The Goat Pen

Obama is not Christian nor is he Muslim. He's agnostic at best. Just look at his tax return. Not one religious donation, not one. This brazen attack on the Catholic church is another example. I'm not saying agnostics shouldn't be President, but don't go around playing the Jesus card when convenient to your political aspirations when you actually have a goal of dereligionizing the nation.

Sad to say, most Catholics and other so called Christians are weak and will fall in line with Oprama due to the fact that most of them are so dependent on government they will have to sell out their beliefs to keep their comforts. America used to be a nation for those desiring of religious, economic, and political freedom. Now, we are a nation of shameless socialists trying desperately to not have to take care of ourselves, but fight the other beggers for handouts.

I just want what's mine....

and part of what's yours..

Sardis, I think a lot of Catholics will go to the mattresses on this. If I were the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, I would announce that, not only will we not comply with this unjust law, we will refuse to pay any fines incurred by our refusing it. Come arrest us, Mr. President. The TV cameras are rolling. Go ahead and be the next Bull Conner in an election year.. Make our day.

This affects Orthodox too. We have seminaries, colleges and hospitals too. This law would require them to dispense free abortafacients like RU 486, which is just as abhorrent to us as it is to the Catholics.

And BTW, Catholic chaplains in the Army were ordered not to read the Bishops' letter.

This is precisely the kind of state interference in the church that our founders were trying to prevent when they separated church and state.

This is precisely the kind of state interference in the church that our founders were trying to prevent when they separated church and state.

I thought it was to not offend athiests.

Professor Tiger wrote:Sardis, I think a lot of Catholics will go to the mattresses on this. If I were the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, I would announce that, not only will we not comply with this unjust law, we will refuse to pay any fines incurred by our refusing it. Come arrest us, Mr. President. The TV cameras are rolling. Go ahead and be the next Bull Conner in an election year.. Make our day.

This affects Orthodox too. We have seminaries, colleges and hospitals too. This law would require them to dispense free abortafacients like RU 486, which is just as abhorrent to us as it is to the Catholics.

And BTW, Catholic chaplains in the Army were ordered not to read the Bishops' letter.

This is precisely the kind of state interference in the church that our founders were trying to prevent when they separated church and state.

Since the vast majority of Catholic women use and want to use birth control pills (and are supported in this by their significant others) and all this says is that if you provide insurance, you must include the coverage of birth control pills (you don't have to provide the birth control yourself), I doubt most Catholics will not consider this a big deal at all. As it turns out, many Catholic institutions are already providing this coverage.

This law would require them to dispense free abortafacients like RU 486, which is just as abhorrent to us as it is to the Catholics.

I don't think it does.

Professor Tiger wrote:Sardis, I think a lot of Catholics will go to the mattresses on this. If I were the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, I would announce that, not only will we not comply with this unjust law, we will refuse to pay any fines incurred by our refusing it. Come arrest us, Mr. President. The TV cameras are rolling. Go ahead and be the next Bull Conner in an election year.. Make our day.

This affects Orthodox too. We have seminaries, colleges and hospitals too. This law would require them to dispense free abortafacients like RU 486, which is just as abhorrent to us as it is to the Catholics.

And BTW, Catholic chaplains in the Army were ordered not to read the Bishops' letter.

This is precisely the kind of state interference in the church that our founders were trying to prevent when they separated church and state.

You'll have a small contingent of practicing Catholics who will give lip service to standing firm, but that is all it will be and they will continue to vote Oprama. The casual Catholic dont really care. If they overwhelmingly supported Oprama knowing the fact that he is Pro Abortion and same sex marriage, why do you think they'll change over this issue.

Pete Hoekstra's Super Bowl commercial...race-baiting? And I feel bad for whatever actress it was they paid to embarrass herself.

[youtube]TkQAalcsg5E[/youtube]

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-supreme-c ... 49511.html

Court says woman with limited English can be kept off ballot
By Mary Slosson | Reuters – 1 hr 21 mins ago

(Reuters) - Arizona's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a city council candidate with limited English language skills can be kept off the ballot in a largely bilingual town on the Mexico border.

A Yuma County Superior Court judge touched off a furor last week when he disqualified Alejandrina Cabrera, 35, from running for city council in the town of San Luis over what he called a "large gap" between her English proficiency and that required to serve as a public official.

In a brief two-page ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court did not give a reason why it sided with the lower court, but said a written decision would follow "in due course."

The controversy has swept San Luis, a sleepy farming town hugging the Arizona-Mexico border, into the incendiary national debate over immigration.

Immigrant rights activists called such language-based restrictions hostile to immigrants, potentially driving a wedge between Latino communities and the rest of American society.

Proponents of enforcing English as the sole language of state government said that the country needs a common tongue to promote national unity. They cite the immigration and assimilation by generations of new Americans.

