home
RSS
Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battle
June 29th, 2014
08:19 PM ET

Hobby Lobby: the Bible verses behind the battle

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Editor

[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

Washington (CNN) – For the Greens, the Christian family behind the Hobby Lobby chain of stores, their battle with the Obama administration was never really about contraception. It was about abortion.

After all, the evangelical Greens don't object to 16 of the 20 contraceptive measures mandated for employer coverage by the Affordable Care Act. That puts the family squarely in line with other evangelicals, who largely support the use of birth control by married couples.

Like other evangelicals, however, the Greens believe that four forms of contraception mandated under the ACA - Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine devices - in fact cause abortions by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb. (The Obama administration and several major medical groups disagree that such treatments are abortions .)

“We won’t pay for any abortive products," Steve Green, Hobby Lobby's president, told Religion News Service. "We believe life begins at conception.”

Evangelicals as a whole may be relative newcomers to that view, but since the 1980s it has become nearly gospel. (The Pew Research Center has a helpful guide to other religious groups' stance.)

As Christianity Today editor Mark Galli has argued, evangelicals arrived at their current stand on life issues through a combination of factors, including biblical interpretation, moral accounting and political calculus. Others also add the influence of early architects of the religious right and the example of the Catholic Church, which has opposed abortion for centuries.

But given the importance of scripture to evangelicals, it's no surprise that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals cite the Bible in the second sentence of their policy stance on abortion:

And because the Bible reveals God's calling and care of persons before they are born, the preborn share in this dignity (Psalm 139:13).

You'll see that verse, Psalm 139:13, cited quite a bit when it comes to evangelicals and abortion. In it, the psalmist says to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."

(You'll also see that verse cited by many Mennonites, so it makes sense that a Mennonite business, Conestoga Wood Specialties, joined a companion challenge to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court.)

If God knew you in the womb, the thinking goes, then you must have been at some stage of personhood, and that provides biblical justification for the idea that life begins at conception, according to evangelicals and other Christians.

In addition to Psalm 139, you'll also hear evangelicals and Mennonites cite several other Bible passages that they believe affirm the sanctity of human life.

Genesis 1, for example, says that mankind is made in God's image; the Ten Commandments make murder a crime against God; and Job, the old Testament sufferer, frets about what would happen if he mistreats his servants because:

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Again, you see the divine and womb interacting, which is why evangelicals like the Greens so strongly oppose contraception that prevents embryo implantation in the womb.

Still, those verses may not be on the Greens' minds after Monday's decision. Instead, Steve Green has said, they'll be thinking about Daniel 3:17-18

If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Abortion • Belief • Bible • Bioethics • Christianity • Church and state • Culture wars • evangelicals • Health care • Obama • Politics

soundoff (2,278 Responses)
  1. SeaVik

    "It strikes me that this is all about whether the government can force someone to violate honestly held faith beliefs"

    Of COURSE the government can and should force people to violate honestly held faith beliefs when those beliefs violate American rights. Or do you think the government should allow terrorists to blow up Americans since they honestly believe their faith says they should?

    This is precisely why religious views should be given zero special treatment.

    July 1, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
    • Alias

      What are you trying to say?
      If I believe every word of the bible is perfect and the will of god, then enslaving peopel who are not of jewish ancestory and the wrong religion is my god given right!
      Who did that Lincoln person think he was to take my religious beliefs away from me?

      July 1, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      isn't it true that you are only here in an attempt to weaken someone's faith? isn't it true that you are a hateful individual with an evil heart who, although you have not ever been harmed by another person's faith, are here to spread hatred of people of faith?

      July 1, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
      • Alias

        No scot,
        We are here to help you see the truth.

        July 1, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
  2. ragansteve1

    SCOTUS Decision to uphold the health insurance mandate = WH "it's settled law, shouldn't be tampered with"

    SCOTUS Decision to support Hobby Lobby = WH "Congress needs to fix this"

    July 1, 2014 at 11:19 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      It seems more political than religious on HL's part – they did not exclude contraception before the ACA. I'm not sure how a for-profit company can have a religion, but the precedent seems ominous for employees of companies owned by JW's.

      July 1, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • ragansteve1

        It may be somewhat political on everyone's part, but there is no denying that the Greens have deeply held religious beliefs. My comment is not so much about the merits of their case as it is the 180-degree turn the White House did on SCOTUS when the decision did not go their way. THAT is partisan and political.

        July 1, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          If you are going to poit fingers might as well point at everybody.

          Republicans after SCOTUS decision on ACA = "Terrible decision! The SCOTUS overstepped its authority! Were going to fix this! (by fruitlessly attempting to repeal the ACA more than 50 times knowing they didn't have the votes, aka pointless side show for their base)"

          Republicans after SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision = "Wonderful ruling! The SCOTUS knows what its doing! A win for freedom! At least for corporations since they will be the only ones effected by this ruling, anything to help make the 1% a little bit wealthier... Go trickle Down yellow yuckenomics!"

          July 1, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          A case can be made that you have a point. While I was not so sarcastic, I think I implied that by saying it was somewhat political for everyone. There is probably nothing that happens in D.C. that is not political. That is why most Americans have substantial disdain for the whole works.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          " That is why most Americans have substantial disdain for the whole works."
          -----------------------------
          Unfortunately more engagement in the political process is necessary – for people to see behind the smokescreen of the sound bites.

          The politics of power == incu.mbency and both are beholden to the electorate. Members of Congress can only become influential when they are returned to office.

          More education is required for democracy to flourish – education about the system, the impact of voting, the importance of changing things that are broken and an awareness of what is going on behind the smokescreen.

          Sound-bite jingoistic politics is what the founders feared and why they created a republic instead of a democracy. Stupid people vote stupidly. Every voter needs to be educated and engaged and vote.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          I'm not, Good luck with that. Americans appear to be getting stu pider, and stu pider rather than more enlightened. Usually, I am a pretty optimistic kind of guy. But the last ten years or so have just about turned the tide for America. While I remain optimistic in general, for the long term, I feel America's future is seriously in doubt for the first time in my nearly 70 years.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "I feel America's future is seriously in doubt for the first time in my nearly 70 years."
          -----------------------------
          I think this is true for a number of reasons.

          The Pax Americana of the early 21st century has disturbing parallels to the Pax Britannia of the early 20th century. Britain was the shop keeper to the world and a fading super power fighting pointless colonial conflicts in out of the way places like Afghanistan, just as we are the bankers to the world and fight pointless colonial conflicts in out of the way places like Afghanistan. We produce little and make money go round and round while we hand the torch of 'producer' to China the way Britain handed it to us.

          Supporting representatives whose sworn purpose is to do nothing for the people they represent is inconceivable and yet half of the voting electorate is prepared to support this.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          There are many reasons for my relatively recent lack of optimism for America's future. Senseless wars are only one small part. I suspect we would agree on some and disagree on others. But, in general, we may agree that the direction the country is going is not the best.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Yup. Roberts knows his court's reputation is in the dumper. It's why he tried to rescue it by going with the ACA.
      The country is completely utterly divided. The long term question is whether a society with no values in common can continue to remain cohesive. I really don't know the answer to that.

      July 1, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
  3. ausphor

    Vic al your posts..."This is all based on the belief"...: never let the facts get in the way of anything you are fantasizing about.
    BTW Jesus Christ is a character in a fictional book, sort of like Golding's Lord of the Flies.

    July 1, 2014 at 9:42 am |
    • ausphor

      Reply for Vic.

      July 1, 2014 at 9:44 am |
    • nclaw441

      The imaginary person you refer to has somehow caused the calendar that the entire world refers to and relies upon to based upon His life and death. Not too shabby for an imaginary guy.

      July 1, 2014 at 11:05 am |
      • Alias

        It is amazing what a good theocracy can do.

        July 1, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • ragansteve1

        Not only that, but there is more actual historical evidence that Jesus lived than that Caesar invaded Gaul.

        July 1, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • G to the T

          Not completely true – at least we have a first person account by Cesear. We only have second hand quotes for Jesus.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • ragansteve1

          Well, we have at least six eyewitness accounts and one gentile (Greek) account from interviews with the eyewitnesses. And then we have the accounts of Josephus Flavius, a Roman historian, who obviously had no reason to support a fictional account. And we have over 90 references to Jesus in the Quran, another source that would have every reason to deny, or at least omit, His existence if the writers wanted to. Finally, name one other major religion that has had the impact of Christianity on the world that came from someone who, or some group that, did not exist.

