Patterico's Pontifications

2/13/2012

Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty

Filed under: General — Karl @ 7:32 am

[Posted by Karl]

Juicebox mafioso Matt Yglesias tweeted: “Newfound GOP enthusiasm for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws seems dangerously close to sharia.”  There is an interesting point there, although Yglesias manages to get it almost completely backward.

He ought to know he went astray, based on his very next tweet directing readers to Justice Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, which ruled that while states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.  Yglesias failed to mention was the Smith decision prompted calls for a statutory restoration of prior case law, which was generally understood to require various exemptions for religious liberty.  Smith was decided in 1990, so the enthusiasm for religious exemptions is not “newfound.”

Nor was the enthusiasm for religious exemptions limited to the GOP.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was sponsored in the House by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer, who is smart enough to be “diplomatic” about the HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to insure its employees for birth-control, abortifacients and sterilization.  RFRA’s 170 cosponsors included not only Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Bob Dornan, but also Dems like Nancy Pelosi (who deems religious freedom an “excuse” regarding the HHS exemption), Lynn Woolsey and Rosa DeLauro, all vocal defenders of the HHS mandate.  RFRA was sponsored in the Senate by no less than Ted Kennedy; its cosponsors included not only Republicans, but also current mandate supporters like Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray.  RFRA passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97- 3 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

In short, if you are looking for the people who have had a sudden conversion on the issue of legal exemptions for religious freedom, you will be finding them overwhelmingly on the Democrat side of the aisle.

The interesting point Yglesias raises in his backward, partisan way is whether conservatives should be as keen on religious exemptions from general laws as they have been.  Although Yglesias no doubt treats the prospect of sharia law as a phantasmagorical boogeyman, the experience of European countries trying to assimilate growing Muslim populations demonstrates the potentially long and fractious road America may face on this front.  It might be a better long-term solution for the Catholic Church to recognize that its religious liberty is best protected when everyone’s liberty is protected — in this case, by supporting the overall repeal of Obamacare.

–Karl

305 Responses to “Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (8cdbad)

  2. Hey, I thought the insurance companies are going to pay for the abortions!

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  3. Wait until Michelle Obama (unelected foodie Czar or something) demands that all schools, including religious schools of all faiths, put ham sammiches on the menu to support her healthy eating, anti-obesity crusade.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  4. Indeed. That bottom line, the take-away, is the better solution to preserve freedom.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  5. this idea that it’s ok to force people to buy crappy health cares as long as the catholic church gets a hall pass is not very America

    plus it makes no sense – individual catholics by the millions will still be forced to buy health cares what subsidize evil satanic contraceptive devices what are of the devil, and they’ll probably go to hell for it

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  6. As I posted under my name in the last sockpuppet thread, I think that what actually bothered Obama and some people in his administration was the thought that some women whom they thought ought to be using birth control (or the “morning after” pill which this mandate also covers) – whom they thought that failure to use birth control could be a cause of failure in life – would not, because maybe they would have to go out of their way a little bit apply for it and (in a medical policy paid for by the Catholic Church) it certainly wouldn’t be pushed on them by their regular doctors.

    But in their eye, it is almost an imperative to use it.

    The Obama Administration is not prepared to go any further than it has gone now – that is, create a situation where any woman would actually have to pay out for pocket for birth control, or birth control prescriptions, or co-pays for doctor visits in a case where the doctor offered some birth control advice or prescriptions (which would then fall into the category of preventative services if it didn’t fall into that category already, which any gynecological examination would, but what if the woman only got a prescription for birth control pills?)

    (They were shooting for not requiring any initiative to get it, or as little as possible, but they are standing on no money out of pocket.)

    Of course one way out of all of this would be for the federal government to pay for everything, like Medicare. This raises other questions, like why is this insurance, and how will it affect the cost, but it doesn’t have this one.

    And if Obama wants every woman to get this free, maybe this could be kept out of health insurance policies altogether – they are not needed then for this – and the federal government just pay birth control providers directly – except that Congress wouldn’t do that.

    You could also avoid the issue by having women ages 15 to 45, in lieu of having this in their policy, be paid an extra $500 a year more than men doing the same job or women over 45.

    Or maybe better yet, given a special refundable tax credit, which would affect the amount withheld. (Deduct $500 from the amount owed on taxes if you are a woman aged 15 to 45. If no tax return is filed, or as an alternative, the provider could have the woman fill out a form and collect payment from the U.S. a payment which would be deducted from the refund)

    Birth control would never be mentioned and it could be paid for by a tax that didn’t mention it either. It’s just that women in the childbearing years would have $40 or so a month extra.

    If people objected to that, you could allow a large deduction for the kinds of expenses women pay more for, like dry cleaning, shampoo and clothing. The exemption would only cover expenses above what a man would be likely to hit. Tax brackets would be adjusted to accommodate this. Of course this is too complicated.

    Meanwhile, the current Administration policy is not at all satisfactory to the Catholic Church — what happens with institutions that self-insure?

    Sammy Finkelman (39761f)

  7. The controversies over Sharia law as I understand it have to do with non-religious, particularly governmental, institutions implementing elements of it. What’s that got to do with requiring religious institutions to do something they don’t want to?

    Gerald A (7d960d)

  8. Yglesias is an idiot. For proof, just read today’s post on Slate.

    Icy (f65398)

  9. Notice how the media and other Obama supporters include post-intercourse measures such as the moring-after pill in the category of “contraception.”

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  10. Justice Scalia’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith seems to be some sort of liberal spammer talking point. I’ve seen it on other blogs, always in the sense that conservatives are hypocrites.

    But is it even on point?

    1.We’re not talking about otherwise illegal activity. We’re talking about previously perfectly legal activity.

    2. There already is an exemption. The problem is that the exemption is narrowly defined.

    To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose.

    3. The really contemptible thing about Obama (yes, him, personally, not his admin or HHS secretary) is he has decided to redefine centuries of religious history.

    a. To qualify for a religious exemption, “houses of worship” have to serve primarily people of their own faith. This means preaching the faith in order to convert others is no longer a religious activity. It is a religious-affiliated activity. The Obama Politburo hath doth decreed.

    Mormons may be irritating when they ring your doorbell on a Saturday morning, but I always understood Mormon missionary work to be a religious activity.

    b. There are entire religious orders dedicated to such missionary work, i.e. working in the community, in the Catholic Church. That is their calling, and they’ve been doing it since the 1500s. Perhaps the most familiar recent example is the religious order established by Mother Teresa in 1950. I’ll just link to the Wikipedia article about the Missionaries of Charity (something I don’t normally do) just to give the gist of what I’m saying.

    They take the traditional vows plus an additional vow to “Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor.”

    Missionaries care for those who include refugees, ex-prostitutes, the mentally ill, sick children, abandoned children, lepers, AIDS victims, the aged, and convalescent. They have schools run by volunteers to educate street children, they run soup kitchens, as many other services as per the communities’ needs. They have 19 homes in Kolkata (Calcutta) alone which include homes for women, for orphaned children, and for the dying; an AIDS hospice, a school for street children, and a leper colony. These services are provided, without charge, to people regardless of their religion or social caste.

    Only in this Obamination would Mother Teresa now be required to purchase health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients or he’d shut her down.

    Her order isn’t alone; there are numerous other religious orders for those who are called by Christ to minister to the poor and spread the faith by running schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, etc.

    No longer religious activities, these. Only the cloistered orders living in Monasteries and Abbeys count as religious activities and are exempt from the rule.

    Where does this guy, Obama, get off dictating to the different religions what is and what isn’t religion? Is there any precedent for the USG to define for the various religions what their religion consists of, and if not isn’t this unconstitutional interference in religion?

    Steve (20a23f)

  11. The Catholic Church needs to understand that you can’t render other people’s freedoms to Caesar and keep their own.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  12. Il Douche is a Nihilist and Fascist. He curses the day he was born and intends you feel the same.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  13. Liberals believe it is a slippery, slippery slope for Benevolent King Barack to offer any exemptions to his government knows best policies at all, even if such exemptions are explicitly enshrined in that notoriously flawed and outdated covenant of negative liberties, the U.S. Constitution.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  14. Just so you know, my question…

    Where does this guy, Obama, get off dictating to the different religions what is and what isn’t religion?

    …was rhetorical. I know very well where he “gets off” doing exactly what he’s doing.

    In the “Render Unto Caesar” thread (comment #126) I discussed the heresy of Black Liberation theology.

    There are two sites that, if you’re interested, will help you understand the make-up of Chicago Jesus.

    Deliver us from Liberation Theology… Marxism and Christianity don’t Mix

    Content Matter of Black Liberation Theology

    The short version is that the purpose of theology is to serve the power struggle between race and class. That’s it. In Central and South America, this heresy was first advanced by Gustavo Gutierrez in A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. In the black community, this heresy was first advanced by James H. Cone in A Black Theology of Liberation.

    Basically, if they couldn’t twist Jesus into a political figure that advocated land reform, the redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, and in the case of the contraceptive mandate, making the white male power structure make amends to the womyn they’ve been oppressing for centuries by finally paying to ensure they’re no longer barefoot and pregnant, they’d have nothing to do with Him.

    To Obama, and his spiritual mentor Rev. Wright, Catholicism is the epitome of Western European Theology. I.E. it serves the interests of the oppressor. They can see theology in no other way; it either serves the political interests of the oppressor or the oppressed. If there is no theology that serves the political interests of the oppressed, they will invent one.

    The gospel according to Obama: “Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. He suffered, died, and was buried, and rose again on the third day for the forgiveness of mortgage and student loans, and that women may have ‘preventive reproductive health services’ covered by insurance with no co-pays. And the rich will pay for all this through higher taxes.”

    Steve (20a23f)

  15. The Catholic Church needs to understand that you can’t render other people’s freedoms to Caesar and keep their own.

    You are correct, Kevin. But the Catholic Church has been polluted by Liberation Theologists. Father Pfleger, another “religious” influence on Obama is a prime example. They’ve “fundamentally transformed” the Biblical admonition into “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to Caesar what is God’s.”

