AfterDark

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:15 a.m.

A hospital is not a church.

beeswing

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:46 a.m.

I am not really seeing the hate here, truly, from either side--call me crazy, if you will I think I am seeing two sides of how we see the role of government in our lives. I see the side of the Conservative Christians (mostly Catholic but not all) saying they object to providing insurance coverage for practices they say are against their beliefs. Okay, I sort of get that. But then at the same time they want to participate in receiving government funding, at which point, I think is pretty clear they open themselves up to standard legal, medical services, which in this country, as a society, we believe serves the greater good and pretty much covers many beliefs and is money that comes from all-- Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc.. If one does not believe in this, they have the option not to participate. End of story--can't have it both ways.

juju10junk

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:33 a.m.

No, Marvin. Only some people here are doing the hating. There are plenty of non-haters.

PittsfieldTwp

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:04 a.m.

Yes, Marvin. Said to say we do.

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 4:04 a.m.

This is also interesting, and it speaks to the argument forwarded elsewhere here -- that the church shouldn't have to provide coverage for whatever it doesn't like because people can go spend their salaries, provided by the church on the products on their own -- illustrates the hypocrasy at work on the "religious freedom" side of this argument. It comes from this document: http://www.au.org/files/legislative_docs/Talking%20Points%20on%20HHS%20Decision.pdf "The HHS Regulation Does Not Force A Religious Group or an Employee to Support or Buy Contraceptives. The regulation merely requires that some religiously?affiliated organizations supply health insurance that covers contraceptives. The employee then has the choice to use that coverage or not. It is the individual employee who will make the independent private choice whether to avail herself of prescription contraception as one of the many services under the group insurance plan. In fact, under the regulation, an employer may even formally communicate that it disapproves of the usage of contraceptives, whether to the public or to the employees themselves. In the end, the provision of a comprehensive set of healthcare benefits is really no different than the provision of a paycheck; employees are free to utilize both kinds of benefits in any manner that they wish, and the employer cannot reasonably be perceived to support or endorse any particular use thereof. Therefore, the requirement that entities include coverage for contraceptives as part of group insurance plans places no substantial burden on the employer."

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:52 a.m.

This is informative: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:43 a.m.

Well Juju, as I have been researching the situation, I was reminded that the federal government, in response to the concerns voiced by politicians and others whose voices are paid for by the church, revised the program so that insurance companies, and not the faith-based employers, will be paying for the drugs and medical procedures to which the church objects. As might be expected, however, his is not good enough for organized religion.

juju10junk

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:21 a.m.

Mpope, I was amused by your sarcasm. Vet, I would like a reference that clarifies that those organizations who do not accept federal funding will be exempt. I cannot find one. It is my understanding that regardless of funding sources, the employer will have to provide insurance with contraception and sterilization. Please state your source so I can be better informed. I prefer not to be ignorant, so if you can provide me with some definitive information, I'd love to read it. Thank you.

mpope

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:06 a.m.

Faith based hospitls should refuse federal money. Its all about cash not freedom. YpsiV, in your attempt to redefine the terms of this debate , you're ignorng plenty. Heres just a sampling. Of t the plus 15% total admissions, catholic hospitals treat plus 16% of the medicare patients and plus 13% of the medicaid patients. That's. 1 in 6 seniors and disabled. Thats 1 in 8 low income persons. Then there are catholic schools who (like the hospitals, health centers, and charities) offer benefit packages to their employee. There are 7500 catholic schools in the us. Fully one third of the2.5 million total enrollment are non catholic students. Very few states have vouchers. The outreaches of the Catholic Church ( and that would read EXCLUSIVELY the outreaches of the Catholic Church ) will be forced to choose between federal money ( including caring for medicaid and medicare patients) and following their consciences by refusing to provide and/ or purchase pharmaceuticals and practices to which they're morally opposed. If your collective attempt to redefine the terms of this debate succeeds, if HHS Mandate survises the law suits, if the Catholic Church outreaches eschew federal dollars in favor of conscience ( which, if it goes this low, they will) this is a fight Obamacare proponents will be sorry they "won."

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.

Faith-based hospitals are free to run their institutions without federal money and the rules that come with it. Free. They will not, however, because it's all about the money and not at all about freedom.

PittsfieldTwp

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:03 a.m.

Ypsi veteran- I have decided that they are not Christian? They are self professing. Read what they say about themselves. Can I assume that someone who speaks out against Christianity is a Christian? Can you honestly say that what I said is incorrect?

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:15 a.m.

So you've decided that anyone who is critical of what these protesters stand for isn't Christian? Upon what do you base that conclusion? Talk about intolerance.

juju10junk

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3 a.m.

Mr. Cooper, what rights do you have that are being taken away? What rights do you believe are being taken away from others?

juju10junk

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:09 a.m.

Well thanks. Fortunately for us, one of the many beauties of this country and our freedoms is that we are all allowed to have and to express our opinions, regardless of how ill-informed they may be. I respect that people have the right to disagree. But it would be nice if people actually opened their minds and LISTENED to the opposing point of view rather than just spewing nastiness. In a way, I appreciate reading some of their thoughts, as it has challenged me to enhance my knowledge and to clarify and elucidate my own views. So I thank them for that.

Brad

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

Only here to argue and cause trouble, he said after his 50th post.

juju10junk

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:01 a.m.

With all due respect, Vet (and I truly mean that), I do think you are mistaken. The only way for the Catholic hospitals to be exempt is to (1) primarily employ people of their own faith; (2) primarily serve people of their own faith; (3) qualify under Section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code as a "church"; and (4) have as their "purpose" the inculcation of religious belief and then they "MAY" be exempt. As has been said before, even Jesus would not be exempt from the HHS mandate since He did not primarily serve people of His own faith. Whether or not Medicare/Medicaid are accepted has nothing to do with being able to opt-out. The only thing that refusing Medicare/Medicaid would do would be to prevent treating the elderly and poor since they can't pay or to treat them for free. Would that be your suggestion? I'm sure you are aware of basic economic principles and realize that running any organization requires money, so no hospital is going to stick around for long by treating everyone for free. Not a whole lot of the employees would stick around if they were expected to treat people for free. You are indeed correct that no one is forcing Catholics to be in the hospital business. It is one of the basic tenets of the religion to take care of the poor and weak and running hospitals is a prime example of how Catholics do this. Certainly every single Catholic hospital could chose to close up, and indeed, some or all may. I'm curious whether you have any idea how much Medicare/Medicaid reimburses the hospitals for their treatment. It's laughable. It costs more to accept it than it pays. I just did a google search asking this so I could provide you with a link. This is what popped up: http://thehappyhospitalist.blogspot.com/2011/02/can-hospitals-survive-on-medicaid-alone.html Again I state- it makes no difference where the money comes from. Even if it's private money, the hospitals still are going to be required to follow this unconstitutional mandat

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:12 a.m.

Also, juju, for your vacation analogy to be relevant, you'd have to compare an employer offering 4 weeks of vacation to one group of employees while only offering 2 weeks to others, and even then it really doesn't compare. Organizations, faith-based or otherwise, can not accept federal (i.e. "taxpayer") money and then violate federal law. Federal money comes with federal rules. If charity and ministry and religious freedom were really the issue, no faith-based employer would hesitate to turn down federal money in favor of autonomy.

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.

Juju, you forgot an option available to these "non-profit" hospitals, and that is not participate in federal Medicare/Medicaid programs. Then they can give away all the care they want, and offer their employees whatever they want. No one is forcing these hospitals to perform abortions, but they simply can not accept federal money and then behave in discriminatory ways. I already posted this elsewhere, but does do these "non-profit" hospitals, from which many people make many millions of dollars, by the way, make all the male employees sign an affidavit swearing none of their church supplied wages will be spent on condoms? Do they inspect for vasectomy scars, or fire people if they have a vasectomy? Do they force males to avoid hot tubs to keep from impacting sperm motility? No. No one is forcing the Catholic church to be IN the hospital business to begin with, and no one is forcing them to participate in federal reimbursement programs. The fact that the church likes to PRETEND religious freedom is being threatened, just because they value the money much more than they value "religious freedom," doesn't mean they actually ARE being threatened.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.

Well Vet? What say you now?

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.