          These accounts would stand up to scrutiny by any court in the land.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          And then we have the accounts of Josephus Flavius, a Roman historian.....

          NO....Josephus took his information from third party sources.....Religious people always throw his name in the story....Jesus is not even a name used in the middle east...and there is no EMPIRICAL PROOF that this said person ever live....all references about him have been taken from LUKE, MATTHEUS, JOHN AND MARK who wrote in 80 A.D. long after the supposed JESUS WAS TO HAVE LIVE and information was usually gossip ans was passed as information among the ignorant in those days when no one could read or write.....IT'S ALL CRAP....sorry.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • otoh2

          ragan,

          - Why so stingy with the witnesses of the alleged most important event in human history? 6? Really? Even Paul's storied 500 is a pittance, considering that there were a couple of million people living in Israel at that time.

          - Why such a shoddy job of reporting and preserving the originals of those "reports"? Other cultures had their stories and fantasies chiseled in STONE, and we still have them.

          - Josephus wrote about Hercules a couple of times too (and Ulysses). Here's one:

          "That from Surim was the land of Assyria denominated; and that from the other two (Apher and J.apbran) the country of Africa took its name, because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus; and that Hercules married Aphra's daughter, and of her he begat a son, Diodorus; and that Sophon was his son, from whom that barbarous people called Sophacians were denominated."
          http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-1.htm

          July 1, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          ragan,
          Islam is an offshoot of christianity and believe that Jesus was a prophet but not divine – you'd expect Jesus to be mentioned.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          I would not expect you all to admit the obvious. And I did not say Josephus was an eye witness. I said he was a recognized historian with no reason to fabricate or to support the fabrication of a fictional person.

          So, believe what you will.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • joey3467

          Eyewitness accounts, that is funny. I see no reason to believe that the gospel writers are who they say they are. Most likely they wrote under false names, having never met Jesus, several decades after Jesus died.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
        • otoh2

          Yes, In Santa, by the time Mohammad wrote his stuff those stories of "Jesus" had been circulating around that area of the world for over 600 years, and I guess they were fairly popular. Mohammad knew those stories.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          Akira
          Agatha Christie wrote about Hercules too

          July 1, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • tallulah131

          When I was a kid, we had a basset hound named Hercules. Not that it has anything to do with the topic.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Josephus was a client of Vespasian. He was PAID by the Roman imperial court. He escaped from Galilie, and fled (a coward) to Rome. The PURPOSE of the "Antiquities of the Jews" was to prove that Vespasian was THE messiah". Is THAT really someone Christinans REALLY want to be referencing ? If you reference Josepus, YOU must accept his premise : the Emperor was the Messiah.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          no bucky your wrong on history again. Josephus was a prisoner of the emperor and only agreed to write a history of the revolt if his life be spared. of course what he wrote concerning the revolt was biased, after all he was in Rome. get your facts straight mr copy and paste.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          in fact, bucky, it was the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus who first made the reference to Vespasian being a messiah and they were paid to do so. Josephus only followed suit as not to be a victim of Vespasian's propaganda campaign. your thinly veiled attempt to discredit his account of Jesus will do no good since there was no reason at all for him to write about the real Messiah amidst the glorification of Vespasian.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
      • igaftr

        claw
        Funny your ARROGANT statement.
        There have been many calendars throughout the world. Currently many countries use their own calendar.

        to think that the use of the calendar adds some validity to your belief in absurd.

        July 1, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • awanderingscot

          isn't it true that you are only here in an attempt to weaken someone's faith? isn't it true that you are a hateful individual with an evil heart who, although you have not ever been harmed by another person's faith, are here to spread hatred of people of faith?

          July 1, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • tallulah131

          We are here to point out the truth, scot, the truth that you don't want to hear or believe. I'm sorry if reality contradicts your faith, and I'm sorry that you would rather people lie than question what you have chosen believe. Your dishonesty is your own flaw.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Spamming the same thing ad nauseum is pointless. I have already told you that no, that is not correct, and yet you keep making the same false claim.

          Answer this question.
          Do you hate a childs belief in Santa?

          July 1, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          tallulah131
          you're only here to hate others due to your evil heart. your imagined truth will not sway a son of God.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          the thought probably never came to your mind, why are hate-theists like myself drawn to religious blogs? yet it's obvious to all people of faith that you are a hateful individual here to spread hate and discontent.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          I posted a reply to nclaw's false statement, showing how it is incorrect. Pointing out the truth.

          Pointing out false statements and showing the truth is somehow hate to you?
          Tallulah pointed this out as well, and you claimed hate on her?
          Doesn't that violate your 9th commandment?

          July 1, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          It is a belief blog. Did you think you were going to preach to the choir?

          July 1, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "yet it's obvious to all people of faith "

          REALLY? You are so arrogant that you claim to speak for all "people of faith" now?
          It is obvious that YOU are spreading hate, with many many false statement, violating your 9th commantment and name calling all over this blog, and you try to claim I am motivated by hate?

          Look in the mirror if you want to see someone who is spreading hate.
          I am simply pointing out false statements and trying to show truth.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • Alias

          Scott
          We are here to save you from your delusions.
          We want to lead you to the truth.
          We are trying to save you from the lies and keep you from wasting your life.

          Why are you here, except to hear the truth and be saved?

          July 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • tallulah131

          "you're only here to hate others due to your evil heart. your imagined truth will not sway a son of God."

          Oh, scotty, you silly fool. If it lying about other people makes you feel better, you go ahead and lie. Your blatant dishonesty is a perfect demonstration of your "christian morals". To be perfectly honest, you do a better job turning people away from christianity than any atheist.

          I don't care what you believe – I have a lot of friends with a lot of different beliefs – but when you claim your belief is fact, then I will point out that you are mistaken. I respect the truth. I was raised to be honest. Too bad all the religion in the world isn't capable of making you an honest person, scotty.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          lol .. name calling and den.ig.ration are your forte, ninth commandment? it's obvious why you are here on a religion blog, pure and simple, you're a hater and i'm just pointing out the truth to you. you can deny it but i won't call you delusional, you're just trying to hide it because you're dishonest.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          You are lying about me. Where have I resorted to name calling?
          You are the one who calls peoples names, would you like to see a sample of the many names you like to call people?

          July 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          Talluluh
          Too bad all the religion in the world isn't capable of making you an honest person, scotty.

          – this is a true statement you make, that all the religion in the world will not make a person honest. Obviously you believe it can make some people honest? that is a fatal flaw in your assumption because not only will religion not make a person honest, but a lack of religion will also not make a person honest. Furthermore, neither will being "raised" to be honest make a person honest. the ONLY thing that will make a person truly honest is accountability to a higher power. you are not honest because you don't believe in a higher power. in denying your heavenly father you are also a liar, since your father the devil is a liar and the father of the lie. you are here to do his will which is why you are also hateful, just as igftr and those other godless haters are liars.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          case in point for dishonesty, you calling yourself a Christian.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          " the ONLY thing that will make a person truly honest is accountability to a higher power. you are not honest because you don't believe in a higher power"

          The irony is that the above statement is obviously dishonest.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • tallulah131

          No, scotty, you dolt. I think you are fundamentally a dishonest person, and all your religious maunderings do not make you honest. All your pretend piety does not disguise who you are: You are nothing more than liar in dressed in your Sunday best, pretending to be a good person instead of actually being a good person. Being a good person takes too much effort for you, so you hide your worthlessness behind your patina of faith.

          No one needs a god to be an honest person. They just need personal integrity, something that you wouldn't recognize if it introduced itself and shook your hand.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "just as igftr and those other godless haters are liars."
          If I am godless so are you and everyone else, and if there is a god, it would be everyones god. Belief is irrelevant, so calling people godless is really pointless.
          I do not hate, simply question baseless belief. I do not hate a child for believing in Santa.
          Then calling me a liar...where is your evidence of this scot, or is it you simply name calling yet again ?

          By all means scot, where did I lie?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          "" the ONLY thing that will make a person truly honest is accountability to a higher power. you are not honest because you don't believe in a higher power"

          That reminds me of someone....let's see...who was outspoken about atheists, did not believe they could be moral because they did not believe in a "higher power"....oh, yes I remember now

          Hitler...He said pretty much the same as you scot...