    They preach the Gospel of Collective Salvation. Hence charity, which the Catholic Catechism makes clear is in individual obligation, becomes higher taxes. By collectively being “charitable” (an oxymoron) we can collectively achieve salvation. So they don’t have a problem with people being herded like cattle into the collective.

    The problem isn’t Fr. Pfleger per se. The problem is that bishops leave the Fr. Pleger’s of the world in their positions of authority. Which means the bishops don’t really disapprove of the Fr. Plegers, doesn’t it?

    I am, if you can’t tell, a lapsed Catholic.

    Steve (20a23f)

  16. Gary @ 15 – Emanuel Cleaver claims Obama inherited spending problems he faces. From his own Democrat Congress?

    “The Missouri lawmaker said he understood the need for Congress to rein in spending. “We do have a serious ailment as a nation and certainly as Congress,” he said. “We suffer from ‘spendicitis.’ ” But Cleaver said the president was not “the one who spread this disease” and had inherited those problems when he came to office.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. Where does this guy, Obama, get off dictating to the different religions what is and what isn’t religion?

    Why not? He tells the Senate when it’s in session, he certainly stands as judge to all our lives, why shouldn’t he instruct churches when they are actually following their religion?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  18. “Why not? He tells the Senate when it’s in session, he certainly stands as judge to all our lives, why shouldn’t he instruct churches when they are actually following their religion?”

    Kevin M – What I want to know is when the sucker is going to get around to paying my mortgage and filling my gas tank. Time’s a wasting.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  19. Since Mary was not an employee of any “church”, she would have been required to have insurance that covered the morning after pill…

    There ought to be a pointed political cartoon out of that somehow…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  20. MD in Philly – Bitter clinger!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. daley- really, your voter registration card lists you as a non-beneficiary, as does your association with this blog, as does your lack of presence at your local “Occupy”-fest

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  22. 11.The Catholic Church needs to understand that you can’t render other people’s freedoms to Caesar and keep their own.

    Comment by Kevin M

    If you sleep with dogs, you might wake up with fleas.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  23. daley- and I don’t eat caviar, either. aragula I don’t know about. don’t know what it looks like. might have once or twice in those fancy mixed green slads i get at produce junction sometimes.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  24. Kevin M, Barack Hussein Obama is a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before him.

    You can still go to your “houses of worship,” I suppose. If no one has noticed, he never talks about “Freedom of Religion” but “Freedom of Worship” as if that’s all the Constitution guarantees. No matter, he can make it work for him.

    What he wants everyone to know that while he will allow you to maintain the form of your miserable ancient superstition for an hour or so one day a week, whether you’re praying to the any of the Holy Trinity, Yahweh, or Allah, those are just different praise names for the one true god. Who will instruct you in your religion the other 167 hours a week.

    Steve (20a23f)

  25. Evidently, on stale toast and laudromat coffee, Santorum has himself the skeleton of a campaign:

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E77B89E9-7BB0-44C5-BC8F-C24AA5DE5D21

    So how come fiscal genius can’t hire campaign genius, Meg, Willard?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  26. Since Mary was not an employee of any “church”, she would have been required to have insurance that covered the morning after pill…

    There ought to be a pointed political cartoon out of that somehow…

    MD, since the new liberal line is that everyone needs free contraceptives and abortifacients to save the planet from global warming, and that avoiding pregnancy is a cost-cutting measure because we all know that complications are the norm in that unnatural illness we’re trying to avoid with all that “preventive health care for women,” wait until the Independent Payment Advisory Board introduces the “mandatory use” policy.

    Steve (20a23f)

  27. 18. Yeah, I’d say something about ‘cognitive dissonance’ but it’d be racist.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  28. The Iowa Supreme Court also ruled just a couple weeks ago on a freedom of religion case.

    Based on the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, they ruled a county in Iowa could not ban steel wheels from county blacktops. The case centered around a Mennonite teen who had been cited for driving a tractor with steel wheels on a county road. However, his religion forbids him from using a tractor with rubber tires.

    What I thought was interesting about the ruling was that while the law did not mention a religion, the court wrote,

    We must recognize the ordinance was adopted specifically to address use of the resurfaced concrete roads by steel wheel tractors…

    This is not a case where new activity brushed up against a pre-existing ordinance but where an ordinance was passed to deal with a longstanding religious practice.

    In other words, even though it didn’t mention a religion, it was crafted specifically to prohibit a long-standing religious practice and thus was unconstitutional.

    And make no mistake. Those steel wheels do a lot of damage to the roads. But that was not considered sufficient reason to ban them.

    When the Obama mandate broke, I immediately thought of this case.

    John T (77fddb)

  29. The antiChrist hope to forestall the Second Coming.

    How the Mahdi is going to handle a nuclear ragtop me don’t know.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  30. I gotta ask. When this guy does his hair in the AM who is looking back?:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/290903

    “I want people to remember that I was on the front lines on conservative social issues, on conservative fiscal issues, and standing up for conservative foreign-policy values.”

    Well, a trained chimp can’t talk at all, so there’s that.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  31. MD in Philly – Your eating habits are irrelevant. Those can be changed. I’m sure the Obama’s White House chef will be publishing a recipe book soon jointly with Michelle on what healthy and tasty foods to eat to reduce the junk in your trunk. Bill Ayers has had no role, absolutely none, zero, zip, nada, in the writing of this book and will not directly receive any royalties from its sales.

    You have now been reported to Truth Team, the successor site to Attack Watch.

    May God have mercy on your soul.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  32. For the daytraders:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/greek-side-deal-finland-bailout-collateral-about-kill-greek-rescue-again

    Hurry, the market doesn’t know yet.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  33. “Hurry, the market doesn’t know yet.”

    gary – I am so all over that! Thanks for the tip. Heh.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  34. May God have mercy on your soul.

    Won’t the Obama Administration have to sign off on this accommodation first?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  35. Whatever The Left professes to believe in the Church-State arena, is usually the exact opposite of their true stance.
    After all, they are the true Orwellians, where up is down, right is left, war is peace, etc.
    If a Leftist told me in the morning that the Sun was rising in the East, my first response would be to walk to a West-facing window, just because they seem to come up just a bit short of accurate in most things.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  36. In one way the L is being consistent. They seem to think that there is a large area of civic life that is “neutral” regarding religious belief, hence keeping “religion” out but allowing secularism to dominate is in keeping with church-state seperation.

    To such a mindset healthcare is a religious neutral zone, I mean, we ‘re just talking human bodies after all.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  37. Remember, the next step after contraception, and the access to abortion – when dealing with the global effects of AGW and population increases – will be mandatory use of contraception, and the issuance of reproductive licenses (state sanctioned reporduction)to those of Good Character and sterling political contributions.
    We will all be but servants of the greater good – and listen for the call to the Caverns of the Moorloch.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  38. “Won’t the Obama Administration have to sign off on this accommodation first?”

    DRJ – I suppose God will have to ask Secretary Sebelius for a waiver.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  39. “DRJ – I suppose God will have to ask Secretary Sebelius for a waiver.”

    Finally, proof.

    lun (6554f2)

  40. Won’t the Obama Administration have to sign off on this accommodation first?

    Comment by DRJ — 2/13/2012 @ 12:54 pm

    LOL – best joke I’ve heard about this clusterfark so far

    Lots of really good comments above. Have self deleted lots of things I wanted to say this weekend because I’ve been so angry, and didn’t want to say something I’d regret.

    Before Obama was elected I really opposed Obama. Lots of things he did made me angry.

    Last Friday morning I for the first time I hated him. Yesterday (very late) remembered that Bible verse about praying for your enemies and doing good to those who persecute you. Also remembered that it’s not up to us to right this wrong but to do what we can, not compromise our principles, and leave the rest to God. And to pray for–and continue to work against– those who hate us because our principles, and the fact that we won’t compromise them, is something that (it’s been obvious for a while) they’re apparently unable to stand.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  41. Racist theists. Godbothering theocrats.

    JD (33be8e)

  42. Yglesias a “Juicebox Mafioso”? In his dreams, maybe. As for me I simply think of him as “Little Twerpy”.

    Comanche Voter (0e06a9)

  43. 42- It seems that the New Testament God is far too accomodating of the usurpations of his moral authority that passes itself off as politics today.
    Perhaps a little old fashioned Fire & Brimstone would get some people’s minds right?
    If not, there is always the “extension of politics by other means”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  44. antiChrist has certainly turned up the heat, meanwhile:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/13/crumble-santorum-passes-romney-nationally-in-pew-within-two-points-in-gallup/

    I think the next drop comes in April. Allah missed the cause, the dirt dealt in FL.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  45. Independents must think mitt has the plague.
    mitt could be in melt down stage if he loses Michigan.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  46. The New Testament God is patient and not wishing that any should perish,
    but patience and “getting away with it” are two very different things.

    It’s just that we like to see things remedied in the context of our own life spans.

    In some ways I don’t have much personal feeling about Obama, not that this is necessarily good. I’m still kind of amazed he was actually elected and have a hard time believing it. In one way it’s like I don’t care, because I know that nothing he says is to be trusted and there is little about his overarching agenda to compliment.

    He’s an Illinois State Senator who can’t show up to vote except when it is against a bill that would prevent infanticide, a long time pal with domestic terrorists, so shrouded in shadow that he won’t release his college records, purchased a house with the help of a felon, makes obscene gestures and personal insults about opposing candidates. In one way, what is there to take serious about this guy??

    Nothing, except in spite of all of that he actually was nominated and won. As Mark has said before, the really scary thing is that the country is full of millions and millions of people who not only voted for him, but still support him and will vote for him again.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  47. Juicebox mafioso Matt Yglesias tweeted: “Newfound GOP enthusiasm for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws seems dangerously close to sharia.”

    Legal scholars: I already pointed out there’s a religious exemption, just a narrow one, but since that’s the case I don’t see how this is “generally applicable.”

