http://www.ccfmtn.org/leave-legacy.htm

Sheesh, I love that Catholic line:

"Convert earthly treasures to heavenly ones"

I guess they are now convincing them that they can take it with them!

Legacies would be a huge income spinner for the church. So they
have plenty of capital to build hospitals etc. Perhaps if we taxed
church income, we could use the money to build more none religious
institutions for everyone.

J S Mill, "I (you0 suppose that means that you (me) believe there is no place for religious altruism, only humanist?" To put it bluntly yes kick the parasites out. If that means there is only room for humanist so be it.
"that you (I) believe government would operate these services as well as - or perhaps better than - the religious? Since the religious only operate these services to peddle their own brand of 'mumbo-jumbo'. Anyone including government operating the same services minus the religious 'mumbo-jumbo' would naturally be operating the services better, stands to reason.
"the cost of completely disbanding social services provided by the churches would certainly run into the millions - how do you think 'the government' will pay for that Paul?" The social services previously provided by the churches would continue to operate, minus the churches. No church, therefore no one to compensate, compensation problem solved. There maybe some small cost in re-education and or replacement of some staff as to the new methods of operation. Some may not be willing or able to comply with the new system of operation, unfortunately for them they will have to be 'let go'. Others once relising the consequences of being 'let go' will quickly comply. On the practical side there would be some small costs in renaming etc, eg 'Saint Piddling's' will be renamed 'The New School of Enlightenment' Possibly some minor dislocation costs as objections are dealt with.
"Lastly, unfortunately for you 'the government' is bound by law. If the Feds want to take over these institutions they will have to do it in accordance with s 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution." New law all fixed. All objections and problems can be dealt with in the proper manor.

“For Santorum, Gingrich and their cohort…” – author.

Well, I suppose it’s hard not to let emotions run over an issue like this.

Another pro-abortion article based on the right of an ideologue to let the tail wag the dog. The unborn are not part of the human race because on the very slight occasion (she doesn’t even state an example) the baby may pose medical risk to the mother; the unborn are not part of the human race because on the very slight occasion a girl/women is impregnated during rape.

[As an aside – incest victims may often want to cling to their pregnancy as it confirms the abuse to which they have been subjected, leading to an escape from their situation, not to mention and object to which they can release true affection.]

Another pro-abortion article that attempts to cloud the issue in religion. Religion does not need to be invoked to see that a kid in the womb is real and human. Anyone can see that on an ultrasound. That’s science, not religion.

This article drones on and on near the start about ‘equality’. Yet it’s has come to light in various places including Britain that women are choosing abortions for cultural reasons based on the sex of the child. Usually it’s because the sex is female. In such cases, the inequality and injustice is clearly seen – by women and men – and suddenly the foetus becomes part of the human family again.