Posted by Tina
A gaggle of feminists had a hissy fit last week when House Republicans held a hearing entitled: “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”
Testimony at the hearing was given by members of the clergy and composed mostly of men. This caused Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to storm out of the building in a huff, remonstrating colleagues with a sharp tongued retort to reporters:
“Imagine, they’re having a panel on women’s health, and they don’t have any women on the panel — duh!”
Ahem! Is she out of her mind?
Soon tweets were flying back and forth across the twittosphere. How dare they speak about women’s issues without consulting women!
Emily’s List swiftly launched an anti-republican ad as Emily’s List President, Stephanie Schriock, warned women everywhere of the dangers of the “radical, right-wing anti-women conservatives in Washington using their power to set women back decades”.
Set women back decades? Who is she trying to fool? Are these women not in positions of authority? And is this emotional outburst the best these women can do? Are they capable of addressing the issue in question? Even if we were to consider their obvious irrational fears, have they not heard of Planned Parenthood? Are they saying they are unaware of the many ways that women have access to contraception through various assistance programs? Are these willing to compromise the first ammendment for the sake of free contraception for women?
Ms Schriok, Ms Pelosi you really need to get over yourselves!
This hearing was not about “women’s health”, as Nancy Pelosi wrongly stated. The hearing was about whether or not our government can stomp all over the first amendment with impunity. Ms Pelosi would call it a “separation of church and state” issue. Certainly she is familiar with the concept since her side has used it often enough to silence religious expression in the public square and in our schools.
My advice to feminist women everywhere: Learn to discuss political issues like mature adults or forever be seen as the conniving, manipulative dames you said you never wanted to be.
Tina, this hearing, and your defense of the lack of female voices on it, speaks to an astounding level of tone-deafness toward the American people coming from the right these days.
Access to contraception is an issue primarily affecting women. For Republicans to attempt to spin it into an issue which primarily impacts male clergy members is, frankly, surreal. And Americans aren’t buying it. With polls showing that 98% of Catholic adults have used birth control and a majority of Catholics agree that contraception should be covered, it seems clear that even the choir ain’t listening to what the preacher be preaching.
Clergymen are fighting a losing battle here and they are eventually going to have to reconcile their worldview with the worldviews of the majority of their flock–otherwise, their flock will begin leaving in droves. The past two generations have become less and less religious, and if the clergy wants to accelerate this exodus, then clinging to traditionalist beliefs such as “contraception is immoral” is a great way to do that. Many churches have already moved away from such beliefs and those are the churches that are growing in membership, because they know how to stay relevant to people’s modern lives.
Regardless, none of this would matter if the rights of clergymen were really being violated. But they are not. Churches still don’t have to provide contraception in their healthcare plans. Only religious organizations which employ people not of that religion have to comply. That’s perfectly fair, and perfectly constitutional. Religious organizations don’t get to hire employees who don’t share their beliefs, and then attempt to impose those beliefs on their employees. They can choose to keep their organization heathen-free and do exactly as they please, but if they open their ranks to non-believers then they have to comply with federal regulations, without any special exceptions. Nothing about this violates the first amendment in any way.
Also, I find it particularly counter-productive the way you demean your fellow women with sexist characterizations such as accusing them of throwing a “hissy fit,” being “sharp tongued,” having “emotional outbursts,” “storming off in a huff,” and being “conniving, manipulative dames.” This attitude is precisely the problem people are pointing out to you right now, and you’re responding by making it even worse. I mean, really, who do you expect to convince with this type of language? It may work on those who already agree with you (preaching to the choir again), but to everyone else it only reinforces the notion that Republicans are sexist and out of touch with the modern world. If you don’t want people to think of you this way, then don’t give them a reason to.
Chris, Tina can speak for herself (and she did quite well in this article), however I also see this as not being about women. It is more about an encroachment on religion in violation of the church and state doctrine – you so often champion. One might easily accuse yourself of being “tone deaf”, as you put it, to this not so insignificant affront by government over a Constitutional guarantee. Do you really not see the nexus Chris?
Chris: “Access to contraception is an issue primarily affecting women. For Republicans to attempt to spin it into an issue which primarily impacts male clergy members is, frankly, surreal.”
Spinning a congressional hearing about first amendment rights into an issue about contraception and women’s health is surreal.
(But it’s obviously been staged; the game began with that weasel contraception question asked completely out of context of Mitt Romney in one of the debates.)
“With polls showing that 98% of Catholic adults have used birth control and a majority of Catholics agree that contraception should be covered…because they know how to stay relevant to people’s modern lives.”
Oh he** yes…let’s ignore the constitutional question entirely because women have to have free access to contraception in all circumstances! It’s the modern world that’s important!
But the subject is irrelevant! Yhe hearing was about the legality of this thuggish dictat…a first amendment question!!!
“Only religious organizations which employ people not of that religion have to comply.”
Are you sure you want to hang on to that feeble argument? Tell me, Chris, if this stands who will decide from now on who is protected by the first amendment and who is not?
“Religious organizations don’t get to hire employees who don’t share their beliefs, and then attempt to impose those beliefs on their employees.”
In my opinion any organization should be free to hire under whatever conditions they choose and any employee that is not happy with the conditions or coverage offerred can seek employment elsewhere! They are also free to run their butts down to Planned Parenthood.
“I find it particularly counter-productive the way you demean your fellow women with sexist characterizations such as accusing them of throwing a “hissy fit,” being “sharp tongued,” having “emotional outbursts,” “storming off in a huff,” and being “conniving, manipulative dames.”
If the shoe fits!
These women, and I use the term with great trepidation, haven’t earned my respect; they have earned the descriptors. They do not demonstrate even a modicum of respect for this body or the subject at hand. They have shown little respect for women that don’t fall in line like a robots behind their positions.
“…it only reinforces the notion that Republicans are sexist and out of touch with the modern world.”
Oh yes, “the modern world”. In America that would be a world filled with std’s, over a million abortions performed each year, prisons filled to overflow with criminals, high divorce rates, kids left to fend for themselves while mommy is out playing with her friends (boyfriend), mothers and fathers murdering their kids because they can’t feed them or because they have become an inconvenience, Kids murdering parents, high dropout rates, inadequate work skills, teachers molesting their students, rampant drug use…must I go on? Tell you what Chris, I’m pretty sick of the so-called “modern world” brought to us in part by a bunch of women that have acted irresponsibly in the guise of being “just like men” and in the process tossed our civilization down the toilet.
“If you don’t want people to think of you this way, then don’t give them a reason to.”
That’s right, Chris, I should bite my tongue and get with the program. Fall in line with the “modern” liberal progressive left. I should shut up like a good little cookie cutter female and pretend that the things that used to have meaning in this country, things like freedom, family, faith, honor, and responsibility, don’t have a place anymore. I should stuff all thoughts of my own and pretend that this “modern world”, brought to us in great part by the modern feminist movement, doesn’t include the first amendment.
This country was founded by persons seeking religious freedom. Freedom is the very heart of the Constitution. The suggestion that the Health and Human Services Secretary can arbitrarily decide that contraception must be covered and must be free…by any organization…is so far afield of all notions of freedom, free religious expression, and freedom of conscience, it takes my breath away.
The question for me, Chris, is why in he** aren’t you angry about this? Forget the ridiculous feminist response to the hearings…do you really suppose that once we let this one go by, once we allow this precedent to be set, the practice of trampling on our rights will end?
The entire healthcare bill is an afront to anyone that loves freedom and it MUST be thrown out…along with this administration! If it takes expressing contempt for some women in the process so be it. There are issues that are much more fundamental and important than whether women get freebies. It’s about time women started acting like strong adults rather than aging rebelious teenagers.
There are times when gentle pursuasion would be the best course, Chris. In my opinion, this isn’t one of them.
“Ladies…The Freedom Hearing was NOT ABOUT YOU!”
The hell it wasn’t!
You are, apparently, incapable of making the distinction … but … one more time … nobody is telling you that you must take responsiblity for procreation. You are telling us that we musn’t.
What does that make you? Unable to own your irresponsibility, I’d say.
We need to wake up and realize this whole First Amendment/Birth Control issue is being orchestrated by the DNC and Axelrod to direct our attention away from Obamas failed economic recovery. His chance of re-election is way down because of the bad economy necessitating the need to redirect everyones attention to an attack on Republicans with bogus issues. Since the debate when Romney was asked about states rights to regulate birth control the airways and print media have been using the time and space covering the birth control subject. Santorum even had to defend himself over statements he made about the environment, but reported as an attack on Obamas religious theology.
