For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock, the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment on.

Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations) argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion, and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for their company sponsored health insurance.

Here's the problem: there is absolutely nothing unChristian about birth control, nothing. In fact, for many Christians, the most Christian thing they can do is to use contraceptives. First, pop over here and read what Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg has to say about the Bible and contraception. And she's right, search all you like but the only place any sort of contraception is mentioned in the Bible is that one story of Onan. Just once, despite the fact that anthropologist and historians will tell you that women have found ways to prevent pregnancy (crude and ineffective though they were before the pill) since we started using herbs as medicine (that's a long way back.)

The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control, for all the wrong reasons, for generations. Namely because a woman who can control when, and how often, she becomes pregnant is a woman who controls her own destiny. She can go to school, she can work, she can stir up all sorts of trouble in the places that men have traditionally held sway. Through careful planning she can better the situation of not only her family, but her community, and those children she does chose to have.

But the real thorn? The whole argument here assumes that there is just one view of contraception among Christians. When there are a great many of us for whom the use of contraception is at its root a theologically essential practice. Here's why:

When we read the Bible, not a single sentence, or chapter, or even book, but the whole library of scripture, we find a story of a wildly fecund Creator who places Creation in the stewardship, the safe keeping, of human kind. God makes a world rich with promise and diversity and loans it to human beings. And when God does so, God demands that we care for it in God's stead. The Biblical term for the role God gives humanity is "steward," a hired hand who takes care of the property of another with more care than if it were her own. After all, I might trash something that belongs to me, but the house my friend asks me to house sit while she's away studying in Germany for a year, I will care for with diligence.

So it is with God and humankind, but God gives humanity into each other's care, as well. Throughout scripture human beings are we over and over again called to care for the land and water, and all the critters; but even more so for each other. Whatever else we might be, we are first and foremost stewards. We are caretakers. Now I don't know if you've looked around recently but we've taken that "be fruitful and multiply" line really seriously. We've multiplied all right, to the point that we've squeezed out millions of other species. We've multiplied to the point that we're in direct competition for survival with the fabulous diversity of flora and fauna we're meant to be caring for, and with each other. Sadly, the competition isn't fair. We're so much better than anything else at the survival game that the board is tilted and everyone but us is slowly sliding off the edge.

Frankly, the world doesn't need to be peopled. We've got that multiply bit down pat, that one sentence from a time when our species survival was still tenuous. But we've pretty solidly failed at our main purpose: stewardship. We spill millions of gallons of oil into fragile marine ecosystems because we just have to have vehicles that also spew pollutants into the air, and plastics that wind up forever in the stomachs of birds and fish and everything else. We clear forests for more and more farm land, we fish and hunt to extinction whatever the taste of the month might be. Our growing population expands further and further into what used to be wilderness and the creatures we find there, we kill, because they are inconvenient. And those of us who feel that deep call to stewardship, to partnership with God as our first command, mourn. It has become the deep religious conviction of many that procreation should be in line with the stewardship of all creation, not at the whim of our lusts or of random chance. We take seriously the need to balance our desire with the greater good of all and of our families.

For a steward of this good Earth restricting our procreation is as much an act of religious discipline as fasting, giving alms, or prayer. We chose to have fewer, or no children, that we might give the rest of the world room to breathe, and that we might use our resources to help human beings pushed to the margins. Some who chose to have no children adopt the many, many children in need of parents; this is their stewardship vocation. Some who chose fewer children pour their resources into their local community to raise standards of living for all. Some who chose this role work to undo habitat loss and destruction, we chose to restrict ourselves that the rest of God's creation might also thrive.

And never forget, parenthood itself is the act of a steward. For those who take stewardship seriously it becomes important to chose carefully when and how to bring children into this world, that we might be the best caretakers for them that we can possibly be, for this too is a calling from God. There are many ways to live as a steward, but all of them require discernment and self control. All of them call for a careful examination, and reordering of, our assumptions and choices. Often times the choice to not have children, or to have fewer children is not the selfish choice it is painted by contraception deniers.

Ironically, because we live in a world where money dictates so much of life a ruling that allows companies to deny contraception coverage for their employees actually restricts their employees' ability to practice their own religious convictions. Contraception is expensive, and many, without insurance, simply cannot afford it.

