... to hear this sanctimonious asshole's brazen attempt to dismantle the separation between church and state, one, or maybe all in succession, would boot his gonads through the top of his head.

Those who piously invoke Christ's name to justify their vile invasions of privacy are the most UN-Christian people I have ever met. They cynically exploit their supposed "Godliness" to to mask the fact that each and every one of them is a seething furnace of malice that defiles everything the Nazarene ever taught. They disgust me, and if I believed in some omnipotent deity, I would hope his opposite number in the Warm Place would reserve an especially toasty ring of the inferno just for them.

The question put to Jesus had to do with whether his followers should pay taxes to the Romans or not. His answer, I think, was an urging to his followers that there was no reason to make waves with the authorities over spiritual concerns. If anything, Jesus was endorsing the separation of church and state. I don't think Mr. Walberg really believes in that principle, but who am I to argue with him? He's a minister and I'm an apostate.

I still don't see how it applies here. The law in question is one that gives individual women the right to use birth control without fear of being dismissed for it by a employer who is also a religious fanatic. Apparently, Mr. Walberg is himself a religious fanatic who thinks that women who use birth control are godless hussies who need to be shunned by a devout, righteous boss and fired. Even if Mr. Walberg's rather harsh judgment of modern women is based on correct Biblical interpretation, wouldn't Jesus still say that it is not the concern of either Mr. Walberg or a particular woman's boss if the state protects the woman's right to act in ways contrary to his teachings? Jesus would further tell Mr. Walberg and the blue nose who employs the woman that if they want him to save them they should right with him, whatever that means, and not worry about anyone else. "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and render unto God those things that are God's" (Matthew 21:21.)

You are correct about what that passage actually says. So what they ought to be using it for is to tell the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]How would said employers find out if a woman was using birth control or had an abortion? I used to know someone "back in the day" who had an abortion under cover of surgery for an ovarian cyst for fear of family/social condemnation. Returning to those days is unthinkable.

Would the GOP now grant employers the right to demand medical records - and if so, how would they reconcile this gross invasion of privacy with their professed devotion to sacred "individual liberty"?

If it goes against their christian "conscience" they could claim they have a right to refuse to pay.

Individual liberty is for men.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]And war is peace, and up is down, and black is white, etc.

Vile, loathesome creatures, these theocrats of all stripes.