Get Outta My Pants!

Isn't the notion odd that someone would dare forbid you the use of contraception?

The Catholic Church is claiming that President Obama's health care plan will force them to purchase and provide insurance that will offer medical features (contraception) which are against their faith. In so doing, this violates their rights to practice their faith.

I thought about this a bit. Maybe the Catholics have a good point. If their leaders think contraception is evil, they shouldn't be forced to purchase it or use it at their own free will.

But for all the ideals that their leadership attempts to unjustly impose, I think they cancel out their own point.

I noticed an organization named Amac who supports the Catholic Church's official stand against ObamaCare. They sent out a message to their members encouraging them to purchase arm bands and where them on certain days in order to vocalize their support of the Church. In that message, they quote and emphasize a potion of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They really hone in on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"-- which is extremely important, I must admit.

But, they seem to overlook the clause that balances out that statement-- which is also extremely important-- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Nope. No religious faith gets any special favors, attention, or exemptions by Congress when laws are made. The laws made shouldn't care what any establishment of religion thinks about them provided the free exercise of faith remain.

But don't get carried away. If the tenants of your faith include world domination, well . . . I don't think the Bill of Rights will cover that one . . .

That's why faith is a private thing . . . just like the inside of my pants.

Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death

On matters of abortion, I have mixed feelings. I get uneasy trying to say that we can draw the line between when an embryo becomes a human life as opposed to when it is not.

From a purely biological and genetic view, an embryo seems to only be a cluster of cells during the very early stages of a pregnancy.

But, for someone who believes in God, the soul, and divine purpose -- that embryo is life right then and there. Even if birth control was employed, but failed in some way.

But also consider the drive for reproduction and how it cause people to make poor choices. Some people are not ready for offspring though they engage in sexual activity. And unfortunately, many people will go to dangerous lengths to terminate a pregnancy.

But for all one's trying to avoid pregnancy, you wonder why people allow such to happen if they didn't really want a child.

So, I understand the complexity of the debate on abortion. This is very difficult to solve.


But, sometimes wanting to preserve life only for the sake of preserving life could be a mistake.

But I'm no longer talking about abortion. Now, I'm talking about euthanasia.


I distinguish euthanasia from suicide only in that one who commits euthanasia is in the painful last stages of a terminal illness or is in a vegetative state. Or, arguably, a person has requested not to be resuscitated should they lose consciousness and the capacity to breath on one's own.

Should the religious beliefs of the living block the free will of people in such circumstances?

Consider the story covered in the following article? When it comes to euthanasia, do we even have a right to be the judge?

Italy Woman Sent to Clinic to Die