Lets turn the table and get the economy and gas prices back as the important topic of discussion. I would really like to get someone elected that knows how to lead and can bring us out of this three to four year recession, aka: almost depression. Its the ECONOMY, not birth control we need on front pages.
I really thought this video of Pelosi bashing Bush over the gas prices of great interest. Especially where she says we need to stop sending our money overseas but instead to our own states.
Here she is during a press conference in May 2007 when she blamed President Bush for high gas prices. She even used a little gas pump chart to make her point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tbzzeuYJteY
And this video of Dick Morris who was the first that saw the whole birth control agenda for what it really is.
http://nation.foxnews.com/dick-morris/2012/02/14/dick-morris-accuses-george-stephanopoulos-being-paid-democratic-hitman
Tina you are correct, it’s not about a woman’s access to free birth control and other reproductive devices, it is about our First Amendment’s guarantee to protect our religious.
Here are links to faith-based groups and individuals explaining their beliefs and objections to Obama’s action.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission discusses the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-74hH2ncffU&feature=player_embedded
Letter to Obama signed by 2,500 clergy leaders.
https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=CHECKOUT&dmy=A0ADE193-EB70-A545-505C464A7C49E35B&CFID=31251494&CFTOKEN=80810d010fe5f5db-A0AAD831-937B-F8F4-8FBB5297380DD642
Press Release: FRC Releases Letter Signed By 2,500 Religious Leaders Opposing Contraceptive Mandate
http://www.frc.org/newsroom/news-conference-today-frc-releases-letter-signed-by-2500-religious-leaders-opposing-contraceptive-mandate
Good work Peggy! You have really nailed it.
The DNC has orchestrated this so-called issue because they NEED the women’s vote and since they cannot defend their record they must demonize the competition. This is classic behavior for this party.
It’s heartbreaking that so many of our gender can be so easily manipulated! What was the “modern” women’s movement about if not being able to think for oneself and stand on ones own two feet?
Now the leaders in the movement press women to make government a surrogate husband that hands out freebies and provides rent and grocery money. They teach women to use feminine rage, whining, and bitchiness to get their way. The focus keeps women in a state of permanent immaturity and neediness and forever wedded to the Democrat Party.
Worked up like wind-up dolls these women haven’t a clue about the constitutional issue. Even sadder, they would probably trade away their freedoms for a prize that is already available to them.
This edict by Kathleen Sabilious is only the beginning. She has the power under this law to make all kinds of decisions about our health care. If the Supremes don’t strike this law down America as a free country is lost; there will be no way to turn back the march toward tyranny sans war.
Libby: “nobody is telling you that you must take responsiblity for procreation. You are telling us that we musn’t.”
One more time! The hearing was about the religious organizations giving voice to their objections based on constitutional protections in a formal hearing. It was not about women’s health issues.
Get that? Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW…prohibiting the FREE EXERCIZE thereof!
This edict, randomly decided by an appointed secretary, based on her choice, prohibits religious organizations from exercizing their religious belief and consciences.
As one person put it what is next? Based on health concerns are deli’s going to be banned from selling BLT’s and ham sandwiches…only chicken nuggets will be allowed? Already candy bar makers have been cowed into discontinuing their larger sized bars. Sorry, mental health has become a problem…too many arguments…no more free expression!!!
You make a very valid point on the differences between liberal and conservative women and what they want for themselves and their daughters. Just compare the below political leaders and the future behavior of women is clear. It’s easy to find what they’ve said and the examples they want women to follow.
Democrats:
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Boxer-Calif.
Barbara Feinstein-Calif.
Maxine Waters-Calif.
Hilary Clinton
Republican:
Michelle Bauchman
Sarah Palin
Jan Brewer
Nicky Haily
Mary Bono Mack-Calif.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Our own state of California has an identical requirement to the one just passed at the federal level, and the exemptions are the same as well: houses of worship do not have to comply, but religious organizations which employ non-believers do have to provide contraception.
NPR has details:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage?ft=1&f=103537970
“While some religious employers take advantage of loopholes or religious exemptions, the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages.
“”We’ve always had contraceptive birth control included in our health care benefits,” said Michelle Michaud, a labor and delivery nurse at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif. “It’s something that we’ve come to expect for ourselves and our family.”
Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.
Michaud, who was raised Catholic but doesn’t practice now, says she doesn’t see any problem for a Catholic hospital to provide a benefit that conflicts with the religion’s teachings.
“Oh no, because they don’t just employ Catholics,” she said. “They may be Catholic, but who they employ are not necessarily Catholic.” At the same time, said Michaud, “even practicing Catholics would want to have birth control options.”
Indeed, studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. use artificial birth control.
But while Catholic Healthcare West began offering coverage before it was legally required, today the landscape is quite different. According to the National Women’s Law Center, 28 states currently require contraceptives to be offered in health plans that also cover other prescription drugs; eight of those laws include no exemption for religious organizations.
Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., also offers contraceptive coverage to its employees though not to its students.”
The fact is that the views of the clergymen represented in this hearing are unpopular even among members of their own religion.
But like I said, if the rights of these clergymen were really being violated, then none of this would matter. But they’re just…not. If you employ non-Catholics, you don’t get to use Catholic doctrine to decide what will and won’t be covered in their health insurance programs.
“Are you sure you want to hang on to that feeble argument?”
It’s not a feeble argument, it’s already the law in 28 states, 8 of which have no religious exemptions at all.
“Tell me, Chris, if this stands who will decide from now on who is protected by the first amendment and who is not?”
This is not about who is or isn’t protected by the first amendment; the first amendment does not allow employers to dictate religious beliefs onto their employees if said employees are working for them in a secular capacity.
“In my opinion any organization should be free to hire under whatever conditions they choose and any employee that is not happy with the conditions or coverage offerred can seek employment elsewhere!”
Well, this is an extremely radical opinion that hasn’t been popular among Americans for at least one hundred years. We’ve decided that federal regulation of employment conditions is, in some instances, necessary. We can disagree over where the line is, but to make such an extreme statement such as “Any organization should be free to hire under whatever conditions they choose” is to alienate yourself from the vast majority of Americans. It makes it clear that you have no clue what is required for citizens of an industrialized society to thrive and prosper.
“They are also free to run their butts down to Planned Parenthood.”
I’m amazed you have the gall to even bring up Planned Parenthood given the unfair and often lying attacks your party has leveled against this historic organization over the past few years. These attacks give Americans further reason to believe that you are the party against contraception, and this position is likely to cost you dearly on election day.
“These women, and I use the term with great trepidation, haven’t earned my respect;”
I suppose to earn your respect they need to be a little more like Sarah Palin.
In all seriousness, Tina, your disdain for feminists is unbecoming and shows an astounding level of ungratefulness. The feminist movement has done more to ensure your freedom than the Tea Party or Rush Limbaugh ever has or ever will, and if you don’t see that, then feminists don’t need your respect.
“Oh yes, “the modern world”. In America that would be a world filled with std’s, over a million abortions performed each year, prisons filled to overflow with criminals, high divorce rates, kids left to fend for themselves while mommy is out playing with her friends (boyfriend), mothers and fathers murdering their kids because they can’t feed them or because they have become an inconvenience, Kids murdering parents, high dropout rates, inadequate work skills, teachers molesting their students, rampant drug use…must I go on?”
No, don’t go on; I think you have adequately listed several problems that can be curtailed by better access to preventative measures such as contraception, so thanks for helping me out there.
Modern problems need modern solutions. “Keep your legs closed, sluts!” may make the people who say it feel better about themselves, but it is not a workable solution in this day and age, as the abject failure of abstinence-only education demonstrates. And yet it seems to be the favored solution of many conservatives, including Rick Santorum, whose fatal flaw is that he is running on a platform of 1950s values in 2012. Good luck with that.
“The question for me, Chris, is why in he** aren’t you angry about this? Forget the ridiculous feminist response to the hearings…do you really suppose that once we let this one go by, once we allow this precedent to be set, the practice of trampling on our rights will end?”
This isn’t a trampling on anyone’s rights, Tina. If you hire people who are not of your own religious background, you can’t impose your own religious beliefs when deciding what you will and won’t cover in their health insurance. That fits perfectly well with the first amendment.
“The entire healthcare bill is an afront to anyone that loves freedom and it MUST be thrown out…along with this administration!”
This would be easier to take seriously if you weren’t so choosy about when you “love freedom.” You and your friends in the Tea Party seem to have no problem with the Patriot Act, with targeted assassinations of American citizens without trial, with indefinite detention, with police brutality against people you don’t like…your love of freedom is selective. You think the individual mandate, which was first devised by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney, is a violation of constitutional freedom, but don’t think that states banning consensual sex acts between adults in their own homes is a violation of constitutional freedom at all. That tells me all I need to know about your commitment to constitutional freedom.
