There is no limitation on free religious practice by stating that secular employment laws apply to non-church businesses.

Yes there is. There’s a giant crystal clear conflict. You don’t even have a cogent counterargument. You’re simply declaring that the conflict is not a conflict.

At least Jack had the intellectual honesty to admit that he doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the church’s concerns, that he thinks the alleged right of all workers to subsidized birth control should supercede or over-ride the church’s right to free practice.

Clearly, you believe the same thing. You think that the church loses its long-established right to free practice as soon as their chosen religiously-based practices infringe on this new right (I would say alleged or “not yet firmly established” right) of Americans to have healthcare that includes birth control.

What I am asking is this: “why does the church lose its free practice rights in the face of these new rights? Under what principle does the church lose and people who want birth coverage win? I’m just waiting for someone to explain that principle. So far, all Jack has come up with is “it’s the law.” So is the constitutional guarantee of free religious practice. Enunciate the tiebreaking principle.

I am a big advocate of the basic idea that one entity’s rights necessarily begin to fade as they start to infringe on anothers. As a nation, we have a responsibility to carefully negotiate such infringements and conflicts. This would seem to be especially true when one of the conflicting rights is a brand new one.

Now, in this case, we have on one hand a long established right to free religious practice. On the other hand, we have a brand new and apparently not-so-well examined new right to birth control as part of healthcare coverage. Whenever we discover that some new right creates an infringement with a previously existing right, we have a responsiblity to re-think and carefully examine the underlying nature of both rights.

I just don’t have so much respect for the idea that free religious practice is NOT being proscribed here. It clearly is. Denying that conflict is an attempt to do an end run around our responsibility to resolve that conflict.

There is no limitation on free religious practice by stating that secular employment laws apply to non-church businesses.

Yes there is. There’s a giant crystal clear conflict. You don’t even have a cogent counterargument. You’re simply declaring that the conflict is not a conflict.

At least Jack had the intellectual honesty to admit that he doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the church’s concerns, that he thinks the alleged right of all workers to subsidized birth control should supercede or over-ride the church’s right to free practice.

Clearly, you believe the same thing. You think that the church loses its long-established right to free practice when that their chosen practices infringe on this new right (I would say alleged or “not yet firmly established” right) of Americans to have healthcare that includes birth control.

What I am asking is this: “why does the church lose its free practice rights in the face of these new rights? Under what principle does the church lose and people who want birth coverage win? I’m just waiting for someone to explain that principle. So far, all Jack has come up with is “it’s the law.”

The fundamental dynamic IMO is that there’s a perennial alliance between the pro-business set and the party establishment. Notice also that some pro-business conservatives are not even necessarily fiscally conservative. Within the establishment, there’s an element that’s just not troubled by crony capitalism, they can’t even see it. For these folks, it’s not about political principle, its about costs and benefits.

The current lock in of the probiz-establishment alliance means that the other subsets are perenially resentful and see themselves as more highly principled.

I try to envision a figure that could transcend those schisms. My conclusion is that if such a figure exists, he or she would be a rare, once in a generation figure (like I think Obama was in 2008). In other words, i come back to thinking that current field is not particularly weak, but normal or average. The sort of figure best suited to be that transcendent figure would really be someone along the lines of Rick Perry. He has the pro-business bonafides of governing a conservative, low-reg, high growth state, and a solid reputation of being pleasingly conservative socially. Perry failed despite those strengths because he just doesn’t have major league political acumen.

But even if you do buy into it, I think I think the field of candidates is better understood as an effect, not as a cause. In other words, what we are seeing in the Republican primaries is not well explained by the quality of the candidates. It’s much better explained by the divisions within the Republican party about which aspects of their doctrine are most important, and even what ways various doctrines ought to manifest.

The 3 legs of the stool are social conservatives, libertarians, and pro-business conservatives. Where the tea party fits in there is another question. It seems to comprise party dissidents from all three groups. Right now, we can associate each of the remaining candidates with a different group. Romney is the probusiness conservative who has found favor with powerful party insiders. Paul is the libertarian darling. Santorum is the socon darling. And Gingrich is the dissident who would be king, who thinks he understands conservatism better than those in charge of the party, and draws support from those dissatisfied with the establishment republicanism.

