JoeBob

Moose, I think our basic disagreement is imbedded in our different interpretations of the Catholic church providing insurance to its employees. The Catholics do not want to pay for abortions or contraception. You see it as the church interferring in its employees personal lives. Giving employees insurance that doesn't cover abortion or cantraception is not prohibiting individuals from using those services. They just have to pay for their own contraception. However, forcing Catholic churchs to pay for abortions and contraception IS interfering with church doctrine.

Bunny? Quick! Pass me the twelve gauge! Packsaddle: Not gonna play the hyper-sensitive interracial game. I know that you think I'm a closet bigot. (Pack, have you ever made out with a black lady? Those lips, those lips!) In the mid 1800s was when the first marriage license was issued by the state. You couldn't marry inter-racially UNLESS you had a license. (Here's your opening, Pack) So marriage licenses / state entanglement of marriage has only been around for 162 years. But marriage as a religious institution has been around for tens of thousands of years. (Anybody know how to carbon date Adam & Eve?) Which definition has more credence? Tax benefits from marriage? Last time I checked the rate was HIGHER for married paying jointly than for filing separately. Any accountants know the current scoop? And finally to abortion being required by the state in Catholic hospitals. Put yourself in the mind of a Cathoilc doctor who is ordered to perform an abortion: dread and fear before the procedure, revulsion duing, and overbearing guilt afterwards. He knows that his government has forced him to go to Hell. And his government will continue to make him sin. I wonder if the Doctor can escape this mandate by using the 'cruel and unusual punishment' defense? You know government is chasing it's tail when it both PROHIBITS and MANDATES murder... *** Dang! You don't shoot no Bunny with a slug gun!

Moose: "I don't have a problem with anyone not attending a wedding they find they don't agree with." Oh good! Then we agree that a caterer, florist or photographer DOES have the right to refuse service. Excellent! What were we arguing about? Lemme help you out with a few things that you can legitimately use against Catholics in the future: 1- Only Catholics who have attended recent confession are allowed to take communion. Stingy with the wine and crackers? Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. invite everyone to partake. 2- They believe that the wafer during communion miraculously turns into the body of Christ. Then they eat it. CANNIBALS!

Moose, if it's been the law since 1973, why is it morally repugnant now? Theatrics? Me? Oh my! Defensive much?

A good synopsis of the legal positions: http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/10/nat-6762/ The law since 1973: "In 1973, just months after Roe was decided, Congress passed the Church Amendment, declaring that health-care institutions cannot be required to perform abortions to keep their federal funding. The so-called Weldon Amendment, which has been included in appropriations bills since 2005, says any agency that tries to discriminate against hospitals that dont provide abortions will lose its own federal funds." But now Obamacare Czar Donald Berwick, a controversial recess appointment, in conjunction with the "ACLU is contemplating an action that could eliminate at least 15 percent of the nations hospital beds the proportion provided by Catholic hospitals alone. Its threatening not only to trample the consciences of religious health-care workers and institutions, but to hurt every American through the loss of hospitals, doctors, and nurses who can no longer carry out their ministry of healing." I'm betting on the Catholics on this one. What next? No circumcisions (child mutilation!) for folks of the Jewish faith?

Moose: "Now if the Government was on the Catholics Church door steps forcing them to perform homosexual marriages.. I would be on the side of the Catholic church to say that Government is stepping in where Government should not be.." Since a Catholic hospital should be considered a part of the Catholic church, how is government standing in the hospital demanding that they perform abortion/murder any different? Is murder less important than marriage? Whatever happened to the cherished separation of church and state?