At the end of the day this is not a theological argument for Hobby Lobby at all. If it were they would not stock products made in Chinese factories without safe working conditions and living wages. Hobby Lobby's business practices show pretty clearly that what matters there is not theology, but money. And this ruling is about greed, about finding a way to keep just a little bit more of the immense amounts of money Hobby Lobby's owners have already amassed. How to deny every cent possible to their laborers. That the Bible has quite a bit to say about, and that decision doesn't come out in Hobby Lobby's favor.

Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being." Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for us all.

http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/

My bad. I posted this to the wrong group. Sorry.

On 7/1/2014 3:09 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> My bad. I posted this to the wrong group. Sorry.
>

No one here would reply anyway, right?

My opinion. . .
The church should stay out of my bedroom. They want more followers for
more donations.

Businesses should also have the right to choose what benefits they give
to employees. If they don't pay for my prescriptions or my beer, I'll
buy my own.

The government should also stay out of my bedroom and many other places.
I'm capable of making my own decisions and choices.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:44:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 7/1/2014 3:09 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> My bad. I posted this to the wrong group. Sorry.
>>
>
>No one here would reply anyway, right?
>
>My opinion. . .
>The church should stay out of my bedroom. They want more followers for
>more donations.

The grubbermint wants more sheep for more votes.

On 2014-07-01 3:07 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock,
> the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious
> objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth
> control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I
> won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this
> decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology
> in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment
> on.
>
> Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations)
> argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion,
> and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they
> refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B
> contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for
> their company sponsored health insurance.

For companies with a lot of young female employees, birth control pills
are likely one of the most commonly prescribed medications. Knock out
that single most widely used prescription and the the cost to the
insurer drops significantly. That should save the company a bundle in
its benefits package. Dare we suggest that the real motive is the money.




>
> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.

The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control. He
set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.

On 7/1/2014 3:51 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-01 3:07 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock,
>> the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious
>> objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth
>> control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I
>> won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this
>> decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology
>> in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment
>> on.
>>
>> Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations)
>> argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion,
>> and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they
>> refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B
>> contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for
>> their company sponsored health insurance.
>
> For companies with a lot of young female employees, birth control pills
> are likely one of the most commonly prescribed medications. Knock out
> that single most widely used prescription and the the cost to the
> insurer drops significantly. That should save the company a bundle in
> its benefits package. Dare we suggest that the real motive is the money.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
>> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
>> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.
>
> The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control. He
> set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.
>
I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

James Silverton wrote:
>
> On 7/1/2014 3:51 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2014-07-01 3:07 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> >> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock,
> >> the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious
> >> objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth
> >> control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I
> >> won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this
> >> decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology
> >> in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment
> >> on.
> >>
> >> Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations)
> >> argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion,
> >> and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they
> >> refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B
> >> contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for
> >> their company sponsored health insurance.
> >
> > For companies with a lot of young female employees, birth control pills
> > are likely one of the most commonly prescribed medications. Knock out
> > that single most widely used prescription and the the cost to the
> > insurer drops significantly. That should save the company a bundle in
> > its benefits package. Dare we suggest that the real motive is the money.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
> >> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
> >> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.
> >
> > The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control. He
> > set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.
> >
> I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
> show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
> general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?

That's a good question, and a bit more searching seems to indicate that
HL does indeed cover some contraceptives, and their issue is
specifically with Plan B and similar.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:01:39 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:
>
> James Silverton wrote:
> >
> > >
> > I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
> > show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
> > general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?
>
> That's a good question, and a bit more searching seems to indicate that
> HL does indeed cover some contraceptives, and their issue is
> specifically with Plan B and similar.

It's the morning after pill and similar types of birth control that
they won't fund. Unfortunately, as far as the morning after pill -
that means rape victims will be raped twice: once by the rapist and
again by her employer.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:01:39 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
> >
> > James Silverton wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
> > > show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
> > > general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?
> >
> > That's a good question, and a bit more searching seems to indicate that
> > HL does indeed cover some contraceptives, and their issue is
> > specifically with Plan B and similar.
>
> It's the morning after pill and similar types of birth control that
> they won't fund. Unfortunately, as far as the morning after pill -
> that means rape victims will be raped twice: once by the rapist and
> again by her employer.

