here you go TYAN.

""At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans.

<http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

and so i don't leave this part out

""Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia.""

"Being against contraception is an archaic belief with no basis that runs contrary to our laws of reason."
Too bad you aren't living in a country governed by the 'laws of reason' as defined by you, it is a Constitutional Republic with constitutional protections and laws based on that. TS Buncko.

And before I do, let me say that the decision you presented ONLY says it is NOT "required" to allow certain religious exemptions, and it is allowable still to do . And we do.

<<Too bad you aren't living in a country governed by the 'laws of reason' as defined by you>>

Actually, for the most part, I am. And thank goodness for that. that's why you lost this battle 50 years ago and that's why you will lose it again.

Worth noting: Dawkins is not American, he is Briitish. And he was not merely speaking to Britain, he was speaking globally. So no, it's not a lie. But for a SPECIFIC recent example of this in America, here you go:

In February 2006, in the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a religious group seeking protection against prosecution for their religious use of hoasca. Hoasca is a tea made of plants that contain dimethyltryptamine (DMT). Like marijuana, DMT is listed under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, §812(c). Some people, such as the founders of Temple 420, believe that the Supreme Court's decision in the hoasca case means that marijuana users will also be protected from prosecution. But readers should note that the Supreme Court decision was limited to the particular facts surrounding the hoasca issue, and does not specifically support a religious defense in marijuana cases.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And several states have passed their own versions of the RFRA. but, in general, religious use is not accepted as a defense in the U.S. for marijuana use.

Did you watch the video I posted?

You know, you might actually like that guy. He doesn't care for religion or faith in general, but he absolutely DESPISES Islam. Some of his speeches on Islam would leave you cheering.

You shouldn't respect any religion indiscriminately.

You should study religion and learn more about them and what they teach and don't teach and why.

But, you should always respect persons even if you disagree with their beliefs.

Regarding what people do or don't do in the name of religion, granted, that can be tricky.

As I see it, you have to accomdate people as much as possible as long a civil order is maintained.

Finally, keep in mind, atheists ask for exemptions for things too, like from reciting the pledge in schools, and they are granted.

So, I think the test of what to allow or not allow in the name of religion is the maintenence of civil order.

Thanks for the link.
" Federal law requires insurance coverage of contraceptives for federal employees and their dependents, allowing a few religious insurers exemption from the requirements."

But that is now changed. The key I think is the prividing insurance issue may mean some or many Catholic hospitals etc will have to drop coverage depending on the Supreme's ruling this May.

That being said, a rational person would respect Buddhism INFINITELY more than catholicism. Well, except for the silly paranormal parts, that is. Those don't really deserve "respect", just blind faith or rejection.

Look at you, jumping for joy at Obama's compromise he invented and offered to you. Isn't that precious.

The liberal use of smoke and rhetoric must have impressed the faithfull (can I use that word around you?) that changing it to free by mandating it to the insuring companies to provide was actually free. What a marroon.

Well my point is in general the insurance contract you pay for is generally regulated by state insurance codes and is written for private individuals or generally private owned business. as far as catholic hospitals go when they were funded by the church and services were paid through charities and the individual the contraceptive mandate was up to them IMO since they were a private entity. Since they now take Fed money they should follow ISCC and mandates that are implemented. that simple. go private or follow the rules if you want the Dough.

Accomodate me? In what way?
I ask for nothing from you.

What I find interesting is that people on the Right tend to talk about small Government and freedom much more than people on the Left but somehow these same people who believe in small Government and freedom think the Government should tell two people who they can and can’t marry, and are opposed to legalizing things like pot. Maybe they don’t understand what true freedom really is? It seems so.

You make sense, and I agree. My concern was the hamhanded mandate thinking, but getting this far you are on the money and changes will be happening. We shall see what they actually turn out to be.

I agree totally.

I think Bucky wants to stamp out religion even in peoples private lives. He doesn't have the right to not be offended.

You are the one that 'doesn't understand' the Constitution or the form of government we have lived under to be what we are today. You are in the small group that trys to tell this country what they should be doing. Call it minority me first thinking. Ask any freak in a tutu about his rights.

You are the one that 'doesn't understand' the Constitution or the form of government we have lived under to be what we are today. You are in the small group that trys to tell this country what they should be doing. Call it minority me first thinking.

Your reading comprehension skills are getting worse and worse. Where in my post did I talk about the Constitution? Where in the Constitution (since you brought it up) does it say pot should be illegal or the Government should be able to tell two people whether they can be married or not?

This annoying habit you have of misinterpreting what people post and bringing other issues in to the conversation that aren’t relevant is getting old.