[popcorn]This content is currently unavailable
The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.
Return home
The catholic church is living in the dark ages. Long gone are the times where families needed to have a dozen children to work on a farm or whatever they did and the mortality rate of babies is no where near what it used to be. .....Why can't the catholic church realize that the world population needs to be controlled and they need to change with the changing world?
I think she truly doesn't understand the concept of religion. It's a problem I've seen in plenty of folks, as America goes more secular. People don't understand, on a bone deep level, what Faith really means. Which is why they think you can just "adjust" it. Or that you can talk peace into Jihadists.
It might be good if all employers just allotted money to employees to buy health insurance and then no religious employers would have to feel guilty about their insurance plans covering birth control.She buried this in one of her posts which seems to be hitting at least close to the truth. She just needs to branch that idea out to a lot of other things.
She buried this in one of her posts which seems to be hitting at least close to the truth. She just needs to branch that idea out to a lot of other things.
My SIL is engaging in behavior I've noticed liberals using for years, perhaps decades. She's bouncing from one issue or question to another, never addressing my points, and constantly changing the discussion.
Why can't the catholic church realize that the world population needs to be controlled
When people start using the words "population" and "control" in the same sentence, it makes me nervous. Quite a few other people have had ideas that the population needed to be controlled. We all know the names.
That's actually how most people argue.
Monkeylegs, please don't quote proverbs. :facepalm:
My take on this, and, admitadly I don't know all that much about the recent dustup, so it may be a little skewed.
Birth control and the desission to take it/administer it is between the patient and the docter. I see this issue as one between insurance companies and the inviduial rather then church vs. emplyees.
The only church arguement is if you are running a business (like a hospital or a school) you do need to keep in mind that your hired workers are not all members of your church, there for, you really should not try to dictate what they should and should not do, based on your theology. Notice I said should, not need or have to.
I think this whole blather falls under emplyee rights. The pill has become a basic and commenly proscribed medication with multiple off label uses and is a pretty basic staple of medication for womens health. It's really annoying, this whole arguement that implies it's a recreational drug. Plus, it is actually cheap.
Insurance companies do have to follow laws to basic provide coverages to the people paying for it's service, and medically administered birth control is a hell of a lot more basic and nessasary then, oh, ED drugs. Furthermore, the emplyees are paying for their healthcare. If they pay for it, then they have some say in what it does and does not cover. And the government has the right and duty to back the people up on this, as we have established that this is a business practice issue, not a religious one.
I find it retarded when we let the right of religion trump the rights of the induvidual. Even more so, when it's a debate that really doesn't have anything to do with interfering with religious authorities.
Basically, insurance companies who provide health services need to PROVIDE health services bases on what they are being paid, and birth control is such a basic and nessasry service that it belongs right in with blood pressure meds and antibotics. I don't see how this messes with religious rights or business rights, and I do see this as protecting induvidial rights.
As for health care reform, and state run health care, well, if I trusted the government to do it right, which I don't think it can and we could afford it, which we can't, it would be dandy. For now we are stuck with a broken system that favors a very few and we have to patch it up until someone comes up with a better solution.
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Let's put this another way. I will not pay for your birth control. Have I now dictated what medicines you can take?
And, to reverse it. The government has decided to force me to pay for your birth control. Has the government now decided to prohibit the free exercise of my religion?
That's the debate here. These employees are not prevented from obtaining their own medical insurance NOR are the prevented from purchasing birth control at their own expense. There is no "imposing their religion", there is a "sticking to my convictions" on my own actions.
I'm absolutely dumbstruck by the people who think that the free exercise of religion ONLY applies to churches.
Here's another wrinkle. Many church ministries already self-insure (meaning they pay for the health care, not just insurance of their employees) because of mandates like this in several states. There's no "insurance company" to hide behind there.
BR, I gotta disagree here.
Not a catholic, SWMBO is on birth control, no real dog in the fight on this one. But those people, employed by religious organizations, made a decision to seek employment there. I know, I know, tough economic times, no other jobs, yes, it sucks out there. But, at the time they were hired, they knew they were working for a religious organization. They also should have known that their insurance did not cover birth control, and I'm betting that the exclusion is strictly for birth control being used for birth control. I bet that if it was for another medically necessary reason, it would be covered. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE FACT. Just putting that bit out there.