Not funding does not equate prohibiting an employee from obtaining.
People without insurance can and do buy Plan B and similar emergency
contraceptives.

On 2014-07-01 17:30, James Silverton wrote:

>>> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
>>> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
>>> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.
>>
>> The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control. He
>> set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.
>>
> I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
> show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
> general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?
>


When they are young they sow their wild oats. They drink and do drugs in
excess. After they get bored with that they turn their need for excess
to religion. The fundie "christians" and the Catholics get a kick out
of sin.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:10:24 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-07-01 17:30, James Silverton wrote:
>
> >>> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
> >>> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
> >>> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.
> >>
> >> The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control. He
> >> set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.
> >>
> > I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
> > show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
> > general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?
> >
>
>
> When they are young they sow their wild oats. They drink and do drugs in
> excess. After they get bored with that they turn their need for excess
> to religion. The fundie "christians" and the Catholics get a kick out
> of sin.

I believe that statement.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:10:24 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-07-01 17:30, James Silverton wrote:
>>
>> >>> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
>> >>> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
>> >>> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.
>> >>
>> >> The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control.
>> >> He
>> >> set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.
>> >>
>> > I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem
>> > to
>> > show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
>> > general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?
>> >
>>
>>
>> When they are young they sow their wild oats. They drink and do drugs in
>> excess. After they get bored with that they turn their need for excess
>> to religion. The fundie "christians" and the Catholics get a kick out
>> of sin.
>
> I believe that statement.

Me too.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 22:09:31 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:10:24 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
snip
>>
>>
>> When they are young they sow their wild oats. They drink and do drugs in
>> excess. After they get bored with that they turn their need for excess
>> to religion. The fundie "christians" and the Catholics get a kick out
>> of sin.
>
>I believe that statement.

I don't. There are people who are drawn to gossip, spreading
scandal, and messing about in other people's lives. These people
observe and speculate on the lives of others all the time. Some of
them are drawn to particular religious groups because it gives them an
outlet for controlling others. I do believe that the past of these
people does not bear scrutiny.
Janet US

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 4:30:49 PM UTC-5, James Silverton wrote:
> On 7/1/2014 3:51 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > On 2014-07-01 3:07 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>
> >> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock,
>
> >> the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious
>
> >> objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth
>
> >> control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I
>
> >> won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this
>
> >> decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology
>
> >> in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment
>
> >> on.
>
> >>
>
> >> Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations)
>
> >> argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion,
>
> >> and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they
>
> >> refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B
>
> >> contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for
>
> >> their company sponsored health insurance.
>
> >
>
> > For companies with a lot of young female employees, birth control pills
>
> > are likely one of the most commonly prescribed medications. Knock out
>
> > that single most widely used prescription and the the cost to the
>
> > insurer drops significantly. That should save the company a bundle in
>
> > its benefits package. Dare we suggest that the real motive is the money.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't
>
> >> interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control,
>
> >> for all the wrong reasons, for generations.
>
> >
>
> > The god of the fundies had a more radical approach to birth control. He
>
> > set had things like floods, plagues and pestilence.
>
> >
>
> I wonder what fundamentalists do when they are young. Statistics seem to
>
> show that Catholics use birth control at about the same rate as the
>
> general population. Are bishops deaf, dumb and stupid as well as venal?
>
The cover-ups of sexual exploitation of children are unforgivable, and so
many priests resort to exploitative sex because they aren't allowed natural
sexual expression, whether *** or straight. Loving sexual doings between
persons of reasonably equal agency are typically good. Loving, monogamous relationships are good, both different sex or same sex, and extra/non-marital
sex can be beautiful as well.

Romeo and Juliet can be good. Romeo and Romeo can be good. Two Romeos and
one Juliet, or two Juliets and one Romeo can be good, and the only thing
negative about promiscuity is the issue of STDs.

Humans are sometimes vulnerable, especially women, to sex that might hurt
them, but it doesn't help to oppress them; empowered women, with access to contraception, can neutralize misogyny. I see so many women as sisters, we
all had a mother, many have been friends and some have been lovers.