Continued - so now you have over 500 hospitals, over 500 NON-Profit hospitals that MUST violate their conscience OR pay huge fines. Obviously you can see that paying huge fines means the hospital will soon go out of business - or raise its rates - or have to sell to a "for profit" entity, which means higher rates. Which defeats the purpose of having the "affordable care" act. Now, all that being said, no one is "clinging to the fantasy" of the Catholic Church being forced into "providing medical CARE it finds morally offensive". It's not the medical care that we are objecting to. It is that the government is now putting these Catholic institutions in the untenable position that I have mentioned - being forced to provide (directly or indirectly) what violates the Catholic values. Do you understand the difference? The next issue I would like to address is why you belief that the Church entities do not have the right to pick and choose what they offer. What is your rationale for that? Benefits are just that - Benefits. Any organization should have the right to offer whatever benefits it can afford and believes are of value to the employees. The whole purpose of benefits is to attract employees. Please explain why you do not think an organization has the right to choose what benefits they offer. Would you support a law that states that all organizations MUST provide 4 weeks of vacation? What happens then if an employer WANTS to provide 6 weeks of vacation? Should the employer be denied the right to offer that? What if he only wants to offer 2 weeks of vacation for the first 5 years? Should the employer be forced to double that because the LAW demands that if you offer benefits you MUST offer xyz? The fact that YOU do not feel threatened does NOT negate the fact that others' freedom IS being threatened. Please clarify what you mean when you say that the Church is trying to control others' behavior. To what behavio

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

Good luck getting the vet to comprehend.

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:30 p.m.

YpsiVet, let me use St. Joe's as an example to answer your question. There are hundreds of Catholic hospitals in the US. Over 500, which means an average of 10 or more per state. These hospitals are non-profit. They serve rich people and poor people, people with insurance and people without insurance. Many of their employees are Catholic. Many of the employees are not Catholic. However, as they are Catholic hospitals, they are Catholic entities and provide treatment that is in line with their values. They willingly provide employees with insurance as a benefit. However, the insurance offered is also in lines with the Catholic values. This means that a Catholic hospital will not offer abortions and the insurance offered to the employee will not cover abortion or birth control. The employer is in no way preventing the employee from buying alternative additional insurance or using birth control or getting an abortion (elsewhere). However, as these do not align with Catholic values, the Catholic hospital will not endorse them or provide them. The employee knows what insurance covers when he/she takes the job. If s/he doesn't like the insurance and feels that birth control and abortion are necessary coverage, s/he is welcome to go down the street and work at U of M or any other place that provides the desired insurance. Now, along comes this HHS mandate which states that St. Joe's MUST provide contraception and sterilization coverage to its employees if it provides insurance. Oh yes, the government is saying it MUST either violate its conscience or close its doors or - stop offering insurance. Sure, this would be the way out. St. Joe's can just stop offering insurance to their employees. Oh, but wait. BY LAW, if St. Joe's has more than a certain number of employees, it MUST provide insurance or pay a big fine for each employee. So the choice is - A) Offer insurance which violates Catholic belief, or B) Don't offer insurance and pay huge fines.

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.

Yeah, "The Black Stallion3", everyone who disagrees with you thinks the president is their savior. Just keep saying and thinking exactly what the media wants you to. You're incapable of logic, so what else can you really do?

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.

They believe the current czar is their savior

Michigan Man

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:03 p.m.

Albert - Fine comments! May God bless your work, especially in the public arena. As evidenced by the apparent hatred in Ann Arbor these days, public leadership needs much strengthening.

Tru2Blu76

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.

You speak with a forked tongue: there's no dispute here about the teachings of the entity known as Jesus Christ . You identify yourself as a religious / political candidate - WHY?  The most reasonable and probable answer is: you hope to gain favor with a voting block and thereby get yourself into office. Bottom line: you, much like the other religious zealots at the rally, are setting up false claims about those who oppose you - for your own gain. My prayer: God save us from people like Albert Howard. Here's a Bible passage for you to remember, it's Ezekiel 25:17 - as delivered to someone like you by the character Jules Winnfield in the movie, Pulp Fiction.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.

You are right..........they have nothing to look forward too........except arguing amongst themselves...sad

a2citizen

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.

Hey cash, "...The Ayatollah was a "pastor" as well..." So was MLK. What's your point?

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.

Dream on big blu

Tru2Blu76

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:04 p.m.

Too bad there exists this pervasive and pernicious confusion of religion and politics in the minds of some people. It's an alarming sign that our nation is at a cross roads with one of the roads named Ignorance and the other named Education. The only good thing I can say is it's a mixed blessing: the conservatives have become allies with the "christians" and it makes voting rationally a little easier. But in American politics, that means throwing the baby out with the bath water and I'd hate to see some good ideas and programs obliterated because the rest of the ideology has gone completely sour. Lastly: I think you did well here with the quotes you chose. Frustratingly: a lot of "good, honest christians" don't seem to understand the parallels and still think they "automatically" are exempt and can be trusted.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.

Keep believing the current president is the savior and see where that ends up........good luck !

Cash

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.

The Ayatollah was a "pastor" as well. Anyone can pick on the mantle of their God and proclaim that they are right. Happens all the time. I see no similarity between God or Christ and the cult that is try to push their extreme agenda on all Americans.

a2citizen

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:57 p.m.

Sure, compare a pastor to a murderer. That's relevant. "At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states, exist for his benefit." .... Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" ...Barack Obama after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.

Pass the cheese please !!!!

AfterDark

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:09 a.m.

But you don't pay for it. The employees who are paying for their health care pay for it.

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.

It's NOT hard to understand what it was about. It's very simple. No "sect" is trying to limit anyone's choice. You can take birth control until you die. No one is trying to stop you. The Church is standing for Freedom of Religion by saying, "Don't FORCE us to violate our beliefs." We don't believe in contraception or sterilization. We're not going to be forced to pay for it. It's very simple.

Poorman

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.

From the photos in the article, "religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities have until August 2013 to provide their employees with health insurance that covers contraception, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs". This was what the protest was about. It is important to understand this before calling them bigots. Imagine a person who put these actions on par with participation in an act of murder. I hope this helps you understand.

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:24 a.m.

Poorman, also please explain to me again how voluntary participation in a secular business, the rules of which are known BEFORE involvement is begun, somehow makes the church a victim when they decide they don't want to follow the rules.

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:22 a.m.

Poorman, it's sadly telling that the mere suggestion of giving up federal money leads you to shut down and start assuming sarcasm is involved. Giving up federal money is so out of the question that the suggestion of it must be sarcasm, but tell me again about how this is all about religious freedom.

Poorman

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:20 a.m.

If you are going to be sarcastic, tell me ahead of time and I won't waste time taking you seriously. I thought you knew something of value that could be a viable option.

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.

Poorman, not accepting federal money is hardly a death sentence to the business, as there are plenty of purely private hospitals, and these hospitals are all "non-profit" anyway right? Whose stated mission is to provide care for everyone, whether they have insurance or not? And lack of funds is not currently a problem for the Vatican, right? If these hospitals equate federal money with their "beliefs," then I guess it is telling them to go against their beliefs. But if their beliefs are about helping people, they can do that with or without federal money.

Poorman

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:18 a.m.

Vet? Your option is not really a viable choice for a sustainable ability to provide service. This really is then saying "go against your beliefs, reject your morals, and accept ours, or go out of business". Kind of sounds like what our forefathers left England for. If you are a vet, what did you fight for? Your simple choice is not freedom. Your statement really justifies the protest.

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 10:58 p.m.

Poorman, it's very simple. They don't have to offer medical insurance to anyone, nor do they have to offer prescription drug coverage to anyone. They also do not have to participate in the Medicare/Medicaid system, at which point they are pretty much free, as a completely private institution, to do what they want. Of course, the institution that is the "Catholic Church" would never give up the millions available to them from Medicare/Medicaid, would they? Not even to protect their "rights" and their "religious freedom." It's much easier to whip the righteous into a frenzy of indignation over some fictional threat to religious freedom.

Poorman

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.

Vet, please tell me the options a Catholic hospital is given for its employees with this law that takes effect in August 2013.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.

Pay attention veteran you are being sidetracked

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.

Why do you continue to insist they have no choice? This is simply false.

CT

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.

Tru2Blu76, the vast majority of Pro-Life people have NOT killed or injured anyone.

Tru2Blu76

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.

