I read an article from Rolling Stone magazine, that was published earlier this month. You can find it here. I feel like I could be more angry but thanks to the fact that we haven't had a winter, and now that it's warmer, allergy season started freakishly early and my allergies decided to get a jump start on making me miserable. So heavily medicated it is.
My only question regarding this article is where do we draw the line between allowing freedom of religion and allowing the religious to dictate the rights of others because it "infringes" on their "religious freedom"? I'm going to write more about that idea later, but my drug addled brain isn't angry or passionate enough to articulate a coherent argument. Look for that when I get my allergies under control and the passion of my ire is roused more fully.
In other news, the recipe for this week is still up for debate. Last week was enchiladas (which turned out amazing), Shepherds pie (layers in order: Meatloaf, green beans, herbed mashed potatoes, and shredded cheese), and Swedish meatballs the cheating way. Everything turned out amazing. I think this week I'm going to make an attempt at blackened chicken and dirty rice.
Last week was pretty good and decently quiet. Did work, and life, had a date on Friday night, and gaming on Saturday. All in all it wasn't bad.
So this week is making it through this week without having my brains run out my sinuses, shopping and lunch with guy #1, gaming on Wednesday, and heading to Janesville for my mothers birthday on Saturday.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you understand what the state is asking religion to do (and I assume this is about the contraception mandate), religion should retain the right to preserve their own adherence to their teachings. The state can very easily ammend for religious institutions. Healthcare could also find pills that don't kill. The general women's healthcare changes otherwise sound great: more preventive exams, etc. It's really only B.C. pill that kills the unborn. That's all.
ReplyDeleteThis is the wrong post to comment thus, but I want to comment quickly. I hope that you are not actively gay, as a Lutheran, and that when you, as a Lutheran, speak for LGBT rights, understand that you're acting purely in a political, civil context. You cannot stand as a Lutheran and also permit or condone or encourage the gay lifestyle, nor unrepentantly live it out. I know people -- Christians -- who are gay and struggle to do as God asks of them. They are strong in faith and happy in the Lord, and face innumerable quandaries and struggles. But they don't make Gay their middle name. Christ is their name.
ReplyDelete