Without women, I wouldn't be alive, and without their affections, my life
would have been empty. Any cultural institution that disrespects that half
of humanity can go F^&% itself.
>
> Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

--Bryan

On 01/07/2014 1:07 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock, the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment on.
>
> Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations) argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion, and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for their company sponsored health insurance.
>
Religion really does poison everything!!
Graham

Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane. That the grubbermint
wants to be involved with peep's ****ing, especially po' folk ****ing
is ridiculous... birth control is as simple as issuing grubbermint
dildoes, and/or gals holding a dollar bill between their knees... no
side effects either.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:07:52 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags
> wrote:

>For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock, the Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious objections to birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth control in their health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I won't weigh in on the staggering legal ramifications of this decision. But I am a priest, a practical theologian, and the theology in this case is just plain bad. Obscenely so, and that, I can comment on.
>
>Very simply, the owners of Hobby Lobby (and other corporations) argued that their religion (Christianity) did not allow for abortion, and that birth control was a form of abortion. On those grounds they refused to cover the cost of birth control (and plan B contraceptives, which are still contraceptives, not abortion) for their company sponsored health insurance.
>
>Here's the problem: there is absolutely nothing unChristian about birth control, nothing. In fact, for many Christians, the most Christian thing they can do is to use contraceptives. First, pop over here and read what Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg has to say about the Bible and contraception. And she's right, search all you like but the only place any sort of contraception is mentioned in the Bible is that one story of Onan. Just once, despite the fact that anthropologist and historians will tell you that women have found ways to prevent pregnancy (crude and ineffective though they were before the pill) since we started using herbs as medicine (that's a long way back.)
>
>The Bible simply doesn't address birth control, it simply isn't interested. Sadly the Church has been obsessed with birth control, for all the wrong reasons, for generations. Namely because a woman who can control when, and how often, she becomes pregnant is a woman who controls her own destiny. She can go to school, she can work, she can stir up all sorts of trouble in the places that men have traditionally held sway. Through careful planning she can better the situation of not only her family, but her community, and those children she does chose to have.
>
>But the real thorn? The whole argument here assumes that there is just one view of contraception among Christians. When there are a great many of us for whom the use of contraception is at its root a theologically essential practice. Here's why:
>
>When we read the Bible, not a single sentence, or chapter, or even book, but the whole library of scripture, we find a story of a wildly fecund Creator who places Creation in the stewardship, the safe keeping, of human kind. God makes a world rich with promise and diversity and loans it to human beings. And when God does so, God demands that we care for it in God's stead. The Biblical term for the role God gives humanity is "steward," a hired hand who takes care of the property of another with more care than if it were her own. After all, I might trash something that belongs to me, but the house my friend asks me to house sit while she's away studying in Germany for a year, I will care for with diligence.
>
>So it is with God and humankind, but God gives humanity into each other's care, as well. Throughout scripture human beings are we over and over again called to care for the land and water, and all the critters; but even more so for each other. Whatever else we might be, we are first and foremost stewards. We are caretakers. Now I don't know if you've looked around recently but we've taken that "be fruitful and multiply" line really seriously. We've multiplied all right, to the point that we've squeezed out millions of other species. We've multiplied to the point that we're in direct competition for survival with the fabulous diversity of flora and fauna we're meant to be caring for, and with each other. Sadly, the competition isn't fair. We're so much better than anything else at the survival game that the board is tilted and everyone but us is slowly sliding off the edge.
>
>Frankly, the world doesn't need to be peopled. We've got that multiply bit down pat, that one sentence from a time when our species survival was still tenuous. But we've pretty solidly failed at our main purpose: stewardship. We spill millions of gallons of oil into fragile marine ecosystems because we just have to have vehicles that also spew pollutants into the air, and plastics that wind up forever in the stomachs of birds and fish and everything else. We clear forests for more and more farm land, we fish and hunt to extinction whatever the taste of the month might be. Our growing population expands further and further into what used to be wilderness and the creatures we find there, we kill, because they are inconvenient. And those of us who feel that deep call to stewardship, to partnership with God as our first command, mourn. It has become the deep religious conviction of many that procreation should be in line with the stewardship of all creation, not at the whim of our lusts
>or of random chance. We take seriously the need to balance our desire with the greater good of all and of our families.
>
>For a steward of this good Earth restricting our procreation is as much an act of religious discipline as fasting, giving alms, or prayer. We chose to have fewer, or no children, that we might give the rest of the world room to breathe, and that we might use our resources to help human beings pushed to the margins. Some who chose to have no children adopt the many, many children in need of parents; this is their stewardship vocation. Some who chose fewer children pour their resources into their local community to raise standards of living for all. Some who chose this role work to undo habitat loss and destruction, we chose to restrict ourselves that the rest of God's creation might also thrive.
>
>And never forget, parenthood itself is the act of a steward. For those who take stewardship seriously it becomes important to chose carefully when and how to bring children into this world, that we might be the best caretakers for them that we can possibly be, for this too is a calling from God. There are many ways to live as a steward, but all of them require discernment and self control. All of them call for a careful examination, and reordering of, our assumptions and choices. Often times the choice to not have children, or to have fewer children is not the selfish choice it is painted by contraception deniers.
>
>Ironically, because we live in a world where money dictates so much of life a ruling that allows companies to deny contraception coverage for their employees actually restricts their employees' ability to practice their own religious convictions. Contraception is expensive, and many, without insurance, simply cannot afford it.
>
>At the end of the day this is not a theological argument for Hobby Lobby at all. If it were they would not stock products made in Chinese factories without safe working conditions and living wages. Hobby Lobby's business practices show pretty clearly that what matters there is not theology, but money. And this ruling is about greed, about finding a way to keep just a little bit more of the immense amounts of money Hobby Lobby's owners have already amassed. How to deny every cent possible to their laborers. That the Bible has quite a bit to say about, and that decision doesn't come out in Hobby Lobby's favor.
>
>Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being." Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for us all.
>
>http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
the obvious.