You're leaving out the actual history of the anti-abortion crowd: without rational basis, they have picketed obnoxiously and illegally while having killed and maimed doctors and nurses. That's demanding compliance with mystical beliefs, not "calling on" or "requesting" and there is NO freedom to kill people you disagree with. Not in this country anyway - everyone knows that countries under the influence of "orthodox" religious zealots permit murder in the name of "their beliefs." You're posing a false proposition and I suspect you know it: people seeking birth control have been subjected to threats and harassment by religious anti-abortionist bigots. So it's not a matter of free choice, it's a matter of criminals operating under the cover of religious freedom to suppress and obstruct the legally protected rights of others. Time to put the shoe on the other foot: lets see this free-bootihng, tax exempt collection of thugs start heeling to the law and to rational behavior.

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:03 p.m.

Mr. Van Buren, it is not accurate to say they are only asking those who want to participate in their version of a religious experience to adhere to their beliefs; they are attempting to force anyone who wants to hold a job with them to do so, also. No where near the same thing.

Laura Jones

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.

Actually, they are. By demanding that gay people be denied the right to marry.

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:47 p.m.

The "go find a group that believes in it" argument would be valid if religious institutions paid taxes and weren't employers.

northside

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.

Actually, the conservative Christians at this rally are always eager to convert others and to use the "you'll go to hell" scare tactic if you don't accept their belief system. They're also the first to push for government restrictions on a variety of freedoms - reproductive rights, gay marriage, etc.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.

Very well said Jim........too bad some do not understand.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.

Majority or minority makes no difference when one's rights are being infringed on.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.

@grimmk...........are you serious? Wow !

grimmk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.

@ Black Stallion - so with that "logic" it's no fault that slaves are slaves? Right, they did have a choice to be slaves. They wanted to be slaves. I got it. Society dictates who are second class citizen by limiting their rights of others. It's your fault.

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.

Maybe....you....should....move....to....Iran....where....the....government....is....based....on....religion....and....leave....America....a....free....country....

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.

"You are" Really? And you called me a "third grader"?

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.

NO ONE in the United States should be considered a second class citizen. Do you honestly believe that? That is nothing other than bigotry.

bedrog

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.

Actaully the only group sort of oppressed locally are the jewish congregants at a local synagogue that has been harrassed for years by a group of pro -jihadist fanatics ( some christian, some muslim...and some deeply self-loathing jews) with only tepid protest from the organized chrisitian community, zero protest from the muslim community ..and disturbingly forebearing endurance from those afflicted.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:44 a.m.

Spoken like a true non believer who will one day regret it. It is not anyone's fault that you are a second class citizen.

snark12

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:49 a.m.

Works for the Amish.

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:41 a.m.

I agree

Laura Jones

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.

There is simply no valid correlation or logic in that conclusion.

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:45 a.m.

Maybe you would care to enlighten us?

grimmk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:42 a.m.

Now, stop me if I am wrong, but if you are an American, you pay taxes. Yes? These taxes go to pay for a cornucopia of wonderful things, schools, libraries and whatnot. Are you saying you should all be exempt from that? Really? I don't believe in war but I pay taxes that helps support our troops. I won't be exempt from that and I shouldn't be. Nor should you be. Your morals have NOTHING to do with where and what taxes pay for. Keep all your whining in church and help support our country.

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:29 a.m.

Your leap to the assertion that the church is being compelled to violate its principals is specious and unsupportable. No one is forcing the Church to pay for anything, and there's not a single law or rule that says otherwise. The Church is free to choose to not offer any benefits to anyone. If that's all you have, please give it a rest.

AfterDark

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.

I was baptized, raised, educated, and confirmed in a Christian church yet the Catholic Church doesn't allow me to take part in the Eucharist at their services. My church does not deny Catholics the Eucharist when they visit. I see little implementation of Christ's teachings or showing of respect for others in the very human organization that is the Catholic Church.

Real Life

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:13 a.m.

"In their shoe tree." Jeez, and I thought it was such a strong finish.

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.

Being anti-religious oppression and anti-hypocrisy doesn't make anybody "anti-Christian." And please don't lump "Christians" into one homogenous group. These people speak for themselves, not "Christians."

Mohawk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.

not anti-christian -- ANTI HATE

Ben Petiprin

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:55 a.m.

*non-approved

Madeleine Borthwick

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.

Hey, middle America, don't waste your sympathy on me. I have never thought that "everyone is out to get me", nor am I delusional. This is one christian who ditched her first pair of rose-colored glasses as soon as she got them!

northside

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.

In Deo no one has said the people at this rally do not have a right to protest. Your claiming a type of persecution that doesn't exist, which is the same thing those at the rally did. As for resisting evil, perhaps the evil that should really be resisted is an all-male church hierarchy that is so 15th-Century backwards that it doesn't permit contraception? Even the vast majority of Catholics disagree with that, both in belief and practice.

Josh

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:40 a.m.

Jake C, I am calling you out on that fact ("95+% of Catholic women) The study you are quoting, intentionally or not, was only of sexually-active women between 15-44, and did not include women who hadn't had sex within the last 3 months, or were pregnant or trying to become pregnant. Read the full details here (http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html) but basically, took a survey of all the catholic women who would be using contraception (which is a small percentage) and then said that 98% of them used it. Check your facts please.

In Deo speramus

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:07 a.m.

The fundamental problem with the HHS mandate is that it coerces Catholic's into doing what they believe is wrong. Catholics believe that human life begins at conception. There is no passing of judgement, only the request to be true to ourselves and who we are. The opposition to the HHS mandate is as firm as the opposition of those who opposed the devaluation of slaves as less than human. To better understand this, I recommend the article at http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/the-moral-cost-of-cooperation-in-evil

Jake C

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:36 a.m.

"the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified" And yet 95%+ of their members practice contraception at some point in their lives and don't feel guilty about it. I wonder who has the misplaced priorities?

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.

Correction - "support or *protest*" not "protect."

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.

First of all, In Deo, there are plenty of Christians who aren't Roman Catholic. Secondly, we all get the Catholic position about birth control, and everyone supports the right of everyone else to rally in support or protect of whatever they want. What I'm waiting for is any kind of rational explanation of what exactly this people are protesting? What has been done to them that they must protest? What are they suffering? Near as I can tell no one's forced anyone to do anything, and there's not been anything offered that contradicts that. So help me out here and enlighten me as to exactly what the problem is.

AfterDark

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:59 a.m.

Were does the Catholic Church get off passing judgement when Christ teaches not to judge others?

Laura Jones

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:17 a.m.

It's fine that they protest, it is their right. Likewise, it is also the right of those who disagree to state their objections to the positions espoused by the protesters. I find some of the implementation of the no contraception position evil.

julieswhimsies

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.

Wait a minute. What?

hmsp

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:21 a.m.

???

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 10:51 p.m.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with what I think should be included. To understand that, however, requires the ability to separate one's personal beliefs from one's public functioning, a skill apparently absent from these religious "protesters."

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's a simple solution to this contrived "problem," but no one's interested in it because it's not the real issue. If you ask me, I think the Catholic church should grow up and learn the difference between religion and business. If a religious organization chooses to engage in secular business, then they need to learn where to draw the line between religion and business. The hard truth here is that the Catholic church isn't being forced into anything. They have a choice, several actually, but they don't like any of them because it doesn't fit the agenda.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.

So you're saying it's better for them to not care for their employees' health than to exclude one thing you think should be included? How charitable of you.

Ann23

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:25 a.m.

@Mohawk, which war that murders millions of innocents is the Catholic Church waging? The only "war" I see them waging is one to protect millions of innocents.

julieswhimsies

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 9:48 p.m.

@juju. My brother-in-law is interested solely in banning contraception and abortions. The bishops really want photo ops of priests and nuns being arrested. That is why they are calling for civil disobedience. I think he has OCD regarding the subject. He has this romantic image of himself as a Warrior for Catholicism. He actually sees himself as a future Catholic martyr. It is insanity.

Mohawk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:03 a.m.

no civil disobedience concerning the sexual abuse of children or the wars that murder millions of innocents though.....look in the mirror occasionally.

Laura Jones

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:15 a.m.

@ juju10junk: If you don't get the connection, you don't get conservative Catholicism at all. It's too involved to explain it, but the connection is ever present and correct. You can read Humane Vitae if you are really interested.

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:40 a.m.

I don't understand your connection between your brother-in-law wanting to be arrested and your statement that this being about contraception.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.

But the rally was not asking that Christianity be the law of the land. They were asking not to have something imposed on them that's against their beliefs. There's a difference between advocating something and trying to make it law through the proper procedure, with checks and balances, and forcing it on others.

julieswhimsies

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:13 p.m.

Huh?

The Black Stallion3

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.

You are not free....are you?