It’s a remarkably good fit.

This maybe ought to be a thread of it’s own.

But we’re not talking about “everyday folks,” we’re talking about Republican base voters, who are all that matter right now. And for them, the full picture of Rick Santorum is a pretty one. His talk the evils of birth control and secularism, as well as Satan, is right in their wheelhouse.

And Jess is right. The Republican Party truly deserves Rick’s Santorum.

The majority of the party continues to HATE Mitt Romney’s guts, for a variety of reasons, and there’s enough evidence to suggest that his nomination would depress GOP base turnout, regardless of how much they hate Barack Obama.

They’re emotionally-bound to the “lesser evil” canard, and as a result will not enthusiastically embrace Mitt Romney as they did George W. Bush — who just barely won reelection eight years ago when there were a lot more self-identified social conservatives.

If Mitt loses Michigan, he’s SCREWED. The money picture is not looking good, either. His spending is far outstripping his fundraising, and he can’t go back to his wealthy donor base, either, because they’re statutorily maxed out. It’s no wonder he wants to get rid of campaign finance reform laws. His only problem with Citizens United is that it doesn’t allow his campaign to get unlimited dark money contributions.

If Santorum can win Michigan, force Romney to spend a lot on Super Tuesday, and blunt Newt’s performance in the South, he’ll be well-positioned to consolidate his front-running status and all but ensure that there’s going to be some sort of “arrangement” leading to the convention. If Newt drops out and endorses Santorum just to stick it to Romney, then it’s his to lose.

A Santorum nomination is the best thing for this country, as his assured loss to Barack Obama will finally cause the GOP to come to a reckoning. The crazies will have had their guy, and he’ll have been beaten. If it’s Mitt, and he also loses, they’ll just say ‘we nominated a loser moderate again’ and simple double down on the crazy.

And because the modern Republican Party is the predominant source of what’s ailing our politics and hampering our government’s function, its dissolution will be to the long-term benefit of the United States, much like the collapse and division of the Whig Party was in the 1850s.

There is no “war on women” there is an opposition to abortion that they see as murder plain and simple. Well there is a reason that most Americans disapprove of abortion and even many of those saying that they support the right to it insist that they themselves wouldn’t use it. Being opposed to legally allowing this practice that most Americans say they don’t want to participate in and that often brings a sense of revulsion is not a war on women.

Everyone who is pro-life has a moral responsibility to acknowledge that they support giving the government the power to force a woman to have a baby if they become pregnant.

Does this constitute a “war against women?” Let’s ask women. They’d be the ones best suited to make this judgement. You know, since they’d be the ones being forced down a particular path.

It’s fine to object to certain rhetoric, Leonidas. But IMo it’s not fine to obscure the very specific ramifications of a policy position. Being against abortion isn’t plain and simple. If it’s criminalized, then we’re giving the government power to force a particular action. Moreover, the basis for this change is demonstrably, objectively not just moral, but also religious.

For another, those polls can’t account for “likely voters” as they will be in November. That profile changes based on the final identity of the candidates come November. If Santorum were to somehow win the nomination, that brings into play many otherwise unlikely voters who would flock to polls to vote for “not this religious zealot.”

Does Santorum also up the “enthusiastic evangelical” vote? Undoubtedly, but by how much? Remember, the socon base has been highly motivated against Obama from the get-go. Given this, how much more does Santorum move that particular needle? Not that much, IMO.

Public opinion of Santorum has been shifting because he’s a lesser- known quantity compared to Romney. The public opinion of Romney is pretty stable. With Santorum it’s volatile. And IMO it’s very likely to take a substantial downturn as he continues to be more fully defined both by himself and by opponents.

I am quite confident that as a full picture of Santorum emerges in the minds of everyday folks who don’t follow politics as closely as me, he will fade.

Religion when mixed into politics is no longer religion, it becomes a tool. For someone like Santorum, there is a reasonable chance he is motivated by Maslow’s 4th stage of self-actualization. Under the influence of his right wing catholic background, becoming the biggest father figure of them all would be hard for him to turn down. I just wonder whether he ever considers that his supporters could care less about “father Rick” and are more interested in the dollars or concessions that will be thrown their way?

