly wisdom from god versus deception from the enemy?

      January 2, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
      • John D

        I would compare any knowledge I gain with what I know about God. One of Jesus' commandments is to love others. So something that goes against that desire for me probably isn't coming from God.

        January 2, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Ok. Just checking. It all comes down to interpretation and feelings. I didn't know if you had some method of verifying when a "message" was from god or from a source of deception. I would guess that someone (say Fred Phelps) who has a very horrible view of god and bible's message (he would call it "accurate") will think that a message is from god when you would probably consider that same message to be from the devil.

          Thanks.

          You still think that the meaning of a scripture verse and the only verb it uses is exactly opposite of the literal meaning when you don't like it, right? For example, when the verse says to "fear" god, it really means to "not fear" god–the exact opposite.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • John D

          I never said that it doesn't say to fear God. I'm just saying Jesus doesn't express quite like you did, as though God was a terrorist determined to destroy us. After the line you keep referencing, Jesus essentially says don't be afraid, God loves you.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          My point is that it's a threat. Obviously. Fear god because he can destroy MORE than just your body.

          In essence, don't fear the guy who can kill you....that's a small thing. FEAR the GOD who can DESTROY your soul!!

          A muslim terrorist uses a LESSER threat. Do what I say you should do...or else!!

          January 2, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • John D

          I think Jesus is saying this:

          "Guys it’s natural to be scared of persecution and death. But there are scarier things out there. Your Father for One. He’s the scariest hombre there is! And you have nothing to fear from him. When you understand this – when you know that God is for you, not against you – it will free you from the fear of men. So don’t be afraid and don’t worry. He who cares for the sparrows cares for you. And don’t think you have to do any of this gospel-preaching stuff to earn your way into my kingdom. No, little flock, your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom."

          I don't think he is saying what you imagine. Why? Because of the context of the situation.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
  18. Somebody's Attractive Cousin

    Good for them. I hope that they succeed. Gubmint shouldn't be able to force employers to cover services that they are opposed to.

    January 2, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • igaftr

      Perhaps, but government should, since the people who make up the government ( all of us) have to deal with the repurcussions of their refusal.

      I don't know what any gubmint would be able to do, since that doesn't exist. (lolcat)

      January 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
      • Somebody's Attractive Cousin

        Nope.

        January 2, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Alias

          After reading through this thread, I realized you are just an anti-government tool.

          January 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • tracie

          He sounds like a Gubmint poop.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
    • Actually

      Employers are opposed to paying decent wages and benefits and safe work environments and safe products and have work weeks of only 40 hours. Before government regulation, employers were all to happy to not do those things.

      January 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • Somebody's Attractive Cousin

        If you sign a contract which clearly stipulates that these things aren't provided by the employer, so be it. That's your fault.

        January 2, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Actually

          If there were no government intervention in these matters, all employers would drop all those things and you couldn't find a contract offering any of them except to the upper tiers of management. It would be back to 120 hour work weeks at below subsistence wages, tough luck if you get injured. America already saw that phase, and it was nasty. It also allowed various forms of socialism to become very popular in labor, and for crime rates to be surprisingly high.

          You yourself would be miserable.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • Somebody's Attractive Cousin

          I don't believe that it would revert to those conditions.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Actually

          That's incredibly naive. You think that people whose primary motivation is profit won't rapidly start cutting pay and benefits and increase profits? Do you not recall how corporations raided pension funds not so long ago?

          Very naive. Free market capitalism has already proven itself as what it really is. Capitalism has been healthiest for itself and society as regulated capitalism, not as free market capitalism. One of those odd paradoxes, because increased wages meant increased spending which means increased profits. Yet you cannot get employers to increase wages. And all the other benefits like health care and shorter work weeks and retirement benefits were extremely effective in killing off a rising trend towards socialism. You do know that by 1932, parties with the word "socialist" or "communist" in their name got over a million of the 39 million votes?

          January 2, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • Alias

          Just because your toothless cousin wants to treat you like their little toe and bang you on every piece of furniture in the trailer, that doesn't necessarily make you attractive.
          Contraceptives can also be prescribed for medical conditions. Your employer has no business telling your doctor how to treat you.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • MLH

          "I don’t believe that it would revert to those conditions."

          You have to be kidding. It's happening already with the rise of "right to work" states.

          You're incredibly naive.
          Actually is correct....