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.

No, this is what the government is doing...

Ann23

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 3:35 a.m.

AfterDark, I think you are having trouble with reconciling the Old Testament with the New Testament. Devotees of the church have looked into it, a lot. Both as an independent document and in historical context. I suggest you watch the "What's in the Bible" series by Phil Vischer.

leaguebus

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:53 a.m.

You are correct that separation of church and state was talked about by Jefferson, but the principle was raised earlier by Roger Williams and pretty much was what most people believed at the time. The First Amendment was to keep the government from being taken over by any religious sect. (including the present day Christians)

AfterDark

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:57 a.m.

If EXACT wording is what you're after you should be aware that the Bible has gone through many translations over the years, many of them politically driven and edited. It also calls for killing adulterers as well as sodomites. Perhaps devotees of the Church should look into it a little more instead of blindly believing their church leaders.

Real Life

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:17 a.m.

I know. "No where". It was in one of Thomas Jefferson's letters, and is usually taken completely out of context.

peg dash fab

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.

We all do. What's your point?

Tru2Blu76

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.

Eh, the whole thrust of the rally was to pretend christians (and particularly catholics) are some kind of martyrs. The very SAME PRETENSE that is used by radical (thug) Islamists whenever someone does something to bring them to heel. It was a Rally of Religious Pretense, nothing more, nothing less. So falsely labeling the reactions of other more rational observers as "vitriol" is just the kind of crapola one expects from slippery eel religionists.

Jake C

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:49 a.m.

I wasn't at this event, but a choice quote from the article was this: ""We didn't say anything when they took [OUR] God from our schools," he said. "We didn't say anything when they took [OUR] God from our government. Now that they're trying to take [OUR] God from [OUR] churches, we're finally trying to say something." That's be true, except for the fact that extremist Catholics have always said a whole lot when "we" took "their God" from "their government", and "their God" from "their schools", and "their God" from "their Churches". Except no one wants to take "their God" from "their churches", just require that "their secular organizations" follow the rules everyone else already does -- Hospitals and "charities" and political action groups and other organizations that gladly accept billions in federal subsidized tax dollars, and yet balk when they're asked to abide by federal tax rules. The implication of this statement that I've heard over and over again from the poor oppressed Christians (that make up 80%+ of the USA population) is that their specific moral belief system is the only valid one and anyone who follows a different moral system is evil. They might be smiling and giving hugs to other Christians at their protest while they say it, but it's still pretty vitriolic.

Real Life

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:18 a.m.

To Woman in Ypsilanti - what Hate was there at the love fest?

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:30 a.m.

I would disagree that it was a well written article, but I certainly agree that there is more vitriol in the comments section than at the event. To Woman in Ypsilanti, where do you get the idea that people are so "hateful" that they protest women being treated fairly? What hate are you talking about? What unfair treatment are you talking about? If you'd care to clarify, I'll be glad to respond to your accusations of hate and unfair treatment.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.

I'll admit it. It does make me angry when people are so hateful that they'll go down to a rally to protest the idea of women being treated fairly.

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:36 a.m.

Why all the anger, Bear? Is it really necessary? How do you feel someone's religion is in your government and to what "businesses" do you refer?

The Black Stallion3

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11 p.m.

PDF.............I understand more than you can imagine

peg dash fab

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:10 p.m.

BS it is not possible to appreciate that which you do not understand. And you do not understand.

The Black Stallion3

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10 p.m.

Maybe we should keep our soldiers from fighting for your freedom which you obviously do not appreciate.

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:29 a.m.

This exception has been provided for years. There has been no harm done. Tell me why it is necessary that policy now be changed.

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:09 a.m.

Under what mandate does the government force a church to offer medical benefits to anyone or prescription coverage to anyone? Answer: there isn't one. At such time as a faith-based employer voluntarily elects to offer medical benefits, they must offer them equally and without discrimination. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I guess this truth is too inconvenient to have to face.

Real Life

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:23 a.m.

How does the Government impose an unconscionable requirement violating a Church's free practice as guaranteed in the Constitution? The Church is not asking for any "special protection", only not to have an imposition by the State that violates its principles. Under what principle does the Government mandate contraception, abortion and sterilization?

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:15 a.m.

Bear - Thank you for your comments. I, too, have problems with the manner in which Islam treats women, particularly since the religion dominates government. As for having to listen to a church service before eating, if I were hungry, I'd listen to anything before eating and be thankful for the food. I don't see this issue as a religion wishing to dominate government, but rather as a religion feeling forced to do something against it's beliefs. While I realize the Catholic Church has had many problems, I also realize that they are one of the most charitable religious organization on the planet.

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:27 a.m.

Rusty - I don't see that there are any "explicitly political points" in what these people are saying. They are merely trying to uphold their belief that abortion is wrong. They wish to continue providing services for those in need, due to their religious beliefs, but feel forced into condoning something that goes against their religious beliefs. These are religious concerns, not political. Were I in their place, I would probably say okay, you provide the charitable services, but that probably goes against their religious beliefs also.

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:23 a.m.

Gretchen - Are birth control measures available to you? I believe they are. Is abortion legal? I think it is. Until that changes no one has forced any belief on you.

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 4:22 a.m.

Rusty - I see no religiouis people here referring to anyone with hate. Quite the opposite. It is almost always those who are criticizing the religious.

Unusual Suspect

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:36 a.m.

"Why do religious people describe everyone who disagrees with them as hateful?" Because we want to show the left what it looks like when they do it.

Michigan Man

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.

Jack - Totally on board with your comments. You must be one of the so called smartest people in the nation living in Ann Arbor. Lot of pissed off Ann Arbor types today seeing the fine Christian community in Ann Arbor expressing their religious freedom. Thanks for posting your thoughts. It is easy to see that you are wise, thoughtful and a fine humanitarian!

YpsiVeteran

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:05 p.m.

I particularly resent Jack's statement that the anti-demonstration comments are from people who are "anti-religion." If it's possible to open that closed mind a fraction, you might be amazed to learn that many of us critical of these demonstrators and what the appear to represent participate and believe in the religions of our choice, and some of us are EVEN CHRISTIAN! You don't have to be anti-religion to resist these hypocrites attempting to force their politics down our collective throats by wrapping them in a fraudulent veneer of "Christian" religion.

Susie Q

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:38 p.m.

I think it is great that the Catholic Church and the Muslim faith do not believe in abortion. Catholics and Muslims who believe this should not have an abortion or take contraception if they view it as a sin. However, if a Catholic or Muslim hospital accepts tax dollars, then they should be willing to provide their employees with contraception if the employee wants/needs it. There are lots of things that the government does with my tax dollars that I consider "sinful", but I am not able to "opt out".

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:38 p.m.

get off your pedestal, Jack. The point being that, yes, organized religion is indeed forcing their religious beliefs upon me when they get politically involved and demand that a secular government bow to their beliefs. I have a big problem with the way Muslim's treat their women and homosexuals and those who don't share their religious beliefs. Sectarian violence is THE major stumbling block to peace in muslim countries. Secular dictatorships are the only governments I've seen that have been able to quell such disputes because people are more afraid of the government than they are of other religious beliefs. One true statement is that Christianity & Islam both share a lot of similar beliefs. they both are hateful and intolerant of women, homosexuals and anyone who is outside of their belief structure. The catholic church will NEVER forgo federal funding. EVER! That would be to allow their power here to wane. Don't kid yourself, Jack. they are forcing their point of view upon the rest of us and have been for decades. Check out the Michigan Anti-Abortion Bill that's being fast-tracked through the legislature right now and tell me they aren't forcing their point of view upon everyone else. It's hypocrisy on a very blatant level Protect my freedom, (which isn't even being attacked) but deny women their hard-fought-for rights with draconian laws! pick & choose, just like these so-called christians do with their bible-thumping BS. I have a right to be angry when someone is doing damage to my country with their religion and infringing upon the rights of Americans because they believe their God is the only right way. I've been in the position where I needed to eat and went to a soup kitchen. first we had to attend church services. We were forced to, or else we couldn't eat.

Gretchen

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:25 p.m.

You really think they are not "forcing" their beliefs on the rest of us? Check out proposed HB 5711, 5712 and 5713.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.

The entire rally is one big anti-woman hateful comment, fwiw.

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.

Why do religious people describe everyone who disagrees with them as hateful? If being in control of every facet of American society, you still can't tolerate criticism when you decide to make explicitly political points, you really must not have much confidence in your own faith.

