Mr. Prager overstates the potential for the demise of secularism a bit.

Although radical Islam does need to defeat the concept of America to be more than a fringe element, gays, atheists and other Americans unwelcome in a fundamentalist Judeo-Christian society will still exist and prosper if gay marriage is defeated.

There's another difference. Al Qaeda is trying to kill us, the gay marriage people are not. That's not something to be overlooked. We can't save (or fix) marriage if we're dead.

On the literal point, Osama would need to detonate a number of nuclear weapons to kill as many as gay sex has. But on the higher level, who cares if we live if we return to barbarism.

Depends on your definition of barbarism. I actually lived in a barbaric society in my youth. I didn't like it much. It was pretty close to your ideal.

I agree, though, that America is a successful mix of secularism and religion. Islamists are not the only religious extremists that want to push us away from liberty.

Yes, a push back towards that would be quite salutary.

Of course the religious are not the only extremists trying to limit personal liberties. I have heard it argued that praying on school grounds is unconstitutional (i.e., if a religious group of students met during lunch and held a prayer group, that would violate the 1st amendment). Such people are far on the fringe, but arguing based on their viewpoint is just as valid as arguing based on those who allegedly want homosexuals/atheists/etc. removed from society.

The San Francisco court ruling mandating Catholic hospitals provide contraceptive devices, coming virtually on top of the gay marriage rulings, will probably hurt the gay activists groups, since gay marriage foes can now twin the two rulings together and combine a decision that challenges religous beliefs but is non-coersive with one that also challeges the teachings of a religion, but is very coersive.

Not good news if you're Barbara Boxer and not have to decide to run for or against that ruling when you're already trying to run away as fast as possible from last week's court decree.

This may surprise you, but the California ruling (which I have not read) seems all wrong. And for exactly the same reasons as Judge Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments was wrong.

First, I don't see why medical insurance needs to be sex-neutral. You could argue that maternity benefits have to be canceled because men can never benefit from them.

Second, even if the intent of the law has some merit, the reason we are a strong society is that we are, usually, content not to press ideas to their furthest conclusions.

Gracious, but you made the bed and now get to lie in it.

I haven't read the ruling, but heard a reasonably detailed discussion of it.

The court ruling had to do with a non-profit corporation called Catholic Charities, not a Catholic Hospital. The courts reasoning had to do with the corporations largely secular operations, lack of connection with the Church, and a considerable part of its budget being state government funded.

I sort of agree with Harry. However, the ruling doesn't seem to have anything to do with religion, but rather what constitutes a corporation.

What I think this highlights is the perversion of health insurance. The origin of the problem is California mandating that any company providing prescription drug coverage must also provide prescription birth control coverage. That is a stupid perversion of the notion of insurance, and is part and parcel of why medical costs are skyrocketing.

Yes, Jeff, your sides attacks on believers are always reasonable--that's how intolerance works.

Is it an attack upon believers?

To the extent that the employees of Catholic Charities are believers, then offering this coverage amounts to nothing, for none will partake.

Otherwise, Catholic Charities position is an attack upon other-believers.

Other, of course, being a relative term.

No, Jeff, you're right, separation of church and state means the state should by able to require Catholics to violate their own beliefs. It's a oneway street.

Orrin, I said I'm on your side on this one. Accept victory gracefully, OK?

I agree also with Jeff that health insurance is perverted. I have not thought my way through it, but I have come to one tentative principal: Whatever health insurance system is in place, it need not provide a Cadillac to all.

This is also a California issue. Its prisons are full of aging, decaying felons; and the state government apparently considers that they are entitled to the same level of health care as, say, Bill Gates. Million-dollar heart transplants etc.

Obviously, the government has some responsibility for the health of those in custody. But why could it not be a tinplate coverage? I suggest covering prisoners on the same level as whatever level of insurance the state provides for its honest employees. At most.

And so on.

As I say, I haven't worked it out in detail, but I think that principle could cut through a lot of muddled thinking.

Harry:

Posting markers as you slide down the hill won't cut it.

OJ:

You reaction is misplace.

The real question at hand was whether Catholic Charities is a corporation, or a religious organization.

The court decided that all the characteristics of Catholic Charities made it a corporation, hence it had to abide by the law applying to corporations.

In contrast, the Catholic Church, as a religious organization, does not have to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives to its employees.

The decision was not about Church and State, it was about deciding whether Catholic Charities is a corporation.

Jeff:

Each of our intolerances is justified somehow.

So, if we re-name General Motors "Catholic Motors", they're a religious organization ?

OJ:

Possibly. But you have yet to make the case that this is a matter of intolerance.

Jeff:

Well, for someone who thinks abortion is freedom the state telling Catholics what they can believe will likely seem tolerant.