          How does it feel to know you and Hitler think alike, at least re: the subject of atheists, scot?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          So the doubts have you by the umm, b..ls, and you have nothing to add ? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you NEED to only hear pious drivel, there's planty of that on EWTN, and most any Xtian radio stattion. How many times are you going to post that spam ?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "Funny your ARROGANT statement."
          scripture makes reference after reference to the calendar year being 365 days in addition to months and leap years. you calling claw arrogant is funny almost because that's what you are. only "your facts" have any validity in your small mind. your stupidity and pride are breathtaking.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          You once again show you cannot comprehend.
          The arrogance was trying to claim that Jesus had something to do with the calendar. He did not. It was long established, before your bible was written the cycles of the earth. to make a claim that christianity was the reason is absurd. Like most things in the bible, men knew, then wrote it in. Like many the teachings of Jesus, taught 400 years BEFORE your Jesus character by Buddha, yet you atribute them to Jesus.
          The more you make insults while you are making ignorant statements, the more you make yourself the fool.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • otoh2

        nclaw,

        The B.C./A.D. dating system was the brainchild of a monk named Dionysius in the 6th century. The Church was very powerful in those days and controlled most aspects of society, including politics, economics, literature and history-writing... still, his dating system took hundreds of years (nearly 1000) to be inst-ituted world-wide. Many cultures still keep their ancient calendars going on the side.

        July 1, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • otoh2

        nclaw,

        In addition, every week (52 times per year) in English-speaking places we have:

        Tuesday = Tiu's day (Norse god)
        Wednesday = Woden's day (Norse god)
        Thursday = Thor's day (Norse god)
        Friday = Frigga's day (Norse goddess)
        Saturday = Saturn's day (Roman god)
        And every year:
        January = in honor of Janus (Roman god)
        February = Roman purification rite, februa
        March = in honor of Mars (Roman god)
        April = in honor of Aphrodite (Greek goddess)
        May = in honor of Maia (Roman goddess)
        June = in honor of Juno (Roman goddess)
        A lot of hoopla for those gods and goddesses. I guess that means that they were/are all real too then, eh?

        July 1, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • tallulah131

          D'oh! I should have read down. You beat me to it!

          July 1, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Don't forget Moon Day.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          And in historically Catholic France and Spain, the weekdays kept the names of Roman Gods:

          Monday – Moon, Lundi, lunes
          Tuesday – Mars, Mardi, martes
          Wednesday – Mercury, Mercredi, miércoles
          Thursday – Jupiter, Jeudi, jueves
          Friday – Venus, Vendredi viernes

          It is only the weekend that got names related to Christianity:
          Saturday – diēs Sabbati (“day of the Sabbath”) Samedi, sábado
          Sunday – diēs Dominica (“day of the Lord”) Dimanche, domingo

          July 1, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
      • tallulah131

        The days of the week and the months are named after Roman and Norse gods. This must make them real as well.

        July 1, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • otoh2

          And also the planets and many of their moons and some asteroids are named for those gods & goddesses, and they watch over us all the time!

          July 1, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          And as Neil DeGrasse Tyson likes to point out in one of his lectures, many of the named stars have Arabic names. (The western ancients only went as far as naming constellations and they are mostly astrological. We use Anglicized forms of these names today.)

          July 1, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "The imaginary person you refer to has somehow caused the calendar that the entire world refers to and relies upon to based upon His life and death."
        --------------------------
        Patent nonsense.

        July 1, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
      • igaftr

        claw
        "The imaginary person you refer to has somehow caused the calendar that the entire world refers to and relies upon to based upon His life and death. Not too shabby for an imaginary guy."

        Completely false. Peoples BELIEF in the guy caused them to create a calendar based on the belief. The guy himself had nothing to do with it, and there are many calendars used throughout the world.

        July 1, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          isn't it true that you are only here in an attempt to weaken someone's faith? isn't it true that you are a hateful individual with an evil heart who, although you have not ever been harmed by another person's faith, are here to spread hatred of people of faith?

          July 1, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot

          Why do you keep spamming this lie? I have already told you countless times that NO...it is not correct.

          I am harmed by religious people every day, and have already explained how.
          Just because you want to ignore the reply does not mean that your statement is any more true than the lie it was the first time.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
      • joey3467

        No nclaw somebody who believed in an imaginary person, or at least mostly made up person, is responsible for the calendar.

        July 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
      • Reality

        And again- some historical records and notation from those who have made rigorous, published studies of the historical Jesus:

        From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

        "That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

        “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

        “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

        “My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

        I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

        See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

        Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

        Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at books.google.com/books.

        There is also a search engine for this book on the left hand side of the opening page.

        See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

        From ask.com,

        "One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.

        Then there are these scriptural references:

        Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

        Added suggested readings:

        o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.

        2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
        – a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication and discussion of each.

        30-60 CE Passion Narrative
        40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
        50-60 1 Thessalonians
        50-60 Philippians
        50-60 Galatians
        50-60 1 Corinthians
        50-60 2 Corinthians
        50-60 Romans
        50-60 Philemon
        50-80 Colossians
        50-90 Signs Gospel
        50-95 Book of Hebrews
        50-120 Didache
        50-140 Gospel of Thomas
        50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
        50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
        65-80 Gospel of Mark
        70-100 Epistle of James
        70-120 Egerton Gospel
        70-160 Gospel of Peter
        70-160 Secret Mark
        70-200 Fayyum Fragment
        70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
        73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
        80-100 2 Thessalonians
        80-100 Ephesians
        80-100 Gospel of Matthew
        80-110 1 Peter
        80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
        80-130 Gospel of Luke
        80-130 Acts of the Apostles
        80-140 1 Clement
        80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
        80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
        80-250 Christian Sibyllines
        90-95 Apocalypse of John
        90-120 Gospel of John
        90-120 1 John
        90-120 2 John
        90-120 3 John
        90-120 Epistle of Jude
        93 Flavius Josephus
        100-150 1 Timothy
        100-150 2 Timothy
        100-150 T-itus
        100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
        100-150 Secret Book of James
        100-150 Preaching of Peter
        100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
        100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
        100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
        100-160 2 Peter

         4. Jesus Database, http://www.faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/intro.html –"The JESUS DATABASE is an online a-nnotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
        5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bis-sar24.htm
        6. The Jesus Seminar, http://en.wikipedia.o-rg/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
        7. http://www.biblicalartifacts.com/items/785509/item785509biblicalartifacts.html – books on the health and illness during the time of the NT
        8. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
        9.The Gn-ostic Jesus
        (Part One in a Two-Part Series on A-ncient and Modern G-nosticism)
        by Douglas Gro-othuis: http://www.equip.o-rg/articles/g-nosticism-and-the-g-nostic-jesus/
        10. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
        Presented on March 18, 1994
        ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2
        11. The Jesus Database- newer site:
        wiki.faithfutures.o-rg/index.php?t-itle=Jesus_Database
        12. Jesus Database with the example of S-u-pper and Eucharist:
        faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/jdb016.html
        13. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
        mtio.com/articles/bis-sar24.htm
        13. http://www.textweek.com/mtlk/jesus.htmm- Historical Jesus Studies
        14. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/
        15. D-iseases in the Bible:
        http://books.google.com/books/about/The_d-iseases_of_the_Bible.html?id=C1YZAAAAYAAJ

        16. Religion on- Line (6000 a-rt-ic-les on the hi-story of religion, churches, theologies,
        theologians, eth-ics, etc. religion-online.o–rg/
        17. The New Testament Gateway – Internet NT n-tgate-way.com/
        18 Writing the New Testament- e-xi-sting copies, o–r–al tradition etc.
        n-tgat-eway.com/
        19. JD Crossan's c-onclusions about the a-uthencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the c-onclusions of other NT e-xege-tes in the last 200 years:
        http://wiki.faithfutures.o-rg/index.p-hp?t-itle=Crossan_Inventory
        20. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by t-itle with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html
        21. Luke and Josephus- was there a c-onnection?
        in-fidels.o-rg/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html
        22. NT and beyond time line:
        pbs.o-rg/empires/pe-terandpaul/history/timeline/
        23. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
        harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm
        24. See http://www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.
        25. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.
        27. The books of the following : Professors Gerd Ludemann, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.
        28. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
        29. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus

        July 1, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      isn't it true that you are only here in an attempt to weaken someone's faith? isn't it true that you are a hateful individual with an evil heart who, although you have not ever been harmed by another person's faith, are here to spread hatred of people of faith?