    But does it make a difference that we’re not talking about a law. HHS Sec. Sebelius invited NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. to come over to her office and figure out how to come up with a rule that’d stick it the Catholic Church and rest of the like minded “christofascist” patriarchy. But we’re not talking about an actual law passed by Congress that say “you must pay for birth control, you papists!” Or does the broad authorization (and yes, by those last two words I mean Nancy Pelosi’s stamp of approval) given in the PPACA to the Secretary of HHS mean it’s, to be ecumenical, kosher for HHS to do this and SCOTUS will treat it as if it’s a law?

    Steve (20a23f)

  48. Fish, barrel, very satisfying BANG! Good job, Karl.

    Beldar (501390)

  49. Feb. 12, 2012: The DAY Obama LOST the ELECTION.Yesterday after masses across the country, Bishops’ letters condemning Obama’s “accommodation. Our Bishop’s letter (posted in the link) was so strongly worded, I suspect excommunication, exorcism, or a combination of both will be the next step. And several of the parishioners didn’t think the letter went far enough!!!

    Mutnodjmet (c4995d)

  50. 49. “Or does the broad authorization..given in the PPACA to the Secretary of HHS mean it’s, to be ecumenical, kosher for HHS to do this and SCOTUS will treat it as if it’s a law?”

    A very good question.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  51. 51- For all of those Bishops that resisted the calls for the excommunication of abortion supporting and advocating Roman Catholic politicians, this is the harvest of what you have sown.
    If they had been more disciplined in maintaining the precepts of Roman Catholicism in the “small” things, they wouldn’t have to worry today about the “big” things.
    Just another example of the “Broken Window Theory”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  52. 53)It takes a certain bit of chutzpah, for the Times, with lobbyists at the Natl Security Council, State, Defense, Chief of Staff, et al, although Wayne Berman, is a particularly annoying tick,

    narciso (87e966)

  53. “Newfound GOP enthusiasm for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws seems dangerously close to sharia.”

    Liberals usurping powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution and then using the power of that government to demand that medical types do this, that, or the other thing seems dangerously close to tyranny…is more like it.

    “HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to insure its employees for birth-control, abortifacients and sterilization.”

    Unconstitutional, and an arbitrary and capricious exercise of government power. They’re trying to force Catholics (and everyone else) to take part in government sanctioned, cold-blooded murder…and anything we do to resist the ever growing murderous tyranny of liberal controlled governments is totally justified.

    And, I’d be tweeting words to that effect, if I was dumb enough to employ some stupid crap like Twitter.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  54. Democrats have been anti-religion for quite some time now.

    Meanwhile… the economy’s in the toilet! Americans need jobs! Obama is throwing down on a power grab like it’s nobody’s business! Throw the bum out!

    Colonel Haiku (833221)

  55. 47. Kicking a puppy on MI widescreens? Wouldn’t be prudent.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  56. Ok, you knew it would come to this. Alms for the poor:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moodys-downgrades-italy-spain-portugal-and-other-puts-uk-france-outlook-negative-full-statement

    The end is nigh. Save us Ben you’re our only hope.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  57. 51- For all of those Bishops that resisted the calls for the excommunication of abortion supporting and advocating Roman Catholic politicians, this is the harvest of what you have sown.
    If they had been more disciplined in maintaining the precepts of Roman Catholicism in the “small” things, they wouldn’t have to worry today about the “big” things.
    Just another example of the “Broken Window Theory”.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 2/13/2012 @ 4:02 pm

    A very good point, AD.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  58. That is a very good point, AD.

    MD in Philly:

    As Mark has said before, the really scary thing is that the country is full of millions and millions of people who not only voted for him, but still support him and will vote for him again.

    I think one of America’s biggest systemic problems (apart from our fiscal problems) is that our education system teaches students they only need to talk the talk, not walk the walk. Thus, we have students who can opine about anything but have few real skills. Similarly, we have Democratic politicians like Obama who seem to think it doesn’t matter how their policies work out, only that their intentions are good.

    I have confidence Americans have already or will soon realize that’s a losing political theory, and I hope they quickly learn that’s a losing educational theory, too. Thanks to Obama, we seem to be learning both during the same political cycle.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  59. I agree with Beldar that this is a good post by Karl. How it must gall Democrats to realize that, even with their low standards on religion, they can still be hypocrites.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. Amen, AD-RtR/OS!!

    Just to pick on, not so much Fr. Pfleger, but the Archdiocese of Chicago, check out these gems. First in 2003:

    Fr. Pfleger invited pro-abortion and then political candidate Al Sharpton to speak during Mass.

    In violation of Archdiocesan policy that no pro-abortion candidate is allowed to use Church policy. In violation of Canon law that the Homily is to be given by a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon. And risking the entire Archdiocese’s tax exempt status.

    What was Cardinal Archbishop George’s response? While he disapproved of the invitation because Sharpton was a pro-abortion political candidate:

    “making a case of this invitation at this time would be a futile gesture and a waste of effort.”

    Then this in 2010:

    Chicago Archdiocesan Office to Honor Pro-Obama Fr. Pfleger

    It was the office of “Racial Justice.” Pfleger got the Lifetime Achievement Award. And Cardinal Archbishop George approved it.

    Oh, and Cardinal Archbishop George was President of the USCCB from 2007 to 2010.

    I love this exchange between the news site and the founding director of the Archdiocesan office of Racial Justice, Sr. Anita Baird:

    When LSN asked about Pfleger’s endorsement of Mr. Obama, Baird interjected, stating that “the president is not pro-abortion, the president is pro-choice.” “I think they are two very different things,” she said.

    Actually, BHO is pro-post natal abortion. AKA infanticide. Which is apparently acceptable to the Catholic hierarchy in Chicago.

    You can tell what Cardinal George’s hot button issues are, and they don’t include abortion. Why bother making a fuss over that? Fr. Pfleger’s brand of “racial justice” is worth making a fuss over.

    You can tell President Obama also really doesn’t understand what all the fuss over his contraception/sterilization/abortifacient diktat is all about.

    Instead of fixing the problem, Obama has worsened it by suggesting that the core complaint is so unworthy as to be remedied by an accounting gimmick. One doesn’t prescribe a placebo unless he or she believes that the problem is all in the patient’s head.

    Why wouldn’t Obama think this problem is all in someone’s head? Those funny guys in black dresses in his adopted hometown never had a problem with policy preference for throwing unwanted “fetuses or whatever” in utility closets until they quit kicking and making all that obnoxious noise let alone a few pills. Quite understandably, really, Obama thinks this is just a “messaging” or “optics” problem for some of those funny guys in black dresses who don’t operate in places as sophisticated as Chi-town. So he thought he’d toss them a bone by slicking up the language for those rubes who think any of this “Gospel” stuff ought to be taken seriously. Because Cardinal George never did.

    Somehow I get the impression that if Obama were to stop buy the Archdiocesan offices on his next trip back to Chicago, everyone from Sr. Baird to Cardinal George would be asking him for his autograph. If they don’t already have it.

    Steve (20a23f)

  61. Framed. Next to if not above the Pope’s picture.

    Steve (20a23f)

  62. “the president is not pro-abortion, the president is pro-choice.” “I think they are two very different things,” she said.

    It’s always the dishonesty that outs the hypocrisy.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  63. Some things deserve sacrifices, and others simply are sacrificed;

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/13/no-money-for-d-c-voucher-program-in-obamas-gigantic-new-budget-of-course/

    narciso (87e966)

  64. “Feb. 12, 2012: The DAY Obama LOST the ELECTION.”

    Does the writer of this letter (from San Diego) not realize that CA already has a rule pretty much similar to the proposed rule by the Obama admin?

    lun (518b93)

  65. Yes, and there is a reason for that, from a recent Times story;

    It was pretty much a useless exemption, because the large employers are not churches,” said Carol Hogan, a spokeswoman for the California Catholic Conference. She said many large Catholic institutions in California, like hospitals, have since elected to sidestep the law by insuring themselves

    narciso (87e966)

  66. There is no free lunch, lun. Don’t force people whose religious principles forbid it to fund the murder of the unborn. Don’t force God-fearing people to bend and bow to the will of the State.

    Obama’s actions and attempts to alienate Catholics, other Christians and people of other faiths make no sense. When does a politician go out of his or her way to alienate a huge block of potential voters?

    Never.

    He obviously wants to use this as a wedge issue, a call to arms of sorts and a call for his supporters to take to the streets. He is, afterall, the Great Uniter… sarcasm\off.

    Colonel Haiku (43771c)

  67. DRJ- I think for a long time catch-phrases have taken the place of thinking. I am not confident that the majority of the American people can think critically. Apparently Obama and company don’t believe so, either; or they think things will be glossed over so that even those who could think it through don’t see a need to.

    Who will the average person on the street believe, the President who says he has made an “accomodation” and the MSM that parrot it, or those of us who point out that he has done nothing except insult the American people’s intelligence? It’s like a con artist that lies so blatently you can’t believe he’s actually lieing, so it must be true.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  68. Remember… it’s the Obama administration that chose the time and nature of this fight. There is a reason for it and there is nothing innocent or ham-handed about it. They are setting the terms of the battle, they believe it will enable them to rally their fevered minions and their lapdog MSM.

    Colonel Haiku (43771c)

  69. MD,

    I think the American people will prevail. We are typically slow to judge people and slow to anger, but ultimately we get things right when faced with big challenges.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  70. Not sure if anyone has mentioned this (but if not)… remember George Stephanopoulos asking what everyone thought to be insane questions about contraception at the debate hosted by ABC?

    Does it not seem logical to conclude that he was floating a trial balloon for the administration?

    Colonel Haiku (43771c)

  71. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    lun (6554f2)

  72. “Does it not seem logical to conclude that he was floating a trial balloon for the administration?”

