Francis is a rare combination of being a true believer in the social justice mission of the Church and being incredibly politically savvy in being able to achieve a specific end. We're talking about a crypto-Liberation Theologist JESUIT from South America who managed to a) not get assassinated in the 80s, b) not get…

If its "clearly" not, then it wouldn't be an issue. Obviously the legal argument that it is is good enough that Sotomayor stepped in — and she's one of the more moderate-progressive voices on the bench so that should tell you something. They need to leave the Establishment Clause alone — I'm atheist, and not at all…

I'm really not sure what the disconnect is. Nobody should be suggesting that we dismantle the Establishment Clause — is that really what you want? I'm atheist, I'm not interested in the government telling me that I have to conduct myself according to someone else's religious rules, because that's the other half of…

"Will Smith and DJ Jazzy Jeff reunited on stage for a New Year's Eve concert in Dubai.James Avery showed up halfway through the performance, hoisted Jazzy Jeff up by the seat of his pants, and hurled him offstage."

I know, that's the crux of the argument that's currently before the courts.

HCA, or some other for-profit company who looks at healthcare and sees dollar signs. That would be disastrous, because medical care would instantly move from a stakeholder-driven business to a shareholder-driven business.

What they're teasing out is that the law may be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. That is the argument that's currently on the table.

1) Don't know, not sure if that can legally be written in as a constraint in insurance policies or if it would be a Title VII violation (is marital status a protected class?) because you can't offer benefits to one group and deny it to others.

You are supposed to follow your own philosophy. If contraception contravenes your philosophy, then you should not be engaging in it or facilitating it. The second part is the crux of their argument — the Church's money is being used to pay for contraception, which is direct violation of their own doctrine.

If we remove the Catholic church from the "business" of providing healthcare, we're screwed. Who do you think is going to pick up the slack?

Certain religions are not treated as special snowflakes. This happens to be one religion that has objected — others can object to other things that contravene their philosophies and we'll see what happens there.

If you're actually referring to me specifically, I'm atheist.

1) Use of Viagra does not contravene Catholic doctrine.

Nuns don't, but all the thousands of other people who work in Catholic-run hospitals and universities might want to avail themselves of contraception.

I can virtually guarantee this isn't the nuns' doing, but the Bishops' interference in the nuns's business.

That would be a violation of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII)

Nobody is preventing them from getting these services. What they are saying is that the church is not going to pay for coverage of those benefits. The solution is not to force churches to pay for things that contravene their own philosophy; the solution is to decouple health insurance from employment entirely and…

I'm of two minds about this:

Oh my god get that ring out of that baby's hand before she puts it in her mouth! That' rock is perfectly trachea-sized.

So 10 out of 10 of your friends don't know the six states that constitute New England. I'm not sure why you think this makes your point valid.