Nick -

I think you misunderstand the point of the first amendment if you think that voting according to your beliefs - many of which come from religion - is somehow in violation of it. It seems to me that Rep. Schakowsky was saying that the values of the Democrats more closely fall in line with those who are religious. Actually, I think she handled this question quite tactfully, though I disagree with her conclusions

"The Democrats do not protect our freedoms because Democrats favor more government. More government = less freedom. That's an indisputable fact."

True enough. Surely you're not suggesting that your Team is the answer for smaller government, though.

Words are pretty (as Barry Obama's Teleprompter knows) but they have little connection with Team Red's actions.

The flavor of coercion is the only substantial difference between the two factions of the War Party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275512887811775.html

http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off

I often hear sheep claiming that they vote for one party or the other since they're the lesser of two evils. There are two major problems with this:

-If what they say is true, they're still voting for evil. You're vote is a violent act that forces a preferred flavor of coercion on your fellow citizens.

-A much more accurate characterization would be to say that you're voting for the evil of two lessers. Free people do not vote for these swinish Napoleons.

Mr. Wolfe,

Giving facts (smoothly or otherwise) is something that many Republicans need to work on. If 98% of Catholic women use contraception at some point in their lives, that indicates that providing birth control would be in the best interest of a majority of women within the church - and as someone who is running for congress, I would expect you to be concerned about the best interest of your possible future constituents. I would also expect you to be able to figure out all by yourself how the number of Catholic women who use contraceptives is relative when discussing whether or not religious institutions should provide contraception.

I respect the fact that the Catholic church is against using contraception, but I don’t see a problem with offering it. High schools teach sex education, but that doesn’t mean that they condone high school students having sex; they provide the education because the fact is some young people have sex anyway. It seems to me that religious institutions could cover contraception without condoning it and let individuals decide for themselves whether to follow the rules of the church or make their own decisions based on their own lives. Allowing the church to deny access is the same as LIMITING the RIGHTS of religious women to something that others have. If you make it so that women don’t have to choose between their religion and their own well-being, you will be PROTECTING the RIGHTS of religious women.

Finally, it seems to me that many major Republican candidates want to implement laws which limit the rights of others. For example, when a candidate supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or votes against allowing gay people to marry, they are not protecting anyone or anything, they’re simply limiting the rights of gay people. How is that not “more government”?

Ms. Singer-

Admirable arguing, and I must agree with you on your last point. First, that disallowing gay marriage is an extension of government and a limitation of the rights of homosexuals. I think that a simple religious solution to this problem would be to say that it is God, not the government, who sanctifies marriages.

However, I must disagree with your reasoning about the Catholic Church and contraceptives. It is the right of the Catholic Church (or at least it should be) to decide if they offer contraceptives or not. While it is true that 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives at some point in their life, that does not give the government the right to force the church to offer them. I could argue that 100% of Catholic women eat food, so it is in the best interest of the church for them to provide food for all Catholic women - therefore it should be mandated. Of course, Catholic women can buy food from outside sources, and are expected to - much like contraceptives.

The reason the Catholic Church doesn't offer contraceptives is because they don't want to promote sins, or make it easier for the laypeople to sin - how can we expect the Church to deliver us from temptation when they themselves tempt us?

Finally, your last point confuses me greatly. Catholic women still have access to contraceptives - 98% of them have used them before! The Church isn't denying any rights by not offering contraceptives - there are many avenues for women to get them from.

Nearly 100% of Catholics use the Lord's Name in Vain. Does that mean the Church should be forced to subsidize profanity?

Alica

Suggest you Google DOMA. Both parties voted for it and Clinton signed it

Colin - Thank you! In response, first, I never said it would be in the best interest of the CHURCH to offer contraception; I said it would be in the best interest of their employees (who, by the way, may not necessarily be Catholic, and thus shouldn’t be forced to live by the religious rules of the Church). According to The Guttmacher Institue (as well as “Faith in Public Life”), 58% of women use birth control for a non-contraceptive reason, and 14% use it exclusively for “purely medical reasons”.

Second, the issue is not whether they GIVE OUT contraception, but whether or not their insurance covers it. Women who are simply looking to prevent pregnancy do have other “avenues”; they could absolutely go to a pharmacy and buy their own condoms (which are not covered by any insurance, which is fine). We’re talking about oral contraceptives, which require a prescription, and have uses other than preventing pregnancy. Faith in Public Life reported that, at the House Committee where Sandra Fluke also spoke, Catholic Bishop William Lori acknowledged “there’s no controversy around providing contraceptive pills for medical needs that fall outside of the usual theological proscription.”

Finally, I hardly see how the birth control pill is tempting; someone will either have sex, or they won’t, but as I have said many times, the decision to use oral contraceptives is not always linked with whether or not a man’s sperm will be going to waste.

No employee of a Religious Institution is thus "forced to live by the religious rules of the Church". Employees can make up their own mind if they want to violate the rules of the Church.

