But I don't wanna live in Burger King

Yesterday the supreme court just stepped up the power of government. They ruled that "Eminent domain" can now cover private development. Nine home owners will lose their home in Conn. Not for a new highway or off ramp. We have all seen that happen, it has been common place, as hard as it is for people, you gotta build infrastructure, and there will always be houses in the way. But how would you feel if the owner from Dennys said "I'm gonna buy your house". You tell him its not for sale, but he tells you he is going to buy it anyway and there's nothing you can do about it. This is really an outrage. Eminent Domain can now cover private development, C'mon now! The 5 out of 9 that voted for this argue that this is to revitilize a run down neighborhood, so it benefits everyone, therefore it is for "public purpose". That is absolutely ridiculous! So by that definition. If some rich guy wanted to buy your house to live there and you said no, the government should step in, since if the rich guy now lived in your house he would spend more money than you in that local neighborhood, and this would benefit everyone, that's basically the argument, isn't it?
Why was eminent domain created? its intention was so that infrastructure would not be prevented by existing homes. This was the original purpose of the law. Not so that McDonald's would have the right to buy your house. This is private sector. If it is beneficial for a strip mall to be built where these nine people live then let them offer the home owners what it would take to get them to sell. That is really what there homes are worth isn't it? Obviously people were paid off. Since this is the supreme courts ruling it sets precedence, it can now happen anywhere. I always thought that if Donald Trump wanted to buy my house I was gonna make a couple of bucks, you know, tell him its really worth $400,000. I didn't think he would be telling me how much its worth.

I didn't kill him.....I swear!

I have recently learned from my wife that using the pill for contraception may not be so squeaky clean as everyone may think. Most people who take the pill believe they are doing the responsible thing. For most people the "pills" ease and convenence makes it the perfect form of birth control. For the religious it is the perfect form of birth control, since it prevents woman from ovulating, there is never an egg released. So no embryo, no controversy, right! .....Wrong.
Back in the seventies this was the case . The pill contained high doses of estrogen, which all but eliminated ovulation. But with high doses of estrogen came high occurrence of side effects. I'm not talking about dizziness and head aches, I mean heart attacks. In fact one of the first studys done with the original birth control pill showed 30% of woman who smoked while on the pill had a heart attacks along with many other side effects. So the amount of estrogen was lowered to make the pill safer. But over the next 10 or so years, the occurrence of side effects was still very high as long term studys showed. The amount of estrogen was gradually lowered over the years from 150 micrograms to 25 to 35 micrograms today. Even today doctors strongly recommend you do not smoke if on the pill.
Problem with lowering the estrogen levels to safe amounts is that the protection from ovulation was greatly reduced. The drug company's responded by adding progestin in combination with estrogen. This brought chances of pregnancy back down (approx 3% per year). The issue lies in how progestin prevents pregnancy. It works in two ways. First by thinkening unterine mucus, this makes it difficult for sperm cells to swim efficiently. Second by thinning the membrane of the uterus wall (from 13mm to almost 1mm), this prevents a embryo from being able to implant in the uterus. The key word here is embryo. For many that may mean nothing. For many others it is killing life.
The word contraception means preventing conception. Any doctor will define the moment of conception as the second the sperm and egg produce an embryo. Since it is known that the pill sometime prevents the embryo from implanting to prevent a full pregnancy. It is technically not a contraceptive. It may be a partial contraceptive, but it in no way deserves the right to be called just "contraceptive". It is basically lying to the consumer. The are millions of people that are against the destruction of embryos that use the pill. Not of their own fault but the fault of the drug company's and medical community for letting this become intentionally misunderstood. For most OBGYN doctors, woman who come in just for a perscription of the pill, make up a huge part of their income. My wife has used the pill in the past and I was totally unknowing of this information(at that time of my life I probably would not have cared anyway). But the majority of our great country is religious and has a right to know and not be lied to. I have read that the information can be found on the pamphlets that come with the pill, but I am not sure how descriptive it is. With all the talk in politics about embryos. I cant believe that this issue still remains mostly undiscovered. The pill could be responsible for killing millions of more embryos than medical research could ever hope to kill. The fact is, if you use the pill for a long period of time, it is very likely that you have had an abortion and dont even know it. The two hormones that are used in the "Pill" are the same two hormones that are used in the highly controversal "Morning after Pill", or more polictically correct name "emergency contraception". So if you forgot to take your pill, then had intercourse, you dont need a prescription for the morning after pill. You can just go ahead and take your regular pill. This needs to be brought into the light.
This subject must be brought into the light

No mass for the masses?

If you are Catholic, than the most important thing you can do every week is go to mass. If you are of any other western religion, than I guess the most important thing you can do every week is explain why mass is wrong. I am not Catholic, but have been studying differences between modern religions. The main argument is that most Protestants and Baptists believe that Jesus's act of atonement was final, it does not need to be repeated. He died for your sins once and for all. I fully understand the argument and even see some merit. I actually see merit to both sides. What I don't understand is why the Protestants and Baptists and so on, rip the Catholics for the action of mass, and yet do the exact same thing. Oh yeah, you don't really believe that the bread turns into Christ's body, and you don't really believe that the wine becomes Christ's blood. You do it symbolically to represent the last supper. You act out the last supper week after week, but say it has no significance to you at this time. Or, is it done by fear, Our savior says "whosal eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." So are you just acting it out just in case? Making sure you cover all the bases. When your pastor hands you the cup and says "the blood of Christ", do you take a sip and think to yourself "he must have his fingers crossed". When your pastor hands you a bread chip and says "the body of Christ", do you think there is a disclaimer stamped on the bottom of the bread that reads "Not really Christ, just a figure of speach".
When Christ told a group of people that this bread was his actual flesh and the wine was his actual blood. He made it clear he was not figuratively speaking. This made people leave in disgust. His disciples tried to stop them. Jesus told his diciples to let them go. He knew if they couldn't accept this than they were not ready to accept him.
I'm not saying you have to believe in mass. I'm am however saying if you don't believe in it, then don't act it out. Am I supposed to believe that the protestants (which were Catholic at one time, until 1600's) act out the same exact ritual as Catholics, every week Just like Catholics, but don't believe it has any meaning, except figuratively.
I understand there is far more to this debate about mass and it meaning, I'm not saying you should agree with the Catholic doctrine about what mass represents. The mass is performed at every Protestant church, just not believed in. I know, I went through it hundreds of times as a Protestant.