Peggy: “We need to wake up and realize this whole First Amendment/Birth Control issue is being orchestrated by the DNC and Axelrod to direct our attention away from Obamas failed economic recovery.”
Or, they actually believe in what they’re doing.
Also, we’ve been getting a lot of good economic news lately. The Republican response? “We don’t believe the numbers!” So if anyone needs to deflect right now, it’s the Republicans.
“Santorum even had to defend himself over statements he made about the environment, but reported as an attack on Obamas religious theology.”
It was reported as an attack on Obama’s religious theology because Santorum made an attack on Obama’s religious theology.
This article is probably the clearest defense of the contraception mandate I have read so far. It is worth checking out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-quigley/contraception-religion_b_1259731.html
“…Protection of religious freedom means considering the faiths and beliefs of everyone involved. Just as the beliefs of Catholics at Catholic institutions must be respected, so too must we respect the beliefs of other religious and non-religious followers. Take for example a Catholic university where Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and followers of other faiths work – should these individuals be denied access to contraception even though their religions do not oppose contraception use? If we expand the religious exemption too far, and allow religiously-affiliated institutions to deny contraception to their employees regardless of their religious beliefs, we begin to see the beliefs and rights of those who support and require contraception infringed upon.
A balance must be struck between protecting the rights of religious followers and others who may be impacted by a religious exemption. The Supreme Court, in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, explained that religious exemptions should be tailored so they do not “impose substantial burdens on nonbeneficiaries.” Denial of contraception to women without the financial means to afford it could cause substantial economic burdens, and even greater burdens if the lack of contraception results in an unintended pregnancy. Further, a lack of access to contraception could also be a substantial burden for women who rely on oral contraception for noncontraceptive benefits such as reduced pain and severity of symptoms…”
Chris you still don’t get it. The outrage isn’t about contraception. It is about the first amendment.
There is a difference between a religious organization making a private decision about their business (either way) and a federal decree that forces a religious organization to make a particular decision…expecially when that rule comes out of an unelected department heads mind.
“should these individuals be denied access to contraception even though their religions do not oppose contraception use?”
It is absurd to say that women don’t have adequate access to contraception or abortion.
a) They can choose to attend school or work elsewhere.
b) They can get birth control or abortion elsewhere (Planned Parenthood would be happy to help them) and pay for it themselves.
“Denial of contraception to women without the financial means to afford it could cause substantial economic burdens, and even greater burdens if the lack of contraception results in an unintended pregnancy. Further, a lack of access to contraception could also be a substantial burden for women who rely on oral contraception for noncontraceptive benefits such as reduced pain and severity of symptoms…”
There is a very simple solution for most women. It is very inexpensive and probably better for them health wise and their children if they are single moms. It’s called abstinence! Works every time!!! You don’t engage in activities you cannot afford. I don’t buy the can’t afford excuse. People make all kinds of financial decisions and will find a way to do without one thing to pay for something else. If it is that important they will find a way.
Don’t talk to me about unintended pregnancy. Women get pregnant way too often simply because they do have access to abortion and free contraception…they don’t have to exercise restraint or personal responsibility…somebody else will pay!!!
and what about the responsibility of men? Condoms work most of the time and they are fairly cheap. There are too many men running around and planting seeds with zero intention of being responsibkle for the abortion, the birth control or the babies…tons of babies born to unwed mothers.
Our society is chock full of irresponsible, adolescent men and women because they ahve not had to face the consequences of their actions. Your attitude is better than most and STILL you cannot seem to see the end of this road. It is your future Chris; a future where even more irresponsible people standing around with their hands out will expect you to pay for their upkeep, care and feeding. How long before you get fed up working your butt off when they won’t?
If we hadn’t put government in charge of things that individuals should provide for themselves we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This is what we get by putting the federal government in charge of our maintenance and health care decisions.
Unless Obamacare is overturned there will be more decisions coming of of the HHS office that will interfere with private choices. Some will be decisions that should be between doctors and patients and their own conscience but others will be about what we can eat (what can be sold).
Women that agree with this bad law should be ashamed of themselves. There is nothing strong or independent or smart about allowing government to act like one’s parent or substitute husband. The women’s movement is a total failure, resulting in dependency thinking period!
“You and your friends in the Tea Party seem to have no problem with the Patriot Act, with targeted assassinations of American citizens without trial, with indefinite detention, with police brutality against people you don’t like…your love of freedom is selective.”
Wrong! We were not happy about the Patriot Act but we weren’t complete fools either. We could see that in certain circumstances (war waged on us by terrorists without allegience to any state or official uniform) the old rules were inadequate and wouldn’t ensure the protections for our country that were the responsibility of our leadership. New rules were constructed with safeguards in place keeping in mind the international laws covering war that could be utilized.
As for the police brutality I have told you Chris, we have procedures for handling cases of police brutality. You act like the police are applauded when they cross the line…there are consequences for them handled within the department in some cases and within the legal system if necessary.
Your accusation that I would condone police brutality against “people I don’t like” is absurd.
What I do ask is that those people take responsibility for their situation. I think that people who act in open definace of our laws, refuse to move out of an area when asked, and provoke a confrontation with police can’t complain when they find themselves being pepper sprayed. Nobody forced them to stand there and get sprayed…They made a choice! It’s called being a grown up!
One of the biggest problems in America today is that one party has been creating laws that ensure our citizens never grow up and are ever more dependent…the other party went along to get along…made too many compromises and failed to speak out!
That ends with me NOW. it’s time for all Americans to grow up. Either that or we should just take this ship to its logical conclusion and become permanent wards of the state…give up freedom in exchange for bread and a tent.
What do you think, Chris…are you ready for that?
“Chris you still don’t get it. The outrage isn’t about contraception. It is about the first amendment.” He is being stubborn because it doesn’t fit what he is told to think by his college indoctrination team. lol
“It was reported as an attack on Obama’s religious theology because Santorum made an attack on Obama’s religious theology.”
Sorry Chris but on this you are incorrect. I did see Santorum’s whole statement on TV and he was talking about the enviornment, but I’m not able to locate it on-line or it doesn’t exist. So for now all I can provide are the below links about his statement. When or if the video does become available I will post it.
So, for now we will have to take Santorum at his word on what his intent was just like we will with Obama on his Christian faith. One man’s word should be as good as the other.
===========
Ive repeatedly said I dont question the presidents faith. Ive repeatedly said that I believe the presidents Christian, Santorum told CBS Face the Nation.
I am talking about his world view, and the way he approaches problems in this country. I think theyre different than how most people do in America, he said in the broadcast interview.
The former Pennsylvania senator said Obamas environmental policies promote ideas of radical environmentalists, who, Santorum argues, oppose greater use of the countrys natural resources because they believe man is here to serve the Earth. He said that was the reference he was making Saturday in his Ohio campaign appearance when he denounced a phony theology.
I think that is a phony ideal. I dont believe that is what were here to do, Santorum said. Were not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective.
Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/santorum-said-obamas-faith-not-the-issue-but-phony-ideal-promoting-earth-and-abortions/2012/02/19/gIQAvqQlNR_story.html
“I wasn’t suggesting the president’s not a Christian. I accept the fact that the president is a Christian,” Santorum said.
“I was talking about the radical environmentalist,” he said. “I was talking about energy, this idea that man is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/19/santorum-talks-economy-with-phony-theology-comment-but-social-debate-ensues/#ixzz1n4Pw7MCM
Chris, Thought you mind find the below interview of Franklin Graham of interest.
===
Rev. Franklin Graham Refuses to Say Obama & Romney Are Christians During Contentious MSNBC Interview
Do you believe that President Obama is a Christian?, co-host Willie Geist asked.
I think you have to ask President ObamaI think people have to ask Barack Obama hes come out saying hes a Christian. So, I think the question is What is a Christian?, Graham responded.
Geist pushed the faith leader on the question, appearing visibly surprised by his refusal to say, definitively, that Obama is, indeed, a believer. In reaffirming his refusal to confirm Obamas faith, Graham, cited the presidents description of how he became a Christian a story that allegedly focused more upon his community organizing than it did a heartfelt connection to the Almighty.
So therefore by your definition, hes not a Christian?, Geist continued, with Graham again saying that he cannot answer that question on the presidents behalf.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rev-franklin-graham-refuses-to-say-obama-romney-are-christians-during-contentious-msnbc-interview/
Hey Tina, There are other women out there who believe as we do. 750 women responded to a letter in just 72 hours with more coming in.