The issue at hand is, should Churches be forced to violate the religious rules of the Church, not should employees be allowed to violate the religious rules of the Church.

Fred –

Both parties voted for Prohibition, and then they REPEALED it. Yes, DOMA was signed in by Bill Clinton (a Democrat) in 1996, in a time when very few people were open to or ready for the thought of same-sex couples getting married. Since that time, former president Clinton’s opinion has evolved; this year when North Carolina was going to vote on “Amendment One” (which defines marriage as between “one man and one woman”) Bill Clinton spoke out AGAINST it.

In recent years, the majority of support for DOMA has come from the right – in fact, USA Today reported that on September 7th, “145 House Democrats signed onto an amicus brief denouncing DOMA as unconstitutional.”

GrossPoint - nobody is telling the Church or its employees that they have to use the birth control, and had you read what I wrote, you would note that 'CATHOLIC BISHOP William Lori acknowledged “THERE'S NO CONTROVERSY AROUND PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE PILLS FOR MEDICAL NEEDS that fall outside of the usual theological proscription.”' Nobody is asking them to "violate" their beliefs.

mij -

This isn't the issue, BUT...I see nothing wrong with making condoms available in a high school's health center. I know of five students (two from Niles North and three from Niles West) who had been pregnant at least once by the time they were 17 years old. Age, marital status, and consequences don’t seem to stop people from having sex. It might as well be safe.

Public schools absolutely should not pass out condoms. School is the place to develop the skills you need to succeed in a chosen vocation. By passing out condoms you are promoting risky sexual behavior even though the primary concern might be to prevent pregnancies.

It appears logic and reality-based thinking were not among the skills your high school emphasized.

I thought guys hated condoms...so how would making them AVAILABLE (not passing them out) to students promote any sexual behavior - let alone RISKY sexual behavior? "Safe sex" means more than "prevent pregnancies"; ever heard of HIV/AIDS? Go ahead, tell students at the beginning of the year, "you can't have sex because we don't have condoms." Those who really want to have sex will do so anyway, but now the only two options are (1) they'll have to buy their own, or (2) they'll do it unprotected.

And since you brought it up, Mr. Wolfe, school is SUPPOSED to be the place to develop the skills you need to succeed in a chosen vocation - but I graduated from Niles North in 2009 and I can tell you that very little about my high school experience helped me get a job or prepared me for a workplace environment. In fact, seven hours and thirteen minutes of school and then another few hours of homework leaves a student little time to discover his or her passion, hold a job, or participate in the community. I think NNHS is a good school, and the teachers were AMAZING human beings with loads of knowledge to share. I believe that the general education they teach there is extremely important, but the only SKILLS the average student learns is how to relate to his or her peer group - which is not a marketable skill.

Melanie, I have to disagree with giving President Obama another chance based upon the extremes of being either stronger or dead. Being stronger is relative and subjective term (what may be stronger for you may not be stronger for me.) But being dead is final. I would not be willing to make that choice since a vote for Obama (and Schakowsky) cannot, by your definition, be a better decision than a vote for Romney (or Wolfe).

Melanie –

I also disagree with you. First of all, don’t credit Republicans for defending the rights of women, minorities and gays; the current Republican party (as a whole) make policies AGAINST these groups. Second, …HUH? What are you even trying to say?

ZERO more chances.

There's nothing wrong with God...but it's hardly necessary. They can thank him on their own time.

I cannot sanction a system that routinely presents the evil of two lessers as some kind of opportunity or choice. I, for one, will not sanction the coercive violence of Teams Red and Blue (together, the War Party).

The only moral choice is to abstain from voting or voting for a non-coercive third party.

You can mis-quote me all you want, but my comment is here in black and white. What I said was that if everyone else has access to birth control and only women within the church don't, then they are denied the same stuff that everyone else can have. As you pointed out, we ARE talking about a medical service or product - one with far more benefit than Viagra. Without birth control, I have problems that many WOMEN wouldn't even be able to understand. I'll spare you the details, but suffice it to say I get quite ill. Just because the Bible says "be fruitful and multiply," birth control is bad and VIAGRA IS COVERED and accepted by the church! I understand that the government doesn't have an endless supply of wealth, so here's an idea for any wanna-be-policy-makers out there: Why don't we replace Viagra coverage with birth control coverage?

It seems that the church is more important to you than human beings. You can love God and your religion (whatever it may be) all you want; that's totally your business. To put a building or an institution above LIVES is not a characteristic I want in my representatives. In case you haven't guessed, I will NOT be voting for you.

Guido, I understand your frustration, but voting is definitely worth it. The "lesser of two evils" may be true in some elections. This time you have two extreme opposites, and I see one of them as being very detrimental to the well-being of our country in SO many ways. If you can't bring yourself to vote for either "evil" then RUN FOR OFFICE or find some other way to make the world and the people in it less "evil."

"The only rational solution for the voter is to vote for the candidate who will do the least damage."

It is immoral to vote for evil and violent coercion regardless of scale. Can an immoral action be rational?

Speak for yourself, buddy!