      July 1, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
  4. Science Works

    http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/hobby-lobby-hates-women-loves-jesus/

    July 1, 2014 at 9:19 am |
  5. Rynomite

    It's not surprising that conservative Christians are too dense to understand what is and what is not an abortion. That said, its a pity they are also to dense to understand that this is a very dangerous court ruling. This was a win for the "rights" of a corporation over the rights of living, breathing individuals. Hopefully there are some other for-profits with non-christian beliefs will take advantage of this ruling and truly illustrate how bad it is to the conservative christian community. Of course they don't really understand the concept of fairness, so they would argue that the exception should only belong to them...

    July 1, 2014 at 8:57 am |
    • Vic

      Did you know that President Bill Clinton is to be credited for this ruling?

      In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into Law what's known as the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act." That's how Hobby Lobby challenged the ACA coverage requirement.

      This is all based on the belief that Plan B, Ella and two intrauterine contraceptives are in fact abortifacient; therefore, it became a "religious right to exclude such contraceptives from ACA coverage" issue.

      It's all about "Human Life" and NOT politics nor economics!

      July 1, 2014 at 9:33 am |
      • G to the T

        "It's all about "Human Life" and NOT politics nor economics!"

        But it is – as stated multiple times below, the methods in question aren't abortive. This rulling based on what people think they are, not what they actually are...

        July 1, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • Vic

          On the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" Law:

          "What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."

          President Bill Clinton

          July 1, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • ausphor

          Vic and of course you know Hobby Lobby provided all forms of birth control until it became a political issue. It was all about politics and trying to stop the ACA as conservatives have been doing since it came into effect. How many times have Republicans tried to kill the bill, over fifty by now?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • G to the T

          "What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."

          I would say the mounds of scientific evidence for exactly how these methods work would be more than the "high level of proof" required. This decision is pandering, nothing more or less...

          July 1, 2014 at 11:28 am |
      • SeaVik

        This has nothing to do with human rights. This has to do with whether or not it's ok for a corporation to not follow the law and infringe upon the rights of its employees with religious belief as their only excuse. If we were a Christian nation, that might be ok (although it would still be extremely arbitrary given the wide variety of Christian beliefs), but our founders made it clear that we are not.

        July 1, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • nclaw441

          It strikes me that this is all about whether the government can force someone to violate honestly held faith beliefs in order to satisfy a law that Congress had no authority to enact in the first place.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • midwest rail

          Exactly how does one determine if another's faith beliefs are "honestly held" ?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • ausphor

          claw
          Except that Hobby lobby provided all contraception methods until the ACA was passed and it became a Republican/conservative political issue. They really didn't give a damn until they could use the issue as a weapon. Baptists, sigh.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:22 am |
      • realbuckyball

        The contention that Plan B are "abortifaciants" has been debunked. No OBGYN MD agrees with that nonsense. Thus it's all based on a lie. Two steps forward. One step back. This is the step back. Women will never stand for this, nor will it stop the use of BC, and when the OLD men in SCOTUS die off, things will change.

        July 1, 2014 at 11:17 am |
  6. realbuckyball

    The Majority Report of the Pontifical Co'mmission on BC in 1966, (76 cardinals, bishops, theologians, and physicians came out IN FAVOR of BC. To say "it's against our beliefs" is simply a lie. The majoritty of RCC women of child-bearing age USE BC, thus the Mystical Body of Christ approves it. The Church is not the hierarchy.

    The co'mmission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

    "The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the se'xual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values."

    July 1, 2014 at 8:52 am |
  7. Dyslexic doG

    the Christian god kills millions of unborn children a year by miscarriage. Millions!

    He puts man's efforts at abortion to shame!

    You Christians are very confused people.

    July 1, 2014 at 8:46 am |
    • awanderingscot

      isn't it true that you are only here in an attempt to weaken someone's faith? isn't it true that you are a hateful individual with an evil heart who, although you have not ever been harmed by another person's faith, are here to spread hatred of people of faith?

      July 1, 2014 at 9:44 am |
      • igaftr

        No scot , it is not true.

        Isn't it true that once you see how badly you lose arguments that you immaturely resort to name calling, and you also have no clue what logic is?

        July 1, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          have you ever personally been harmed by someone else's faith?

          July 1, 2014 at 9:56 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wandering, Does one need to have been affected by murder to think it a bad thing? There are many examples where the actions taken by someone because of their faith has an adverse impact on others. The female employees of Hobby Lobby in this case. Gays in Uganda because of Scott Lively's campaigning. Non-christians and public prayers. etc.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Santa
          let's just assume for the moment that no one here on this blog is in any way associated with Hobby Lobby or Scott Lively. and let's assume also that no one on this blog has control over anyone else's life in any way. do you still feel justified to come here and spread hatred for people of faith? and if you do feel justified in that, explain why.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • Doris

          "let's just assume for the moment that no one here on this blog is in any way associated with Hobby Lobby or Scott Lively. and let's assume also that no one on this blog has control over anyone else's life in any way."

          WHY create scenarios that don't seem to exist? Can you demonstrate that such a scenario exists?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          You asked that yesterday and I replied. Don't bother asking questions if you don't bother looking at the answers.

          Short answer...yes...continuously, every day.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • Doris

          Scotty: "let's assume... let's assume.."

          Are you coding a new video game – or writing a script? Is that why you're wondering about possibilities for scenarios that don't seem to exist? If it's fiction you're involved in, then I maybe can understand your question.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          "Short answer...yes...continuously, every day"

          so if i'm to understand you correctly you are harmed by other people's faith continuously, every day? explain how.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          I already did...yesterday when you asked.
          Again, don't bother asking qquestions if you are too lazy to check the answers.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:50 am |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          "how were you harmed by other people's faith?" refresh me if you can since i don't recall asking this specific question or your answer. so again how are you or were you harmed by another person's faith?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:00 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Again, don't bother asking questions if you are too lazy to check the answers.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • awanderingscot

          igaftr
          you have not been harmed by another's faith and the ONLY reason you are here is to spread hatred for people of faith.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          you have not been harmed by another’s faith and the ONLY reason you are here is to spread hatred for people of faith.............

          I don't think so...JUST TRYING to educated the ignorant.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Why do you keep violating your 9th commandment, claiming hate where there is none?
          Do you hate a child that believes in Santa?

          Religiuous zealots have placed their stamp on America so fervently that it is unavoidable and a continuous source of strife and embarrassment for me.

          Have you bother to find my reply to you or are you going to continue to do what you normally do and argue out of ignorance?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Your claim that I have not been harmed is false. A lie. It may be your belief, but you clearly have a problem distinguishing belief from knowledge.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:45 am |
        • awanderingscot

          You already know you won't shake my faith and the ONLY reason you are here is to spread hatred for people of faith.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • igaftr

          scot
          You are once again, attempting to claim your belief is knowledge. You do not know why I am here, and your stated reason is not correct.

          Still no response to how I have been negatively impacted by other's religions?

          Start with a simple one. The lie on our money. Hijacked in the 50's by christians, they changed the national motto to a lie, and that lie is now on OUR money. That impacts me every day. (one example)

          July 1, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        The "pro-life" crowd are really only anti-abortion. They only target that one cause of death; to highlight one other cause of death – a child dies every 20 seconds of water-related problems and it's not high on the "pro-life" agenda.

        July 1, 2014 at 9:58 am |
      • realbuckyball

        As usual, Fundies perceive any discussion as a threat.
        If you perceive the opinions of others as "attempts to weaken", your faith is weak indeed.

        July 1, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • awanderingscot

          have you ever been harmed by someone else's faith, weak or not?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • realbuckyball

          Not that I know of. It's difficult to be harmed by that which is 100 % immaginary, and only in someone's brain.
          (Not sure that question is actually coherent, if so, that's my answer).

          July 1, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • awanderingscot

          so it is true then that the only reason you are here is to spread hatred for people of faith then.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • SeaVik

          One of my ex-co-workers who died at a convention in the WTC on 9/11 has most definitely been harmed by someone else's faith. I have as well, although not to the same degree.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • igaftr

          scot
          Hate is the wrong word.
          Do you hate a child's belief in Santa?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • ausphor

          scot
          Ridicule is not hatred. BTW people of faith ridicule other people of faith on this blog all the time. Evangelists ridicule Catholics, JW's ridicule all other "faiths" etc. Get over your persecution complex, it is very childish.