——
Here We Are
Women who stand in favor of religious liberty
By Helen M. Alvare & Kim Daniels
“Like countless other women, weve been closely following the Obama administrations attempt to compel religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs. And like countless other women, over the past several days weve heard House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others repeatedly ask those who oppose the contraceptive mandate, Where are the women?
Here we are.”
“We listened to prominent women purport to speak for us. We watched them duck the fundamental religious-liberty issues at stake. And we saw them assume that all women view cheaper contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs as unqualified goods.
In response, we circulated an open letter to a few dozen of our female friends in support of the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage, and family life. The letter spread, and in 72 hours we received some 750 signatures from a diverse group of women across the country, including women serving overseas. Signatures are still flooding in. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, mothers, business owners, community volunteers, scholars women from all walks of life are proud to stand together with the Catholic Church and its invaluable witness.”
“No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious-liberty issues at stake. We are proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage, and family life. We call on President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and our representatives in Congress to respect religious voices, to respect religious liberty, and to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to provide witness to their faiths in all their fullness.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291590/here-we-are-helen-m-alvare
“The hearing was about the religious organizations giving voice to their objections based on constitutional protections in a formal hearing. It was not about women’s health issues.”
Tina, you are hoping that the form will mask the substance … and it won’t.
Peggy great find!
Libby..you are full of Alinsky crap!
Does anyone recall Obama taking this kind of crap for his stance on marriage as “between man and a woman” when he was running against Hillary?
Nope…I believe the media and his fawning followers gave him a pass on that one even though the little leftists would hammer any Republican that said as much. Hypocrits! Rick Santorum is surging he must be destroyed…playing the Alinski way:
Rule 12 Destroy the Individual: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Well sorry guys but it’s no more “mr nice guy” for me. Whenever they begin this garbage I will play the same game right back at them. I don’t like it but it has been demonstrated to work. If we’re going to have any chance at all in this race the field has to be leveled.
I will also spend time on the issues and the positions of the candidate in an honest and forthright way. BVut I will not be bulldozed by radical left progressives that can’t debate honestly, can;t defend their record, so instead resort to cruel and indecent distortions, lies and personal ridicule.
I’m right there with you Tina. I’m not a good writter, but I love to research and read.
You bring up the subjects and I’ll support it.
I too am sick of being told what I think and believe is always wrong and the progressive left are always right. We are in this mess because our republican representatives didn’t stand up and fight for the reasons we elected them.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
“Libby..you are full of Alinsky crap!”
When are you going to stop proving the man right? He said that reactionary and hysterical opposition would only serve to validate our claims. And how right he was.
I’m just hoping all this brouhah will serve to derail some nasty undertakings in the Virginia legislature.
As my Moody was wont to pronounce: “Constant Vigilance!”
Hey Chris and everyone, I found the video of Santurm that shows he was talking about the enviroment when he used the word “theology/ideology” and not Obama’s faith.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1463268901001/santorum-on-obamas-radical-ideology
Libby: “He said that reactionary and hysterical opposition would only serve to validate our claims. And how right he was.”
“Validation” through lies and manipulation of the illinformed for political advantage is not validation but propaganda. You’re still full of Alinsky crap.
You use this crappola because you can’t defend the record and you can’t debate the policies and issues honestly.
Peggy you contribute a lot with that research and we really appreciate it…and your writing is just fine! You never fail to make your point.
Excellent find Peggy…I wish more of our readers would get involved like this. It means a lot to the exchange of information, truth in politics and just plain ol learning. THANK YOU!!!!
Tina: “Chris you still don’t get it. The outrage isn’t about contraception. It is about the first amendment.”
Tina, I have stated several times now that if this mandate violated the first amendment, then that would trump all other concerns. I then went on to explain exactly why it does not violate the first amendment, but actually protects the religious freedom of employees. For you to say that I still don’t get that this is about the first amendment makes me feel, not for the first time here, like you didn’t even read my comments before responding to them.
“There is a difference between a religious organization making a private decision about their business (either way) and a federal decree that forces a religious organization to make a particular decision…expecially when that rule comes out of an unelected department heads mind.”
Well, yes, of course there is a difference, but this statement doesn’t tell us much about what that difference is or whether the difference is constitutional or not.
It is relevant that many Catholic organizations voluntarily chose to include contraception as part of their health insurance plans before the mandate. It is also relevant that a majority of Catholics actually support requiring employers to provide contraception in their insurance plans. It is harder to argue that a government mandate is discriminating against your religion when the majority of your religion actually supports the mandate.
Harder, but not impossible; the clergymen might still actually have a case even after taking these facts into account. If the mandate applied to churches and houses of worship, then it would in fact violate the first amendment. But it doesn’t. It only applies to organizations which hire and serve people who are not of their own religion. Employers don’t get to use their religious beliefs to decide what will or won’t be covered in their employees’ health insurance plans, any more than Park 51 can require non-Muslim waitresses in their restaurant to wear the hijab. If a religious organization decides to hire non-believers, they have to respect their employees’ religious beliefs and not attempt to impose their own. These employees are entitled to basic preventative care and their employers don’t get to decide what they won’t include. This mandate protects the religious freedom of employees.
“It is absurd to say that women don’t have adequate access to contraception or abortion.”
Tina, as the article I posted above points out, contraception can be expensive and if it isn’t covered by insurance some women will just do without. This will lead to more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, more people on welfare, etc.
“a) They can choose to attend school or work elsewhere.”
You are once again showing how out of touch you are. It is almost bizarre how you don’t see that “Work elsewhere” isn’t going to be an option for everyone in our climate of record unemployment. Yet you and other Republicans offer this “solution” constantly, as if finding a job is easy right now. That is amazingly tone-deaf.
“b) They can get birth control or abortion elsewhere (Planned Parenthood would be happy to help them) and pay for it themselves.”
Once again I have to point out that your party has declared war on Planned Parenthood, so for you to recommend this organization strikes me as supreme hypocrisy.
“There is a very simple solution for most women. It is very inexpensive and probably better for them health wise and their children if they are single moms. It’s called abstinence! Works every time!!!”
Yeah, now I’m certain you didn’t read my comment. I’m not sure why you think telling people to remain abstinent is going to work when areas with abstinence-only education actually have higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates than areas that encourage contraception use.
Obviously if people just choose to be abstinent, then these problems will go away. By the same token, if everyone chooses to ride bikes or use public transportation, we can solve the pollution crisis tomorrow. But you wouldn’t hesitate to call that a naive solution; you’d point out that we can’t expect people to just give up their cars en masse, and that this is just an impractical proposal in today’s world. Yet you display the exact same type of naivete when you say that people should just not have sex until marriage, and then everything will be fine. It’s all well and good to say this, but people aren’t going to listen. We need practical, modern solutions. You’re not everybody’s mother, and you’re not going to be able to stop them from having premarital sex. You need to think about what you actually CAN do in order to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, and the social harms that result from both. One thing you can do is support greater access to contraception.
“and what about the responsibility of men? Condoms work most of the time and they are fairly cheap. There are too many men running around and planting seeds with zero intention of being responsibkle for the abortion, the birth control or the babies…tons of babies born to unwed mothers.”
I agree, Tina, but this is behavior that we as a society can’t really control. What we can do is support greater access to contraception.
“Our society is chock full of irresponsible, adolescent men and women because they ahve not had to face the consequences of their actions. Your attitude is better than most and STILL you cannot seem to see the end of this road. It is your future Chris; a future where even more irresponsible people standing around with their hands out will expect you to pay for their upkeep, care and feeding. How long before you get fed up working your butt off when they won’t?”
Tina, in all this ranting I think you’ve forgotten the actual topic. We’re not talking about unemployed moochers leeching off the government teat; we’re talking about employees receiving basic preventative care in their employer-provided health insurance programs. These people aren’t getting something for nothing; they’re working not just for their paycheck but also for their insurance. They’re earning it.
You may not agree that employees are entitled to a basic standard of care from their workplaces, but the majority of Americans disagree with you. If we took a vote tomorrow on whether or not employers should be required to provide contraception in their insurance plans, polls indicate that Americans would vote “Yes” in a landslide. This policy is popular even among Catholics.
“If we hadn’t put government in charge of things that individuals should provide for themselves we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This is what we get by putting the federal government in charge of our maintenance and health care decisions.”
What is “what we get?” Easier access to contraception? To that I say “Yay,” and a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, seem to be joining me in that “Yay.”
“Unless Obamacare is overturned there will be more decisions coming of of the HHS office that will interfere with private choices. Some will be decisions that should be between doctors and patients and their own conscience but others will be about what we can eat (what can be sold).”
