DAVID GREEN, who built a family picture-framing business into a 42-state chain of arts and crafts stores, prides himself on being the model of a conscientious Christian capitalist. His 525 Hobby Lobby stores forsake Sunday profits to give employees their biblical day of rest. The company donates to Christian counseling services and buys holiday ads that promote the faith in all its markets. Hobby Lobby has been known to stick decals over Botticelli’s naked Venus in art books it sells.

And the company’s in-house health insurance does not cover morning-after contraceptives, which Green, like many of his fellow evangelical Christians, regards as chemical abortions. “We’re Christians,” he says, “and we run our business on Christian principles.”

--snip--

The Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare, requires that companies with more than 50 full-time employees offer health insurance, including coverage for birth control. Churches and other purely religious organizations are exempt. The Obama administration, in an unrequited search for compromise, has also proposed to excuse nonprofit organizations such as hospitals and universities if they are affiliated with religions that preach the evil of contraception. You might ask why a clerk at Notre Dame or an orderly at a Catholic hospital should be denied the same birth control coverage provided to employees of secular institutions. You might ask why institutions that insist they are like everyone else when it comes to applying for federal grants get away with being special when it comes to federal health law. Good questions. You will find the unsatisfying answers in the Obama handbook of political expediency.

But these concessions are not enough to satisfy the religious lobbies. Evangelicals and Catholics, cheered on by anti-abortion groups and conservative Obamacare-haters, now want the First Amendment freedom of religion to be stretched to cover an array of for-profit commercial ventures, Hobby Lobby being the largest litigant. They are suing to be exempted on the grounds that corporations sometimes embody the faith of the individuals who own them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/keller-the-conscience-of-a-corporation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

DAVID GREEN, who built a family picture-framing business into a 42-state chain of arts and crafts stores, prides himself on being the model of a conscientious Christian capitalist. His 525 Hobby Lobby stores forsake Sunday profits to give employees their biblical day of rest. The company donates to Christian counseling services and buys holiday ads that promote the faith in all its markets. Hobby Lobby has been known to stick decals over Botticelli’s naked Venus in art books it sells.

And the company’s in-house health insurance does not cover morning-after contraceptives, which Green, like many of his fellow evangelical Christians, regards as chemical abortions. “We’re Christians,” he says, “and we run our business on Christian principles.”

--snip--

The Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare, requires that companies with more than 50 full-time employees offer health insurance, including coverage for birth control. Churches and other purely religious organizations are exempt. The Obama administration, in an unrequited search for compromise, has also proposed to excuse nonprofit organizations such as hospitals and universities if they are affiliated with religions that preach the evil of contraception. You might ask why a clerk at Notre Dame or an orderly at a Catholic hospital should be denied the same birth control coverage provided to employees of secular institutions. You might ask why institutions that insist they are like everyone else when it comes to applying for federal grants get away with being special when it comes to federal health law. Good questions. You will find the unsatisfying answers in the Obama handbook of political expediency.

But these concessions are not enough to satisfy the religious lobbies. Evangelicals and Catholics, cheered on by anti-abortion groups and conservative Obamacare-haters, now want the First Amendment freedom of religion to be stretched to cover an array of for-profit commercial ventures, Hobby Lobby being the largest litigant. They are suing to be exempted on the grounds that corporations sometimes embody the faith of the individuals who own them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/keller-the-conscience-of-a-corporation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Vatican tries to create distance from row over Muslim Demographics video

The Vatican has distanced itself from a row over Muslim immigrants in Europe triggered by the showing at a synod of a video that claims "Europe as we know it will cease to exist."

Cardinal Peter Turkson, the president of the Vatican's council for justice and peace – and seen as a possible future pope – played the disputed video in a discussion period on Saturday during a synod attended by 262 bishops from across the world.

Entitled Muslim Demographics, and viewed more than 13m times on YouTube since its release in 2009, the seven-minute long video claims Muslim immigration and higher birth rates means France will become "an Islamic republic" within 39 years.

But many of the statistics used have been shown to be false or unproven, including a claim that French Muslim families have 8.1 children on average, and that 25% of Belgians are Muslims – the true figure is 6%. A German government official is falsely quoted as saying Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/16/vatican-distance-muslim-demographics-video

According to PolicyMic, in 2009, Cardinal Turkson reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s social teaching on contraception, in regards to statements made by Pope Benedict XVI that condoms were not a solution to Africa’s AIDS crisis.

Cardinal Turkson did not rule out condoms in all circumstances and suggested they could be useful in the situation of a married, faithful couple where one partner is infected.

Commenting to the US Catholic publication in August 2010, on the attitudes of African church leaders towards homosexuality, Cardinal Turkson appealed for a more nuanced interpretation by western observers. He said: “Just as I hesitate to speak globally about Africa, as if it were one and the same, we also need to be careful about generalising about Western values. In Africa just as in the rest of the world, culture is changing, lifestyles are changing.

--snip--

However, it’s also claimed that Cardinal Turkson has defended Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/11/analysis-could-the-next-pope-be-black-and-gay-friendly/

ALLAHABAD, Uttar Pradesh — As many as 30 people were killed Sunday in a stampede at a train station here as millions gathered for a Hindu religious festival.