Having said all that, these people entered into a free-will agreement with their employer. As part of that agreement, their employer agreed to provide certain benefits and wages. These were known by the potential employees prior to entering said agreement. Now, they're whinging that "it's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair". "They should have to pay for my birth control, and who gives a [censored] about their religious beliefs! THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE THEM PAY FOR MY BIRTH CONTROL!!!!"
If they want free birth control so badly, go work for an employer that doesn't have a religious objection to birth control. Or attend a school that doesn't have a religious objection to birth control.
And no, I don't think that they SHOULD have to do something that is against their religious beliefs. Any more than a Muslim SHOULD eat pork. Or a Jew SHOULD wear a cross.
I don't debate anything with brain damaged, aka liberals. You are just wasting air to do so. I am puzzled about liberals wanting free birth control. They haven't used it in the past to have more kids so uncle sugar will give them more money. If you don't want more kids, just keep your pants on. That is free birth control....chris3
Now, if you are interested in my opinion, then basically it comes down to one finds it acceptable to pay women less than men. It's an equal pay for equal work scenario. I don't find it acceptable for an employer to ostensibly pay the same amount of money for the same job to women as they pay to men, except for that the pay for women does not include a major item of routine health care that requires an office visit and a prescription (which pretty much is what differentiates it from say, toothpaste or athlete's foot spray) and the pay for men includes all major routine health care (that requires a medical professional's intervention, etc, see above).
Stuff paid for by and insurance company is not "free" stuff. When it's a benefit of employment, it's usually a combination of stuff received in exchange for premium payments deducted from one's paycheck and stuff received in exchange for premiums paid by one's employer--as a part of a benefits package that is a part of one's pay for doing the work. It's not free. When you get the phone with your insurer and argue over some billing screw-up that is costing you money, are you doing that because you want to get whatever service/drug for "free" or because you are entitled to it in exchange for work performed or payments tendered?
But it all comes down to whether one considers it appropriate for the fedgov to require that women be paid the same amount as men for the same work. However, the argument that women who take this sort of job should suck it up because they knew it was not fair is pretty crass. Thanks for noticing that women's lives, like everybody else's, are not fair. But in the immortal words of Calvin "Why can't it ever be unfair in my favor?" Women, just like people, tend to try to make our lives a bit less unfair for us. Wanting to get paid the same money for doing the same stuff is a far cry from whining for free stuff. And this pretty much comes under the heading of the principle behind the post-civil war amendments: It is simply not enough for gov't to say "Hey, y'all are free, go forth and prosper." When there's institutionalized discrimination denying equality to a specific class of people on a fairly broad scale, saying they're free to work where they want, study where they want, live where they want, is meaningless so long as those institutions persist in denying that class of persons equal--or even reasonable--access to work, study, or reside.
Obviously, this is on a much smaller scale, but the same principle applies. The "and be glad you have a job [that pays you less because you have women's health needs they don't like]" is pretty disingenuous. One is permitted to want, and demand, what one wills from his employer. At my last job, I was very glad to have a job, but pushed my employer pretty hard to keep the office open later in the evening, to make my life more convenient. I was glad to have a job, but appreciated it when a colleague who was in a slightly more secure position agitated for overtime pay.
Heck, I'm glad to have a roof over my head, but I want my landlord to clean my funky carpet. I'm glad I have a left arm, but want to have less pain using it. People strive for stuff. People want more than what we have. It's what landed men on the moon, it's what settled the West, and it's what built this weird place we call the USA. It's what makes us people. Even those of us who have vaginas.