Terrin

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:38 a.m.

You beat me to it. Churches are supposed to be treated neutrally by the government. This means treating religious groups the same as everybody else. Yet, churches that own land do not have to pay taxes. As a property owner this is unfair because I have to subsidize organizations that have agendas I do not agree with and it also deprives the City of money it needs to perform services that really could benefit everybody. Further, go to a City like Detroit where in some places there are a couple of churches on every block. These are all places not paying property taxes. With so much land not collecting taxes, it is no wonder the City is bankruptcy. No compare that to a City like Grosse Pointe that has very few if any Churches in the City.

Jonathan Blutarsky

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:32 a.m.

Exactly!

YpsiVeteran

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:42 a.m.

AnnARBo, the Church is free to not pay for any medical services for anybody. Having elected voluntarily, of its own free will, to offer coverage, it doesn't get to cherry-pick what medical treatments and/or procedures it will "allow." It's the very definition of discrimination. By the way, does the church demand proof from every male employee that they've never spent Church-paid wages on condoms? Do they inspect for vasectomy scars? Are there regulations prohibiting men from spending any more than X minutes in a hot tub, to prevent impairing sperm motility? What about bicycle seats and laptop batteries?

Rork Kuick

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.

AnnArBo: It's discrimination against women. That isn't allowed for such buisinesses. (The church itself is different.) The cost is irrelevant to the case. What doctors prescribe for their patients is a private affair, unless the drugs are illegal, which isn't the case here. The same drugs are used for other reasons, so you'd need a test of intentions of some sort. I'm not sure you have much chance in court.

jayjay

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:44 p.m.

Why don't you get some facts instead of inventing? Gay marriage is only a threat to people who for some reason have an innate fear of gays. Why -- I leave that up to you to decide. I have my beliefs, and I think you will fear them as well!

earthchick

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.

"Once gay marriage is legalized, churches will be charged with civil rights violations, or hate crimes if they do not preform gay marriage ceremonies." Are you kidding me? The leap in logic that this statement represents is astonishing. As a clergyperson, I am not forced to perform marriage ceremonies. I have the right to refuse anyone, if I so choose. The government has never forced me to perform an opposite-sex ceremony; why would they force me to perform a same-sex one?

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.

You ruining the talking points. The left wants to convince everybody that we want to prevent everybody from having any of this.

snark12

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:24 a.m.

Cindy, the government is saying, "if you have employees, you have to treat them like other companies treat their employees." So, no, you can't specifically deny them right to contraceptive care. You also have to pay them at least the minimum wage, you can't require them to tithe to your church, and you can't force them to discriminate against others by, for instance, refusing service to black people. So the government already specifies policies that could be objectionable to some churches. Because "religious freedom" doesn't trump the "civil rights" of your employees.

CPLtownie

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.

Cindy - hate to break it to you - but the government already forces us to pay for things we don't necessarily agree to. But for the greater good, we all have to pitch in, or there would be no society. I don't like that my (birth) religion doesn't pay taxes, yet I pay thru the nose. Not to mention said religion expects tithing from me (fat chance, my drinking glasses aren't rimmed with gold.) I don't agree to unlimited welfare, yet I *pay* for it. I don't agree to unlimited military dollars, but I support and respect the military for securing my freedom (of which you're threatening to take away from me) And, on a local level - my local tax dollars being diverted from intended necessary public safety needs to prop up a public arts program (yes, my personal pet peeve that I just have to include) There's lots of things I don't want to pay for, but I realize are necessary for public health or society, or (locally) I don't have a *choice* in paying, such as the art program, which benefits few. What's difficult for you? Keep your faith away from my rights.

YpsiVeteran

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.

The government already forces all kinds of things on me that I don't believe in, like unlimited welfare for generation after generation of people who see it as a way of life, and Bob Ficano's salary. Medical insurance for legal medical procedures should be free from religious interference. I guess faith-based employers, which are not only Catholic, by the way, who don't want to pay for medical care they object to better screen their prospective employees better, right?

Forever27

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.

because the government isn't forcing "catholics" they're forcing an EMPLOYER to provide the same benefits that all EMPLOYERS must provide. this isn't a religious issue, it's a LABOR LAW issue.

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.

Thanks you, Cindy. It's nice to have at least one other person doing some thinking around here. The thing is they believe it won't happen to them, only to other people.

snark12

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 12:18 a.m.

You haven't seen this much hate on this website? Go check out the articles about Muslim schools, homeless people, or pretty much anything to do with raising taxes.

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.

Well, Rusty, take a look at the number of comments that have been deleted. Okay, now let's look at how we've been described in the comments that are still here: oppressors, bigoted, intolerant, hate-filled, dominating, distorting the definition of freedom, fascists, lying, irrational, hypocrites, and narrow-minded, to name a few. Oh and did I mention bigoted and hate-filled? Yeah, those came up a few times.

Unusual Suspect

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:35 a.m.

Try again, Bear. Tolerance is not embracing and accepting. It's recognizing that other people's opinions are allowed as much as your are. And I never tried to shut anybody up. Your argument smells of something else.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

And US, do not think you will shut people up with your accusations. It is my and others duty as citizens to call out this fakery when we see it. Should we give it some semblance of credibility and truth by honoring it? No! It is a vile thing in and of itself. Should we tolerate thinly disguised bigotry? NO! But your interpretation of what it means to live in Ann Arbor suggest that we should embrace such manure and accept it. I accept your right to practice your religion, I will fight to defend your right to freedom in practicing your religion, but I WILL not support your actions to deny others their rights as set out in a SECULAR government and will NOT support what I perceive to be bigotry. Your argument is smells of red herring.

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.

I"m still waiting for you to show me an actual expression of hate.

Michigan Man

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.

US - thank you for telling it like it is! Lots of heard mentality in Ann Arbor these days. The mothers and fathers of the children posting today would be very discouraged in reading these ignorant comments, posted by many of the so-called smartest people in the nation. Wise, however, they are not!

Unusual Suspect

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.

That's a nice way to hide it behind a euphemism. "Expressing their disagreement." Nice. The people in the rally are also just "Expressing their disagreement," but the response here is pure hate. I don't agree with them either. But I have a little more sense that to just lash out with vitriolic hate like most or the "tolerant" people in Ann Arbor.

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.

You must not be very confident in your faith if you have such thin skin. Which disgusting, intolerant comments were you referring to, exactly? All I've seen is people expressing their disagreement with a group (people who think of themselves as "true Christians") who have a really hard time accepting that not everyone conforms to their narrow worldview.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:33 p.m.

What a shock to find out there are actually people who haven't changed their views... still living in Ann Arbor!

leaguebus

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:29 a.m.

Spot on Cash.

julieswhimsies

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:24 p.m.

Thank you for posting that quote, Cash. Gandhi was right.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:06 p.m.

not the only one. It is pretty easy for most to misplace the 'h' though. lol!

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.

Thumbs up for being seemingly the only American in existence who can correctly spell "Gandhi."

jayjay

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.

Rusty, my one word answer to your comment -- AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David Frye

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:29 a.m.

Re: "this alleged god might be male or female," the rabbis who wrote the Kabbalah reasoned that God has both male and female attributes, based on the verse "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them," but that God himself (itself?) is neither male nor female but transcendent. Of course, in those days only males were allowed to become rabbis or for that matter to even read the Kabbalah! No accounting for hypocrisy. Nowadays half of recently ordained rabbis in the US are women, and new translations of the sacred texts are gender neutral. Strangely, anti-equality Christians don't seem to understand that they are basing their concepts of sexual morality on selected (mis)translations of an ancient Hebrew text.

jayjay

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.

What do you mean "Is God male or female?" He is male of course; don't you read the bible? It was written by "men" who know. Don't you see him? And what if God is "disabled", or at least the God we see? Should he (and notice again I used "he" right?) choose to not look like the least of us rather than the rich and mighty, or those that are so well off they can find time to tell others what to do, how to live their lives? What would it be like if we found out he looks like someone from a planet somewhere else in the universe? After all, are we so egotistical to believe we are the only planet in the universe that supports life, or if not, that all life looks like we do? And what if God is asexual? I mean, the only reason to assign a sex to God -- opps, can't go down that road, can I?

juju10junk

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.

Jayjay, despite what the first sentence of the article stated, this rally had nothing to do with LBGT. NOTHING at all. You state not to push your views on people who disagree with you. Then why is it okay for the government to push its views on people who disagree with it? Is this a separation of church and state?

AAPS Student

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.

