Who cares about what? What the Supreme Court thinks? Umm...okay. Last I checked, the EEOC did not have any authority over them.

The issue has not really been known until now. The article you cut & pasted from even explains this. I posted a lengthier explanation, but it's awaiting moderator approval. Should show up later.

By the way, if this is any indication, the Supreme Court is not likely to uphold the EEOC's authority over the Church if brought to petition:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011...

This comes down to the general liberal/conservative difference regarding core beliefs of personal responsibility. This is why many of us have a problem calling alcoholism or drug addiction a "disease," like cancer.

Jaime Lee Curtis wrote a Huff Po piece featured here yesterday which stated repeatedly how addiction can get any one at any time and knows no boundaries of race, income, fame, etc.

I agree that addiction could and can effect anyone, but the tone of her column made it sound like it was a phantom that took innocents in the night. My experience with drug addicts tells me that while, yes, there may be a biological disposition, and certainly an addictive component, the users perspective on life often contributes in major ways. At a certain level, it IS a choice to use. One can only conclude that continuation of use is a choice to destroy oneself. Many addicts try to improve their lives in many ways - through physical fitness, e.g., - but never completely rid themselves of drugs. They believe they can control it as one part of their life, and never fully commit to total non-use. They also will adopt many other addictions, such as prescription pills.

The media needs to change their tune on this stuff and let the public, especially kids, know that once drug use begins, it's essentially a Pandora's Box that is never closed. Every single person I know who used 25 years ago still using in one form or another (and I'm not even including alcohol). A few of them aren't even around any more. This is typical. It is rare that people go entirely clean. It's usually something they deal with for the rest of their lives. Sad.

Incidentally, one of Bill O'Reilly's liberal guests on Monday night made that comment about conservatives worried about the "government making priest and nuns get abortions." My point was that this was entirely ridiculous since no one is arguing this.

The health care law requires employers, even the Catholic Church, to provide birth control services as part of their health plans. It was my understanding that this includes some coverage on abortion procedures, and certainly contraception, such as the "morning after" pill.

This is one of those issues that I can not, for the life of me, understand the liberal point-of-view. I've heard them argue that they are not "telling nuns and priests what to do with their bodies, but merely giving that right to anyone who works for the Church."

Huh? So the Church should pay for their employees to have abortions? What on earth is so hard to understand about this issue?! Are any Catholics worried about priests or nuns (who take vows of chastity) being told to get abortions? This is a straw man argument defined at its most absurd level.

This is exactly why I stopped subscribing to EW after 15 years! They have gotten brazen not only with their leftism, but their anti-conservatism. It seemed to have started when they began featuring opinion columns by the likes of Stephen King, Diablo Cody and Richard Roper. These were invariably, snidely far left, and often political. Their annoying film reviewers, Owen Glieberman and Lisa Schwartzbaum, have also taken to using their pulpit for sanctimonious social and political opinion as well.

No Thanks! Are there any decent movie mags remaining? I just want scoop on what's in production, what's out, and what's coming. Let the movies do the talking!! Is it really that hard to accomplish this without preaching leftism to me? So annoying.

I'm going to check it out this weekend for sure (missed the opener).

The oft-maligned prequel is worth a second look, especially if you have young kids in your life now but not when it originally came out. They seem to appreciate it a lot more. Otherwise, it is still a good - if not great - movie, with some excellent moments throughout. The lightsaber duel alone is the series' best of the entire series, imo. It may not have the emotion of the Return of the Jedi confrontation, but physically, it's astounding.

As far as Jar Jar goes, he's grown on me over the years. I actually think he's been used to great comedic effect in the current cartoon series. Lines like, "meesa more of a deep thinker," seem to acknowledge his rocky past amongst fans, and are therefore quite funny.

You put forth a challenge to name other artists "from the 80s who still chart." Yes, there aren't a ton, but Madonna is far from the only one, as evidenced by my examples. Now, you're moving on to who sold the most records, which is really irrelevant. You also mention how her business acumen can't be faulted. No one is faulting her for these things.

My point was merely that the longevity of her career doesn't mean that her performance was appropriate for her age, of good quality or otherwise above criticism. Your comment about U2 seems to speak to this very point, yes? Are you not entitled to your opinion of U2 as "overrated" because their business acumen can't be faulted? One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Finally, I think using these "hater" labels are just a method to avoid arguing actual points at hand.

He is not anti-religion. That's simply not true. He is an atheist, yes (which, on its own is by no means a deal breaker for me), but he generally recognizes the positive attributes of what religion contributes to a society. He has spoken about this on several occasions with Dennis Prager. And while I don't like what he has to say on the topic, I wouldn't put him in the category of many other atheist comedians (Maher, Silverman, Carlin, Jilette, etc.), who seem bent on conversion and ridicule. Those people are just as evangelical (and arguably more influential) than those they accuse of "shoving morality down our throats."

As far as his other, more liberal, social viewpoints go, they are pretty common with libertarians. I disagree with him wholeheartedly on most of those, but so what? I agree with him about 80% of the time and he's funnier than hell. On those things I disagree, he's pretty fair towards the opposition. I don't require people agree with me 100% of the time, only that they are fair in their disagreement in terms of how they represent the other side. Few loudmouths in our culture have an accurate grasp of their opposition and set up straw man arguments.