<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reading the USCCB&#8217;s New Religious Liberty Letter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/reading-the-usccbs-new-religious-liberty-letter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/reading-the-usccbs-new-religious-liberty-letter/</link>
	<description>Advancing faith as a powerful force for justice, compassion and the common good.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:20:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Sementelli</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/reading-the-usccbs-new-religious-liberty-letter/#comment-33203</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Sementelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/?p=14330#comment-33203</guid>
		<description>Good point Dave. The demand that religious exemption actually cover any and all employers/individuals is being treated like a natural outgrowth of the principle of religious liberty when it really represents a huge decision about how we conceive of the relationship between the individual and the State.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point Dave. The demand that religious exemption actually cover any and all employers/individuals is being treated like a natural outgrowth of the principle of religious liberty when it really represents a huge decision about how we conceive of the relationship between the individual and the State.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth Sholes</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/reading-the-usccbs-new-religious-liberty-letter/#comment-33176</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth Sholes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/?p=14330#comment-33176</guid>
		<description>Why is this even a question when the contraception coverage costs no more and save nothing if it were omitted?  

More to the point, and the Bishops know this, the availability of such coverage is required of ONLY those institutions that are religiously supported but public in nature, funded with everyone&#039;s TAX dollars in many or most of their operations.  Churches and specifically religious organizations are exempt.  Those with public accommodations and receiving our tax dollars are not.  They are covered by civil rights laws requiring equal access for their hiring and their employees&#039; benefits.  That is democracy.

Where are OUR religious rights?  We in the Protestant and other religions and denominations believe contraception is a high moral good, a responsible means to care for creation by not overpopulating.  It is a high moral good for responsible family planning.  To deny us access as employees while taking our tax dollars for work done is the most flagrant slap in our faces.  No institution that takes tax money can deny equal access.

While fulminating over this &quot;threat&quot; to freedom of religion, the Bishops have come perilously close to committing acts of massive discrimination against all others around them.  Being protective of one&#039;s own conscience is fine - but not if it means being massively hypocritical about mission, populations, and funding.  

You may NOT take our tax dollars AND strip us of our call to conscience.  In a democracy you may NOT have it both ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is this even a question when the contraception coverage costs no more and save nothing if it were omitted?  </p>
<p>More to the point, and the Bishops know this, the availability of such coverage is required of ONLY those institutions that are religiously supported but public in nature, funded with everyone&#8217;s TAX dollars in many or most of their operations.  Churches and specifically religious organizations are exempt.  Those with public accommodations and receiving our tax dollars are not.  They are covered by civil rights laws requiring equal access for their hiring and their employees&#8217; benefits.  That is democracy.</p>
<p>Where are OUR religious rights?  We in the Protestant and other religions and denominations believe contraception is a high moral good, a responsible means to care for creation by not overpopulating.  It is a high moral good for responsible family planning.  To deny us access as employees while taking our tax dollars for work done is the most flagrant slap in our faces.  No institution that takes tax money can deny equal access.</p>
<p>While fulminating over this &#8220;threat&#8221; to freedom of religion, the Bishops have come perilously close to committing acts of massive discrimination against all others around them.  Being protective of one&#8217;s own conscience is fine &#8211; but not if it means being massively hypocritical about mission, populations, and funding.  </p>
<p>You may NOT take our tax dollars AND strip us of our call to conscience.  In a democracy you may NOT have it both ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Buckley</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/reading-the-usccbs-new-religious-liberty-letter/#comment-33173</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Buckley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/?p=14330#comment-33173</guid>
		<description>Well put...the other important tension to note is that if you don&#039;t think that a claim of religious conscience should trump all civil law, you not only have to determine which kinds of issues should be subject to exemption, but also which kinds of actors.  The bishops have (so far) seemed just as expansive on this second question as on the first point that you walk us through.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well put&#8230;the other important tension to note is that if you don&#8217;t think that a claim of religious conscience should trump all civil law, you not only have to determine which kinds of issues should be subject to exemption, but also which kinds of actors.  The bishops have (so far) seemed just as expansive on this second question as on the first point that you walk us through.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordon C. Stewart</title>
		<link>http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/reading-the-usccbs-new-religious-liberty-letter/#comment-33073</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon C. Stewart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:01:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/?p=14330#comment-33073</guid>
		<description>This is really GOOD commentary. Thank you for the precision and thoughtfulness. I&#039;m new to this blog and find kinship here. Much like this on, my blog -www.gordoncstewart.com - lives at the intersection of public life and faith. So good to find you. Salute!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really GOOD commentary. Thank you for the precision and thoughtfulness. I&#8217;m new to this blog and find kinship here. Much like this on, my blog -www.gordoncstewart.com &#8211; lives at the intersection of public life and faith. So good to find you. Salute!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