          January 2, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      So if you had a JW employer, you'd be happy that your coverage did not permit blood transfusion, etc.? Hard to find an employers religion in order to avoid them, but JW is also a minority and so easier avoided. Maybe a Muslim employer would prohibit medications containing alcohol, or a Jewish employer would prohibit medications containing shellfish.

      January 2, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • Somebody's Attractive Cousin

        If it's contractually stipulated, why not?

        January 2, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • Actually

          Because employers should never be allowed to make health care decisions for employees.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          You'd be happy to die because your employer decided you shouldn't have treatment. I really don't think you'd say that it they were not your beliefs.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • Somebody's Attractive Cousin

          Santa

          Well, they're not my beliefs and I agree with it.

          Actually

          The employers aren't deciding in the situation I described. Employers and employees agree to the terms.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Actually

          Agree? That still gives the employer a say in something he should never have a say in. Your health is sovereign to you, and no employer should ever be given the ability to invade that sovereignty.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Somebody's Attractive Cousin

          Oh, but the government should? And let's face it, there's no contractual agreement with the government. They tell, you do. Now that's an invasion of personal sovereignty.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          The point is employers should not be allowed to make healthcare choices for employees. I do think that having healthcare tied to the employer is a ridiculous idea, but even so they shouldn't make those specific choices especially based upon religious beliefs.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Actually

          You changed the subject.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • Alias

          Does it even matter that this is not an independent issue?
          This is a part of a comprehensive health care system.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Alias

          Since when do the exact terms of insurance appear on a contract with employees?
          My company has changed the insurance they offer several times.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          The problem is simple. If somebody doesn't have insurance, the bills falls on the taxpayer when they don't have insurance. Guess where that taxpayer money comes from. THE GOVERMENT. That's why the goverment has a stake in this.

          January 2, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
    • Alias

      So if my company only believes in faith healing, do we have to provide insurance at all?

      January 2, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      The "gubmit" forces you to pay the hospital bill for those that end up in hospital and don't have health insurance. Do you enjoy doing that?

      January 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
      • Actually

        Interesting point. The new laws are supposed to address that, but there is truth to what you say. I'm not a big fan of government either, probably for similar reasons as you, but it is a necessary evil in counterbalancing large forces that would prey upon individuals. But but government has its own evils. Traditionally we have had the counterbalance of the press as government watchdog, (which of course has it's evils too), but the change in technology has killed off in-depth investigative reporting, so it has lost a lot of its effectiveness as a counterbalance to government.

        As to what paying for hospitalization of the uninsured, it they are so poor that they truly can't afford it, that doesn't trouble me. If they are able but just scamming the system, yeah, that sucks. I have known both types. I must say I would not want some child to be denied care and suffer or die on a solvable condition if their parents did not have health care.

        January 2, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • Ken Margo

          The new laws are supposed to address that but over 20 repub. gov are refusing to expand medicaid coverage leaving those uninsured. Unfortunately nobody explains to their voters that the taxpayers will foot the bill for those uninsured. I wish the prez would stop being so da.mn polite and make this point more widely known.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
    • MLH

      Uh huh. Actually, single payer would be best, but that frightened the weinies too much.

      January 2, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
      • Alias

        A single payer system doesn't let the insurance companies make 'contributions' to elected officials.

        January 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
  19. lunchbreaker

    lunchbreaker said:

    So the Bible does say that the path to Heaven is the narrow road, meaning the majority of people born will burn in Hell for eternity. So by having a baby, the odds are your beloved child will burn forever. Now you may be thinking that your a good Christian parent and your kid will be a Christian. Well both of my parents were Christians, I went to a private Christian school for 14 years of my life, and I am not a Christian. Seems like quite the gamble to bring a child into the world.

    Live4Him replied:

    So you agree that (if there is a heaven) you have no one to blame but yourself?

    January 2, 2014 at 11:43 am | Report abuse | Reply

    Well of course it would be my own fault. But you know that's not what I meant. Just doing my usual thinking outloud. Their is nothing inherently profound about what I wrote. Just maybe that a lot of Christians may be in denial about who around them are actually Christians, even thier own family, thier own Children. But yes it's all on you the individual.

    January 2, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
  20. cawodokixyky

    This "God" is totally stumped for a way to make its existence confirmed?... ah, the poor weak, incompetent being...

    January 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
    • Hey Yabbott!

      Yeah, god saw fit to make his persence known to a few people, no faith needed when you have evidence like that, but put a lot of people in parts of the world where they either would not know about him at all or be part of the local false religion (and endless torture for them).

      Makes sense if you don't think about it

      January 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.