          July 1, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Ausphor
          so Ausphor, what do you hope to accomplish with your ridicule? isn't this also a form of subtle hatred? when you ridicule, don't you also have a measure of hatred in your heart?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • awanderingscot

          SeaVik
          I have as well, although not to the same degree.

          you obviously didn't die in 9.11 since you are here, but you also state that you personally have been harmed by another person's faith though not to the same degree. how has faith impacted you and your life and why if so would you come to this blog? to revisit the pain you feel?

          July 1, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • ausphor

          scot
          No not at all. I simply point out what I find ridiculous about your faith, you are welcome to be scammed if you so wish. BTW you ask a lot or questions but answer few. So have you ever been harmed by any persons lack of faith?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:02 am |
        • Alias

          scot
          When religions try to impose teir morals onto others they unjustly take away people's rights.
          Why do you pretend to not know this?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Ausphor
          no, i have never been harmed by someone's lack of faith

          July 1, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "When religions try to impose teir morals onto others they unjustly take away people's rights." – one could just as well logically assume that the demand for benefits should not be a law, but instead a negotiated contract. where do you get 'right'? it is not established law nor is it written into the bill of rights. it's not a right.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • ausphor

          scot
          Glad to hear that. I have been harmed/inconvenienced by people of faith after 911. I used to travel throughout North America without a passport or the invasive searches we are know subjected to because of people of faith, one example.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • Alias

          Scot
          "one could just as well logically assume that the demand for benefits should not be a law"
          Nice way to twist a response to a question into a completely different context.
          This type of dishonesty is common for christians on this blog.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        When a person's belief drives them to take a man's children away from him for no reason other than who he loves, or drives them to rape a lesbian woman to make her straight, when a person's faith tells them it is good and right to kill another person because of their faith or lack thereof...these are harmful.

        If your faith teaches that it is okay to kill a living person for any but the most heinous of crimes (serial murder, serial rape, etc), then your faith is harmful, in my opinion.

        July 1, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • myweightinwords

          Hi Akira,

          I am well. Incredibly busy, but well. I read here often but mostly find the entrenched "sides" too busy throwing vitriol at each other to actually feel the desire to make an effort at conversing.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Well if it isn't to troll using the rhetoric to prove once again that he is suffering from delusions of grandeur.
        Stat! Someone get this boy a straight jacket and muzzle!

        July 1, 2014 at 10:40 am |
      • ragansteve1

        Scot, Keep in mind that we are here to present the truth as we have experienced it. It is not our business to "convince" them of the truth. It is the telling of the truth that is our task. It is not the outcome that is our responsibility. Matthew 7:1-6 says it clearly. We are not to judge others. But, by the same token if some consistently refuse the message and attack us for it, then it is ours to simply let them go their way. Just saying, you may be wasting your time here and it could be better spent in other places. Something to think about.

        July 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          ragan
          What you BELIEVE to be the truth.

          You guys really have a hard time with the difference between belief and knowledge, and what the definition of truth is.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          You just proved my point. Thanks,

          July 1, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          and you proved mine

          July 1, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
  8. Vic

    ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰

    July 1, 2014 at 8:34 am |
    • realbuckyball

      So you keep saying. Lords and ladies are passe. Please cook up something new.

      July 1, 2014 at 8:41 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      ♰♰♰ jesus christ Is a third part of the lord but somehow also the son of the lord and also part holy spirit but really just god♰♰♰

      who thinks up this sh1t?

      July 1, 2014 at 8:49 am |
      • Doris

        uhhhhhh – I think they felt they needed to outdo themselves after claiming that the devil was able to perform plagiarism in reverse time order (Justin Martyr and others)...lol...

        July 1, 2014 at 8:56 am |
    • snuffleupagus

      Vic

      ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord of the Flies.

      Fixed it.

      July 1, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
  9. igaftr

    So, Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for things they "feel" are wrong. They do this in the name of "morality".

    So are they going to start refusing to TAKE money from people that have had abortions, or use some of these products?
    The religious hypocrisy agenda. Rolling over America since before it was America.

    July 1, 2014 at 8:16 am |
  10. Reality

    Some are unhappy with Hobby Lobby et al but a much larger demographic should be down right furious with the ACA considering the following:

    1) Are male-based contraceptive methods, such as vasectomies or condoms, covered by the rule?

    An HHS official said on Friday that women’s preventive services guidelines apply to women only.

    Guidelines issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration, part of HHS, require coverage without cost sharing for "all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity" as prescribed by a provider, according to the Federal Register.

    The insurers' letter from September says they interpreted the rule to include only female-based contraception and that the requirement to waive co-payments "does not apply to methods and procedures intended for males."

    But Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Inst-itute, a reproductive health research group, says the language is unclear, and it would be foolish to exclude vasectomies. For one thing, he says, they are less expensive and pose a lower risk of complications than female surgical sterilization methods. Plus, he says, waiving co-payments for services for one se-x but not the other raises issues of discrimination. "

    “I can’t see how it would be in anyone’s interest to treat them differently,” says Sonfield."

    July 1, 2014 at 7:48 am |
    • Reality

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/health/bill-gates-condom-challenge

      “It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, getting people to use them is another story.”

      July 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
  11. lordssword

    When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, – Psalms 8:3

    No branch of science proclaims God's greatness and man's insignificance more eloquently than astronomy. The simple fact that distances must be reckoned in light-years (the distance that light travels in a year) illustrates the point. Light travels 186,000 miles per second, and there are 31.5 million seconds in a year, so light travels roughly six trillion miles in a single year! Yet some stars are billions of light-years from the earth. No wonder we call such computation astronomical.
    To gaze into the heavens at night should give us great thoughts about God. The moon and the stars are the work of His fingers! When we think of the numberless myriads of stars, of the vast distances in the universe, and of the power that holds the planets in orbit with mathematical precision, it boggles the mind.

    July 1, 2014 at 7:40 am |
    • lordssword

      The anthropomorphism "Your fingers" miniaturizes the magnitude of the universe in the presence of the Creator.

      July 1, 2014 at 7:42 am |
    • G to the T

      Seems like an awful lot of wasted space if our place in the universe as described in the bible is to be believed...

      July 1, 2014 at 7:43 am |
    • igaftr

      No one has ever seen "god" by looking at the stars. Their existance does NOT indicate any such "god". As far as any can show, your god exists only in your imagination.

      July 1, 2014 at 8:06 am |
      • kermit4jc

        yes..versus YOUR imagination of stars coming from nothing..the whole of universe appearing out of nowhere with no cause.....sounds like fairy tale to me

        July 1, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          Nice strawman, but no one believes that.
          Care to try again?

          July 1, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          some do believe it..what do you say?Where did the universe come from?

          July 1, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • igaftr

          no kermit...no one believes the universe came from nothing with no cause..that is false. There had to be a cause, and there really never is nothing. One man's nothing is another mans interdimensional something.

          The simple answer to your question is......no one knows.
          There are many theories, hypothesese...no knowledge though.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          even intelligent design isout of the question? Again it is the most plausible answr..especially when one finds how the universe is so finely tuned to host life here on earth (according to cosmologists, even the size of the earth and the differing types of galaxies have profound effect on our living environment) I find it highly impossible without a Creator, an Intelligent designer

          July 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So using that logic whats "the most plausible answer.." for the existence of this complex intelligent design of a creator being? Would not your logic take you to the next step or are you to scared to ask those questions? Or does your claim of ultimate powers of an "eternal" creator mean you don't have to answer this question? And if so, why wouldn't logic allow for the universe to have always existed if you allow for the creator to always exist?

          July 1, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          logic says that the creator has to be outside the created thing first of all...you create a computer...you are not the computer...second of all...with thatlogic God would then be NOT created..he existed eternally...he had no beginning..whereas the universe did have a beginning...my argument is in the context of created things

          July 1, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          " Again it is the most plausible answr..especially when one finds how the universe is so finely tuned to host life "
          False again. How do you possibly know what is most plausible, especially when you make the illogical statement right after?