I think this is over-the-top. This mandate doesn’t get between anyone and their doctor; people aren’t required to actually accept contraception, it just has to be offered. In fact many Republicans have claimed that the PPACA interferes with choices between a patient and doctor, but have been unable to provide one single example of how it does this.
“Women that agree with this bad law should be ashamed of themselves.”
So you’re saying the majority of Catholic women should be ashamed of themselves?
“Wrong! We were not happy about the Patriot Act but we weren’t complete fools either.”
I’ve never heard you make one complain about the Patriot Act so I have trouble believing this. What about it are you unhappy with?
“As for the police brutality I have told you Chris, we have procedures for handling cases of police brutality. You act like the police are applauded when they cross the line…”
Many on the right have applauded police who’ve used excessive force against Occupy Wall Street protesters. Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit wrote a blog post in which he cheered the officer involved at the UC Davis incident and essentially said that those hippies got exactly what they deserved. I believe Pam Geller said similar hateful things, but what else is new from those two dummies.
“there are consequences for them handled within the department in some cases and within the legal system if necessary.
Your accusation that I would condone police brutality against “people I don’t like” is absurd.
What I do ask is that those people take responsibility for their situation. I think that people who act in open definace of our laws, refuse to move out of an area when asked, and provoke a confrontation with police can’t complain when they find themselves being pepper sprayed. Nobody forced them to stand there and get sprayed…They made a choice! It’s called being a grown up!”
Tina, do you see what you’re doing here? You claim not to condone police brutality, but then you actually take the time to condemn the victims for not cooperating to your satisfaction, while you offer no condemnation of the police who broke the law. With the police you just shrug and say, “Eh, the department will deal with it. It’s the hippies we really need to worry about. Damn hippies!” That is tantamount to condoning these instances, Tina. You are absolutely defending the police for their actions here; you can’t try to put a disclaimer on it and then hope no one will notice what you’re doing.
Your defense is also ludicrous, and amounts to “Well, what were those people doing just standing/sitting there?” One instance of police brutality I pointed out to you in the past involved a group of protesters who were doing nothing but sitting down on pavement at their university. Last time I checked, that was not a crime. They had every right to be there. The police officer who pepper sprayed the sitting protesters broke regulations for the proper use of pepper spray as outlined by the university. I can find those regulations for you and show you exactly which ones he violated, if you’d like.
And yet, despite the fact that the officer broke the rules and the students did not, you targeted all of your criticism onto the students and did not say a single negative word about the officer. What else am I supposed to think, Tina, but that you condoned the use of police brutality against these protesters simply because they are affiliated with a left-wing movement? There’s no other reasonable interpretation of your position on this issue, no matter how you try to spin it.
Other instances I called your attention to involved an 80-year old women who was pepper-sprayed in the face, a young Iraq War veteran who was hit by a police projectile, a young pregnant woman who was pepper-sprayed, another group of women who were pepper-sprayed…and none of these people did anything to provoke these attacks. There is video evidence proving that they were doing nothing illegal. I’ve shown these videos to you, I’ve shown you a picture of the elderly woman after the attack, and still, you said nothing. You only condemned the protesters for being vaguely “irresponsible” or “uncooperative,” reserving all the blame for them while not even offering mild criticism for the officers who clearly broke the law.
How am I supposed to take your commitment to freedom seriously, when you have no concern over violations of freedom from those who are sworn to protect it? How can I take seriously your distrust of government, when you so blindly give the direct enforcers of government power license to do anything to protesting citizens?
Peggy, the term “religious theology” is actually redundant; the definition of “theology,” according to dictionary.com, is “the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.”
If Santorum didn’t mean to criticize Obama’s religious beliefs, then he should have chosen a different word. I find it hard to believe that someone as religious as Santorum doesn’t know what “theology” means. Now, in correcting the record, he could have said he simply misspoke. But instead his defense seems to amount to, “How dare the liberal media interpret my sentences as if I actually know the definitions of the words I use!” If you think that’s unfair of the media, then maybe you have an even lower standard of Santorum’s intellect than I do.
I will take Santorum at his word for what his intent was, because I think not doing so often leads to bad or unprovable arguments. Many think that Santorum may have been trying to attract voters who do question Obama’s Christian faith while having plausible deniability later. But that’s unprovable, so I find the best thing to do is to take people at their word. Still, his attempt to spin this as the media purposefully misreporting his remarks–when in fact, there’s no way to interpret a criticism of one’s “theology” as anything other than a criticism of one’s religious theory–is bogus and petulant, and smacks of the right’s desperation to blame the “liberal media” for their own failures.
Thank you for posting that interview with Franklin Graham; it perfectly exemplifies the cowardice and bigotry of many on the religious right these days.
Tina:
“Does anyone recall Obama taking this kind of crap for his stance on marriage as “between man and a woman” when he was running against Hillary?
Nope…I believe the media and his fawning followers gave him a pass on that one even though the little leftists would hammer any Republican that said as much. Hypocrits! Rick Santorum is surging he must be destroyed…”
Please. Politicians are rarely “hammered” in the media simply for being against gay marriage. Santorum is being heavily criticized on LGBT issues because has made numerous inflammatory statements about gays and lesbians. He has said that their lifestyles are sinful and destructive to the stability of family and society, and has even argued against the landmark case which declared anti-gay-sex bans as unconstitutional. Show me where Barack Obama has ever made such comments and then you will have an adequate comparison and a reason to claim hypocrisy.
Obama has always said that his position on gay marriage is slowly “evolving.” Keep in mind that he did not support Prop 8, even though the Prop 8 campaign sent out dishonest robo-calls claiming that Obama did support it. He is responsible for the repeal of DADT and says he will not defend DOMA in court because he believes it unconstitutional (although he will still enforce it as required by law). Santorum on the other hand told a gay solider to his face at a debate that his service was a “tragedy” and “social experimentation” that had no place in the military. To pretend that Santorum and Obama are even remotely close on issues of gay rights is positively shameless, Tina. You’re better than such a weak and unbelievable argument.
Peggy: “I found the video of Santurm that shows he was talking about the enviroment when he used the word “theology/ideology” and not Obama’s faith.”
The video came up black on my computer so I didn’t see it, however I think the word he used is perfect. The god of worship for environmentalists is gaia. Al Gore plays the part of the Pope. The prophets are enviro scientists (now martyred) and the science mag rags are “bible lessons”. Teachers act as the clergy and our kids are their congregation. Various recycling rituals (prayer/pennance) must be performed and the musical and creative elders (choir/performers) perform songs and make films in praise of the earth. Tything takes the form of donations to various organizations (WWF, Sierra Club) who do mission work.
In her book, GODLESS, Ann Coulter illustrates the way that liberalism takes on all of the properties of a religion:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/godless-ann-coulter/1100618141
The media is not only spinning our candidates’ remarks they are purposely setting them up in order to discredit and malign them. They aren’t covering our primary; they are already helping Obama run against our candidate. They did the same with Hillary.
Chris: “I then went on to explain exactly why it does not violate the first amendment, but actually protects the religious freedom of employees.”
Picking winners and losers isn’t what the first amendment is about. If the regulation doesn’t protect everyones religious freedom it is a bad regulation.
“It is relevant that many Catholic organizations voluntarily chose to include contraception as part of their health insurance plans before the mandate. It is also relevant that a majority of Catholics actually support requiring employers to provide contraception in their insurance plans.”
The only relevance is that those people are using their own free will. It doesn’t have anything to do with official church doctrine or whether they are following church doctrine. These have nothing to do with the constitutionality question.
“If the mandate applied to churches and houses of worship, then it would in fact violate the first amendment. But it doesn’t. It only applies to organizations which hire and serve people who are not of their own religion.”
It does apply to churches. Small churches were deemed unlikely to hire nonmembers and so were exempted. Larger churches would still be forced to comply. The “organizations” it applies to other than churches are religious organizations: hospitals, schools, and charities run by the church.
“Employers don’t get to use their religious beliefs to decide what will or won’t be covered in their employees’ health insurance plans…”
That’s not true. If the empoloyer is paying for the plan he can choose any plan he wishes. The employer either wants the coverage or does not. There are payroll tax issues if not all employees are covered but the employer still chooses the plan he wishes to offer.
“These employees are entitled to basic preventative care…”
Employees aren’t entitled. Employees are hired and an agreement about compensation is reached. Good grief, Chris, you really have swallowed the progressive line in total. You don’t live in a free country; you live in a commune. (The problem you haven’t seen is that it cannot be sustained and it is an affront to the spirit)
“”Work elsewhere” isn’t going to be an option for everyone in our climate of record unemployment.”