"In the narrow matter of law, obviously we were right," said Glenn Gimbut, city attorney for San Luis, which brought the suit against her. "But as this has steered into broader political debate, that one is above my pay grade."

San Luis, with a population of roughly 25,000 people, is about 200 miles southwest of Phoenix and lies just over a steel border fence from San Luis Rio Colorado, in Mexico's northern Sonora state, with a population of roughly 200,000.

The two municipalities are considered by many residents as one and the same community.
Cabrera, a U.S. citizen born in Yuma, Arizona, was not immediately available for comment but was expected to issue a statement later on Tuesday, according to Brandon Kinsey, one of her lawyers.

Though Cabrera was born in Yuma, she moved to Mexico when she was young and spent much of her childhood there. She returned to Arizona for the last three years of high school, eventually graduating from Yuma's public Kofa High School.
It was in high school that she met the current town mayor, Juan Carlos Escamilla, who went on to file the lawsuit claiming she has insufficient command of the English language to hold elected office.

Cabrera told Reuters in an interview conducted in English last week that Escamilla is "the Joe Arpaio of San Luis, Arizona," referring to the tough-talking sheriff of Maricopa County who has taken a tough stand against illegal immigration.
Cabrera admitted in the interview with Reuters that she is not completely proficient in English but said she can read it, understand and respond. During the interview she spoke with intensity and passion, but sometimes in the wrong tense, or with the order of words scrambled.

The debate comes as several U.S. states have adopted laws cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Alabama passed a measure considered the nation's toughest in June of 2011 which requires police to detain people they suspect of being in the United States illegally.

Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah have also passed immigration crackdowns since Arizona blazed the trail in 2010 with a law that required police to check the status of all those they arrested and suspected of being in the country illegally. That measure has since been blocked by a court, while at least part of others measures remain in place.
The San Luis City Clerk told Reuters on Tuesday that the printing of ballots for the March 13 primary election was being held until the court decision was announced.
(Addtional reporting by David Schwartz; Editing by Dan Whitcomb, Cynthia Johnston and Greg McCune)

She did it for the money. I guess she got paid, I guess. Why would you "feel" for her?

Cuz she sold her soul for what? Couple thousand at most?

Rick Santorum is kicking ass and taking names tonight

It'll be interesting, especially if Santorum sweeps it tonight. Romney still has the advantage going forward. It'll be interesting to see if he turns the SuperPacs loose against Santorum or whether he decides to show he's the best candidate by putting most of his aim against the President.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Cuz she sold her soul for what? Couple thousand at most?

She's an actress. She's paid to act. sheesh!

What's wrong with free birth control for everybody? Unless you don't like sex.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Pete Hoekstra's Super Bowl commercial...race-baiting? And I feel bad for whatever actress it was they paid to embarrass herself.

[youtube]TkQAalcsg5E[/youtube]

You're right DSL, government should intervene and save that actress from herself...

I could hardly understand what she said anyhow.

sardis wrote:Obama is not Christian nor is he Muslim. He's agnostic at best. Just look at his tax return. Not one religious donation, not one. This brazen attack on the Catholic church is another example. I'm not saying agnostics shouldn't be President, but don't go around playing the Jesus card when convenient to your political aspirations when you actually have a goal of dereligionizing the nation.

Brazen attack on the Catholic church? I thought he was putting into fed law what is already going on in 28 states.

I'm sure I saw somewhere that oprama was a pretty big charitable giver. Especially when compared to somebody like your guy Gingrich. Not sure you want to go down this road..

Owlman wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:Sardis, I think a lot of Catholics will go to the mattresses on this. If I were the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, I would announce that, not only will we not comply with this unjust law, we will refuse to pay any fines incurred by our refusing it. Come arrest us, Mr. President. The TV cameras are rolling. Go ahead and be the next Bull Conner in an election year.. Make our day.

This affects Orthodox too. We have seminaries, colleges and hospitals too. This law would require them to dispense free abortafacients like RU 486, which is just as abhorrent to us as it is to the Catholics.

And BTW, Catholic chaplains in the Army were ordered not to read the Bishops' letter.

This is precisely the kind of state interference in the church that our founders were trying to prevent when they separated church and state.

Since the vast majority of Catholic women use and want to use birth control pills (and are supported in this by their significant others) and all this says is that if you provide insurance, you must include the coverage of birth control pills (you don't have to provide the birth control yourself), I doubt most Catholics will not consider this a big deal at all. As it turns out, many Catholic institutions are already providing this coverage.

This law would require them to dispense free abortafacients like RU 486, which is just as abhorrent to us as it is to the Catholics.

I don't think it does.

So its okay to force them to pay for it as long as they physically don't force the pill down their throat?

And I believe you are very wrong on how strongly many are reacting to this. This is the govt giving the finger to a major religious organization not over policy, but over actual Church teachings.