The stampede erupted on a platform of the main railway station in Allahabad as religious pilgrims passed through it on their way to the festival, Kumbh Mela on the banks of the Ganges River. Sunday was one of the busiest days of the 55-day festival; 30 million people were expected to take a dip in the Ganges River to cleanse themselves of sin.

About 30 bodies, covered in blue sheets and pieces of cloth, were visible on the train platform on Sunday evening. Several appeared to be children. The stampede was set off by railway delays, shoddy infrastructure and overcrowding, several witnesses said. Train services were severely delayed during the early evening, witnesses said, leaving growing numbers of passengers stranded in the small station.

The police initially said that panic spread after a railing broke on a footbridge over the tracks in the Allahabad station, sending a few people tumbling to their deaths. The tightly packed crowds rushed to get off the footbridge, and others were trampled. They later retracted this statement and attributed it to a rush on the steps leading to one of the platforms.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/more-than-two-dozen-killed-in-kumbh-mela-stampede/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimesworld

In order to help pay for a $660 million settlement for the victims of molestation by Catholic priests, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles moved $115 million from the fund for cemetery maintenance, reported the Los Angeles Times.

The money in the cemetery fund comes from the families of those buried by the church or kept in church mausoleums — families who “have contributed to a dedicated account for the perpetual care of graves, crypts and grounds since the 1890s,” reported the LAT. Those families were not notified that 88 percent of the fund was being used for the settlements, and the church did not mention the funding source in public statements.

The archdiocese told the paper in a statement that the decision did not effect cemetery operations, apparently since the fund will not be needed until after 2200, when the cemeteries are at full capacity. Presently, daily maintenance is paid for with separate cemetery sales revenue.

Mary Dispenza, who received a settlement in 2006 after being molested by her priest in the 1940s, criticized the decision by telling the LAT, “I think in a way they took it from people who had no voice: the dead. They can’t react, they can’t respond.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/10/la-archdiocese-used-cemetery-funds-to-pay-for-abuse-settlements/

Posted an ex-gay conversion story with parts about homosexuality being a sin edited out. When called on it, did not see anything wrong with the article. http://www.democraticunderground.com/121868411 Deleted posts on DU2 include other intolerant statements, including this gem: "One may oppose interracial marriage for cultural or religious reasons. I am not defending this only pointing out that being opposed to interracial marriage does not automatically make you a racist. Regarding opposition to gay marriage. It is quite easy to make a legitimate argument that opposing it, is based on principles, not homophobia."

Feb 10, 2013 Homophobic comments.

The opposition to LGBT rights in general, and to same-sex marriage in particular, overwhelmingly comes from conservative religion, founded in the religious belief that gay sex makes baby Jesus cry. So if same-sex marriage proponents want to persuade religious believers to support same-sex marriage... how can we do that? Should we keep our argument entirely secular, and stay away from the whole question of religious belief? Or should we try to persuade them that God is on our side?

Lots of people make the second argument. Bishop Gene Robinson is one of them. And Bishop Robinson is a man to be taken seriously. The first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Bishop Robinson has been active in progressive political activism for many years: he is a fellow at the Center for American Progress, is co-author of three AIDS education curricula for youth and adults, has done AIDS work in the United States and in Africa, and famously delivered the invocation at President Obama's opening inaugural ceremonies in 2009. He's recently written a book, published by Knopf and widely reviewed and well-received: God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage. Aimed at religious believers who oppose same-sex marriage or are on the fence about it, the book makes a Christian case for same-sex marriage: "a commonsense, reasoned, religious argument made by someone who holds the religious text of the Bible to be holy and sacred and the ensuing two millennia of church history to be relevant to the discussion."

And I think this is a terrible, terrible idea.

--snip--

But the argument he makes in his new book, God Believes in Love, disturbs me greatly. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that God, or any sort of religious or spiritual belief, should have anything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that any decision about politics, law, public policy, or morality should ever be based on what's supposedly going on in God's head. I agree completely with Bishop Robinson's conclusion about same-sex marriage -- but I am passionately opposed to the method by which he's reached it, and the arguments he's making to advance it.

--snip--

But my problem is not, "God doesn't exist, therefore 'what God wants' is a ridiculous thing to worry about." My problem is this: When we base our political/legal/moral decisions on what we think God wants, we have no way of knowing if we're right. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, we have no basis for resolving our differences. Religion is based on faith -- and faith, by definition, is uniquely resistant to evidence. Even at its best, faith ultimately comes down to, "I feel it in my heart." And if someone else feels something entirely different in their heart about God's intentions, we have no means of persuading them that they're mistaken. For that matter, we have no means of being persuaded ourselves if we're mistaken. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, it's ultimately no different from basing our decisions on what we want... reinforced and amplified by the conviction that our wishes dovetail with God's, and made more stubbornly resistant to change by the fundamental irrationality of religious faith.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/gay-bishop-comes-worst-argument-support-same-sex-marriage