third_eye, you're the one parsing words and trying to put them in my mouth. Can't stand the truth?

The final refuge, parcing words.

Welcome to the "Divided States of America".....

Third_eye writes -- "Otherwise you are saying that to support conservatism is Un American.
OR maybe you are saying that."

I said no such thing and not even implying that. Did not mention conservatism anywhere in my comments. But I can't stop you from thinking that.

@NVgrf-I'm amazed you can still afford your Internet fees to allow you to post-you still have refused to answer how that economy is out there in the Great state of Nevada-home of Harry Reid-and how is your economy out there-found a job? Bought a house lately????

I see the rightie bozos are out in force here. Go get 'em Mr. President!

It IS politics.
Otherwise you are saying that to support conservatism is Un American.
OR maybe you are saying that.
My opinion is my opinion, what it means to you is up to you.

Third_eye,
When it comes to someone declaring they are out to destroy our contempoarry American way of life and our rule by the majority will, etc,. It's not politics to strongly oppose that view. It's American.

Imagine if someone said, "The Davinci Code" is my personal foundational book and the primary reason why I will be joining the Roman Catholic church. Certainly people have the right to do things for any reason they so choose, but wouldn't you find that person's reasoning a wee little bit out of touch with reality? Politics aside.

Lucky for me, you saying I'm wrong doesn't mean a whole lot.

youkillme Feb 1, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
Quote "I take their comments as huge endorsements for her philosophy and her novels." End Quote
Your wrong in my opinon. The reason you view their comments as endorsements has more to do with your political position than reality.

Mteg -- That point I agree with. HOwever, your attack of people that may not have you body chemistry is misguided. Thats the point. I have had insurance companies THAT do see the value in covering weight loss. Your attack of overweight or obesity is what I was referring to. I fought obesity for 20 years and finally found the formula, but I will gurantee is wasnt the amount of food, nor lack of exercize. It was not cakes and canies or chips. It was carbs in general, I breal down the carbs much more efficiently than others and suffer from the results. No tomoatoes, no potatoes, nothing with carbs -- but it took a doctor with genuine interest to help find that, and not covering the treatment or dictating the treatment covered or not covered is not the answer. I by the way paid for the treatment myself -- should it have been covered. In my opinion -- yes. But it was not, and it was still the right thing to do.

Well, since Ayn Rand's been dead since the 80's I doubt she needs the endorsing.

"All authors put their "personal philosophical doctrine to work" in their fictional novels."

Precisely Third_eye. I'm only repeating Johnson's and Ryan's words. I take their comments as huge endorsements for her philosophy and her novels.

The book is fiction, Objectivism is a real philosophy, with a real following. Aside from the Tea Party, I know that Libaterists follow much of the same beliefs. Main themes would be individual rights, de-regulated governmentental regulation, free economy.

HELLO! All authors put their "personal philosophical doctrine to work" in their fictional novels. Otherwise what's the point?

I've read "Atlas Shrugged". It's a good story about liberalism taken to the extreme. Perhaps Senator Johnson and Congressman Ryan see some value in sharing the story with others. That does not mean, as you say,that they
quote "support the anti-christian doctrine of Ayn Rand." End Quote.

If that were true, I read a lot of books, so I must have a lot of 'doctrine' to attend to.

mteg, but it's fiction, right?

Watch the video below beginning at the 4 minute mark. Ayn Rand puts her personal philosophical doctrine to work in her novel "Atlas Shrugged." Ryan said Ayn Rand is reason why he entered into public office. Johnson and Ryan both promote Rand and her books. They are out to destroy our American comtemporary way of life. You can take that to the bank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_...

If you had read Atlas Shrugged, you'd understand the concepts and how they appeal to the Tea Party regarding less governmental regulation. Ayn Rand Doctrine would be considered Objectivism as a philosophy.

Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson. Ron Johnson called the fictional book, "Atlas Shrugged" his foundation book. Ryan gives out Atlas Shrugged for Christmas presents and said of the author "that's the kind of writing and thinking we need right now."

more for youkillme: Quote "The Catholic Church has no business in politics" End Quote.
Where is the Catholic Church officially involved in politics?

youkillme Feb 1, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
Quote "Republicans who support the anti-christian doctrine of Ayn Rand." End Quote
1- I didn't know Ayn Rand had a doctrine. She is an author of fiction, much like Dan Brown. Does Dan Brown have a doctrine?
2- Name one prominent Republican who supports this so called anti christian doctrine.

