Those who support the hobby lobbly ruling support their right to oppose birth control, not necessarily their opposition to birth control.
A distinction without much difference. The point of the argument is to limit the availability of birth control via health insurance.
The point being, unlike your characterization of liberals, it is the conservatives who are trying to tell others how to live, in this case as regards availability of birth control coverage in their health insurance.
I support the right of anyone to believe in Global warming and vote democrat. That doesn't mean I agree with them; it means America is a country where you are allowed to believe whatever you want.
No one ever said otherwise. Especially not liberals.
Correct- and I do not agree with about 20% of what Baptists believe.
Um...okay. You did get the point, didn't you, that it isn't catholics as a whole who are objecting to birth control as part of health insurance but conservatives...some of whom are catholic, and some who aren't, but are more than happy to use catholic ideology to further their own agenda.
Either way, it isn't liberals who are trying to tell people how to live or pushing religion or religious doctrine on others.
Conservatives believe you are free to believe anything you want; just not to do everything you want. A lot of conservatives even oppose a piece of paper saying that 2 gays are married. They think the legalization of anything related to homosexuality is an affront to God. Homosexuality may be. Allowing people a certain amount of freedom to sin is not, in my opinion. Its about as pointless as jailing people who have affairs or jailing teenage girls who get pregnant. People who have affairs or get pregnant out of wedlock already have their own consequences. They already know what they did wrong 9 times out of 10. I would take exception to abortion, because that's the taking of an innocent life in a world where there are plenty of other ways to take care of both the mother and the baby. I'm not against churches or charities having a free baby-sitting ministry, donating money to help them pay bills, ect. or donating clothes to pregnant mothers- as long as you don't force churches to do it. Its better to give them a tax break for doing it.
In other words, conservatives are telling other people how to live, and are forcing their religious beliefs and religious doctrine on others.
Thanks, that's what I was saying!
It doesn't work that way. What I said was not an attack on my own position. It was saying the founding fathers weren't perfect.
Can't recall anyone saying they were. But you did try to use what they said to bolster your beliefs about modern day conservatives. It didn't work.
They advocate setting rules and agreeing with a certain set of moral concepts. You can run a country without agreeing on one set of rules. Otherwise you have anarchy. Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, ect. should all be free to live here. That doesn't mean we can make a wishy-washy set of rules to make every religion happy. That's not how to run a country.
Thank you again for making my point for me.
Saves me work!
How would you go about enforcing rules that are not absolute?
Same we we do it now. None of our laws are absolute, which is why we have a judicial system that not only tries to determine if the accused did commit the crime in question, but also whether or not mitigating factors affect the situation, and how the specific situation affects the way the law is applied as regards sentencing.
US law is many things, but it isn't absolute. Far from it.
Correct. Religion is part of the democratic party and liberalism as well.
Only in the sense that many democrats and many liberals practice religion of some sort in one way or another. But religion or religious doctrine is not the basis for their political stance on any specific issue, nor do they try to use religion or religious doctrine as the sole basis for secular law.
I assume you would agree that there is a difference between "liberal" and democrat"? Truman was a Democrat, but not a liberal.
And he isn't the only one.
Of course there's a difference. One's an ideology, the other is an officially recognized political party.
Not sure what point you think you're making by stating that rather obvious fact, but given how much you've been making my own case for me, I won't make too big a deal about it.
-- A2SG, but your help is very much appreciated!