          Life has always adapted to the available energies..not the other way around. There is nothing indicating the universe is "tuned". There is a great deal of evidence showing life adapting and evolving to fit the environment.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          apparently you arenot aware f the finely tuned..if the sun was even a fraction larger..NO life would exist...period..there wold be no life to "adapt to the environment" the solar system we live in...is strategically placed for life....if it were in any other place, then we would be bombarded by meteors and such....plus with the solar system where it is at is making it so that the earth going around the sun in the track it is in possible...thus providing FOR life.....your argument only goes part way..MY argument is not about life adapting..but making life POSSIBLE! There is so much more than Iwhat I listed (some say at least 38 different parameters) and what is it about God that's illogical to add as the Creator?

          July 1, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          Is there anything to base your hypothesis on that A) god exists and B) "he" is eternal or c) anything can exist "outside" of the universe or d) eternity exists.
          If you are correct, then this ent!ty simply existed with nothing anywhere for who knows how long, and then one day, decided to make everything out of nothing.

          Sorry, but your creator hypothesis is full of holes, and really creates more questions than it answers. Also, every "answer" provided about this "creator" of yours is based on nothing but imagination. At least the current theories (note, not hypothesis like your "creator") are based on the after effects of the Big Bang...nothing in that evidence indicates any "creator" which implies some sentience.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          sir..for something to begin to exist..to be created needs a creator.....the universe cannot create itself..how can it do so with nothing to create with? and what kind of cause and intelligence can do such? The most plausible is a Creator...and why would it be so full ofholes?
          If you are correct, then this ent!ty simply existed with nothing anywhere for who knows how long, and then one day, decided to make everything out of nothing.<-more plausible than it appearing out ofnowhere by nothing to cause it....
          so how did the universe come to existence..is it eternal? if so..that rasies contradictions....was it created? if so, how?

          July 1, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          You claim I am not aware the universe is "finely tunes"...hilarious. once again...there is a great deal of evidence showing LIFE adapting and evolving to the available energies. The universe is not "tuned " to make that happen, life tunes itself to the available energies. we see it every day.
          You clearly have it backwards.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          nooo..youre theone seeing it backwards......I gave yousome examples...HOW can there be ANY life if the usn is a fraciotn larger? or the earth is further away? (life on other planets is NOT possible-even with water) and especially life beginning on other planets, cant happen. Life happened HERE because of conditions were just right....Im going from the VERY beginning..you still are stuck in the middle

          July 1, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I suggest you read a book "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel..for one......there are other books to read along these lines as well..especially by those mentioned in Lee's book. He gets his info from respected scholars, all who have doctorates in their fields..and them some...all who have works in peer reviewed journals, etc etc.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @igaftr in fact..they address your issue..about having it "backwards" and your idea is not possible

          July 1, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "the creator has to be outside"

          So far there is no evidence of an "outside" so to claim that is where logic has led you is to admit you have no clue how things work or what logic is. Your logic is akin to saying that we can be sure leprechauns exist because you saw a rainbow once. They only have a connection in your mind because of myths and stories you were told.

          You claim because of the complexity of this thing we call the universe, there must be a more complex thing outside of this thing, so wherever this thing is that is more complex by the same logic one must assume it also had a more complex creator "outside" of that being in an ever expanding russian doll game of logic.

          You claim a super power for your God to combat this logic trap, that of saying something is "eternal" but again, that could be applied to anything, even me. I can claim I never had a begining and will never have an end, I am just in one of countless forms of energy I will take on my journey through eternity. And guess what? You can't prove otherwise! But I know that it isn't for you to prove my statement false, it is for the one making the claim to prove their claim is true. The fact is I cannot prove to you that I am an eternal God, much like you cannot prove there is an eternal God.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          its logic..if I create something..Im OUTSIDE of it..I create acomputer..IM not the computer..IM not inside the computer....I create a car..IMnot the car..I am not inside the car..I am Separate from the car....someone paints a picture, they are separate from the picture...

          July 1, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          as for your analogy, yorue comparing apples to oranges....youre a humnan being,nothing more....and your family/doctors can show evidence that you were born

          July 1, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          "in fact..they address your issue..about having it "backwards" and your idea is not possible"

          You do have it backwards, we see it everyday...life tunes itself to the environment. Not impossible. Happening continuously.
          "tuning" the universe is absurd. The universe is continuously trying to kill us...not nurture us. Seriously, pick up a book that DOESN'T teach you imaginary ent!ties.

          July 2, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • kermit4jc

          My God you dontget it do yoi? You are referring to things ALREADY in existence tuning itself...IM referring to HOW it got here! It dies not refine or tune itself to come into existence! IM referring to the very beginning..you are not...youre referring to the "middle" to those alreadyin existence....try to use some sense

          July 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
    • lordssword

      We walk by faith, not by sight.

      July 1, 2014 at 8:44 am |
      • igaftr

        That'll have you walking into walls and off cliffs.

        You probably should open your eyes.

        July 1, 2014 at 8:55 am |
    • observer

      lordssword,

      Those numbers make the universe FAR FAR OLDER than the Bible inidicates.

      July 1, 2014 at 9:05 am |
  12. saggyroy

    The Supreme Court Decision – brought to you by Carl's Jr.

    July 1, 2014 at 5:54 am |
  13. TruthPrevails1

    To My Fellow Canucks: Happy Canada Day...may the day be fun and safe. :)

    July 1, 2014 at 5:46 am |
    • thesamyaza

      Canada does not exist, it is the north American coral reefs that produces noxious gasses that are reflected by the sun to produce the illusions of land, people, and animals.

      July 1, 2014 at 5:51 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Sure and we live in igloo's for half the year and tee-pee's the other half. Our main source of protein comes from the non-stop supply of Moose and great Canadian beer. Oh and lets not forget the best factor, nothing beats Canadian Maple Syrup.

        July 1, 2014 at 5:56 am |
        • thesamyaza

          i think it time you come to the realization, your nothing but a ball of noxious gases.

          Canada to good to be true
          the have more guns then the united states and less shooting death, not to mention they never have to lock their doors

          universal healthcare pahhahahah pull the other one

          what do you mean every one nice and courteous people are not nice or courteous, so they cant be people.

          dude if Canada was real every one would be Canadian but their not. its all a lie perpetrated buy the sate department and their co conspirators Squirrels. you see you cannot tyrannize people unless they have hope, something to believe into because wants they lose that the become unproductive, so the government and their Squirrel allies made up the fiction of Canada using the natural coral formations as their Catalyst. now everyone believes their is hope for a better tomorrow for the USA but their isn't. Americas true hope is revaluation a nice and violent one not these dreams of Canada.
          the Truth will Prevail

          July 1, 2014 at 6:07 am |
        • thesamyaza

          buy they way i can say that with a strait face, i have at a national conspiracy theorist convention.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:10 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Since you put it that way...
          Although you did forget the legalization of LGBT rights across the board; free birth control and oh yeah, lots of maple syrup.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:13 am |
        • thesamyaza

          yes that is some good Illusionay maypole syrup

          July 1, 2014 at 6:17 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Maypole is what we dance around as the fire turns the igloos to water to sustain us for the summer months.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:30 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Canadia was cool when Phantom was at Pantages... What happened???

          July 1, 2014 at 7:20 am |
        • SeaVik

          I love Canada. My parents lived in Vancouver for five years and it's one of the best cities on the planet (often voted #1). However, Canadian beer is horrible. It's about the same quality as Budweiser. It's amazing that a city like Vancouver could be so close to one of the best beer cities, Seattle, and not have anything close in quality!

          July 1, 2014 at 9:17 am |
        • Alias

          You had me going until the 'great Canadian beer' comment.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • tallulah131

      Happy Canada Day, northern neighbors!

      July 1, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
  14. tallulah131

    So Joeyy is a girl now. Precious.

    June 30, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Multiple personality, perhaps?

      July 1, 2014 at 5:31 am |
  15. Vic

    [
    "You'll see that verse, Psalm 139:13, cited quite a bit when it comes to evangelicals and abortion. In it, the psalmist says to God, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.""

    ...

    "If God knew you in the womb, the thinking goes, then you must have been at some stage of personhood, and that provides biblical justification for the idea that life begins at conception, according to evangelicals and other Christians."
    ]

    That is so profound.

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/hobby-lobby-the-beliefs-behind-the-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-3038770

    June 30, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
    • observer

      Life CERTAINLY doesn't begin at conception. If the egg and sperm had not previously had life, there would be no pregnancy.