AMEN!!! you are so right

leaguebus

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:25 a.m.

Arguing whether this guys take or that guys take on the Bible is a waste of time. People who have memorized the Bible can make its passages prove just about anything they want to assert. Plus how many of the books that the King of England threw out might be Gods words? The Bible was written, translated, and edited by men in the name of God and we have seen over 2000 years what vile things men have used the Bible for.

pb

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.

Bear, Well, I could accept your contention that my argument was invalid if you actually were responding to, and understood, my argument, which is simply that everyone likes to pick out that Jesus didn't condemn the woman (a fact), and miss the point that he did condemn the sin. I was making no comment on the religious protestors or any similarity that they might express with regard to the religious leaders who wanted the woman stoned; thus I intentionally "skipped" Jesus' denunciation of their hypocrisy. So, you might find my argument to be invalid, but you haven't addressed it yet, so I can't say one way or the other. And, to Rusty, no doubt every individual has the liberty to make immoral choices, regardless of how anyone else attempts to force them not to. In the end, however, any discourse about morality involves the imposition of one view over another, and cries of "intolerance" are most often equally turned to those who use that word in accusation, as is so clearly evident in many of the comments in response to the article.

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.

pb, I'd argue that the notion that women are not sovereign over their own bodies, that their choices are subject to conservative men's input rather than between them and God, is much more akin to condemnation than to the transformative forgiveness of God. He warned her not to sin AGAIN; she was permitted to make the initial "immoral" choice on her own accord.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.

pb, you nicely skipped over the part about his condemnation of their ACTIONS! "Let you who is without sin cast the first stone?" Seems a lot of these folks on the Diag have hefted a few stones in their live's and others (the young amongst them) are being trained to carry on that tradition. Your argument is invalid.

pb

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.

Well, I suppose that you would also have to read the Bible, not simply know about one partial scene, to understand the subtlety in the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did refuse to condemn her; he also made it clear that he supported the "conservative sexual mores" by cautioning her to avoid sin (read "adultery") in the future. Religious and non-religious bigots alike have the most difficult time recognizing the loving, transformative truth of Christ.

Michigan Man

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:44 p.m.

RS - You now seem to be an old and new testament scholar? Time for your to blow the dust off your bible, act like an adult and demonstrate some needed tolerance for freedom of religion, even in Ann Arbor.

Dennis

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:14 p.m.

They would have had to actually read the bible to know that.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.

This is disturbing. You think people who share your point of view have a monopoly on the entire town? Talk about narrow-minded.

Cash

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:21 p.m.

Quote of the day, Rusty. I have another: Gandhi "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are unlike your Christ."

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:37 a.m.

You really don't seem to understand the issue. Read some of the more informative comments regarding the provision of insurance.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:27 p.m.

Laura, you don't seem to understand what's going on. Christians are indeed being forced to pay for things they can't support. They are not concerned with other people's insurance coverage.

Laura Jones

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.

@RealLife. The church in fact does not have to do anything to support contraception, sterilization or abortion. A work around has been provided which will permit them to not pay for such things. The church wants to be able to go further and tell insurance companies they cannot offer these things, even if the insurance company is paying for it, which is not persecution. The objection of the Catholic church, in this case, is unreasonable. They have gone beyond "I don't wan to pay for it" to "I don't want anyone to have access to making this decision for themselves if I can in anyway prevent them." This steps across the boundary of freedom from coercion by the government into coercion of the state vis a vis the insurance regulation over ride for this one section.

Jake C

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:19 a.m.

@Real Life: No one is forcing "The Church" to perform any of those things themselves. Just that the insurance company they use provides the *option* for such things to their employees (who may not share their same religious beliefs, and who are *paying* for those benefits), which are all *legal* in the United States. There's an important distinction between those statements. Do you understand the Constitutional basis for that distinction?

Real Life

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:27 a.m.

Yes, to force the Church to support contraception, abortion and sterilization IS tyranny. How that squares with your first sentence confuses me.

grimmk

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

AH-MEN. Two thumps up. A round of applause.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.

Yes, what do you mean "other people's business"?

Jack

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:30 a.m.

Actually, it is their business they're rallying about. They have a dilemma when it comes to insurance coverage.

julieswhimsies

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.

I walked away from the Catholic Church when I left home. I have never looked back. Tax 'em.

Cash

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.

Yes Bertha...the more they talk the more people are walking away from Catholicism. Big echo in Catholic churches in Washtenaw County.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.

Maybe Christianity is not yet oppressed to the degree that you would recognize— but every oppression and persecution starts somewhere.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.

the church is 'oppressed' when they don't 'control' everything.

seldon

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.

(And always have)

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.

Vamoose, there's no way you can speak for Catholic women either, because you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I see plenty of women at the rally.

earthchick

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.

I'm not going to try to dialogue with anyone who puts "pastor" in quotation marks, as if you question my calling or my credentials. Done here.

evenkeel

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:39 p.m.

Instead of trying to take Brian Rooney out of context and projecting that he was somehow trying to speak for all Christians you might be honest. He was making a generality which was also stated by the national news, that the movement had formal backing by Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Jewish Community, and the Mormon Church. Somewhere in your vitriol I would think a "pastor" would address all the hatred being spewed here. I guess that isn't important in your christian sphere.

earthchick

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.

Hi evenkeel. The part that I quoted was exactly where someone in the rally as trying to speak for me - Brian Rooney made the sweeping claim that all the Christian community was coming together around this. No, we are not. The rightwing often projects the image that they speak for all Christians, and those outside the church get the impression this is how we all think (evidenced by many of the comments on this page), but it is simply not the truth. And yes, unless anyone at that rally has been under threat of death, I certainly can question the legitimacy of the claim of persecution. We are unbelievably free and safe in this country, especially when compared with Christians in other countries who face the threat of harm or even death for their faith. Regarding my handle, be doubtful all you want. Earthchick has been my online moniker for about 20 years now, a nickname given to me by a friend because of my love of God's good earth. My real name is Stacey Simpson Duke, and you can look me up. I'm an American Baptist pastor at First Baptist Church of Ann Arbor. (I speak for myself in these comments, not my congregants.)

molly

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:23 p.m.

A true Christian is a steward of the earth so why is "earthchick" not a good handle for a true Christian woman?

evenkeel

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.

Um earthchick, what exactly is your church? I don't really see where anyone in the article or at the rally was TRYING to speak for you. And unless you have walked in all their shoes, I don't think you have the right to judge what is True or Not True persecution. Also, I'm doubtful of a pastor of a christian denomination with a handle of "earthchick". Seriously, who you kidding?

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.

It is indeed offensive for a group that makes up an overwhelming majority of the population and centers of power to claim it is "oppressed." It also shows how weak their arguments are, if they need this false flag to rally the troops, so to speak.

grimmk

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.

Thank you for proving that not all Christians are insane. :)

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.

Thanks for saying this, Mr. Parker. I think no matter what my religion or political views, I would be disappointed by the comments on this article. There is so much anger, so little listening. Practically speaking, I would think those who are venting their anger would realize that it only makes their point of view seem extremist and hateful. How could they ever convince those "hateful" Christians to agree with them?

Robert Hughes

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:13 a.m.

A number of Christians have expressed their outrage at the bigotry inherent at this rally.

YpsiVeteran

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.

I've yet to read any accounts of how Christian "diversity" is being threatened, especially in Ann Arbor? Armed guards outside the church, keeping you from going in? Christians stolen from their homes and imprisoned for decades? What exactly are you "suffering" here?

Michigan Man

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.

David - Your comments are right on target. Lots of hate in Ann Arbor today it seems toward the Christian community. That does not frighten me though. Remember of the 12 ordinary and humble men that became disciples of Christ, 11 were killed. John was the only apostle to die a natural death of old age. I am with you in standing tall for people of faith!

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.

Right... no Christians in Ann Arbor. Or are they only Christians if they agree that women aren't sovereign over their own bodies? https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=christian+church+ann+arbor&fb=1&gl=us&hq=christian+church&hnear=0x883cb00dd4431f33:0xdb09f94686c8b5e2,Ann+Arbor,+MI&ei=HFvST9SJMOme2AWOr7mpDw&oi=local_group&ved=0CEAQtgM

Mohawk

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.

enough of your paranoia -- you are the majority with all the money and the power --- quit acting like a victim

CPLtownie

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.

No, they are bragging to take away MY RIGHTS

bobslowson

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:33 p.m.