Beyond that, I've not followed this issue that closely, but from what
I've read it seemed the religious kooks, er, businesses were objecting
to having to provide coverage for only some contraceptives. There wasn't
much detail on this, but it seemed it was "Plan B" and the like that
were at issue. Something about preventing implantation of a fertilized
egg vs. preventing the egg from being there to be fertilized to begin
with.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:39:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
>> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
>> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.
>
>I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>the obvious.

Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!

On 2014-07-01 18:52, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>> I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>> the obvious.
>
> Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
> birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!
>

Abstinence is a perfect form of birth control as long as people actually
remain celibate. People with a normal sex drive do not.

Dave Smith wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>> I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>>> the obvious.
>>
>> Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
>> birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!
>>
>
>Abstinence is a perfect form of birth control as long as people actually
>remain celibate. People with a normal sex drive do not.

You obviously know little to nothing about human sexuality.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:39:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
> >> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
> >> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.
> >
> >I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
> >the obvious.
>
> Bullshit...

Thank you MD Sheldumb. Once again you are entirely incorrect.

On 7/1/2014 12:52 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:39:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
>>> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
>>> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.
>>
>> I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>> the obvious.
>
> Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
> birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!
>

The major problem with this little plan is that it doesn't work. Most
plans to regulate sex do not work. If you want to save a shitload of
money on medical expenses, abortions, and criminal activities in the
long run, just make contraceptives freely available. This will not
happen because we're a nation that still has not come to grips with
human sexuality. You might say that we're ****ed-up in that regard.

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:52:03 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:39:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
>
> >> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
>
> >> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.
>
> >
>
> >I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>
> >the obvious.
>
>
>
> Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
>
> birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!

Someone should hand and ankle cuff you behind your back, then kick
your balls in and cut off your penis with a dull, serrated knife.
Then they could taunt you with it in front of your face while they
let you bleed out. I seriously hope you die, and I hope that it's a
painful, slow death.

Even better, I'd like to see you subjected to a forcible sex change, then be used as a whore for maximum security violent prisoners to reward good behavior. Then they could take you to the women's prison, and let the butches rape you in the ass with a mop handle.