And that wouldn’t be the case except for the insane spending, redistribution, waste and disincentive policies of the current administration!
“…for you to recommend this organization strikes me as supreme hypocrisy.”
I didn’t recommend it I said it was an option. Abstinence is also an option…that I would recomend. Anyone that is so poor they can’t afford birth control has no business risking pregnancy. The only thing that leads to more unwanted pregnancies is irresponsible behavior. You act like they have no choice in the matter. Grow up!
“I’m not sure why you think telling people to remain abstinent is going to work when areas with abstinence-only education actually have higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates than areas that encourage contraception use.”
We are talking about working adults. Abstinence is laughed at and impuned and free love is celebrated everywhere, what do you expect?
“I agree, Tina, but this is behavior that we as a society can’t really control. What we can do is support greater access to contraception.”
Chris if we don’t let people pay for their mistakes themselves they don’t learn how to be responsible. You are describing a viscious cycle of enabling behaviors that don’t work.
Have to go…more later.
Thanks for the lesson Chris, I appreciate you pointing out my error. I looked over everything I wrote but couldnt find where I had used religious theology. But, will accept that I did.
I should have used the word theory instead of theology since Santorum was talking about the environment. Dictionary.com – Theory: scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena
Maybe Santorum made the same mistake I did since both words are so similar. Just a plausible explanation that someone could make while giving a speech before a crowd of people. Using theology instead or theory without the use of a dictionary on hand like you and I have is understandable.
I dont have a low opinion of Santorum for using the wrong word, but I do have a low opinion of president Obama for using the word, stupid to describe the action of police officers without knowing all of the facts. Did he ever apologize? I doubt it, but if he did Id love to see it in print or on a video.
You didnt watch the Franklin Graham video, did you? Because if you had you would have seen there were two individuals he wouldnt say if he thought they were Christians.
Peggy, after reading more articles about Santorum’s comments, I see that he specifically said that Obama believes in a theology that is not “based on the Bible.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-santorum-20120221,0,1045225.story
Sorry, but I can no longer accept his later claims that he did not mean this as an attack on Obama’s religious beliefs. When you specifically say that someone’s theology is wrong because it isn’t based on the Bible, you are criticizing that person’s religious beliefs, plain and simple. There is no other reasonable interpretation of that. I can now only conclude that Santorum is trying to retroactively change the meaning of what he said before, and he is being dishonest when he says he did not mean his comments as a knock against Obama’s religious beliefs.
Tina, quoting Ann Coulter? Really? That’s scraping the bottom of the barrel, and her characterization of liberalism as a “religion” is just beyond stupid. Evolution as a “liberal creation myth?” Abortion as a “sacrament?” If you actually believe these characterizations are in any way related to reality, then I have to question not only your intelligence but your sanity as well.
There is no doubt the media helped get Obama elected in 2008 and they’re doing it again. Seventeen days goes by with only Fox news reporting on what Obama said about the Obamacare birth control coverage before one MSM channel does, but Santorum is covered by EVERY MSM network and newspaper within minutes of using the word “theology.”
Wow, here’s a UCLA study in 2005 stating liberal bias existed way back then too. (I’ll look to see if I can find something more current, but I had to post this.)
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg SullivanDecember 14, 2005
“While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.”
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Here is a more resent one.
Media Research Center – 2009
A Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 likely voters released July 21 ‘found that 49 percent of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44 percent a month ago,’ compared to a piddling 14 percent who think ‘most reporters will try to help John McCain win.’
More polls and good charts in link.
http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/exhibit-2-18-public-overwhelmingly-saw-favoritism-obama
No wonder the democrats are so happy. I would be too with billions of free publicity.
Chris you are unbelievable. If you’d watch the darn video you’d heard Santorum is talking about carbon emissions. Yes, he uses the word theology, but then he says, “Not biblical theology.”
We can not have an honest discussion if you will not even look at the facts for what they are. You are projecting your bias against him because you won’t even SEE with your own eyes what he actually says.
Tina: I tried the video and it came up just fine. Try it again if you want or try foxnews.com is where I got it.
Chris: ” These people aren’t getting something for nothing; they’re working not just for their paycheck but also for their insurance. They’re earning it.”
And if they aren’t happy with what their employer provides they can seek employment somewhere where they do like what is offered.
“If we took a vote tomorrow on whether or not employers should be required to provide contraception in their insurance plans, polls indicate that Americans would vote “Yes” in a landslide.”
And how gleefully you all are willing to run right off the edge of the cliff! (It reminds me of Nazi Germany in the beginning) It all seems so wonderful. Free contraception! Whoopie! Where does it end Chris. What other things will some of us be forced to provide to everyone just because the majority wants it. We’ve already witnessed the mess that follows from giving people cheap loans they can’t afford.
We are talking about our government forcing citizens (employers or through their insurers) to provide something, pay for it, that they have a fundamental religious belief is wrong. It doesn’t matter that some Catholics don’t agree. It doesn’t matter that people think its some kind of fundamental right (which is utter bologna).
“In fact many Republicans have claimed that the PPACA interferes with choices between a patient and doctor, but have been unable to provide one single example of how it does this.”
Here are two good articles and the heritage page has many options that provide information:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/medicine-and-politics-america/2011/dec/18/health-care-reform-organized-medicine-physician-pr/
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/medicine/6089-a-medical-doctor-explains-the-pros-and-cons-of-obamacare.html
“So you’re saying the majority of Catholic women should be ashamed of themselves?”
I’m saying that any woman that would expect free contraception/abortion and would trade away a basic freedom in the process should be ashamed of herself. Modern women are being trained to be dependent and expect others to pay for their needs and they are being taught that our government can bend the constitution to make sure they get what they want.
“I’ve never heard you make one complain about the Patriot Act so I have trouble believing this. What about it are you unhappy with?”
I’m not “happy” about the use of extreme measures to get information but I can live with it given the circumstances. I’m not “happy” that the government listens in on certain incoming conversations but I can live with it as a measure to prevent terror attacks. I’m not happy that an American citizen can be detained but I can understand the reason a law that protected Americans had to be written. As I said before, when the choices are all bad you get to make the best choice you can.
“Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit wrote a blog post in which he cheered the officer involved at the UC Davis incident and essentially said that those hippies got exactly what they deserved. I believe Pam Geller said similar hateful things…”
Sorry Chris I don’t think saying they got what they deserved is hateful. They did, in fact, get what they deserved. They are not innocent. You seem to think they should be allowed to do whatever they want and that because they are “protesters” they enjoy some kind of special right to ignore our laws and the police officers that are paid to enforce those laws. Grow up!
“Tina, do you see what you’re doing here? You claim not to condone police brutality, but then you actually take the time to condemn the victims for not cooperating to your satisfaction.”
I repeat…grow up! And don’t talk to me like you think I’m a two year old. It isn’t cooperation to “my” satisfaction that is important. It is cooperation according to the agreed upon laws that we have. When we rebel against those laws, when we refuse to follow police direction, and when we become difficult for them to handle, certain procedures become necessary. I am referring to the overall accepted use of pepper spray and other means that have lawfully been given the police to use.
“The police officer who pepper sprayed the sitting protesters broke regulations for the proper use of pepper spray as outlined by the university.”
And the officer will have to answer to the university will he not? Which is exactly what I said. He will pay a price if he acted improperly.
“And yet, despite the fact that the officer broke the rules and the students did not, you targeted all of your criticism onto the students and did not say a single negative word about the officer”
We’re back to your little PC rules. I have an opinion. It is mine. I am not required to do an equal time commentary when I express myself. I sympathize more with the officers because it’s a damn difficult job and they are required to be civil and the protesters are not. In many cases protesters have been crude, rude, and extremely uncooperative. Many of them not only expect to be hurt they attempt to induce brutality as part of the experience. They brag about it.
“……and none of these people did anything to provoke these attacks.”
They involved themselves in a situation that had the potential to become volotile or dicey. They may have been innocent bystanders but that doesn’t mean they are not responsible for what happened to them. Grow up!
“How am I supposed to take your commitment to freedom seriously, when you have no concern over violations of freedom from those who are sworn to protect it?”
Will the officers that actually broke the law be held accountable by the system or not? I assume they will be since that is what normally happens. I hold them accountable through the system. Lynchings went out of fashion some time ago. Grow up!
“How can I take seriously your distrust of government, when you so blindly give the direct enforcers of government power license to do anything to protesting citizens?”
Geez, Chris. You either just do not read what I have written or you are extremely thick headed.