    He was following up on Santorum’s earlier comments on Griswold.

    lun (6554f2)

  73. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    Comment by lun

    There is no free lunch, lun. I understand you on the Left are famous for magical thinking, but drugs and/or services aren’t magically paid for. The State can’t coerce the subsidization of practices the Catholic (or any other religious) community views as “intrinsically evil.”

    Colonel Haiku (efcf5b)

  74. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    Was that supposed to be some sort of clever observation on Catholic Church?

    Or did you really intend to show you have no clue that the Church offers confession for the forgiveness of sins?

    Steve (20a23f)

  75. Also, if the insurance company offers contraceptives with no co-pays and no deductibles to women employed by Catholic institutions, it means that the cost of contraceptives are covered by the premium. Which the Catholic institutions do pay.

    Steve (20a23f)

  76. Yglesias has it exactly wrong: this law is Sharia start to finish, just that the Sharia is coming from the Secular Humanists who comprise the most intolerant and violent religion yet known to man.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  77. “I understand you on the Left are famous for magical thinking, but drugs and/or services aren’t magically paid for.”

    My point is, if they’re not used, then they’re not paid for.

    “Also, if the insurance company offers contraceptives with no co-pays and no deductibles to women employed by Catholic institutions, it means that the cost of contraceptives are covered by the premium. Which the Catholic institutions do pay.”

    But if Catholics don’t use contraceptives, then cost is 0, so there’s nothing to pay for.

    lun (6554f2)

  78. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    Comment by lun — 2/13/2012 @ 6:13 pm

    Is it possible to make a less serious comment?

    JD (318f81)

  79. It is, but one ‘might be a Journolister’ or a member of the Administration, but I repeat myself.

    narciso (87e966)

  80. But if Catholics don’t use contraceptives, then cost is 0, so there’s nothing to pay for.

    babies are very very expensive to bring into this fallen fallen world they’re like 12-17K if all goes well (including pre-natal care) and an easy six figures for the 7-8% or so what are preemies

    my friend NG’s wee baby easily hit a half-mil just before he got out of hospital and he’s been quite the health care consumer his first two years

    which is fine cause him’s a wazzle

    it’s just very expensive is all

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  81. If you don’t go to the hospital and have your spleen removed, then you insurance company doesn’t have to pay for it, so no worries.

    JD (318f81)

  82. spleens are treacherous but not as treacherous as gall bladders is my understanding

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  83. Assploded gall bladders are Teh Suck.

    JD (318f81)

  84. “babies are very very expensive to bring into this fallen fallen world they’re like 12-17K if all goes well (including pre-natal care) and an easy six figures for the 7-8% or so what are preemies”

    I doubt that Catholic institutions would object to covering this. Seems right up their alley.

    lun (6554f2)

  85. Liberation Theology….

    Not being a Papal Scholar, nor Roman Catholic, I can only comment on random snippets of information that I have seen over the years, but I seem to recall that one prominant LT scholar/proponent was severely reprimanded, if not excommunicated, by the Vatican for going against and/or disregarding the wishes of the Pope.

    I think this was one portrait that the Vatican needed to paint with a broader brush, but every organization has its’ squishes who counsel compassion, being non-judgemental, and who are reluctant to hurt the feelings of others.
    Look how well that turned out for them.

    AD-RtR/OS! (003201)

  86. I am not confident that the majority of the American people can think critically. Apparently Obama and company don’t believe so, either; or they think things will be glossed over so that even those who could think it through don’t see a need to.

    Obama and company not only don’t believe Americans are critical thinkers, but fully count on and depend on this. It is precisely the missing safeguard that, if in place, would have prevented him winning the election.

    Americans are romantics and sentimentalists. It tends to get in the way of clarity and a necessary shrewdness to think critically and dispassionately. Obama was a romancer of the people who promised more than the moon and stars, and people loved him for it. Bought it hook, line and sinker because it made them feel good on two levels: 1) good that they were so wanted by one larger than life and 2) good that they were going to be on the side of hope and change and parting the seas. In other words, romanticized, courted, and had.

    Who will the average person on the street believe, the President who says he has made an “accomodation” and the MSM that parrot it, or those of us who point out that he has done nothing except insult the American people’s intelligence? It’s like a con artist that lies so blatently you can’t believe he’s actually lieing, so it must be true.

    I think the average person and majority of people are going to be angry that there are those of us who dare to point out the truth. That’s not what this relationship with our president is supposed to be about. That’s not what his supporters signed up for.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  87. Well Benedict, knows this ground rather well, since
    he was the disciplinarian for John Paul’s initiatives.

    narciso (87e966)

  88. I don’t think anyone would object to covering it I just wonder what the analytical cost/benefit framework of Obama’s unconstitutional contraception mandates looks like

    but I don’t mean to suggest I’m passionately interested, just kinda curious

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  89. “Not being a Papal Scholar, nor Roman Catholic, I can only comment on random snippets of information that I have seen over the years, but I seem to recall that one prominant LT scholar/proponent was severely reprimanded, if not excommunicated, by the Vatican for going against and/or disregarding the wishes of the Pope. ”

    There was a pontifical commission, (including bishops, cardinals, thoeologians and physicians) that recommended relaxing the ban in the 60s, for some contraceptives, for married couples. But the pope at the time overruled them and we got Humanae Vitae.

    lun (6554f2)

  90. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    Comment by lun — 2/13/2012 @ 6:13 pm

    I don’t believe all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholics. I assume the people who are in executive positions are and some others, but certainly not all.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  91. Maybe it shouldn’t matter so much what non Catholics do then.

    lun (6554f2)

  92. “Also, if the insurance company offers contraceptives with no co-pays and no deductibles to women employed by Catholic institutions, it means that the cost of contraceptives are covered by the premium. Which the Catholic institutions do pay.”

    But if Catholics don’t use contraceptives, then cost is 0, so there’s nothing to pay for.

    In a word, no.

    You don’t understand how this works, do you? You seem to think the premium doesn’t cover contraceptives.

    Do you think that if a woman who works for a Catholic institution and decides to use contraceptives, the insurance will temporarily cover it, then the insurance company will send the employer an extra bill?

    If not, do you think Santa Claus drops off the contraceptives every month, and that neither the Catholic institution is paying nor the insurance company is charging a premium that covers the cost of those contraceptives?

    The way a risk pool works is that it is expected that not all individuals will use the benefit. An insurance company charges a premium so that the money left over from the premiums covering those who don’t use the benefit pays for the expenses of those who do (plus theoretically something left over for operating expenses plus profit if it’s a for-profit company). So if all religious institutions that have moral objections to providing contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifaciants are lumped in together in one risk group, the premiums paid by Catholic Hospital A will cover the contraceptive costs of Evangelical Lutheran school B.

    Here’s a video of Obama letting the cat out of the bag at the 33 second mark. The religious institution will not have to pay “directly” for contraception. Which is true for all insurance that spreads costs over people or employers that insurance actuary tables determine pose a similar risk.

    Econ 101 with Harvard econ prof Greg Mankiw.

    A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

    B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

    Policy A. represents the original HHS contraceptive mandate. Policy B. represents Obama’s “accommodation.” They are both the same policy.

    Essentially, under the original mandate all employees would know that all employers have purchased group health policy covered A-Z.

    The great Obama accommodation is now, employees of Catholic employers will be led to believe they are covered for A-W. Catholic institutions can lie to themselves and their employees that they’re only covering A-W, if they wish. Then the employees will find out directly from the insurance company that they are also covered for X,Y, and Z.

    Both providing contraception and using contraception are sins. My reference to confession is that Catholic institutions are supposed to be in the business of helping people avoid sin but forgiveness of sin if necessary. Not in the business of both participating in and facilitating sin.

    Bye the bye, you’re unaware that generally speaking we’re talking about Catholic institutions that don’t exclusively hire Catholics, aren’t you?

    Steve (20a23f)

  93. “Bye the bye, you’re unaware that generally speaking we’re talking about Catholic institutions that don’t exclusively hire Catholics, aren’t you?”

    I was trying to figure that out, because if this is just about Catholics, then the religious liberty argument is stronger. But if it involves an institution in the general market, then there’s more of an argument that they follow generally applicable laws. A minor one being the religious liberty of non-catholics they hire, who might not care for their bosses morals, and still are entitled to their legally required minimum compensation.

    lun (6554f2)

  94. “My point is, if they’re not used, then they’re not paid for.”

    lun – If my Aunt had nuts she’d be my Uncle.

    If no women employed by Catholic institutions are utilizing contraceptive services, why would Obama mandate those institutions offer such services free in direct conflict with the religious beliefs of the institutions? Nothing to mandate, right?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  95. “I was trying to figure that out, because if this is just about Catholics, then the religious liberty argument is stronger.”

    lun – Sorry lun, this is about the religious liberty of the employer, not the employee. The employee is free to choose where they work if they do not like the policies of their employer. Liberals are trying to frame this as a debate about restricting womens’ choice. It is not. If an employer was not offering insurance coverage for contraceptive services, but now Obama says they must for free, just because he says so, even though it is against the employers religious beliefs, the argument is about the First Amendment, not womens’ choice.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  96. “If no women employed by Catholic institutions are utilizing contraceptive services, why would Obama mandate those institutions offer such services free in direct conflict with the religious beliefs of the institutions? ”

    You mean that sometimes people don’t follow the instructions of the Catholic church? I’m shocked.

    lun (6554f2)

  97. OT

    DuPont and the Chinese subsidiary of Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. said Monday that they agreed on a $100 million deal to boost the supply of solar-energy materials.

    Yingli will buy materials from E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. such as special pastes and polyvinyl films used in solar modules.

    The agreement was signed at a ceremony in Washington that was organized by the U.S. Commerce Department and China’s government.

    that’s gayer than when putin’s pet gerbil went missing

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  98. “The employee is free to choose where they work if they do not like the policies of their employer”

    But we don’t do this in other areas, say, employers that refuse to cover women who want to see male doctors, or employers who want to pay less than the minimum wage, etc… The religious liberty argument is stronger when it’s the church running its own business. But once they start running other businesses, then they’re a bit weaker in arguing that they shouldn’t be subject to business regulation, like the rest.

    lun (6554f2)

  99. “But we don’t do this in other areas, say,……… or employers who want to pay less than the minimum wage, etc”

    Really, can you provide some specific examples?