I thought 'pro-choice' meant people having a choice. Now it seems that the tolerant left has defined 'pro-choice' to mean 'doing it our way', or else! "We choose that your Cathollic doctors will perform abortions!" (It is not an abortion issue for me. I am a lonely pro-choice Republican. It's about freedom.) Moose said: "Sorry, business is business.." Business usually involves markets freely picking winners and loosers. Suggesting that Catholic hospitals sell themselves to secular entities in order to escape conflict with government regulation seems like a pretty heinous example of federal interfence in the free market. How are those investments in green energy companies working out? Sell many Volts? I read that they're burning out of the showrooms!! Wanna buy some Solyndra stock? Oh wait. If you paid taxes you already have bought your Solyndra... Sorry - ranting pulled me off track. Moose, where are you gonna find all the non-Catholic healthcare workers needed to staff that 12% of sold hospitals? Bear in mind that Catholics are 22% of the population, and the US is currently facing a doctor shortage. Don't think this is going anywhere? http://kabc.com/Article.asp?id=2383632&spid=38627 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/31/holy-war-over-health-care-law-obama-angers-catholic-leaders/?test=latestnews "Catholics are fired up over new rules implementing Obama's health care reform law forcing Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide insurance for their employees covering contraception -- even though that violates church teachings." And this fuss is just over forcing Catholic businesses to pay for insurance that provides birth control. You think they would allow Catholic doctors to perform abortions? Ain't gonna happen!

So let's close all the Cathlolic hospitals. That's only twelve percent of the healthcare system and 28 of the top 100 hospitals. Doctor shortage? We don't need no stinking Doctors! We've got government healthcare! Oh wait....

I'm a bit taken aback by the stone-throwing in this thread. I realize it's in the politics forum, but there are definitely some skewed judgements being tossed about. Look at it from a Catholic Doctor's point of view: He believes that God breathed a soul into that embryo at conception, really. And many of you are in favor of forcing that doctor, by the power of the government, to murder that soul by performing an abortion. Help me figure out what part of the Scout Law that falls under? I appreciate your tolerance of other points of view....

Moosetracker: has NH ever thought about trying to withhold the seatbelt share of their taxes? Probably not worth the effort. Those of you (Scoutfish, etc.) who respond to a moral argument by answering "It's against the law": Just because it's legal doesn't make it right, and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. When Catholic hospitals stop accepting government money, can they stop accepting non-Catholic patients? Since Catholics comprise 22% of the US population and Catholic hospitals are only 12% of the total hospitals, the hospitals would still stay busy.

If you're making Catholic taxpayers fund government hospitals that provide abortion and contraception, can't you at least be courteous enough to allow the opposite?

Say I'm a business owner. I agree to benefit from an Eagle project. There is a $300 surplus of funds raised. The scout donates that $300 to my business. Now I have to add a different line of income to my accounting (Unless you're a business that regularly gets donations). I have to pay income taxes on the $300. I might even have to pay sales tax, depending on what state I'm in. Is it worth the trouble? Maybe I don't want to 'benefit' from an Eagle project...

Here we have a classic case of Idealist vs. Realist. fred argues idealistically that the council should not be adding requirements so report everything up front. Follow the Scout law (Trustworthy) down to the last letter. And that is a good argument to make. Set a high standard. hicountry argues realistically that the council IS ADDING REQUIREMENTS, so a scout should BE PREPARED to deal with it. Why fight the control freak old fogies? Preparing a scout to deal with the real world is also a good lesson to teach. Real world? If you don't feed your workers, they ain't coming back. A one day Eagle project might get by without food; but don't try that in life!

Snacks for Tigers, Wolves and Bears. Meetings were after school and the boys needed a cooking activity for advancement. Homemade cookies! AS DL I kept bottled water and granola bars on hand in case someone forgot. Weebs meetings took place at different times and usually onsite at whatever activity we were doing, so snacks were no longer a priority.

LisaBob, Tampa Turtle, qwaze; et al: I've got bad news for y'all. You don't own those cats. Those cats own you. shepo1: Is 'Pets' this cat's first merit badge? He needs to train his boy to call earlier...