Ezoner, I think when tax exempt organizations become politically active, they should have their tax exempt status removed. Simple. The Church is crossing the constitutional divide of church and state - that should come at a price.

Ezoner
My point is, why should the government dictate what a company should require from an insurance provider. Based on your rational, I should be able to use my pre-tax flexible spending dollars at GNC or Elite Fitness as this promotes total body health, thus reducing my future insurance expeditures. The 3 things listed in this article all have no place being imposed on an insurance provider (concreseptives being the exception in the form of birth control pills, nuva ring, etc...). This is a pointless move by Obama geared at nothing more than promoting an outrage by the catholic community.

You kill -- if you remove churches the non-forprofit status -- the same should apply to all non-profit. That as a designation should be removed and all organizations should pay taxes. -- Then watch the economy drop like a rock. You could even get the word depression out.

The Catholic Church has no business in politics but if they should attack anyone, it should be Republicans who support the anti-christian doctrine of Ayn Rand. The Church should have their tax exempt status removed so they could start paying their fair share and join the real world like the rest of us.

Insurance companies are for profit businesses and should be allowed to decide what "products" they offers their customers. Perhaps a forward looking company could advertise it's no contraceptive, no sterilization, no abortion policy. If those views are shared by so many, the company could be VERY profitable. Then ALL would have service providers from whom they could purchase the product they most wanted for themselves

mteg -- Apparenty you are the reason why. Anyone ignorant enough to blame ALL obese people for the weight issues shows a level of ignorance beyond any ability to correct. It also shows a complete and totally lack of logic that is proven to provide a better quality of life and lower long term healthcare (and therefore insurance costs) once the weight is taken off. It is not only amount in/out and exercize. It is our diet and lifestyles, and I do not mean that we need more gym time. The foods we eat are full of chemicals and there is no way to determine the effects on all humans and how those chemicals affect absorbtion etc. Our lifestyles for work and pleasure have become so sendentary, that a few hrs at a gym does not solve the problem and each person processes food differently. For me -- I can basically have no carbs. For others, they can eat a box of donuts everyday and have no impact. We both have the same activity schedule. So its not only the individual, its the food composition, lifestyles and bodies that all act differently. So take your arrogant comments and *(&(&*( it.

"pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients." Taking the religious protion out, what if Catholic orginzations choose to go thru an insurance provider that does not include these in their plan, much like paying for smoking cessation programs, weight loss management, etc... This is about as dumb as passing a bill that states insurnace companies have to pay for gastric bipass, lap band, and lipo for people whoare too lazy to get on the treadmill and too undisciplined to put the fork down. In fact, I'm not sure my insurance provider pays for any of what Obama is dictating to Catholic orginizations.

dustyd Feb 1, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. Thus we have the essence of the your argument, nanny-state government.

Most reproductive issues (for those who oppose them) are based on religious beliefs. That is their right in this country. It is not however (or at least shouldn't be) a political issue. Perhaps a funding issue, but not laws passed to impose religious beliefs upon those who's beliefs differ

Catholic hospitals and health care facilities are not religious entities. They serve anyone regardless of their religion, and the people employed by these organizations do not have to be Catholics. There is an exemption in this rule for strictly religious entities. Non-Catholic employees of Catholic health organizations deserve normal coverage of contraceptives IF THAT'S WHAT THEY CHOOSE. This is being spun as an anti-Obama thing by those that love to hate him.

dustyd, have you ever studied "sharia law" You might as well say that we should include Nazism as a religion and allow the segregating and destruction of a specific race. Christianity is a religion, Islam and "Sharia Law" are political views entwined in religion. This is an attempt to overthrow a religion by mandating a decline in morality. For those who are atheists, this is no different than someone legislating that every kid must partake in communion wine before getting vaccinated. Same change in morality, same health care effect. Stupid and Evil.

dustyd: Sharia law is the very entanglement of government and religion.
The rest of your examples are clearly against existing law and would not be accepted by a civilized society
Contraception on the other hand poses no threat to life or liberty based on it's availability.
The 'war on religion' part is the government mandating a practice on a religious entity, Not a religious entity demanding that a practice be accepted.