And speaking of having vaginas, I like to use it. To have sex. Kind of like most of you like to have sex. Now, this whole line of reasoning is utterly irrelevant. The issue isn't the sex, it's the unequal employment benefits. But as it was raised, sure, I'll go there. Seems that according to the Catholic Church (and most others), having sex is pretty much a duty spouses owe to each other. It's also a pretty vital component of most non-sucky spousal relationships. Do you gentlemen really want women to stop having sex? Cuz you'd get tired of jacking off pretty quick, one would think, no? And if you don't actually want women to stop having sex, why do you keep saying so? Why is this a part of the issue? Seems to me that if a woman wishes to not pay for birth control to keep her pay (as close as possible to) equal to her male colleagues', she simply needs to insist he use a condom. Personally, aside from the taste, I have no issue with condoms, but haven't met too many guys who really enjoy them. And the latex taste issue is resolved pretty easily, but again, have yet to meet a guy who thinks my solution is a particularly great plan. So, I'm assuming that most of you do actually want your wives, significant others, less-significant others, etc., to use the sort of birth control that y'know, doesn't generally decrease your enjoyment of sex.
Of course, there are principles at stake way bigger than whether you like to wrap it or not. It's about issues of government and religion and other big issues. And reasonable minds can differ on that point. Especially since it's really about equitable application of job benefits, and not about sex at all.
So, why, for the love of the gods and all that is holey, why have so many men made this about smearing women who like/have too much sex? Why has this become about jokes about aspirin between the knees and name-calling? What purpose does it serve?
In a democratic republic, the rights of two parties to be free to do as they will tend to bump heads an awful lot. This is another instance of that. No more, no less. Equal pay=religious freedom. Ok, so it's a biggie. But sluts? "Keep your pants on"? "Any woman who spends more than $3000 on birth control is a slut"? "whinging"?
Double-yew-tee-eff, gentlemen. Please find some civility and use it, because throwing your weight around about much more sexual freedom you ought to have than women is a-stupid, b-incorrect, C-NOT THE *expletive deleted*ING ISSUE.
PS: Employer-sponsored health insurance is a stupid, expensive, foolish system that frustrates small business development, perpetuates terrible, abusive marriages, ties adult children to the apron strings for years, and leads to insane waste, not to mention a whole slew of interesting constitutional issues. And it was brought to you by Congress and the Internal Revenue Service. Imagine my surprise. Best answer to this whole mess, and a whole bunch of others, is get rid of the government-imposed economic benefit to employers for offering insurance.
You're all so busy railing against gov't in health care, without acknowledging fully that gov't is neck-deep in it, manipulating it and screwing the market around, inflating prices and turning people into drones tied to a paternal employer with its hand so deep in our health that we don't dare start a small business, find a different job, explore better options for us and our families, lest the punishment be death or disability through medical neglect.
It does seem to me that something could be worked out with deductibles and what-not to enable women to not have to pay more out of pocket than men without their employers purchasing something they don't want to purchase.
Sigh. It's not about sex, or contraceptives, or equal pay, or vaginas, or men or women. It's about the president of the United States pushing around a church and its religion and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."**
**See Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment One
1) I'm not Catholic. I have nothing against birth control, except where it's a slippery slope to abortion (and I'm not going to make that argument because it's pretty lame -- for now) What does The Pill cost these days, about $15 per month? $25? Arguing that it really costs much more than that because of the exams and prescriptions and such is disingenuous *unless* those office visits are not covered.
2) "all that's holey" *snicker* Good one!
3) I don't think anybody is defending Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks of that Georgetown student whats-her-name. But he was right to point out the ridiculousness of that $3000 figure she pulled out of... somewhere.
4) How about if women's health premiums were $30 per month cheaper than men's if birth control is not covered? (assumes gyno office visits are covered (and probably always have been))
Does anybody here object to a health insurance plan covering contraception, for men or women?
Well, only in that it is not "insurance." Describe it properly: an ate up and hyper-inefficient way to pre-pay for expected & foreseeable expenses.
"I demand oil-change insurance for my car!"
"I demand toilet paper insurance for my bunghole!"
Sigh. Yes, it is about some of those things. Even if you insist it isn't.***
***Condescending citation do something-or-other.****
****Probably all those dozens of cases defining the scope of the protections of the free exercise clause, coupled with the constitutional bases for sundry laws prohibiting pay discrimination on the basis of sex, among other thing.