For a fully involved wedding shoot, the photographer almost becomes one of the family: Sales meeting, first consultation, engagement photo session (sometimes in the couple's favorite location), rehearsal dinner (where the photographer frequently stands in for an absent wedding planner, "Whadda we do!?"), pre-wedding morning shots, steadying the groom, complementing the bride, getting the bride's mom drunk so she'll get out of the way. You get to actually rest during the ceremony and shoot a few available light shots, then it's a whirlwind of family groups where it's a good thing that you've learned everyones' name and can move them around by voice. Then you talk the couple through cutting the cake, first dance, garter removal, bouquet toss, and escape to the honeymoon. Makes me tired writing it all out! So if the photographer was repulsed by the couple, for any reason; I can see it being very difficult for them to work in close proximity and be able to do a good job. But there is absolutely no reason to verbalize your distaste for their form of union to the point that you get sued! There are a myriad of polite excuses you can make. "I'll be up all night Friday shooting stars." "My batteries will be dead." "I'm having my camera cleaned." "I'm booked." "I'm not available." "I'm camping with 85 Cub Scouts. How much cake you gonna have?"

The proposed bill does NOT limit the ability to refuse service to gay/same-sex. The bill allows refusal of service to any couple. Which I find strange. Aren't there a lot more gay florists who might want to refuse service to straight couples? As a photographer, a personal service business, I can refuse service to anyone for any reason. I have never refused a client, but there have been some who smelled bad. Their money was okay. The slippery slope that got my attention a few years back was pharmacists refusing to sell birth control, because they feared it would lead to them being required to sell RU486, and thus participate indirectly in an abortion (murder?).

Heads up for anyone welding on newer model cars: Currents used for welding will fry computer chips! (Even turned off...) Best to detach that trailer hitch before re-attaching the wiring harness...

I got it, but probably because 'Hazelwood' is an unusual name to me easily remembered. I don't know any other Hazelwoods. 'Deep Water Horizon' sounds like a trade name for a vanishing horizon pool feature.

I'd like to see "Are You Tougher Than a Cub Scout?!" Contestants try to survive: Having their eyes glued shut by Tigers. Being tied to a tree with un-named knot creations by Wolves. Getting less than ten minor cuts and none requiring a tourniquet while teaching Bears Whittlin' Chip. Eating the food on a WebI camping trip. - and - Being the target of Arrows of Light!

Agree with others who prefer to feed the troops. But I gotta ask: 25 pizzas will feed 50 to 75 boys. What kind of Eagle project is that?!?

Hey Momof2, You can't help the bad lesson that the rich-kid / engineers's-son learns. But you should not deprive your son of the good lessons and experiences of PWD because of someone else's bad example. Losing to an unfair competitor happens in real life, too; and learning how to deal with it is a valuable experience. And I'm not sure that the boys, especially the younger ones, catch on to the unfair advantage. Unless overly sensitive adults point it out to them...

We're holding an 'Outlaw' division for the first time this year to give the dads an outlet for their desire to tinker with the Cubs' cars. "Any other suggestions or ideas so I can be the coolest kid on the block with my entry?" I ordered a lead brick from an online supplier that roughly fits the width and length. It's 1/4 inch too long, but that's okay as an Outlaw. Since it's a bit heavier than normal, I'm concerned about four wheels holding it up when it hits the bottom of the ramp; so I'm putting six sets of wheels (12) on solid axles underneath it. It'll be wrapped in black glossy paint with yellow spokes on all the wheels, named 'MilliSpeed'. Once it builds momentum, I'm sure it'll knock the backstop down. But with all that inertia sitting still at the starting block, it may be a slow starter. We'll see. Did I mention that it weighs five pounds?(This message has been edited by JoeBob)

Curious: If we help our DE get his bonus, doesn't that also mean that we have to meet higher FOS goals to pay it? Just being nasty...

Recess appointments are in the constitution because congress used to be a part-time job. If an important government vacancy occured during the six months that congress was not in session, a president actually needed to able to fill that vancancy before congress was planning to ride their horses back into DC. You really did know that, right?