    “The religious liberty argument is stronger when it’s the church running its own business.”

    Yes

    “But once they start running other businesses, then they’re a bit weaker in arguing that they shouldn’t be subject to business regulation, like the rest.”

    lun – You would need to provide some specific types of other business you mean and the type of regulations you believe religious organizations have claimed the should not be subject to.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  100. lun – Why are you here?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. Let’s say a Muslim employer says that they do not want to pay to cover any health insurance where a female employee will see a male doctor. Is this a case of religious liberty that should trump a law that overcomes this?

    “lun – You would need to provide some specific types of other business you mean and the type of regulations you believe religious organizations have claimed the should not be subject to.”

    A recent supreme court case affirmed the right of a church to be free from the general law of discrimination when it is hiring. I see the point of that.

    lun (6554f2)

  102. “lun – Why are you here?”

    Because I’m a pro-choice democratic cafeteria Catholic and I’d like to talk about “hypocrisy.”

    lun (6554f2)

  103. Anyone recognize this sophistry?

    JD (318f81)

  104. “Let’s say a Muslim employer says that they do not want to pay to cover any health insurance where a female employee will see a male doctor. Is this a case of religious liberty that should trump a law that overcomes this?”

    lun – Has Obama mandated that a Muslim employer cannot pay a higher cost for insurance to enable its female employees to only see female employees? You have an apples and oranges comparison.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  105. Because I’m a pro-choice democratic cafeteria Catholic and I’d like to talk about “hypocrisy.”

    Heh. There’s a delicious bit of irony there.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  106. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    Comment by lun — 2/13/2012 @ 6:13 pm

    Stupid Comment of the Week. Hands down. No contest.

    JD (318f81)

  107. to see only female doctors

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  108. Dana – it is oblivious to the irony.

    JD (318f81)

  109. “Because I’m a pro-choice democratic cafeteria Catholic and I’d like to talk about “hypocrisy.””

    lun – Yours?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  110. “lun – Has Obama mandated that a Muslim employer cannot pay a higher cost for insurance to enable its female employees to only see female employees? You have an apples and oranges comparison.”

    What are the apples and oranges? It’s a hypothetical. Is there a religious liberty argument in defense of that hypothetical?

    lun (6554f2)

  111. Maybe it shouldn’t matter so much what non Catholics do then.

    Oh so if the employees are all Catholics then it’s okay to require covering contraception and if they’re not then it’s also okay. Clever, but the issue is the constitutionality of requiring the institution to do something. You haven’t caught on to that yet?

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  112. “lun – Yours?”

    Supposedly that’s what the title of the thread is about. Me? Not seeing it.

    lun (6554f2)

  113. Note how the Pelosi Catholic wants to talk about scenarios other than the actual one being dictated upon he Catholic Church.

    JD (318f81)

  114. Did you read the post, and links, lun?

    JD (318f81)

  115. “Clever, but the issue is the constitutionality of requiring the institution to do something. ”

    I think this will be found constitutional but I haven’t read the case that is talked about. I thought the argument was more political.

    lun (6554f2)

  116. “Note how the Pelosi Catholic wants to talk about scenarios other than the actual one being dictated upon he Catholic Church.”

    But note, the bishops objected to this coverage applying to any employer, so they too aren’t just interested in what is “dictated upon the catholic church.”

    lun (6554f2)

  117. Let’s say a Muslim employer says that they do not want to pay to cover any health insurance where a female employee will see a male doctor. Is this a case of religious liberty that should trump a law that overcomes this?

    In theory I don’t see a problem with allowing a Muslim institution to ask an insurance company to write a policy that way. Why should it be? There might be some practical difficulties, such as emergency room situations. You don’t get to choose your doctor in an emergency room. So that aspect doesn’t have a parallel to the abortion and birth control issue.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  118. “Is there a religious liberty argument in defense of that hypothetical?”

    lun – I misread your hypothetical, sorry. When you say Muslim employer are you talking about private sector or religious employer?

    If it’s private sector, the employer can do whatever they want. If a female Muslim employee does not like the employer’s policies, she can choose to work elsewhere.

    If it is a religious Muslim employer, I am aware by custom Muslim men do not like to see female doctors and they do not want their women seeing male doctors. Is that a formal part of Islamic doctrine? Where is there an authority to reference for that?

    Where is the government interference to create the parallel situation to Obama’s contraception mandate?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  119. I think this will be found constitutional but I haven’t read the case that is talked about. I thought the argument was more political.

    Yes but the political argument also revolves around forcing a religious institution to do something they don’t want to do. It’s not about what choices the employees would want to make. Your argument about what the employees want to do is irrelevant.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  120. “Supposedly that’s what the title of the thread is about. Me?”

    lun – See 108.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  121. That’s frank. My problem with it is the gender discrimination (of the doctors) and the whole limiting someone’s ability to choose their own doctors on the basis of gender. So gender discrimination of the employees. So I can see some worthwhile laws that this would violate.

    lun (6554f2)

  122. “I thought the argument was more political.”

    lun – The argument is Constitutional. Democrats are trying to frame it as political.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  123. What other tenets of the Catholic faith which you claim to practice would you be willing to allow a political opponent to force the Church to violate?

    JD (318f81)

  124. “lun – I misread your hypothetical, sorry. When you say Muslim employer are you talking about private sector or religious employer?”

    Replace Catholic with Muslim in all your worries about the Obama rule.

    lun (6554f2)

  125. It is more of a dictate from on high, than a rule.

    JD (318f81)

  126. #128

    There’s a political argument too, i.e. the Obama admin. “war on religion”.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  127. “What other tenets of the Catholic faith which you claim to practice would you be willing to allow a political opponent to force the Church to violate?”

    I think political power should be able to tax Catholics and use it to pay for wars and the death penalty and immigration enforcement and all sorts of other things that might violate catholic views. I think that Catholics should not be exempt from that.

    lun (6554f2)

  128. “My problem with it is the gender discrimination (of the doctors) and the whole limiting someone’s ability to choose their own doctors on the basis of gender.”

    lun – If a female employee of a Muslim employer has no trouble finding female doctor, where is the discrimination? The same is true of a male employee. There is no gender discrimination in your hypothetical. Both sexes are treated equally.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  129. What other tenets of the Catholic faith which you claim to practice would you be willing to allow a political opponent to force the Church to violate?

    Maybe a better question would be “What other tenets of the Catholic faith would you not be willing to allow…”.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  130. “It is more of a dictate from on high, than a rule.”

    Nope it’s pretty much simply an HHS regulation. No reason to deify this.

    lun (6554f2)

  131. I think political power should be able to tax Catholics and use it to pay for wars and the death penalty and immigration enforcement and all sorts of other things that might violate catholic views. I think that Catholics should not be exempt from that.

    The question was about the Church. You seem to be talking about individuals again.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  132. I was trying to figure that out, because if this is just about Catholics, then the religious liberty argument is stronger. But if it involves an institution in the general market, then there’s more of an argument that they follow generally applicable laws. A minor one being the religious liberty of non-catholics they hire, who might not care for their bosses morals, and still are entitled to their legally required minimum compensation.

    You have it exactly backwards. In fact, you are applying the same head-splitting “logic” that Barack Obama applies to federal financing when he equates not taxing people enough with government spending.

    On the one hand, a Catholic school can not provide some sort of justification to apply a religious litmus test to the hiring of an office clerical worker or a janitor. So per the EEOC they are in the general market.

    Now, HHS defines a religious institution so narrowly that traditional missionary work is no longer defined by the USG as a legitimate religious mission. Hence eliminating the raison d’etre for whole religious orders that in some cases have existed for centuries (and will continue to exist outside the borders of Obama’s USSA).

    Then you come along and conclude it is the Catholic Church imposing its morality on the clerical worker or janitor. Not the federal government imposing a “secular progressive morality” (known in the old USSR as socialist morality) on the Catholic Church via mandates from the EEOC and HHS.

    There is an endgame here, lun. If Obama can succeed in defining the First Amendment so narrowly that only actual “houses of worship” can qualify for some sort of conscience protection, and then only if they hire predominantly members of their own faith, and minister to members of their own faith, it will be impossible for a religious organization to operate a school, hospital, adoption agency (religious organizations are already being driven from that field), hospice, soup kitchen, hospital, etc. and in any way, shape, or form remain a religious institution instead of just an indistinguishable arm of government.

    And then, like student loans, the government has no competitors providing any of any of these services. There are no competing visions of morality.

    I was going to respond to Colonel Haiku’s comment about Stephanopoulos floating trial balloons by telling him it isn’t at all what he thinks. But it would have sounded a little crazy then.

    Not now. Thanks to your Orwellian view that the Catholic Church’s failure to comply with evermore new moral mandates incompatible with Catholic morality as they are imposed by the government equates to the Catholic Church imposing its morality on others.

    Steve (20a23f)

  133. “lun – If a female employee of a Muslim employer has no trouble finding female doctor, where is the discrimination? The same is true of a male employee. There is no gender discrimination in your hypothetical. Both sexes are treated equally.”

    The discrimination is that her choice of doctors is limited by her gender. And the doctor’s ability to take on patients and contract with the insurance company is limited as well.

    lun (6554f2)

  134. “Replace Catholic with Muslim in all your worries about the Obama rule.”

    lun – Outline the centralized tenets of Islam which Obamacare and the mandates for its implementation violate and then we can have a discussion.

    Where are the Islamic protests to Obamacare mandates?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  135. My problem with it is the gender discrimination (of the doctors) and the whole limiting someone’s ability to choose their own doctors on the basis of gender. So gender discrimination of the employees. So I can see some worthwhile laws that this would violate.

    Laws about employees are about employment. There are no laws about what doctors an employee chooses. People are allowed to gender discriminate in their doctor choices. Is this too complicated for you?