JFK did say it well…

I don’t think that’s what Jack said. There is no limitation on free religious practice by stating that secular employment laws apply to non-church businesses.

When a church runs an affiliated business, like a hospital or university, it should be required to follow laws that apply to other businesses and those employees should not somehow be excluded from laws or rights that other employees are accorded under law.

Catholic Charities, for instance, is a public benefit non-profit that receives a ton of government funds, grants from cities, counties, state and fed government. To take government funds, but then claim employees should be treated as though they are direct employees of the church, rather than employees of a public benefit nonprofit that is not actually church funded seems quite hypocritical. If churches want to exempt employees of affiliated business or organizations from secular laws, they should run them under the auspices of the church, fund those organizations and stop taking taxpayer funds. They’re trying to have it both ways.

Cranky Critter: “The fact that we pay should be all the more reason to be careful about which things we should include or not include as part of our guaranteed coverage. I don’t see why birth control should be guaranteed free. For one, it incentivizes producers to create more expensive forms of it. It also requires all those who don’t need it or want it to subsidize the cost for those who want it.”

Medical insurance covers thousands of things others don’t need or want., thus all of us subsidize medical treatment we will never use ALWAYS. Why are we singling out birth control? I don’t want or need Viagra or a vasectomy; both are covered by insurance. Why is there no similar hue and cry about those two?

We’re all subsidizing stomach stapling and gastric bypasses and only a tiny percentage of people will actually have the procedure. So, again, why the hue and cry about birth control and no other ?

I do agree that birth control should not be provided free (and I’m not clear if it is required to be free or not; conflicting reports on that). Birth control (oral contraceptives) should be available at the same co-pay amount as other insured prescriptions covered under a health care plan. If generic Viagra costs $10, generic oral contraceptives should cost $10. If Viagra is free, birth control should be free.

Again, for me, this ongoing dialogue illuminates the insanity of our delivery of healthcare in this country. Our access to healthcare treatments and procedures, and how lousy or comprehensive or insurance plan will be, should not be dependent upon who our employer is.

My personal opinion is that your own voting heuristic should vary depending on your state. The more “up for grabs” your state is, the stronger the argument for the “lesser of two evils” [LOTE] heuristic that Sol despises.

The less your state is up for the grabs, the better the case for casting a vote that shows up as a registration of rejection of the existing parties. Walker perhaps would be a good vehicle for that. Should Ron Paul win the nom, I don’t think he makes a good vehicle.

Here in MA, Obama will carry the state. It’s over here. The only way I can cast a vote that’s “visible” is if I’m one of say 5% or more who cast a vote that says “neither of these two.”

It’s entirely possible that Egypt’s answer would be “without continued funding the United States will no longer be eligible for the benefits they have been enjoying from the powerful people who benefit from how that money’s spent. They might also say that can’t guarantee the safety of various Americans working in Egypt on any number of humanitarian and spook projects.

Here’s the thing Sol. You might be right that it’s as simple and above board as you suggest with this simple straightforward approach. But if lots of what we call “foreign aid” really purchases things we value highly, then the dynamic is fundamentally different than you suggest.

Unless you work for the CIA or the dep’t of homeland security, you should be willing to concede this possibility.

If your premise is correct, I don’t have a problem with the reasoning that follows. If your premise isn’t correct, then the reasoning doesn’t matter.

You don’t have the information to be sure your premise is correct, and neither do I.

David Walker is a good fit, but if he is chosen it would likely make Obama’s re-election easier. I don’t think Walker could place above 3rd place and he would take away fiscal conservatives who would more likely vote against Obama.

I do think he’d be better as president than anyone the Dems or the GOP will field, but I wont vote for him unless he can show a real chance of winning and not just being a spoiler to anyone who goes up against Obama.

He would make a great running mate for Mitt Romney though. Yes he was once a democrat but switched over to the GOP after 1976 because of democratic fiscal policy.

Look for articles by a woman named Kathy Kattenburg, you’d probably like her writings.