dave esmond wrote: Again. Still not a church.
And since they take money from the government and other sources they can't claim they have to spend "their" money on anything the don't want to. The money comes from far more sources then just the church.
OK. I probably agree with you in many ways. I don't believe in tax exemptions for religous organizations under any circumstances.
Listen to the angry sermon from the Priest I posted earlier. He makes the point that the Church was oppressed at times in its past history precisely by being prevented from carrying-out their wider mission. They claim they can't stop their work at the church exit.
It really doesn't matter that much in my mind whether it is a Church per se or a Church-operated business. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
To me, the issue is the same in either case. The government should accomodate religous sensibilities to the greatest extent possible, without causing harm to other important values. IT's not a black and white issue, but it seems most people want to take sides and paint the other side as villianous, then make it an all-or-nothing proposition.
To me, the compromise offered by Obama was about right.