My understanding is that a great many misguided religious conservatives want to ban so-called "sharia law" from being practiced in the United States. Wouldn't that clearly be a war on those whose religious beliefs favor sharia law? If another religious sect called for female circumcision, would a law banning this grotesque and disfiguring practice be considered a war on their religious beliefs? What about Christian fundamentalists that believe severe beatings are the best way to punish children? Would a law protecting children from this cruel and heartbreaking practice be a war on their religion? The law is intended to govern relationships between people in a manner that promotes the general health, welfare and safety of its citizens without considering religion. With this rule, no persons will be required to use birth control, which in addition to wise family planning has a role in preventing pregnancy where pregnancy or childbirth may present life-threatening health issues for mother or baby. But, people who aren't opposed to contraception but happen to be covered by insurance plans associated with the Catholic church will enjoy the standard benefit of prescription contraceptive coverage. Hardly a "war on religion."

Stubby makes some great points.
.
The Catholic Church long ago learned the lessons of history regarding entanglements with the government. For the most part the Church avoids confrontation or conflict with the government,
"Render on to Ceasar what is Ceasers".
I'm puzzled by the actions of the Obama administration. Is this a good time to pick a fight with Catholics, and by extension Christians? Do they not know a big election is coming up?
Over the past few years the liberals have been telling us what the Bible says. Telling us that Jesus promoted socialism and big government.
Christians know better and by throwing down the gauntlet the liberal left may find a new meaning in the term 'Bible thumping'.

The concern I have is that it is government requiring a religious group to do something that violates its beliefs. Perhaps this time they aren't your beliefs that are being legislated, but next time it might be.... If the Catholic Church wants to believe that contraception is immoral, then requiring them to provide contraceptives is an attack on their faith. They aren't tying to make non-Catholics abide by their views, so we should respect their right to live by their own standards, that, by the way, don't hurt anyone. If you disagree, then don't be a Catholic, or don't work for a Catholic entity.

----

Can you imagine the outcry if it was legislated that Muslims and Jews must serve pork at their facilities?

Aren't we engaged in several wars that religion has declared on secular societies?
How about an opposiing view article about the encroachment of theocratic agendas into politics?

You're sooooo right, Prounion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is so passé, to say nothing of inconvenient for the modern age. But you'd best explain it's obsolescence to your buddy Gazettefan. He's still suffering under the delusion that it's just as applicable for today as it was way back then, even if it does predate the bible.

If only god would do something, oh yeah - he is imaginary. The morality of Bronze age man should not provide one's moral compass.

But its real cause I know it! Nope.

It is only a war on Christians.

The article titled "War on Religion" is just an attempt by Gerson to sell his column. It's more like a war on reproductive rights sponsored by Catholics. Those on the right certainly know how to "sensationalize" an issue.

The Catholic Church has a great deal of responsibility for the the situation it finds itself in. I admire the consistent stand for family values. I do not admire the consistent stands in favor of socialist economics taken by the church. Did the church really believe that conflicts wouldn't arise? When you mix politics and religion, politics will always win. It makes no difference if it is the religious right or the religious left.

The last three paragraphs said it all.Politics should not even be involved here. If you want an abortion and your so called religion prohibits it, change your beliefs. You do not belong in a church,sic, if it does not reflect your life.

A lame comment for a lame article about a lame action from a lame president

WOW mteg you just fell off the turnip truck huh??

What can one expect from an Islamic President

War on Religion?? WOW talk about Hyperbole!!! What a joke!!

Good. I fully applaud Obama on this. Furthermore, I believe that churches should lose their tax exempt status all together. There is nothing in the Constitution that declares church and religion as tax exempt. If they want a "christian nation", by golly let them pay taxes. That, or I'll declare my house a church, create a religion out of nothing and apply for tax exemptions. Seems legit.

It's not even about women's right to choose. It is about a church-run organization being able to choose what services they will and will not provide. There are many other places a woman can go to get these services. It's like telling a Ford dealership they are being discriminatory because they do not sell GM and Chrysler vehicles.

You don't spend 20 years in a radical, hate America filled church without coming out unfazed.

It is about time someone declared war on religion. Why would a women not want access to contraceptives. It is a womens choice not the churches and not government.

Evil... Only one word to describe that man.