Comments for Camels With Hammers

Comment on The Catholic Church Wants Women Pregnant Against Their Wills by Daniel Fincke

Daniel Fincke — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:50:45 +0000

I was just riffing on that tradition, a little ruefully.

Comment on The Catholic Church Wants Women Pregnant Against Their Wills by barbarapalaith-newson

barbarapalaith-newson — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:15:13 +0000

My best explanation would be that the Church is sometimes called the Family of God.
This is why the Church is our mother. Jesus won our salvation for us not by persuading an otherwise disinclined God that he really should forgive us, but by putting us in contact with the non-competitive God who is already loving and forgiving us, who already accepts us no matter what our moral state.

You have the Trinity which would include Father, son and Holy Ghost. Following would be Blessed Virgin..who gave birth to Jesus with the Immaculate Conception. Jesus and the twelve disciples began what we know as the Roman Catholic Church today. Accordingly, St.Peter became the “rock” upon which this Church was born. So Jesus, in dying for us gave us salvation via his birth to Mary, also known as Mother of God.

Comment on The Catholic Church Wants Women Pregnant Against Their Wills by Jesse

Jesse — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:06:18 +0000

Now you know why the Obama administration — and IANAL – might have left this open to legal challenge.

But I say MIGHT. Because in the US, the employer owns you. Really, they do. There is precious little that they cannot fire you for. The whole point about compensation you made just may not apply here. An employer could tell you to give a blowjob or be fired and that isn’t even a criminal act.

The rights a US employee has and the control an employer has would be considered barbaric in every other western democracy. Oh, you can file lawsuits for certain abuses, but how many people have the time and money for that? SO think of it this way: when you get a job the minute you go to work you have no human rights whatsoever.

That said, this may actually conflict with the health care law as written. So there’s that, and it will be an interesting discrimination case if the Church gets a health plan that doesn’t cover something vital. In fact, I could see the first suits actually coming against say, the Christian Science organization.

Comment on The Catholic Church Wants Women Pregnant Against Their Wills by Forbidden Snowflake

Forbidden Snowflake — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:56:17 +0000

Can I ask a somewhat off-topic question? What’s with calling the Catholic Church “she”? I’ve seen Catholics do it, but I don’t know why that is, and this essay is the first time I’ve seen a non-Catholic do it.

Comment on Dad Shoots Laptop by Woof

Woof — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:35:42 +0000

Additional things in the video not previously (AFAICT) mentioned:

[1] There’s a stepmother involved. Always a complication.

[2] There’s what appears to be off-the-books (undocumented?) domestic help, who works for unspecified considerations. Hmmm.

Comment on Andrew Breitbart vs. Occupy Protesters Outside CPAC by Cafeeine

Cafeeine — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:25:14 +0000

if you take into account the differenc in numbers that makes Breitbart downright terrifying.

Comment on Andrew Breitbart vs. Occupy Protesters Outside CPAC by Cafeeine

Cafeeine — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:23:55 +0000

Im more interested with the ‘stop raping people’.

Comment on Andrew Breitbart vs. Occupy Protesters Outside CPAC by Brandon

Brandon — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:22:03 +0000

That’s a pretty amazing level of idiotic tribalism on display. Who does that with such a complete lack of introspection? I can’t imagine being on either side of that shout fest, seeing the video, and feeling good about myself.

Comment on Dad Shoots Laptop by Woof

Woof — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:21:09 +0000

He posted it on her Facebook wall… specifically so her friends could see it. (Here, let me shove a little salt into that wound…)

Comment on The Catholic Church Wants Women Pregnant Against Their Wills by George W.

George W. — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:00:00 +0000

Why, then, are we having this discussion? If the Obama administration wants to set minimum standards for insurance coverage, and an employer doesn’t agree with those standards, can’t they just opt to not offer group insurance all? Can’t they pay “lieu benefits”?

Why doesn’t the Obama administration change minimum wage laws to include minimum health insurance or a lieu payment equal to the market rate for a similar plan?

The better question is why they didn’t move forward with nationalized healthcare to begin with.

At the end of the day, it is still my understanding that health insurance, when offered to an employee,is part of their compensation package- and therefor is their money. If minimum standards exist such that family planning is covered, then that is between the person whose money pays the premium (the employee) and the underwriter.
An employer dictating what parts of the minimum standard can and can’t be accessed with an employees premium seems as absurd as an employer paying a wage on condition that you don’t use it to travel on vacation to the Caribbean.