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  136. “The question was about the Church. You seem to be talking about individuals again.”

    That applies to “the church” too.

    lun (6554f2)

  137. “The discrimination is that her choice of doctors is limited by her gender.”

    lun – Only if she is unable to find a female doctor. Does she expect her employer to fly her to another state for routine medical care? She is in the exact same position as a male employee.

    Again, you are dodging the question of whether there is any government involvement in your hypothetical. Why?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  138. You all realize that Lun is fundamentally unserious, right?

    JD (318f81)

  139. “lun – Outline the centralized tenets of Islam which Obamacare and the mandates for its implementation violate and then we can have a discussion.”

    Sorry that was within the hypothetical — I wanted to you imagine a muslim organization just as you were imagining Catholic ones, but within the hypothetical.

    “People are allowed to gender discriminate in their doctor choices. Is this too complicated for you?”

    People are. And people are allowed to get contraceptives or not. But this is about employers imposing a gender discrimination in a business relationship, both upon the doctor and upon the employees.

    lun (6554f2)

  140. “The discrimination is that her choice of doctors is limited by her gender.”

    lun – Or is it limited by her male relatives?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  141. “lun – Only if she is unable to find a female doctor.”

    What if she wants a doctor that is male? Her choice is limited. On the basis of gender.

    lun (6554f2)

  142. A recent supreme court case affirmed the right of a church to be free from the general law of discrimination when it is hiring. I see the point of that.

    If by Church you mean house of worship, then yes, they aren’t covered by at least some EEOC regulations.

    Some school employees are also not covered by all EEOC if they are “ministers.” See HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL.

    But not all school employees even at religious schools.

    Steve (20a23f)

  143. There should be a mandate that Muslim religious organizations have insurance policies that pay for prophylactic bacon. Lun is a clown.

    JD (318f81)

  144. Palate cleanser from lung. A way cool song if you speak Greek but still real good if you like picking and strumming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtObsHYz8hM

    nk (3d837f)

  145. “But not all school employees even at religious schools.”

    Makes sense to me.

    lun (6554f2)

  146. “Sorry that was within the hypothetical — I wanted to you imagine a muslim organization just as you were imagining Catholic ones, but within the hypothetical.”

    lun – What Catholic organizations was I imagining. You never answered my #105.

    Are you suggesting Islam has a centralized hierarchy like the Catholic Church and dispenses doctrine from that authority or are you just making sh*t up?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  147. Because I’m a pro-choice democratic cafeteria Catholic and I’d like to talk about “hypocrisy.”
    Comment by lun — 2/13/2012 @ 8:32 pm

    – Being a pro-choice Catholic, you would be nominal expert in the room.

    Icy (f65398)

  148. “What if she wants a doctor that is male? Her choice is limited. On the basis of gender.”

    lun – Who is limiting her choice?

    Try to be specific.

    Is it the government?

    Her religion?

    Her employer?

    Can’t she self pay and go to the male doctor she wants?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  149. “Are you suggesting Islam has a centralized hierarchy like the Catholic Church and dispenses doctrine from that authority or are you just making sh*t up?”

    I’m making a hypothetical.

    You asked this question about my hypothetical:

    “When you say Muslim employer are you talking about private sector or religious employer?”

    And my answer is that my hypothetical is talking about Muslim employers in the private sector or religious employer in the same way that we are talking about Catholics.

    lun (6554f2)

  150. You all realize that Lun is fundamentally unserious, right?

    Yes, JD, he must be. But BHO isn’t, and he not only thinks like lun he’s enacting policies based upon those thoughts.

    That’s why I found lun useful to make a point in #138.

    Steve (20a23f)

  151. JD – We’ve got the full spinning top effect.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  152. Notemhow it doesn’t really want to talk about Barcky taking a dump on the 1st Amendment, dictating from on high what the Catholic Church must do, violate one of their fundamental beliefs. And it’s answer about forcing taxes to pay for other items contrary to the Church’s teachings shows how fundamentally unserious “lun” is.

    JD (318f81)

  153. If the Catholics aren’t using contraception, then the group plans of those Catholic institutions won’t be paying for any contraception, and thus the employers won’t be paying for it anyway. So no worries, right?

    Comment by lun — 2/13/2012 @ 6:13 pm

    JD (318f81)

  154. “And my answer is that my hypothetical is talking about Muslim employers in the private sector or religious employer in the same way that we are talking about Catholics.”

    lun – You may be talking about some thing, but folks here are talking about not-for-profit Catholic employers.

    How about answering my #105?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  155. lun – Can you double my money on a used car?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  156. “There’s a political argument too, i.e. the Obama admin. “war on religion”.

    Comment by Gerald A — 2/13/2012 @ 8:54 pm ”

    Gerald – I agree, I was just trying to simplify things.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  157. “lun – You may be talking about some thing, but folks here are talking about not-for-profit Catholic employers.”

    But for example, the bishops talked about private employers run by Catholics. I’m covering the bases and trying to figure out what’s a religious liberty infringement and what isn’t. And thus for that its important to define the spectrum. So we talk from a church hiring a minister all the way to a Jiffy Lube franchise being run by a Catholic, in order to elaborate on the spectrum.

    “How about answering my #105?”

    I gave you a hypothetical. Gerald A got it. I also brought up other discrimination, which I thought was ok, and Steve got that.

    lun (6554f2)

  158. Fundamentally unserious

    JD (318f81)

  159. “I gave you a hypothetical.”

    lun – 105 was before your hypothetical. Others have supplied the answers I was seeking, you clearly have not.

    Your comments are discriminating against my gender.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  160. “lun – 105 was before your hypothetical. ”

    You might say the hypothetical was in response to that….

    lun (6554f2)

  161. You might say that lun is a sophist and a douchenozzle.

    JD (318f81)

  162. I think this will be found constitutional but I haven’t read the case that is talked about. I thought the argument was more political.
    – Adapt, adopt and improve, lun!

    But note, the bishops objected to this coverage applying to any employer, so they too aren’t just interested in what is “dictated upon the catholic church.”
    – Not to worry. We’re all noting that the church is opposed to the government acting as dictator.

    I think political power should be able to tax Catholics and use it to pay for wars and the death penalty and immigration enforcement and all sorts of other things that might violate catholic views. I think that Catholics should not be exempt from that.
    – Um-day.

    Icy (f65398)

  163. You asked this question about my hypothetical

    – I see. So, Yglesias co-opted YOUR hypothetical? What a freakin’ coincidence!

    Icy (f65398)

  164. Notemhow it doesn’t really want to talk about Barcky taking a dump on the 1st Amendment, dictating from on high what the Catholic Church must do, violate one of their fundamental beliefs.

    Actually, JD, just to go off on a very slight tangent I really do believe where Barcky treats the First Amendment like a filthy OWS hippy treats a cop car is when he takes a pen to everything the various religions consider to be ministries and crosses out the ones he disagrees with.

    These are a few of the Cook County messiah’s notes from a sample list of Roman Catholic religious orders operating in the Archdiocese of New York:

    Augustinian Recollect Friars – St. John Parish in the Bronx and Tagaste Monastery in Suffern, New York? Exempt!

    Brothers of the Christian Schools, or De La Salle Brothers – Manhattan College, St. Raymond High School for Boys, St. Peter’s Boys High School, La Salle Academy, San Miguel School and De La Salle Academy? Not exempt!(student body not exclusively Catholic enough, may employ too many non-catholic staff members).

    Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm – Operate four nursing homes in the archdiocese: Ferncliff in Rhinebeck and Carmel Richmond on Staten Island, Mary Manning Walsh in Manhattan and St. Patrick in the Bronx? Not exempt! (don’t exclude aged or infirm non-Catholics, janitorial staff needs birth control and plan B, charitable donations wasted when could be sucked up to fund my CLASS act).

    Dominican Sisters of Perpetual Adoration – The nuns, the cloistered “Second Order” in the Dominican Order, have a monastery which opened in 1889, located in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx (2009). It is the oldest active Dominican monastery in the United States? Exempt!

    Dominican Sisters of St. Rose of Lima – primary apostolate (What’s this apostolate c***? Jesse? Al? Ol’ Chicago spiritual adviser whose name I dare not speak? Sounds like a lousy commercial establishment to me) is to nurse the indigent dying of cancer, run Rosary Hill Home in Hawthorne. Not exempt! (see justification [like I need one, he, he] for Carmelite Sisters above).

    Monastic Family of Bethlehem and the Assumption of the Virgin – Order of monastic Sisters was founded in Rome in 1950; monastery located in Livingston Manor, New York? Exempt!

    Parish Visitors of Mary Immaculate – Their apostolate (There’s that word again; Sharpton left without telling me what it means) is to visit homes for direct person-to-person evangelization, as well as to check on children in broken homes? Not Exempt! (We all know religious activity is confined to persons of one’s own faith, and we pay social workers [have I told you lately how many social workers we've kept on the payroll at only a cool quarter mil per] to do the rest of this work instead of letting these busybodies do it for free).

    Steve (20a23f)

  165. Update: Dem hypocrisy on religious liberty? Or election year opportunism?

    Scarborough Calls ‘Preposterous’ Sullivan’s Claim Obama Intentionally Set Contraception Trap for Conservatives

    Dick Morris Accuses George Stephanopoulos of Being a ‘Paid Democratic Hitman’

    DICK MORRIS: Obama did not make a mistake in this mandate. It’s a deliberately calculated move on his part…

    Then you remember that ABC debate with that paid Democratic hitman George Stephanopoulos went after Romney trying to…

    Under orders. And I think, and now he comes out with this thing on contraception. They want to create the idea…

    Not only did Stephanopolous get the memo early, he had his marching orders.

    Steve (20a23f)

  166. “Scarborough Calls ‘Preposterous’ Sullivan’s Claim Obama Intentionally Set Contraception Trap for Conservatives”

    Note, to believe it is a trap, you have to believe that conservatives are on the politically losing side.