Sorry David...it seems that some Christian's won't ALLOW for a little "diversity", that's what is sad and disappointing here.

Real Life

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 1:29 a.m.

With prejudice like that, I now know how the Jews felt when their neighbors and friends abandoned them.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.

Diane, I carry my church with me wherever I go. It isn't a building, it's a heart and a mind and the spirit that lies within.

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:08 p.m.

Not to mention, historically speaking, collusion with an uncountable number of right wing dictatorships that held on to power though torture and secret police.

Diane

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.

And that never happened in your church? Maybe you don't attend church.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.

I think to some of them it does, but what about the Jews? A lot of conservatives are also in strong support of Israel and the Jewish lobby. Not everyone fits in a box...

Robert Hughes

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:11 a.m.

inside the Hall, it is essential that you read up on Adams & Jefferson, as suggested. The idea of separation of church and state is the heart of the 1st amendment to the constitution. Written by the founding fathers. Don't weaken your argument, and your freedom, by claiming such nonsense as you have. Thanks.

Some Guy in 734

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

Inside the Hall: If this country was founded on Christian values, how on earth do you explain the Treaty of Tripoli?

Laura Jones

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.

The founding fathers, when they have spoken via writings on that issue, have been crystal clear that we are most assuredly NOT a Christian nation. Before you make more pronouncements about what we were founded on, please read up on the subject. I would suggest Jefferson and Adams as a good start. You will find they meant for the religious nature of the nation to be a silent point allowing for the inclusion of all religions and most specifically not limiting us or making us a Christian nation.

InsideTheHall

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:31 p.m.

Well, this country was founded on Christian values. It is the assault on Christianity by secular interests (many expressed here) that has Christians defending their freedom of religion and freedom from government intrusion.

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:38 a.m.

"What a fantastic rally", if you want to waste time, get in the way, and accomplish absolutely nothing while preaching complete insanity.

A2James

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

Even if there was 2,000 people (which I doubt), there are thousands of people who have successfully sued or settled out of court from Catholic sexual abuse. Put that into perspective...

julieswhimsies

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.

@Inside You counted over 2000 in attendance? I was there running errands. I would say there were 200-220 at most. Underwhelming.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.

Michigan Man...All the other people of God made it out today? Do you have a list of who is and who is not a person of God. I wasn't there, and guess what: I'm a person of God, and I had no urge to go there and support the Roman Catholic Church in it's pushing it's political agenda. Wait...does that mean I'm NOT a person of God? Well, I'll be darned!

Michigan Man

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.

Hall - Thanks for your fine comments! Really wanted to attend but could not make it. I am proud to be a Christian and am thankful all the other wonderful people of God made it out in Ann Arbor today. The lack of tolerance for diversity of opinion is just shocking these days in Ann Arbor.

solarcaylee

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.

I walked by twice on my way to and from grabbing lunch on State St and I would agree with rusty that it was no more than 200. I had classes during my Freshman year of college larger than that "crowd".

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.

Hahahaha! 2,000?! 200, MAYBE.

mstairs

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.

This rally has inspired me to form the Free Abortion Church

Lovaduck

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.

I am a religious Catholic, yet I don't agree with these rally people for many of the reasons others have stated well, YET I think that your letter, Tru, is just pure anti-Catholic bigotry and name calling. I know you may feel aggrieved that others do not share your "religion" of rationalism, but vitriol and name calling in the name of reason is really self-contradictory.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.

You have the issues confused. You are so angry that the Catholic Church doesn't agree with your beliefs that you can't see when you have something in common with them. If one group's religious freedom is violated, everyone else's is up for grabs. Please take off your blinkers and look around!

Cash

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.

"Funny hat"...thank you....I was so upset reading about this bigoted hateful group....and then you made me laugh! Dolan who in Milwaukee paid pedophile priests each $20,000 to quietly leave the priesthood....model citizen.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.

I have to disagree with these interpretations. First of all, the aim of this rally was to advocate for just that, leaving the kind of insurance provided to these people and God, not to have certain requirements (that are against their religious beliefs) forced on them by the state. Also, buildergirl, you should read the book of Acts more carefully if you want to understand why some Jewish regulations from the Old Testament were not continued in Christianity. Many of the ones you mention haven't been part of Christianity for 2000 years, and it's clearly stated why in the New Testament.

AAPS Student

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.

AMEN!! Could not have said it better myself

jayjay

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.

Buildergirl, you touch on a good point at the end of your comment, "what a person does is between them and God". Apaarently, that must not be the view of these religious zealots (and many others for that matter). If you believe in God and follow a religion, do you not by association believe in the devil and hell? If that is so, won't all these heinous users of contraception and LBGT lost souls get their due when the world ends? Did not God give humankind "free will" to choose? Did Adam and Eve supposedly not choose (and wrongly so) and they were punished by God, not by some self-proclaimed minister. And by what is written, I assume "Christian" means the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, whomever are all "sinners" , and cannot go to heaven either. After all they have the audacity to believe other thoughts! Scary!

Madeleine Borthwick

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 8:28 p.m.

Ummmm....Enso, I'm a christian who happens to be firmly in support of same-sex marriage. The God I pray to loves everybody, INCLUDING gays, lesbians, bisexual & transgender. Nor do I consider myself persecuted. So please don't paint all of us christians with the same brush. Not all of us are religious crackpots.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.

So much of this is just a shell, or show. Don't you think politicians say these things just to pander to a constituent base? Don't tell me you can't see through that. Besides, isn't "God" Jewish and Muslim as well, and who knows what other religions? Just take a look at the comments on this article, and you'll see why Christians feel persecuted. They can't even hold a rally without being vilified. How many comments are in support of them, and how many against? How many hateful remarks are there, accusing Christians of being hateful, and how many were removed for being inappropriate. Take a look around, and consider, just consider, some mutual respect.

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:35 a.m.

When will the suffering of the majority end? Thankfully, they were protesting about their paranoid delusions and ignoring all of the people dying in wars started by Americans. That's the American Christian way!

mstairs

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.

How about granting them tax breaks....oh wait

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.

Yes. In the future the government will be free to force any religious group to conform to their arbitrary commands. Republican, Democrat, it won't matter. Because what matters isn't really separation of church and state— it's putting the other side down! Seriously, Christianity has been on the wrong side of history for most of its history. Christians don't (or shouldn't) care. Christian teaching shouldn't change every time the prevailing morality does. If your grandparents or great-grandparents were here, would you be blaming them for their hateful views? They hadn't been brainwashed by the gay movement because it wasn't around yet. But woe to those who refuse to be brainwashed!

AAPS Student

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.

AMEN!!! Could not have said it better myself

snark12

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.

"Religious freedom" has really come to mean "I expect to always get my way in all things."

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.

Interesting that you think you know who these people are. They are from a wide variety of Christian backgrounds, and their politics is not specified. Some of them may have voted for Obama. I don't see anything in the article about other religious groups and how they should be stamped out. It's in your imagination.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.

Ain't it funny that the one's screaming the loudest for "freedom" are the one's who stand ready to steal your freedom away and dictate to you what you shall and shall not do in your own life?

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:54 p.m.

Elena, I am sorry that you are feeling disillusioned. But what you are realizing is that you never agreed with the Church's teachings to begin with. They haven't changed. The savior you are envisioning is one who is made in your own image, with your thoughts and beliefs, which come from current politics and morality. "Love your neighbor" doesn't mean "tell your neighbor anything he or she does is fine". In fact the Bible clearly says that some things are right in God's eyes and others are wrong, and that it is good to point out to your neighbor (a fellow believer or maybe even someone else) when they are doing something displeasing to God. It is not about pointing the finger and putting others down, but helping them make things right with God. That's why the Catholic Church has confession, so that people can acknowledge their failings and sins. We all have them. But some claim that anything they have an urge to do must be right. That is not Biblical at all.

Robert Hughes

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:03 a.m.

Well said, Elena.

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.

You might feel more at home with the Episcopal or UCC church

Polyjuce123

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.

Disappointing results can't be too surprising when worshiping an invisible being.

Steve in MI

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.

That's why I left mine.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:38 p.m.

And Jack, we may be becoming a more secular society, but that doesn't exclude spirituality. Spirituality isn't the private domain of organized religion, no matter how much they may tell you it is. Organized religion is one of the biggest farces in human history and has been responsible for much misery, ignorance & death, even to this very day. And I say destroy every one of those cathedrals bent on dividiing the human race into 'us' and 'them' mentalities. The windows of a church only let the light of their peculiar color enter into their dust-ridden chambers. Better to step outside and celebrate the WHOLE spectrum in a meadow and feel the true warmth of spirituality, along with the cool breeze of tolerance & compassion. And not the jaded compassion that your representatives of god tell you of and indoctrinate you into, either.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.