Officers do not have license to do “anything”. They are ususally very well trained and have rules they must follow. They are given orders about what they will do in the situation. When they err they are held accountable by the system.
“Politicians are rarely “hammered” in the media simply for being against gay marriage.”
When I said hammered I meant they did not use that stance against him or attempt to trip him up with it. They gave him a complete pass. In fact the media behaved deplorably in the last election and Hillary got a raw deal because of it in the primary.
“To pretend that Santorum and Obama are even remotely close on issues of gay rights is positively shameless”
That was not my intent. Had they wanted Hillary they would have found a way to put him on the spot for saying what he said. They also didn’t use his vote in favor of late term abortion (Illinois) either and had they been for Hillary they would have.
Can only respond to one thing right now…
“When I said hammered I meant they did not use that stance against him or attempt to trip him up with it. They gave him a complete pass. In fact the media behaved deplorably in the last election and Hillary got a raw deal because of it in the primary…Had they wanted Hillary they would have found a way to put him on the spot for saying what he said.”
I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton said they supported gay marriage in the 2008 campaign. In fact, Clinton to this day still has not said that she supports same-sex marriage. I don’t believe Obama has either, although they both see DOMA as unconstitutional. Their positions on this issue strike me as identical, and there didn’t seem to be much difference in their opinions in 2008 either. So I don’t see how the media could have used Obama’s position on gay marriage to “trip him up” in a way that would be favorable to Clinton, even if the media had wanted to do that.
There was no popular candidate running in 2008 that favored same-sex marriage. Obama’s opposition to it at the time–which seemed like a personal opinion, as opposed to Santorum’s desire to pass a constitutional amendment banning SSM in all 50 states–was a non-issue, because there was no one challenging him who supported it.
Chris it doesn’t matter that they agreed on this issue. The press asks questions to undermine the candidate they don’t want, even when the candidate has answered it they continue to attempt to trip him up so he will say something they can use in a soundbite or a PAC can use to make a commercial. The point is they don’t care about the truth they care about the soundbite. Conversly they ask softball questions to candidates they want. It’s my opinion. It is shared by others that have watched them operate over the years. The Hillary Obama primary made it more obvious than ever before since both were Democrats.
The liberal media is in the tank for Obama. His recdord is horrible and they report the jobs stats, economic news, and war news with a happy soin. Makes me sick!
Santorum has been mischaracterized. You buy it. Not surprised. You don’t like him. Not surprised.
Tina: “Picking winners and losers isn’t what the first amendment is about. If the regulation doesn’t protect everyones religious freedom it is a bad regulation.”
I believe this does protect everyone’s religious freedom. I don’t believe employers have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. And yes, withholding certain types of healthcare from their employees’ insurance plans, types which the government says those employees are legally entitled to, counts as an imposition of religion.
It’s one thing if the employee is working in a religious capacity, such as a preacher or even a church secretary. But if a religious organization hires non-believers to work in a secular capacity, such as at a religious university or hospital, then the employer has no right to hold their employees to their religious law. Those employees were hired under the understanding that they will be working in a secular capacity and will not be expected to conform to their boss’s religious beliefs.
If employers don’t like it, they have the freedom to hire only those who share their religious beliefs.
“The only relevance is that those people are using their own free will. It doesn’t have anything to do with official church doctrine or whether they are following church doctrine.”
I think you bring up an interesting question here: does something only count as a violation of religious freedom if it violates “official church doctrine?” What if it does violate official church doctrine, but not the beliefs of the majority of the faithful? Which is more important? I am not sure I know the answer to that question or if such a thing has been ruled on before.
“It does apply to churches. Small churches were deemed unlikely to hire nonmembers and so were exempted. Larger churches would still be forced to comply.”
Hm, I haven’t heard this. Do you have a citation?
“That’s not true. If the empoloyer is paying for the plan he can choose any plan he wishes. The employer either wants the coverage or does not. There are payroll tax issues if not all employees are covered but the employer still chooses the plan he wishes to offer.”
Yes, but the plans available for the employer to choose all have to meet certain federal regulations. This was true even before the PPACA, it’s just that now there are more regulations to help protect employees.
“Employees aren’t entitled. Employees are hired and an agreement about compensation is reached. Good grief, Chris, you really have swallowed the progressive line in total.”
Tina, progressives have left a long and impressive legacy on our country and I am proud to stand up for that legacy. Progressives are responsible for most of the protections and luxuries employees enjoy today: the eight-hour workday, the elimination of child labor, the minimum wage, the right to form unions, and the very concept of the “weekend.” The progressive movement did introduce the idea that employees are “entitled” to certain protections, and it’s not just myself who has “swallowed” this “line;” most Americans agree. There’s no turning back the clock on that one, Tina, and your stance that employees are not entitled makes you look like you are from a long-gone era of worker exploitation, where the rights of employees were not valued. It earns you a reputation as a Dickensian, out-of-touch business owner who only cares about making a buck at the expense of the little guy. You may think this characterization is unfair, but that is certainly the vibe you give off, and it is not going to connect with the average voter who does support progressive ideals in the generalized sense. Progressive ideals are American ideals.
“And that wouldn’t be the case except for the insane spending, redistribution, waste and disincentive policies of the current administration!”
Yeah, right. Because the recession only started when Obama took office. Unbelievable.
“I didn’t recommend it I said it was an option.”
It won’t be an option for many if your party continues its dishonest scare tactics in an effort to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. Not every community has PP outlets as of now, and your party’s efforts are trying to ensure that more of them close down due to lack of funds.
“Abstinence is also an option…that I would recomend. Anyone that is so poor they can’t afford birth control has no business risking pregnancy. The only thing that leads to more unwanted pregnancies is irresponsible behavior. You act like they have no choice in the matter. Grow up!”
Tina, like I said before, I recognize that people need to be more sexually responsible, but what are you going to do to make them that way? There’s nothing you can do. You seem to think that the wagging finger will do the trick, but that’s not a tactic that’s going to win people over. I’m just being realistic here.
“We are talking about working adults. Abstinence is laughed at and impuned and free love is celebrated everywhere, what do you expect?”
“Free love is celebrated everywhere?” Not sure what circles you hang out in, Tina, but this just isn’t true in my experience.
“Chris if we don’t let people pay for their mistakes themselves they don’t learn how to be responsible. You are describing a viscious cycle of enabling behaviors that don’t work.”
Tina, most people who have an unintended pregnancy aren’t going to “pay for their mistakes” entirely themselves. Unless you think that totally eliminating welfare programs to help babies who need it is a policy that has a good chance of being implemented any time soon, you have to recognize that you will be paying for these children with your tax dollars. It’s cheaper to pay for contraception than it is to pay for a child for eighteen years. Contraception is an investment.
“And if they aren’t happy with what their employer provides they can seek employment somewhere where they do like what is offered.”
This philosophy pretends that exploitation in the workplace isn’t a problem the government should concern itself with. That is a radical libertarian position that the majority of Americans rejected a very long time ago. There must be minimum standards set for the health insurance plans offered by employers. It is reasonable to disagree what those standards should be, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that there should be none.
“And how gleefully you all are willing to run right off the edge of the cliff! (It reminds me of Nazi Germany in the beginning)”
Oh, Jesus H. Macy. How are you not ashamed of writing such nonsense? Yep, the first thing Hitler did was offer free contraception! That is absurd, Tina.
“It doesn’t matter that people think its some kind of fundamental right (which is utter bologna).”
Some people seem to think they have a fundamental right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. That is utter bologna.
“I’m saying that any woman that would expect free contraception/abortion and would trade away a basic freedom in the process should be ashamed of herself.”
It’s not a “basic freedom” to deny your employees health care in their insurance plans simply because you don’t agree with the type of care, even if your disagreement is based on religion.
“Sorry Chris I don’t think saying they got what they deserved is hateful. They did, in fact, get what they deserved.”
They deserved to be victims of police brutality? And you claim you’re not condoning it?!
“They are not innocent.”
Then tell me what crime they committed. Go ahead, tell me. “Sitting on pavement that I pay for with my own damn tuition money” is not a crime.
“You seem to think they should be allowed to do whatever they want”
No, not “whatever they want.” But they did have the right to do exactly what they did. If you can tell me EXACTLY what they did that was a crime or even a university rule violation, let me know.
“and that because they are “protesters” they enjoy some kind of special right”
The right to free assembly is not a “special right,” it’s a right that all Americans enjoy, Tina.
“to ignore our laws and the police officers that are paid to enforce those laws. Grow up!”
The police officer who pepper sprayed the sitting protester wasn’t enforcing a law, Tina. Although he was breaking one.
“I repeat…grow up! And don’t talk to me like you think I’m a two year old.”