      June 30, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      It is not really that profound. It is a baseless assertion.

      I guess god "knew" all those children with birth defects and cancer and "knew" he would do nothing...though he could.

      June 30, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Did god "know" your dog's turd as it was forming ?
      There goes THAT idiotic idea.
      You have yet to tell us why anyone should share you opinions about the ancient texts you cite.
      Until you do that, and obtain agreement, you're whistling in the wind, and preaching to yourself.

      June 30, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
    • tallulah131

      No, it's not profound. It's more biblical drivel. A womb belongs to the woman whose body it is in. It does not belong to the government or to a church, no matter how how hard politicians and pastors try to use their human-written book to justify their attempts to steal control. The only body you have any right to is your own.

      July 1, 2014 at 12:08 am |
      • kermit4jc

        and here we go again with the selfish ceterrdness of women...her womb..sc rew the human inside of her...who frigging cares..as long as it is her womb.the baby is a parasite for all she cares........really truly selfish and demeaning of value of life....very shallow view....no wonder people get depressed and kill themselves...they feel they have no value with society's pathetic view of what life is and how they value it..

        July 1, 2014 at 3:46 am |
        • thesamyaza

          that's exactly what the child is a parasite, all humans are parasites

          parasites
          an organism that lives in or on another organism (Gaea/ the planet or in the case of pregnancy the mother) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:31 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..but putting it in the negative? common..dontplay coy with me..you know what I mean...stop this pretend ignorance...

          July 1, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          kermi: Two sides to that coin. It can be said that you also don't value children when you wish them born to a mother who if she has considered abortion obviously was not prepared for the child. So you forcing your uneducated opinion on a woman in turn means you put the child at risk of living in poverty (you have said that single parents are bad); you put the child at a higher risk of abuse and neglect. Get it straight, what a woman does with her body is not your business unless you are willing to pay for that child.

          July 1, 2014 at 5:26 am |
        • kermit4jc

          apparently YOU cant think ahgead....STOP making the babies in the first place! stop this senselss reckleness abandon of se x ! people are too selfish..besides the mother can give the baby up for adoption...so no " two sides of the coin" if woman did nto want baby..stop f * cking around!

          July 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • igaftr

          "no wonder people get depressed and kill themselves"

          You do not belong in any profession involving psychology.

          July 1, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • kermit4jc

          whatever you wanna believe about me..your opinion does not make me one or not one lol

          July 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • tallulah131

          So basically, kermit, what you are saying is that it is selfish when a woman decides that her body is her own instead of letting pastors and politicians and opinionated strangers like yourself take ownership. You think it's selfish when a woman, who knows exactly the circumstances of her life, chooses not to have a baby that she cannot physically, financially or psychologically afford to have? You think that strangers should determine what a woman does with her own body? You are the basest sort of hypocrite. You believe that a woman should treated as a slave, with no say about her own body and call her selfish when she does not agree. You think that a child should be born into poverty, disease, resentment or violence, because you don't care about the child. You only care that you get to force your will upon others.

          You, with your support of slavery, with your hatred of anyone who does not agree with you, with your blind adherence to mythology because it grants you an artificial sense of importance - you are the very paradigm of selfishness. You are an appalling example of exactly what is wrong with religion. You are a tiny little man, grasping desperately at anything that might lend you an importance that you have not earned.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          kermit4jc

          apparently YOU cant think ahgead....STOP making the babies in the first place! stop this senselss reckleness abandon of se x ! people are too selfish..besides the mother can give the baby up for adoption...so no " two sides of the coin" if woman did nto want baby..stop f * cking around!

          once again their is nothing wrong with sex, its a way we are able to attain bliss. it is a divine act people should be having more, yes that goes double for you. stop trying to make it evil, it stems from your hatred of the physical world. if nature did not want us two enjoy sex she wouldn't have made it so enjoyable, or given us the ability to preform whenever we want. most other animals don't have that luxury.

          July 1, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • G to the T

          "the mother can give the baby up for adoption"

          And how many have you adopted? How many children spend their lives in a system were people are paid to take care of them (by us btw)? Should abortion be a primary form of birth control? Of course not, it's a serious medical procedure. Safe, legal, rare – seems to me the only sensible way to go.

          July 7, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
    • igaftr

      vic
      "That is so profound."

      Hardly. It mentions "the thiking goes" then mentions it is somehow justification for biblical BS?
      That is quite far from profound. Much closer to delusional belief in something no one can show exists.
      Profound means something other than what you think it does.

      July 1, 2014 at 8:22 am |
      • Vic

        While I am a mainline Christian Protestant, I could have not been more touched by that Evangelical take.

        July 1, 2014 at 9:12 am |
        • joey3467

          Vic, I would place you firmly on the far right fringe. You can call yourself mainline if you want, but it is far from the truth.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
  16. observer

    It's probably just a coincidence that

    SALERO is an anagram of "A LOSER".

    June 30, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
    • Salero21

      And you mean to say that you're a "winner"? Really not even your mom believes that!

      June 30, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
      • thesamyaza

        dude after that comment you lost

        July 1, 2014 at 5:47 am |
  17. Salero21

    So then... King Obomo of the new kingdom of THE UNITED STATES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH lost another one with the Court!! Well, well what did you know!!

    Now, where are all the HO.MOS's of both genders who rabidly voted for him in 08 & 12? Gee they're NOT even joining the Military after the repeal of DADT. Well I don't blame them for not joining; Who in the right mind wants to join a gay Military?

    June 30, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Let us know the day you're moving out of the Kingdom of evil, so we can throw a party.
      (You do know I hope, that the NIH has a study that show ho'mo'phobes are latent gays.)

      June 30, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
      • Salero21

        You lied therefore you failed, if you lie you fail. That's because yours is the stuff of what Charlatans are made of. And that's why I say that atheists are extreme hypocrites, compulsive and pathological Liars.

        June 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Yet you failed to mention what the lie was. Oops.
          Is this the opt calling the kettle black ?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • realbuckyball

          opt = pot

          July 1, 2014 at 11:13 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Just think. You can go start a cailiphate at announce yourself to be the Caliph,
      and awanderingscott could be your Grand Vizier. Seem all the rage.

      June 30, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
      • Salero21

        Man oh man... are you stupid or what?

        June 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Stupid? This coming from you after you brought up LGBT on an article that has not pertinence to them but instead reflects the rights of women. Looks like, as always, that you're the stupid one!

          July 1, 2014 at 5:59 am |
    • Reality

      And we still do not know what strange religion Salero belongs to.

      July 1, 2014 at 7:42 am |
  18. fortheloveofellipsis

    So look who's back, Daniel. You know what to do...

    June 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
  19. ddeevviinn

    Human beings, we are a fickle lot.

    When SCOTUS sides with our position it's "justice prevailed." When the ruling conflicts with our ideology " political party loyalty has tram pled upon the Const i tution."

    June 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Give me a logical reason why companies like Hobby Lobby should be excused from the law others should obey.

      June 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        First up, you make an assumption as to which side of the fence I fall on in regards to the issue. Nothing in my post indicated any particular affiliation.

        As for "logical reasons", I could see in certain situations where the morality of the action supersedes the law. For instance, there are many non theists and even some atheists who object to abortion. On grounds of moral conscience I could envision a scenario in which they would come to a similar conclusion as that of Hobby Lobby's. " Religious" strings need not be attached.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Well D1ckvinn........you sounded like you agreed with the ruling. This is a reason why the ruling is wrong. You mentioned "I could see in certain situations where the morality of the action supersedes the law". Your morals are probably different than mine and so on. That's why laws cannot be based on morals. Based on your thinking, if we had 5 liberal justices the ruling would have went the other way because their morals are different.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          And even better, they get to successfully object to the use of those contraception methods because of a lie that they are supposed to be abortifacients. But in RWNJ World, you get to make up your own facts, despite what actual medical people know is true...

          June 30, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          ken

          Sorry, if I had known upfront the level of immaturity I was dealing with I would have not wasted my time or yours with a reply.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Don't run. See what I mean. You didn't like my morals by the way I answered your question. I felt my response was appropriate. Confriming what I said earlier. MORALS CANNOT BE USED TO DEFINE LAWS.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        Give me a reason why they should be forced to go against their own conscious and beliefs????