But, if you are interested in my opinion, then basically it comes down to whether one finds it acceptable to pay women less than men for the same work. It's an equal pay for equal work scenario. I don't find it acceptable for an employer to ostensibly pay the same amount of money for the same job to women as they pay to men, except for that the pay for women does not include a major item of routine health care that requires an office visit and a prescription (which pretty much is what differentiates it from say, toothpaste or athlete's foot spray) and the pay for men includes all major routine health care (that requires a medical professional's intervention, etc, see above).
So, it all comes down to whether one considers it appropriate for the fedgov to require that women be paid the same amount as men for the same work. There is a legitimate difference of opinion on this point that tends to split along the line between liberal/conservative. However, the argument that women who take this sort of job should suck it up because they knew it was not fair is pretty silly. Thanks for noticing that women's lives, like everybody else's, are not fair. But in the immortal words of Calvin "Why can't it ever be unfair in my favor?" Women, just like people, tend to try to make our lives a bit less unfair for us. Wanting to get paid the same money for doing the same stuff is a far cry from whining for free stuff. And this pretty much comes under the heading of the principle behind the post-civil war amendments: It is simply not enough for gov't to say "Hey, y'all are free, go forth and prosper." When there's institutionalized discrimination denying equality to a specific class of people on a fairly broad scale, saying they're free to work where they want, study where they want, live where they want, is meaningless so long as those institutions persist in denying that class of persons equal--or even reasonable--access to work, study, or reside.
Obviously, this is on a much smaller scale, but the same principle applies. The "and be glad you have a job [that pays you less because you have women's health needs they don't like]" is pretty disingenuous. One is permitted to want, and demand, what one wills from his employer. At my last job, I was very glad to have a job, but pushed my employer pretty hard to keep the office open later in the evening, to make my life more convenient. I was glad to have a job, but appreciated it when a colleague who was in a slightly more secure position agitated for overtime pay. If one believes that fedgov interference to ensure equal pay for equal work is acceptable, then absolutely, agitating for this particular benefit is a legitimate expression of a reasonable and ethical desire.
Heck, I'm glad to have a roof over my head, but I want my landlord to clean my funky carpet. I'm entitled under my lease, and therefore I want it. I'm glad I have a left arm, but want to have less pain using it. I'm not entitled to it, but I want it, and I'm going to do what I can to get it. People strive for stuff. People want more than what we have. It's what landed men on the moon, it's what settled the West, and it's what built this weird place we call the USA. It's what makes us people. Even those of us who have vaginas.
And speaking of having vaginas, I like to use mine. To have sex. Kind of like most of you like to have sex. But that's utterly irrelevant. In fact sex in general is utterly irrelevant. There's an unequal benefit and there's a religious principle. That those two things involve sex does not matter. The issue isn't the sex, it's the unequal employment benefits. But as it was raised, so sure, I'll go there. Seems that according to the Catholic Church (and most others), having sex is pretty much a duty spouses owe to each other. It's also a pretty vital component of most non-sucky spousal relationships. Do you gentlemen really want women to stop having sex? Cuz you'd get tired of jacking off pretty quick, one would think, no? And if you don't actually want women to stop having sex, why do you keep saying so? Why is this a part of the issue? Seems to me that if a woman wishes to not pay for birth control to keep her pay (as close as possible to) equal to her male colleagues', she simply needs to insist he use a condom. Personally, aside from the taste, I have no issue with condoms, but haven't met too many guys who really enjoy them. And the latex taste issue is resolved pretty easily, but again, have yet to meet a guy who thinks my solution is a particularly great plan. So, I'm assuming that most of you do actually want your wives, significant others, less-significant others, etc., to use the sort of birth control that y'know, doesn't generally decrease your enjoyment of sex.
But of course, there are principles at stake way bigger than whether you like to wrap it or not. It's about issues of government and religion and other big issues. And reasonable minds can differ on that point. Especially since it's really about equitable application of job benefits, and not about sex at all.
So, why, for the love of the gods and all that is holey, why have so many men made this about smearing women who like/have too much sex? Why has this become about jokes about aspirin between the knees and name-calling? What purpose does it serve?