--Bryan

On 7/5/2014 9:32 AM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> Someone should hand and ankle cuff you behind your back, then kick
> your balls in and cut off your penis with a dull, serrated knife.
> Then they could taunt you with it in front of your face while they
> let you bleed out. I seriously hope you die, and I hope that it's a
> painful, slow death.
>
> Even better, I'd like to see you subjected to a forcible sex change, then be used as a whore for maximum security violent prisoners to reward good behavior. Then they could take you to the women's prison, and let the butches rape you in the ass with a mop handle.
>
> --Bryan
>
Thanks for reminding me why I never put my email address out there. (-:

On 2014-07-05 3:32 PM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:

>> Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
>>
>> birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!
>
> Someone should hand and ankle cuff you behind your back, then kick
> your balls in and cut off your penis with a dull, serrated knife.
> Then they could taunt you with it in front of your face while they
> let you bleed out. I seriously hope you die, and I hope that it's a
> painful, slow death.
>
> Even better, I'd like to see you subjected to a forcible sex change, then be used as a whore for maximum security violent prisoners to reward good behavior. Then they could take you to the women's prison, and let the butches rape you in the ass with a mop handle.
>

Wow. You have a very active fantasy life there.

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 3:32:11 PM UTC-4, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:52:03 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:39:16 -0500, "Pete C." >
>
> >
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
>
> >
>
> > >> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
>
> >
>
> > >> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>
> >
>
> > >the obvious.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Bullshit... what are you some kind of creep, if women (or men) want
>
> >
>
> > birth control women can keep their legs closed... costs nothing!
>
>
>
> Someone should hand and ankle cuff you behind your back, then kick
>
> your balls in and cut off your penis with a dull, serrated knife.
>
> Then they could taunt you with it in front of your face while they
>
> let you bleed out. I seriously hope you die, and I hope that it's a
>
> painful, slow death.
>
>
>
> Even better, I'd like to see you subjected to a forcible sex change, then be used as a whore for maximum security violent prisoners to reward good behavior. Then they could take you to the women's prison, and let the butches rape you in the ass with a mop handle.
>
>
>
> --Bryan

Are the bitches getting UPPITTTAAAAAAAAAAAY?! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 4:39:16 PM UTC-5, Pete C. wrote:
> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
>
> > has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
>
> > an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane.
>
>
>
> I'm afraid you're wrong there. OCs do indeed have medical uses beyond
>
> the obvious.
>
>
>
> Beyond that, I've not followed this issue that closely, but from what
>
> I've read it seemed the religious kooks, er, businesses were objecting
>
> to having to provide coverage for only some contraceptives. There wasn't
>
> much detail on this, but it seemed it was "Plan B" and the like that
>
> were at issue. Something about preventing implantation of a fertilized
>
> egg vs. preventing the egg from being there to be fertilized to begin
>
> with.

Sheldon is a piece of shit bigot. He's a male supremacist, homophobic asshole.
Imagine the horror if that sorry excuse for a man had any power over any woman
beyond his wife. I pity that woman, if she even exists, married to a man who
hates any desirable woman that he can't possess, or can't be controlled by
another male. His sexual trip is all about slut shaming, and a man who is
like that can only enjoy sex when he's thinking about rape

--Bryan

On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 19:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW
> wrote:

> Sheldon is a piece of shit bigot. He's a male supremacist, homophobic asshole.
> Imagine the horror if that sorry excuse for a man had any power over any woman
> beyond his wife. I pity that woman, if she even exists, married to a man who
> hates any desirable woman that he can't possess, or can't be controlled by
> another male. His sexual trip is all about slut shaming, and a man who is
> like that can only enjoy sex when he's thinking about rape

Sheldon has already said he has an "ex", which means he's such an
a*hole, his wife couldn't stand him so she left. If he has a sexual
life at all, it's online and I say that because I think he's too cheap
to pay for the real thing.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

sf wrote:
>
> Sheldon has already said he has an "ex", which means he's such an
> a*hole, his wife couldn't stand him so she left. If he has a sexual
> life at all, it's online and I say that because I think he's too cheap
> to pay for the real thing.

Now *that* sounds like you're describing me. hahaha
And ask me if I care. ;-D

G.