    “Not only did Stephanopolous get the memo early, he had his marching orders.”

    Stephanopolous was following up on Santorum’s anti-Griswold comments.

    “We all know religious activity is confined to persons of one’s own faith”

    We do have to consider the religious liberty of the people getting prosletyzed.

    lun (6554f2)

  167. This is imdw, right?

    Is lun more typo jibberish or is it Russian for Duck? Strange handle.

    We do have to consider the religious liberty of the people getting prosletyzed.

    Freedom to not be offended is actually the opposite of freedom.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  168. Frank & Annie’s Bastard is spoiling for a fight. OWS snare set for Greasy Sleazer, now this for Mr. Potatohead.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  169. Dustin figured it out :-)

    JD (33be8e)

  170. But this is about employers imposing a gender discrimination in a business relationship, both upon the doctor and upon the employees.

    You’re still missing the point. Employment discrimination law doesn’t apply to that. Employment law is about hiring and promotion.

    In any case this is off on a bit of a tangent.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  171. Gerald – it wants to be on a tangent. It is studiously avoiding the actual topic, and facts. In fact, it seems apparent that the only freedom of religion, and free exercise thereof it believes in is the leftist State, the Church of Secular Humanism.

    JD (33be8e)

  172. “Freedom to not be offended is actually the opposite of freedom.”

    We’re talking about giving people exemptions from general laws because they claim they’re acting religiously. In deciding whether to grant them these exemptions, we’re going to be looking at what they’re doing. There’s less of a “religious liberty” argument to privilege trying to get other people to leave their own religion for your.

    “You’re still missing the point. Employment discrimination law doesn’t apply to that. Employment law is about hiring and promotion. ”

    Gender discrimination prohibitions aren’t limited to just prohibitions on hiring and promotion. But even if you just think about it on employment terms, saying to a woman that her insurance coverage does not allow her to see a male doctor is setting a term of her employment (her compensation) on the basis of her gender.

    I didn’t think that this would be the controversial part of the hypothethical. I don’t think you need to fight the hypothetical to get the point.

    lun (6554f2)

  173. Hey, look! You dropped a nipple:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/unadjusted-january-retail-sales-post-biggest-sequential-plunge-history

    The first flecks post-fan are hitting your face.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  174. JD, seriously? Imdw again?

    Simon Jester (e66edd)

  175. “You’re still missing the point.”

    lun – Exactly. You’re focused on a hypothetical without giving an explanation of what gave rise to the employer’s actions in you hypothetical, government intervention (as in the case at hand), religious beliefs, or private decision making. Thus without a more complete description there is no comparability. BUNNIES!!!!!!

    You are focused on the downstream, second order consequences of a government mandate in a vague hypothetical situation rather than the actual first order constitutional consequences of a new government mandate on certain employers.

    Most rational observers would call your concerns a distraction.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  176. “You’re focused on a hypothetical without giving an explanation of what gave rise to the employer’s actions in you hypothetica”

    In the hypothetical the employer wants to limit insurance coverage because of the employer’s religious beliefs, in contravention of a generally applicable law:

    “Let’s say a Muslim employer says that they do not want to pay to cover any health insurance where a female employee will see a male doctor.”

    It is like a Catholic employer wanting to limit insurance coverage because of their religious beliefs, in contravention of a generally applicable law.

    I think in either case, similar principles should apply.

    lun (6554f2)

  177. Daleyrocks – since Catholics shouldn’t use contraception, they should not incur any costs for contraception coverage, therefore, no harm no foul.

    JD (321019)

  178. “Daleyrocks – since Catholics shouldn’t use contraception, they should not incur any costs for contraception coverage, therefore, no harm no foul.”

    JD – Absolutely. Also no need for HRH Obama’s silly mandate.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  179. JD – How can liberal women get all wee wee’d up that Republicans are trying to take something away from women working for Catholic employers when it hasn’t been provided in the past?

    Shameless hypocrisy.

    You can’t take something away that somebody has not had.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  180. “Scarborough Calls ‘Preposterous’ Sullivan’s Claim Obama Intentionally Set Contraception Trap for Conservatives”

    Note, to believe it is a trap, you have to believe that conservatives are on the politically losing side.

    You have no idea what I believe. But I will tell you this; I’d feel more than ridiculous if I asserted that losers never set traps or try to trip up rivals when they’re afraid of losing to someone capable of beating them in competition, Mr. Tonya Harding.

    “Not only did Stephanopolous get the memo early, he had his marching orders.”

    Stephanopolous was following up on Santorum’s anti-Griswold comments.

    No, he deliberately mangled Santorum’s comments on Griswold’s in order to babble on about a non-issue. Frankly, Stephanopolous looked insane. Certainly not on point. He reminded me of certain other people.

    Steve (20a23f)

  181. My automobile insurance refuses to buy me a new Mercedes, therefore, they are denying me access to a Mercedes.

    JD (321019)

  182. “But I will tell you this; I’d feel more than ridiculous if I asserted that losers never set traps or try to trip up rivals when they’re afraid of losing to someone capable of beating them in competition, Mr. Tonya Harding.”

    We do have the oh so popular congressional republicans now grandstanding against providing something that nearly all women use. So we do have that.

    lun (6554f2)

  183. lun – If a Muslim employer in the U.S. refuses to purchase a health insurance policy for its employees which provides for clitorectomies without co-pays or deductibles, is that gender discrimination or religious discrimination?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  184. “We do have the oh so popular congressional republicans now grandstanding against providing something that nearly all women use. So we do have that.”

    lun – That’s certainly one way to frame it. Another is congressional republicans being upset at yet another example of President O’Blameshifter shredding our constitution.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  185. Is the Kenyan Muslim president mandating coverage of cliterectomies?

    lun (6554f2)

  186. “Another is congressional republicans being upset at yet another example of President O’Blameshifter shredding our constitution.”

    We’ll see what the courts say.

    lun (6554f2)

  187. A number of congressional democrats are also on board with congressional republicans that extending the contraceptive mandate to cover religious institutions was a mistake. So we do have that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  188. Bipartisan disapproval!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  189. “Is the Kenyan Muslim president mandating coverage of cliterectomies?”

    lun – Not my question. Go with the hypothetical.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  190. daley, is this character really imdw…again?

    What is this, “Brokeback Blog”?

    Simon Jester (e66edd)

  191. I’m not seeing how it is gender or religious discrimination.

    lun (6554f2)

  192. Daley, JD: did you see Glenn Reynolds’ post about the Chinese “50 Cent Party”? I think it is relevant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

    Simon Jester (e66edd)

  193. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate:

    From the Declaration of Independence:
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

    For those to whom some truths are not self evident, I think about all one can do is clarify where the differences in foundational principles exist and how that leads to different conclusions.

    Anyone that thinks making a person buy health insurance that includes the morning after pill by those who think it is wrong according to their fundamental religious beliefs probably would agree to making such people buy or do whatever against their principles.

    Not much of a discussion from there; just a choice between freedom or the opportunity for martyrdom. (Not the , “I’ll be a martyr by blowing someone up” kind, but the “‘Jesus is Lord’ [or your confession of choice] rather than Caesar, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, King Nebuchadnezzar, etc., so you die” kind).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  194. We do have the oh so popular congressional republicans now grandstanding against providing something that nearly all women use. So we do have that.

    Yes, that is sort of how Stephanopolous tried to frame the issue when he got his marching orders for the debate. Try to get in front of the story and make it look like the evil GOP wants to deny something to womyn. Even if you have to torture logic beyond recognition to do so.

    Good boy, lun. JD is right. You are fundamentally unserious. But I already knew that. In fact, I can use that.

    You didn’t get the hint, did you?

    Frankly, Stephanopolous looked insane. Certainly not on point. He reminded me of certain other people.

    Steve (20a23f)

  195. So we are all clear, “lun” is iamadimwit.

    JD (321019)

  196. I wonder if Whitney had a cat

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  197. “I’m not seeing how it is gender or religious discrimination.”

    lun – Fine. Why would it be religious or gender discrimination for a Catholic employer to refuse to purchase a health insurance policy which covered contraceptive care without co=pays or deductibles?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  198. lun – Do you believe we should punish the perpetrators of honor killings of Muslim women in the U.S. or are those acts protected by the First Amendment?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  199. “Why would it be religious or gender discrimination for a Catholic employer to refuse to purchase a health insurance policy which covered contraceptive care without co=pays or deductibles?”

    I don’t think this exact scenario religious or necessarily gender discrimination either. It is discrimination, however, to not offer contraceptive prescription coverage on the same terms as other prescription coverage. The EEOC ruled as such following the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

    lun (6554f2)

  200. lun – What is the state interest in violating the moral conscience of religious employers? Is there a constitutional right to health care which supercedes the right to religious freedom? If you believe there is, can you point it out to me, please?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  201. “Let’s say a Muslim employer says that they do not want to pay to cover any health insurance where a female employee will see a male doctor.”

    It is like a Catholic employer wanting to limit insurance coverage because of their religious beliefs, in contravention of a generally applicable law.

    I think in either case, similar principles should apply.

    As I already said, I think the Muslim institution should be allowed to do that.

    Catholic churches are allowed to discriminate in hiring only men to be priests which I also think is fine.

    There can be exceptions to any law. It’s NOT a generally applicable law unless they apply it to everyone including religious institutions. Arguing that Catholic churches should have to comply with it because “it’s generally applicable” is circular.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  202. “It is discrimination, however, to not offer contraceptive prescription coverage on the same terms as other prescription coverage.”

    lun – Except for those pesky conscience exemptions that are not exactly like the “non-compromise compromise” served up by President O’Blameless on Friday.

    You see no discrimination in a Muslim employer denying clitorectomy coverage to employees, but you do see discrimination in a Catholic employer denying contraception coverage to employees. Is it hard for you you to be on both sides of this issue?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  203. lun – What is the state interest in violating the moral conscience of religious employers?