        July 1, 2014 at 3:47 am |
        • thesamyaza

          because other people do not share the same belief, if they did the would never get the pill, the option however remains,

          give one reason why a person should be forced to follow some ones else beliefs.

          July 1, 2014 at 4:27 am |
        • kermit4jc

          biy whathypocricy...those who want the pilland such are forcing THEIR beliefs on us as well.....wanna play that silly game? WHY they can get the pill from other sources....besides..the problem here is reckless se x people wnna have it at any cost..even the cost of the unborn...they are too self centred

          July 1, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          kermi: They are a for-profit business and what their employees do is not their business. If they're stupidly going to deny these things they can expect great back lash and they won't stop these things from being used. The 4 of the 20 were proven not to do harm to any zygote/fetus but instead were meant as preventative.
          You are a hypocrite...you don't want LGBT adopting but yet you want lots of children in orphanages by denying the rights to preventative measures.
          Tell us, where should those women send the bills for those children to you at? What is the name of the asylum you're n?

          July 1, 2014 at 5:37 am |
        • Alias

          kermit
          Because the bible supports slavery.
          Some religious beliefs are so disgusting that no one should be forced to accept them.

          July 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          Sex is good it a divine celebration of life if anything people need more sex.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • tallulah131

      The particulars of this decision aren't really the problem. What is so objectionable is that it confirms the already unConstitutional decision this corrupt Supreme Court made when it ruled that a corporation has the same rights as the individual. This is a terrible precedent cheered only by those who wish for an oligarchical government run by wealthy business owners, or those too stupid to understand the impact this decision makes.

      July 1, 2014 at 12:00 am |
      • ddeevviinn

        " What is so objectionable is that it confirms the already unConsti tutional decision this corrupt Supreme Court...."

        The Supreme Court agreed with the 2013 decision made by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.Was the 10th Circuit Court corrupt also, and for that matter is every court or judicial body that disagrees with your position corrupt?

        July 1, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • tallulah131

          Any court that grants a business the rights that the Constitution reserves for citizens is wrong. A business does not have a religion. It cannot vote. It is nothing more than a money making venture. In what sort of corrupt government does a money making venture deserve the same rights as people?

          July 1, 2014 at 1:05 am |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "What is so objectionable is that it confirms the already unConsti.tutional decision this corrupt Supreme Court made when it ruled that a corporation has the same rights as the individual."
        ---------------------------------
        I'm not sure I would go as far as to say the court is corrupt. It is partisan and polarized. Four of the conservative justices are certainly ideologues. They bend legal opinion to suit their partisan preferences. Corruption assumes some quid pro quo and I don't think we can say that is taking place.

        July 1, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Corruption is ruling that businesses have the same rights as citizens. Corruption is voting for the benefit of your party instead of by the Constitution.

          We have that one piece of paper to protect us from becoming an oligarchy led by the rich and powerful. It's a mighty thin line and every time the Supreme Court rules to take something from citizens and gives it to businesses, it gets a little thinner. Maybe I'm paranoid, but the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and our government is deadlocked by design, and districts are getting gerrymandered to keep it that way. I think the Constitution is our only hope of getting out of this situation. If the partisan policies of the Supreme Court destroy that protection, then I think it's lights out for the United States. So yeah, corrupt.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Corruption is ruling that businesses have the same rights as citizens. Corruption is voting for the benefit of your party instead of by the Consti.tution.
          ----------------------------
          There is plenty of corruption to go around. That Citizens United went to the SCOTUS was a result of corruption. The verdict was partisan and led and continues to lead to widespread corruption.

          We have that one piece of paper to protect us from becoming an oligarchy led by the rich and powerful. It's a mighty thin line.
          --------------------------
          In Federalist 48, Madison warns about "parchment barriers":

          "Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the consti.tution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American consti.tutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government."

          Madison placed his trust in his checks and balances and so should we. What we are seeing is the failure of the checks and balances. The SCOTUS often behaves indistinctly from the leanings of the House Republicans – though not always. The decisions on DOMA and the decision not to strike down the ACA indicate that that the system is not irrevocably broken. I disagree with this decision – it is tyranny of the majority but it is not as far reaching as Citizens United.

          A less partisan court would be far better for our country.

          July 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I'm gonna answer this, but I have to run pay my rent. I'm not trying to run from the conversation. If you have any comments to this, I'll address them when I get back. Okay:

          We have a government that is unabashed about it's corruption. I know that this nation has suffered from corruption before, but we have not been this divided since the Civil War. And yes, I know that the corruption is not limited to one party, but it certainly leans in the direction of one party.

          We live in a time of unprecedented media coverage. Join that with a terrible lapse in education quality, and with the segment of our population who actively sneer at education and you have a flock of voters waiting to be told how to vote by whoever tells them what they want to hear. And we have a popular media corporation that is blatantly a branch of the party that pushes to grant corporations the rights Constitutionally reserved for citizens. I'm sorry. That is a cause of concern for me.

          I want to have faith in the system of checks and balances, but frankly I fear for the future of this country. I have always looked at the Supreme Court as the sane center of our nation, because in my lifetime it has generally ruled with by the guide of the Constitution, but now it is loaded with republican partisans. And they can afford to be fair about social issues like DOMA, because that's a great way to deflect from the real erosion they are working toward, like this Hobby Lobby ruling. They make a big show about this being about religion and birth control, but I don't believe that is what this is about at all.

          I am not stupid and I generally have a good view of the big picture. I think our country is in big, big trouble. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I'd rather not wait silently, only to discover I was right.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "I have always looked at the Supreme Court as the sane center of our nation, because in my lifetime it has generally ruled with by the guide of the Consti.tution, but now it is loaded with republican partisans."
          ------------------------------------
          I agree and this is a problem.

          The only thing I took exception to was your assertion that the court is corrupt. It is self-evidently partisan and has made rulings that enable corruption. It is not clear that the court itself is corrupt the way the house certainly is.

          The only way to fix the Citizens United problem is to elect candidates who will vote for campaign reform. This is an insurmountable problem right now.

          July 1, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • tallulah131

          This is the definition I found of corruption:

          "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery."

          While there is no blatant evidence of bribery, there is definitely fraud and dishonesty on the parts of those who rule in a way that favors their own political party, rather than doing the job as it was defined, which is ruling in adherence to the Constitution. That is what I mean when I call this Supreme Court corrupt.

          July 1, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
  20. kenmargo

    If you look back over every comment made by those supporting Hobby Lobby's position, you'll notice one thing. They never mention what they would do for the kids that are born. The reason is simple. They really don't care about the kids. They never mention how they would help the parents so the child won't face the struggles so many face today to survive.

    I live in NY, work in NYC. There are over 1.4 million people that go to bed hungry EVERY NIGHT in the richest city in the world. you'd think the pro-lifer would already have a plan to combat this plague.

    That's why people and companies like Hobby Lobby are the most corrupt two faced people you'll ever come across.
    Quote god and the bible before birth and support republican candidates that want to cut/gut every program poor people need to survive and in the same bill give the weathiest people tax breaks to make sure they can afford that super yacht and summer home.

    3,000 people died on 9/11. That's considered a national tragedy. 10,000 people die yearly from gun violence and congress can't pass a bill. You're more likely to be killed by an American with a gun, than a terrorist from the middle east.

    Prior to the ACA it was reported that 40,000 people died yearly because they did not have health insurance. What do the republicans want to do? Repeal the ACA without a plan to replace it.

    I guess god and the bible don't matter after birth when no one gives a damn about you.

    June 30, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      Pro-Life(tm) has historically only applied to the pre-born; once they're born, the little 47%Moochers(tm) need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or simply starve to death. Of course, Serial Adulterer Gingrich DID mention orphanages a few years ago...

      June 30, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
      • kenmargo

        I don't care if they're lazy, crazy or spacey. Pro lifers cannot disreguard people because you don't like the way they turn out. Good bad or indifferent. They ALL count. Help 'em.

        June 30, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I'm speaking in general. not to you fortheloveofellipsis.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Excellent comment, and tragically true. Frankly, the conservatives show their utterly selfish corruption at every turn. A vote for a conservative is a vote for poverty for American children. Yet they claim that they are the true patriots.

      I'm about as moderate as it gets. I am no bleeding heart liberal. I am so sick of these so-called conservative monsters destroying this country with their lies and greed. They are forcing me to vote liberal by not offering a viable alternative.

      July 1, 2014 at 12:05 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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.