In a democratic republic, the rights of two parties to be free to do as they will tend to bump heads an awful lot. This is another instance of that. No more, no less. Equal pay v. religious freedom. Ok, so it's a biggie. But sluts? "Keep your pants on"? "Any woman who spends more than $3000 on birth control is a slut"? "whinging"?
Double-yew-tee-eff, gentlemen. Please find some civility and use it, because throwing your weight around about how much more sexual freedom you ought to have than women is a-stupid, b-incorrect, C-NOT THE *expletive deleted*ING ISSUE.
My thread is not about **expletive deleted** health care! It's about the First Amendment, and Obama's undermining of it. Go start your own healthcare/contraception/sex thread.
Laws of general application do not offend the first amendment just because one religion doesn't agree with them. That's why religions don't get exceptions to laws on peyote. It's also why they don't get them on laws about commercial practices.
Religious groups are more than welcome not to engage in regulated activities that, because of a generally applicable rule, would contradict their beliefs.
The right to worship is not a special licence to get out of otherwise perfectly constitutional laws.
Mak, that's a very good comparison -any Catholics believe they have a religious obligation to determine whether a war is morally right before choosing whether to serve in it. We most certainly do not afford them that right as an exception to the rule. The just war doctrine doesn't get you conscientious objector status.
Impressive obfuscation counsellor. You're getting good practice in today.
Care to explain? You cited an example of a law that does not make exceptions for religious beliefs, namely, he draft. You did so apparently in the mistaken belief that it did. Nevermind that the draft is about compulsory service and not about setting conditions on entry to the market; it isn't an example of special treatment for religions.
So the Amish served in the military?
So the Amish served in the military?
Some did without a doubt- but others joined Atheist pacifists on the sidelines. The supreme court explicitly rejected laws that made an exception only for religious people and not for others. Yeah, the statute that enacted the draft created exceptions for religious beliefs, and the supreme court shot that policy down (on first amendment grounds)
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for C(oncientious)O(bjector) status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.
There was at least one pacifistic (don't know if he was Amish) who served unarmed as a medic, and was awarded a CMOH.
(shouldn't be too hard to find his name... wait just a minute...) Desmond Doss.
Excuse me now while I go feel oppressed by the doctor tomorrow, who because of public health care will be charging me a whopping $30 for a service that would run me $500 at home.
Is there a double standard at play, or was the First Amendment always written with an escape clause?
De Selby, is the church even required to provide health insurance to employees? If so, is it written into the Obamacare law that every employer must provide X, Y and Z coverage? If so, are contraceptives part of the X, Y and Z coverage provisions?
.
My thread is not about **expletive deleted** health care! It's about the First Amendment, and Obama's undermining of it. Go start your own healthcare/contraception/sex thread.
Oh, I'm sure you pay that doctor the $500.00 and possibly more. Just not at the time you're writing out the check for his bill. Perhaps when you pay your taxes. Or when someone else pays his taxes.
TANSTAAFL.
ncidentally, is there any particular reason why the Catholic Church needs to have employees? I've read most of the catechism, and I recall nothing stating that salvation is available only to those who are members of a network of corporate entities operating in the marketplace. If the Catholic Church does not want to conform with employment laws, they can simply stop having employees. Seems pretty simple to me. After all, Eternal Salvation is way cheaper than $25/month, just need to hold some beliefs, accept a few sacraments, do some good works. This church just needs to stop it's whining about how the US needs it let it do anything it wants, regardless of whose employment rights it infringes.
Also, you seem to be missing the point about phone contracts - to distinguish between the two beliefs at law would require the government to decide that catholic religious beliefs are somehow more legitimate than another religion's simply because it finds them ridiculous. The first amendment doesn't allow government to make that sort of call - "more acceptable" or "more traditional" religions don't get any treatment that sincerely held oddball religions can't get.
And that is why a law which has nothing to do with religion has to be followed, even if your religion opposes it.
Disclaimer: For anyone who didn't notice, the above is entirely snark for the purpose of illustrating a few ideas stated earlier.
Actually, I know exactly how much I pay because it's on my taxes - 1.5 percent of my income so long as I buy private insurance (2.5 percent for some people who don't buy health insurance). The total cost per person across the board is significantly lower here.