Hey, Johnny5k, whose picture is on the money? Yours? NO. "Render unto Cesear what is Cesear's" was Jesus' argument about taxes. In effect, he said that the money was Cesear's. So, your argument is invalid.

Jack

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:39 p.m.

mstairs - That must be why so many of them are closing. They are simply running away with "all that money," right? The tearing down of beautiful churches in this country is on eof the saddest sights I've seen. These beautiful buildings will never be replicated. Mstairs, it comes from a lack of money, not an abundance of it. We are becoming a very secular society with very little spirituality.

Johnny5k

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:29 p.m.

It sounds like you think 100% of money is the governments and out of the benevolence of government they give back some of the money you give to them. As opposed to the other viewpoint that 100% of money is yours and government takes some for necessary operations. Therefore a tax exemption is nothing less than be allowed to keep more of what is rightfully yours from being becoming the government's.

mstairs

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.

Churches bring in much more money than most businesses and should have to pay taxes like us hethens.

Forever27

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.

of course they are, to believe otherwise would be logical, and that is not what the foundation of religion is built upon.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

you mean the religious organizations that tell a hungry man that he can have some soup AFTER he attends mass? The same religious organization that forces people to attend mass in order to get a crumb of bread? And don't tell me that isn't the way it goes down, because I have been there and saw it first hand. No one is FORCING the church out of helping people in need. It seems the church is deciding that their bigotry is more important than people in need.

Laura Jones

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.

Actually, you can't. You have to meet certain tests for that to apply.

Steve in MI

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:49 p.m.

Even better.... *I* can label my private business a religious organization, and then *I* can disregard and Federal or State employment law that I find inconvenient! Who wants to help me create a religion that is fundamentally opposed to taxes and environmental regulation? High-profit tax-free unrestricted pollution, here I come!

Ann23

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:38 a.m.

I think all these responses to this comment so far prove why people who believe in God feel threatened by intolerance and feel a need to stand up for their beliefs and their right to their beliefs.

leaguebus

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:48 a.m.

Its your opinion that God exists. You have no proof whatsoever. As soon as he/she shows himself/herself, call me.

Bear

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.

mighty handy way to pick and choose what you 'wish' to do. Kind of like the ecclesiastes argument against male homosexuality. Ignore all the other dictates of leviticus and just concentrate on the one that deals with an issue that makes you uncomfortable. Now just WHO is the one who determines what "Gods (sic) law" is? You? or some of these lame panhandlers who beg for your money in the name of God?

rusty shackelford

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.

I like that, Peter Baker. Both interesting questions. I like the first one, especially, though the better question might be "who isn't god?"

Brad

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.

Sorry, I don't recognize the "laws" of the figment of your imagination. Sorry.

Forever27

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.

you mean the "law" that a bunch of desert-dwelling tribesman from the Bronze Age came up with?

CPLtownie

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.

God's Law as Interpreted by MAN

Peter Baker

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.

Also, whose god?

mixmaster

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.

God's laws might trump mans in heaven, but we don't live in heaven. I've never been there and neither has any other living person. Never have. We live here on earth and its been here for about 6 billion years.

Peter Baker

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.

Who's god?

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.

Please explain your claim. Everyone in the country is free to demonstrate for their cause.

Michael Donnelly

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:04 p.m.

The rally was to protest the chipping away of religious freedom - not to deny freedom to others.

YpsiVeteran

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

"...*doesn't* fit the script...." Oops.

YpsiVeteran

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

It would seem all these faith-based employers have to do to be in compliance with the law is not offer prescription drug coverage for their employees. Problem solved. That, of course, don't fit the script, and it prevents these groups from the satisfaction of their imagined victimization.

Townie

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 10:10 p.m.

With facts you're throwing pearls in front of swine - they don't matter. In fact, facts are wrong in their minds, since it totally challenges their alternate reality. Bush was a wonderful person since he was a 'Christian and a born again one at that'. That's all that matter -- despite whatever he did and he did a lot of bad, bad stuff. Isn't forgiveness great ? (but reserved only for born again, the right kind of 'christians').

Middle America

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 12:30 a.m.

Yeah, the Christian controlled government is really trying to legislate against themselves. If you don't realize that this ridiculous rally is just a way to keep voters worrying about nothing and ignoring actual issues in this country, you are part of the problem.

bobslowson

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.

Hey Chris...what is a "prospective church planter" anyway?

PittsfieldTwp

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.

ESprout, Chris said, "increasingly willing". Given these institutions have until 2013 to make a change, I would say that's a correct statement.

ESprout

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

I have seen zero legislation from our current administration that limits, restricts or in any other way keeps you from exercising your right to believe in whatever it is you choose to believe.

AfterDark

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.

How, EXACTLY, has your right to free exercise of religion been impeded?

Mohawk

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.

I'm sure you kept quiet when the Bush Admin made it legal to wiretap any religious house of worship and when the Catholics allowed the abuse of minors AND now you will vote for a person who believes in POLYGAMY.

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:47 p.m.

What hate and disdain? It seems to me that it's emanating from you, not from anyone quoted in the article.

Michael Donnelly

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 11:01 p.m.

Not sure where you heard the hate and disdain. Were you even there? On what basis do you make this charge?

Jack

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:34 p.m.

I see no hate or vitriol in what I read above. Perhaps you can tell me where you do?

lumina

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.

Yes, separation of church and state. Woman in Ypsilanti, the problem is that this law crosses the line and asks people to choose whether to obey the law or obey their church's teachings. Laws should not force that decision on people— the state should not make legislation like this because it violates the separation of church and state. Surely you would be upset if a new law crossed such a line for you. Why can't readers see that this is a problem for everyone? Everyone should be standing together against such an egregious transgression of the constitution. But it seems that those on the "other side" are so full of hate that they can't recognize a common cause.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 9:47 p.m.

@Johnny5k Actually the state is telling the church that they are not above the law even though they seem to think that they are. So when their priests molest boys, those priests still can be arrested because freedom of religion is not the same thing as being above the law. In this case, it is a labor law requiring certain types of insurance. If the church wants to run a business or non-profit, they must comply with the same laws as everyone else. That is not abridging their religious freedom in any way.

Johnny5k

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.

Bobslowson, Government funding is not the question here but rather the issue is the requirements of insurance by HHS. The health care reform act (aka Obamacare) mandates insurance coverage and contents of insurance and in the HHS mandate it must include sterilization and "the morning after pill". So if a church wants to run a soup kitchen, and hire employees to run it, they MUST include sterilization coverage whether or not it's in violation of their conscience. So in other words the state is telling the church to either shut down their soup kitchen or violate their conscience. That is the issue at hand.

johnnya2

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.

@Johnny5k, So if the church says they do not believe int he death penalty for RELIGIOUS reason, they can stop paying for it? If the Amish say they are against giant tubes flying in the sky, can they say they do not want to pay for it? If my religious belief is that I want to smoke pot in honor of my god can I do it legally? The catholic church itself does not have to pay for birth control, UNTIL they get involved in a secular business. A hospital is NOT a religious institution. A university is not a religious institution. The actual church is exempt, until they tax their tax exempt status and bring their indoctrination to the masses.

bobslowson

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.

@ Johnny....if the "church" is going to feed at the government trough then they should abide by the rules. If they don't want to play fair, they can always "not take the money" but we all know that greedy church's would never NOT take money.

Johnny5k

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.

So would you classify a proper separation of church and state as the state not telling the church what matters of conscience are acceptable or not acceptable? Because if you agree with that point then you agree with the heart of the rally.

Dirtgrain

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 2:56 a.m.

And some came to kill witches.

zeeba

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.

The people who came here for religious reasons weren't just freeing oppression - they wanted to set up their own communities where their own theology held sway. And they didn't tolerate dissenting views - it didn't take long for Cotton Mather to give Anne Hutchinson the boot once she started sharing her own views about God. Besides, relatively few immigrants came here in the name of God. They came in the name of an empty stomach.

CPLtownie

Fri, Jun 8, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.

Oh, right. And when these people came to North America, who did they oppress? The Native Americans. And when they came to other nations, their Missionaries oppressed those people as well. Shall we go on about who landed where and did what in the name of who?