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