Actually, I know exactly how much I pay because it's on my taxes - 1.5 percent of my income so long as I buy private insurance (2.5 percent for some people who don't buy health insurance). The total cost per person across the board is significantly lower here.
Monkeyleg, Speaking of full facts, why were you railing against this plan without any knowledge of how it came to be? Wasn't it you who just asked if the rule applied to everyone, not just the Church? That would seem to me a pretty basic question to explore before accusing Obama of targeting religion.
Mak, like with peyote, the law excludes certain people by its own language.. The native American church (not a race of people, a specific organisation) and conscientious objectors rely on statutory language, not a constitutional claim that the law doesn't apply to them. Completely different issue - the government can write laws that have holes in coverage. But you can't invent a hole in a law that has nothing to do with religion on first amendment grounds.
And that is why a law which has nothing to do with religion has to be followed, even if your religion opposes it.
Are you suggesting that birth control has nothing to do with religion?
Are you suggesting that birth control has nothing to do with religion?
Only for the Catholics, AFAIK.
I can remember our church, which was not Catholic, urging members to use the rhythm method in the 1960's.
Making laws about healthcare in this way isn't a religious process. If the law requires dcoverage for blood transfusions (and it might), are we all going to call it a religious issue because at least one religion believes it to be?
The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous. There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.
The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous. There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.
Making laws about healthcare in this way isn't a religious process. If the law requires dcoverage for blood transfusions (and it might), are we all going to call it a religious issue because at least one religion believes it to be?
The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous. There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.:lol:
We have plenty of secular reasons for forcing your church to marry same-sex couples, so it's not a first amendment problem.I've discussed this with my pastor.
Invasive surgery violates someone's religion if they believe that any cutting will cause the soul to escape. Government subsidy even minimally for catastrophic health insurance is unconstitutional therefore.
Paying for roads maintenance violates someone's religion if they believe that paying for infrastructure for use by infidels is sin.
Paying for the war machine violates the Jain religion and is unconstitutional therefore to pay for with mandatory taxes.
Paying insurance premiums to employees and letting them buy their own healthcare is libertarian fantasy. Employees acting alone cannot buy the same level of coverage at the same price. Groups can negotiate rates and coverage in cases where individuals cannot.
Making laws about healthcare in this way isn't a religious process. If the law requires dcoverage for blood transfusions (and it might), are we all going to call it a religious issue because at least one religion believes it to be?
The idea that the white house sat down and crafted obamacare based on religious ideas about birth control is ludicrous. There are plenty of obviously secular considerations that would lead to this, and that's why there isn't a constitutional, first amendment problem.
Barry did later try and temper the impact to the Catholic Church by advising that implementation would be delayed until the end of the year.
Sure. JWs should be able to opt out as a matter of conscience.
I suspect it is far, far more about abortion than contraception. The RCC position on abortion is well known, and shared by many non-Romanists. Contrawise, for many on the left, abortion is sacred, practically a sacrament itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch).
Sure. JWs should be able to opt out as a matter of conscience.
I suspect it is far, far more about abortion than contraception. The RCC position on abortion is well known, and shared by many non-Romanists. Contrawise, for many on the left, abortion is sacred, practically a sacrament itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch).
Very good tie-in with abortion and Moloch. I salute you.
Indeed.
The Biblically ignorant go all apey over Deuteronomy 21:18-21, but fail to understand:
1. The Canaanites were burning up their kids as part of religious rites.
2. The Bible forbade the Jews to do likewise.
3. Bringing the elders into the decision-making process effectively put a stop to the killing of disobedient adult children (for being disobedient).
Why shouldn't unfortunate souls with type 1 diabetes also budget for insulin out of their own pocket? Why do you and I have to pay for their routine predictable medical expenses?
Just to be clear, there are folks here who believe that if insurance is offered to an individual, by their employer or directly by the insurance company, the Federal government should have the final say on the terms of what is offered in the contract?
Interesting. Got any sources on that interpretation?
My biggest question about the passage is, how often did Israelite parents actually stone their own offspring to death?
There are, and it's sad. They'll be along in a bit to explain why it's needed in this one case.