Then don’t use logic so tortured that even a two year old wouldn’t find convincing.
“It isn’t cooperation to “my” satisfaction that is important. It is cooperation according to the agreed upon laws that we have. When we rebel against those laws,”
Once again: the protesters at UC Davis were not breaking any laws!
“when we refuse to follow police direction, and when we become difficult for them to handle, certain procedures become necessary.”
And the use of pepper spray is not one of the necessary procedures. It’s not a necessary procedure according to UC Davis guidelines, and it’s not necessary procedure according to the guy who developed the weapon for police use in the first place. The developer said himself that it was the most inappropriate use of the weapon he had ever seen. The only time pepper spray is a necessary procedure is when police are dealing with a violent or dangerous person. You cannot possibly be pretending that it was necessary in the case of a bunch of students sitting down and locking arms on the pavement. That’s absurd.
“I am referring to the overall accepted use of pepper spray and other means that have lawfully been given the police to use.”
This was not a lawful use of the product. Stop pretending that you don’t know that; playing dumb is not an endearing quality.
“And the officer will have to answer to the university will he not? Which is exactly what I said. He will pay a price if he acted improperly.”
Again that word, “if…” You are a complete coward. You can never admit when certain people commit wrongdoing even when it’s right in front of your face.
Also, your suggestion that the officers will just be dealt with by the system, so we needn’t trouble our pretty little heads worrying about it is quite naive. Do you really think officers who commit police brutality always pay a price for it? Tell that to Rodney King.
The fact is that in many instances, police officers who cross the line are only held accountable when there is a great amount of public condemnation. Police departments will often look the other way if they think they can get away with it.
I admire police officers who are genuinely concerned with the well-being of citizens, but I don’t trust the system to just work itself out. Citizens have to hold the people in power accountable; the powerful are generally not going to do that themselves.
“We’re back to your little PC rules. I have an opinion. It is mine. I am not required to do an equal time commentary when I express myself.”
Of course you’re not required to do an equal time commentary. But when you lay all the blame for an instance of police brutality onto the victims instead of the perpetrators, and refuse to even offer mild criticism toward the perpetrators even when asked repeatedly to do so, then you are expressing a bias which many people would find repellent. You are taking a side on this issue, and it’s the wrong side.
“I sympathize more with the officers because it’s a damn difficult job and they are required to be civil and the protesters are not. In many cases protesters have been crude, rude, and extremely uncooperative.”
For one thing, in the case of the UC Davis protesters, they clearly were being civil. More importantly, for you to say you “sympathize” with the perpetrators of police brutality and not the victims is, quite frankly, sick. I am utterly repulsed by that statement.
“They involved themselves in a situation that had the potential to become volotile or dicey. They may have been innocent bystanders but that doesn’t mean they are not responsible for what happened to them. Grow up!”
Oh, jeez. So the eighty-year old woman in this picture is responsible for being attacked? Maybe she needs to “grow up” too?
http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4ec3e63e69bedd0351000033-613-408/police-pepper-spray-occupy-seattle.jpg
Look at that picture. No, seriously, look at it. I beg you not to write another word in response to me until you have looked at it. I wonder if you can even gin up the courage to do so.
“Will the officers that actually broke the law be held accountable by the system or not? I assume they will be since that is what normally happens.”
LOL! I’ve never read such naive foolishness.
“I hold them accountable through the system. Lynchings went out of fashion some time ago. Grow up!”
So now I am guilty of supporting a “lynching” for being outraged over police brutality. And I am the one who needs to “grow up?” I’m the one who is Nazi-like, while you’re justifying police brutality and saying that the victims got what they deserved?
I’m not the one defending people for committing illegal acts of violence against unarmed and nonthreatening citizens, Tina. YOU ARE. So for you to act as if I am supporting “lynching…” I mean, you must have no sense of irony at all.
“Officers do not have license to do “anything”. They are ususally very well trained and have rules they must follow.”
And in this case, they didn’t follow the rules. But you can’t bring yourself to admit that, even though you know it’s true.
“Chris it doesn’t matter that they agreed on this issue.”
It does matter to your original argument, which you’ve now ditched without acknowledgment because it’s been proven wrong. In other shocking news, the sun once again rose today.
Chris: “I don’t believe employers have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. And yes, withholding certain types of healthcare from their employees’ insurance plans, types which the government says those employees are legally entitled to, counts as an imposition of religion.”
Government does not have the right to force the decision! it’s only because government has chosen to impose itself that this is a problem at all. I have never heard of an employee that insisted they wouldn’t accept a job UNLESS they got free contraception in the deal. Your thinking is communist inspired…as is our presidents!
“If employers don’t like it, they have the freedom to hire only those who share their religious beliefs.”
And YOU and the ACLU would be the first in line to scream discrimination!
“What if it does violate official church doctrine, but not the beliefs of the majority of the faithful? Which is more important? I am not sure I know the answer to that question or if such a thing has been ruled on before.”
Church doctrine is the official position of the church. The Church owns the institutions that we’re talking about; the mandate is in conflict with the religious beliefs of the church…in the case of Catholics, the Pope is the final authority. Whether individual members follow the doctrine or not is irrelevant.
Church members that make a personal decision to act against their own faith have to deal with their own conscience and will answer to God…and, if Catholic, they are supposed to confess to their priest.
“Hm, I haven’t heard this. Do you have a citation?’
It was included in an article I read, possibly in National Review.
“Yes, but the plans available for the employer to choose all have to meet certain federal regulations.”
This is one of the things that have caused health care insurance costs to go up. My present workforce includes zero persons that need pregnancy care. If a private insurer could offer a plan without that coverage it would be less expensive for me. Government intrusion that goes beyond basic protections causes division, disputes and higher costs. If freed from these ridiculous rules private companies could offer a variety of plans.
“it’s just that now there are more regulations to help protect employees.”
Thousands of them will cost employers, doctors and hospitals a bundle and the cost of all services and insurance will go up! Patients will not be better served. We will all be profoundly effectede and not in a good way.
“This philosophy pretends that exploitation in the workplace isn’t a problem the government should concern itself with.”
And your philosophy assumes that employers regularly abuse their employees. “Exploitation” is an inflamatory criticism and way over the top. Workers in this country are not slaves. They are not endentured in any way. Most people like their jobs. And when government gets out of the way and allows business to flourish employees have a lot more choices about where they work.
“There must be minimum standards set for the health insurance plans offered by employers.’
The biggest standard is that employees should be damned grateful someone else is footing the bill! a better alternative would be for the employer to make that in wages (to the employer it is a cost of his employment) and he can buy his own insurance. (Suddenly the controversy recedes and the divisive nature of the relationship improves)
“I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that there should be none.”
I don’t think I suggested none.
“There’s no turning back the clock on that one, Tina, and your stance that employees are not entitled makes you look like you are from a long-gone era of worker exploitation, where the rights of employees were not valued.”
That’s because you think that unless the government mandates integrity and decency it doesn’t exist. The country was a lot different when a lot of this work was done. When unions were first introduced workers were being treated badly. However unions have now become exploiters in their own right.
My argument isn’t that employees should be treated badly. A smart employer treats his workers well and rewards those who give extra effort. But the opportunity for work has changed since those progressive ideas were introduced and now the government is overstepping and intruding in ways that are offensive and expensive. The “work” for employees has been accomplished and now we’re moving into an area of extortion for more. the entitlemnent mentality is a far cry from the proud worker of yesteryear who just wanted a fairt wage and decent hours. The progressive liberal line of today is nothing to be proud of but instead a bid for fascism and socialism.
Gotta run for now.
Success! Sort of.
Apparently, the Governor of Virginia wants to be Vice President (Lord only knows why) and has mandated a degree of back-pedalling on some heinous legislation, which would doom his national aspirations, and which will, now, hopefully, just die away. Also, apparently, in Virginia, the Governor is able to “mandate”. How fine for him. Vice Presidents can’t mandate diddly. He, too, needs to give the matter more thought.
“Government does not have the right to force the decision!”
And that is your unpopular opinion. 28 state governments already have made the same decision, and none of these mandates have been overturned by any court. The majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, believe that employers should be required (by government) to offer contraception in their insurance plans. You’re free to disagree, of course.
“I don’t think I suggested none.”
Yes, you did. You said that employers should be free to hire under WHATEVER conditions they choose. That means you are saying that there should be no federal standards on proper workplace conditions.
“It was included in an article I read, possibly in National Review.”
You should always double and even triple-check anything you read in the National Review. I can’t find any article online which reports that large churches must comply with the mandate. This indicates that it’s probably not true.