> Take what I said about "benign neglect" and apply it to other organizations you know. Isn't it the truth? Why shouldn't it also be true for churches?

No, it is *not* the truth. When secular bodies try it, we have rights and votes and unions and avenues of protest to deal with it. And it "should" not be true for any of them.

"Benign neglect" of an outdated and restrictive ruling - especially such a powerful one - should not be tolerated in *any* institution. If an organisation - the Church, the government, big corporations, whoever - make a ruling of the sort of magnitude and control that the contraception ban has, then it needs to be accurate and up to date, or else CHANGED to reflect the current situation, or else abolished outright.

To leave a repressive law in force allows too much opportunity for inconsistency and corruption. 'Scuse the shouting but:

IF A BODY IS GOING TO WIELD POWER, AND BENEFIT/PROFIT FROM THAT POWER, THEY NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND HONEST ABOUT HOW THEY ADMINISTER IT.

The minute it's open to "interpretation" IT CAN BE MISUSED. It's not good enough just to put a rule in force - especially one as important as birth control - and then ignore it when it suits you. It's hypocrisy. And it's corruptible.

Why do you believe it's so acceptable to leave the ban as it stands and just benignly Neglect it? Why do you not think it should be rescinded? The only thing I get from you is that turning a blind eye is somehow OK. For the life of me, I can't understand why you're making excuses for this untenable and obsolete ban.

Which is what you're doing when you advocate leaving it in force, either overtly or covertly (i.e. benign neglect).