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 3:39:45 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Below is a ton of verbage/babble signifing nothing... birth control
>
> has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with medical issues... why it's
>
> an issue of medical insurance is insane/inane. That the grubbermint
>
> wants to be involved with peep's ****ing, especially po' folk ****ing
>
> is ridiculous... birth control is as simple as issuing grubbermint
>
> dildoes, and/or gals holding a dollar bill between their knees... no
>
> side effects either.
>
I'd love to see a video of a butch ******* clubbing you across the face then hand and footcuffing you behind your back, so she could cut off your penis with a serrated knife, and laughinghly taunting you by hitting your face with the thing you'd never have again, while you bled out from your stump.

You call me a faggot, when you're the one who is disgusted by women unless they act like submissive little girls who are only allowed to be sexual for your entertainment. Free women with sexual agency offend you, and like so many other Al Bundys, you are a pathetic joke. The sooner that you join Andy, rotting away in a coffin, the better.

--Bryan

In article >,
ImStillMags > wrote:

> For those who are not in the US, or have been living under a rock, the
> Supreme court ruled today that corporations who claim religious objections to
> birth control may exempt themselves from covering birth control in their
> health insurance plans. I'm not a lawyer, and I won't weigh in on the
> staggering legal ramifications of this decision. But I am a priest, a
> practical theologian, and the theology in this case is just plain bad.
> Obscenely so, and that, I can comment on.

not to mention that Hobby Lobby invested some of it's retirement funds
in companies that sold Birth Control Pills

On 7/1/2014 8:14 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

>
> not to mention that Hobby Lobby invested some of it's retirement funds
> in companies that sold Birth Control Pills
>

I don't think they objected to birth control, but to the morning after
pill as they consider that abortion.

In article >,
Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On 7/1/2014 8:14 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>
> >
> > not to mention that Hobby Lobby invested some of it's retirement funds
> > in companies that sold Birth Control Pills
> >
>
> I don't think they objected to birth control, but to the morning after
> pill as they consider that abortion.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock
holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices
that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out
of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills
Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.


Advertise on MotherJones.com
These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan
B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version
of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds
selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin
E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the
hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena;*AstraZeneca, which has an Indian
subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three
drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes
Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby
Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health
insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and
emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering
Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can
prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus‹a process
the Greens consider abortion. But researchers reject the notion that
emergency contraceptive pills prevent implantation the implantation of a
fertilized egg. Instead, they work by delaying ovulation or making it
harder for sperm to swim to the egg. The Green's contention that the
pills cause abortions is a central pillar of their argument for gutting
the contraception mandate. Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health
insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the
Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that
they dropped these drugs from the plan.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...irement-plan-i
nvested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

ImStillMags wrote:

> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
> us all.
>
> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/

Good for you - I agree with you 100%.

-S-

"Steve Freides" > wrote in message
...
> ImStillMags wrote:
>
>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>> us all.
>>
>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>
> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>
> -S-

Wait, was that ImStillMags writing? If it was, I never knew a cooking priest
before. :-)

cehri

On 7/1/2014 3:23 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "Steve Freides" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>
>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>>> us all.
>>>
>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>>
>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>>
>> -S-
>
> Wait, was that ImStillMags writing? If it was, I never knew a cooking
> priest before. :-)
>
> cehri
>

It was probably plagiarized. It's OK, this is Usenet.

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:36:57 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:


> It was probably plagiarized. It's OK, this is Usenet.


I cited my source.

On 7/1/2014 4:26 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:36:57 PM UTC-7, dsi1 wrote:
>
>
>> It was probably plagiarized. It's OK, this is Usenet.
>
>
> I cited my source.
>

It's none of my business how you choose to post. My guess is most quotes
go without citation anyway. OTOH, most links on Usenet are probably
broken. Once that link to your source breaks - congrats, you've just
become a pretty good writer.

In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

> ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
> > of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
> > contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
> > pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
> > no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
> > Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
> > I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
> > Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
> > their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
> > us all.
> >
> > http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>
> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>
> -S-

I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
co-pay or deductible?

On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article >,
> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>
>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>
>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>>> us all.
>>>
>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>>
>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>>
>> -S-
>
> I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
> is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
> co-pay or deductible?
>

Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only
safely placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.