    Elimination of rival points of view. So when Barcky decrees a national right to gay marriage, or whatever he wants, everyone will be attending a state school that will concur.

    There will be nothing left but an echo chamber, because it will be impossible to operate a religious school that might differ as people like lun have the:

    Orwellian view that the Catholic Church’s failure to comply with evermore new moral mandates incompatible with Catholic morality as they are imposed by the government equates to the Catholic Church imposing its morality on others.

    Steve (20a23f)

  204. “Arguing that Catholic churches should have to comply with it because “it’s generally applicable” is circular.”

    Gerald A – lun has already shown that circular reasoning is the only kind it has.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  205. When I said everyone, I meant everyone who’s a child. Where they’ll be taught the state catechism and that their parents are bigots or worse if they disagree.

    Steve (20a23f)

  206. lun – Do you believe that Obama’s DOE should require schools to teach children in kindergarten and first grade how to masturbate or is that just another of his WTF policies?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  207. “You see no discrimination in a Muslim employer denying clitorectomy coverage to employees, but you do see discrimination in a Catholic employer denying contraception coverage to employees. Is it hard for you you to be on both sides of this issue?”

    The discrimination I see is due to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which forbids discrimination on the ability of someone to get pregnant. I can see how that covers the unequal treatment of contraception. I do not see how that covers the unequal treatment of cliterectomies.

    “It’s NOT a generally applicable law unless they apply it to everyone including religious institutions. Arguing that Catholic churches should have to comply with it because “it’s generally applicable” is circular.”

    I think you’re reading too much into the term “generally applicable.” What it means is that it’s a law that’s aimed universally without attempting to single anyone out.

    lun (6554f2)

  208. “The discrimination I see is due to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which forbids discrimination on the ability of someone to get pregnant.”

    lun – I thought it covered discrimination against somebody already pregnant. Do you have your facts straight?

    How are your buddies Brett Kimberlin and Brad Friedman doing?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  209. “lun – I thought it covered discrimination against somebody already pregnant. Do you have your facts straight?”

    It covers the ability to become pregnant. The citations are available from the EEOC decision on this:

    http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html

    lun (6554f2)

  210. Pregnancy Discrimination Act is clearly the same as requiring the Catholic Church to pay for active steps to avoid pregnancy. Just like choosing to not engage in commerce is interstate commerce.

    JD (59fe1b)

  211. Maybe dimwit will post pics of Patterico’s house. Again. Creepy nasty stalker.

    JD (59fe1b)

  212. “Pregnancy Discrimination Act is clearly the same as requiring the Catholic Church to pay for active steps to avoid pregnancy.”

    No it is not the same. Please pay attention to the discussion. The pregnancy discrimination act answers daleyrock’s question at 209.

    lun (6554f2)

  213. lun. This whole requiring some to buy something or requiring a company to give it’s product away for “Free”.

    Discuss!!

    Gus (36e9a7)

  214. “lun” – please list every name you have used to comment here. Crickets in 3 … 2… 1…

    JD (59fe1b)

  215. When did this FREE contraception, become a RIGHT?

    lun. You’re the resident libtard troll. Fill us in. And while you are at which other RIGHTS are you LIBTARDS concocting?

    Get back to me on the comrade.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  216. They create rights where they do not exist, and ignore actual Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It is surreal.

    JD (59fe1b)

  217. Crickets

    Crickets

    Crickets

    JD (59fe1b)

  218. They create rights where they do not exist, and ignore actual Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It is surreal.

    Comment by JD

    What more could possibly need to be said about this?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  219. “When did this FREE contraception, become a RIGHT?”

    That’s what happens when you elect an anti-colonial Kenyan Muslim!

    lun (6554f2)

  220. That’s what happens when you elect an anti-colonial Kenyan Muslim!

    Comment by lun

    Obama’s pretty imperialist actually. I wish he were a Muslim. His actual church was a lot more radical than any Muslim I’ve ever met. What kind of person has his kids baptised in a “god damn America” and “9/11 was chickens coming home to roost because of Hiroshima!!!” church that thinks the CIA invented AIDS?

    I’m not sure why Hillary’s campaign created that Kenyan meme.

    Anyway, is there some kind of sale on straw today?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  221. I’m a fruitcake.

    lun (36e9a7)

  222. Crickets ….

    JD (59fe1b)

  223. But on the whole, I think your use of the word “right” can be confusing. Think of a minimum wage — there’s no constitutional right to one, but there’s still law that requires one.

    lun (6554f2)

  224. “Please pay attention to the discussion. The pregnancy discrimination act answers daleyrock’s question at 209.”

    lun – Not really. The case cited by lun is spreading through the sinestrophere like wildfire – birth control pills help reduce pain from cramps, you must cover them, otherwise it is discrimination – is not directly on point and ignores, ONCE MORE existing state conscience exemptions, which President Resolute Desk is looking to run roughshod over.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  225. Daleyrocks – it is a serial clown, serial troll, and serial stalker. Period.

    JD (59fe1b)

  226. So “lun” is really that deeply creepy person imdw? Banned multiple times and always trying to sneak back?

    “Lun,” if you are NOT “imdw,” please say so. If you are not that awful creep, you want to be up front about it.

    Simon Jester (817275)

  227. “But on the whole, I think your use of the word “right” can be confusing.”

    lun – End your confusion. When conservatives speak of rights, they generally mean things guaranteed or enumerated in the constitution, not created by Congress.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  228. “Daleyrocks – it is a serial clown, serial troll, and serial stalker. Period.”

    JD – That’s why I asked for the deal on the used car last night.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  229. “lun – End your confusion. When conservatives speak of rights, they generally mean things guaranteed or enumerated in the constitution, not created by Congress.”

    See, I was talking to this guy:

    “When did this FREE contraception, become a RIGHT?”

    lun (6554f2)

  230. Not answering the question, “lun”?

    If you are in fact imdw, please explain why you play such games to post here. That’s a lot of energy. And if you are imdw, you will be caught, yet again.

    A nasty, nasty man.

    Simon Jester (817275)

  231. Simon – it is. No doubt.

    Daley – that was one of the most beautiful leftist magical thinking moments.

    JD (59fe1b)

  232. Well, I think someone needs to take out the trash, if so.

    Simon Jester (817275)

  233. “Daley – that was one of the most beautiful leftist magical thinking moments.”

    JD – Nuclear weapons grade magical thinking stupid. Hall of fame.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  234. What it means is that it’s a law that’s aimed universally without attempting to single anyone out.

    Comment by lun — 2/14/2012 @ 9:54 am

    That has nothing to do with whether it’s an infringement on freedom of religion.

    Gerald A (cc0aaa)

  235. It ranks up there with spending your way out of bankruptcy.

    JD (59fe1b)

  236. JD – Today we have lun/imdw supporting female genital mutilation, taxing churches, violating religious liberty because a religion does not have the “correct” beliefs for the party of death, etc., etc.

    Enlightened liberal tolerance returns to the blog.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  237. Crickets. Still.

    JD (59fe1b)

  238. The “lun” troll ia just a garden variety libtard. Probably has other “issues” if you know what I mean.

    Gus (36e9a7)

  239. Crickets …

    JD (59fe1b)

  240. Is the Kenyan Muslim president mandating coverage of cliterectomies?
    – Give him a minute! Right now he’s bravely fighting through a nicotine fit out on the White House putting green!
    Poor guy.

    We’ll see what the courts say.
    – Well, of course! It IS the judicial branch that makes the laws; right?

    Icy (d609fb)

  241. They create rights where they do not exist, and ignore actual Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It is surreal.

    No, liberals create rights where they do not exist in order to trump rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

    Your freedom of religion isn’t as important as women’s health.

    Your freedom of expression isn’t as important as banning incendiary, violence-causing “hate speech”

    Your 2nd Amendment rights aren’t as important as keeping our children safe from “gun violence.”

    It’s all part of Obama’s vision of breaking free of the constraints the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution. It’s a process. Create conflicts where they don’t exist. It helps to have a few Supreme Court Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg braying about how lousy and outmoded our Constitution is. Now that we’ve established the notion that the rights in the Constitution, a document so awful a Supreme Court Justice can’t even defend it, aren’t nearly as important as the rights that aren’t in it, how do we settle this conflict?

    Why, according to the vastly superior lights of of social, economic, and redistributive justice.

    The Catholic Church got caught up in this game of greed and envy and thus contributed to it’s own destruction. From the USCCB:

    For decades, the Catholic bishops of the United States have been calling for genuine life-affirming reform to the nation‟s health care system. Their efforts are rooted in John XXIII‟s encyclical Pacem in Terris, which listed medical care among those basic human rights flowing from the basic dignity of the human person.

    And now look! Those nasty old Bishops were just all talk!

    There’s nothing surreal about it. You can’t replace that obsolete old piece of parchment until you get a large number of people to transfer their allegiance to something better. And what’s better than a bunch of free stuff paid for by the old, white male patriarchy whose power structure used to be propped up by outdated relics like a written Constitution and Western European Theology? You can’t understand that, JD, but then you’re not a wise Latina.

    Neither is any member of the USCCB.

    lun is comparatively speaking an amateur at shredding the Constitution, but you’ve got to give him points for persistence.

    Steve (20a23f)

  242. It is discrimination, however, to not offer contraceptive prescription coverage on the same terms as other prescription coverage. The EEOC ruled as such following the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
    – I forget, is the EEOC a legislative body? or is it a court?
    They “ruled”. What a clown you are! What did they ‘rule’? That employers must ‘employ’ contraceptives? Well then, this explains everything! The president is looking to boost the employment numbers. “We’ve created 2 million new jobs . . . for The Pill.”

    The discrimination I see is due to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which forbids discrimination on the ability of someone to get pregnant.
    – Oh, I see now . . . you were just moving the goal posts.
    Again.

    No it is not the same. Please pay attention to the discussion.
    – And admitting to that goal post move after the fact. Gotcha.

    I think you’re reading too much into the term “generally applicable.” What it means is that it’s a law that’s aimed universally without attempting to single anyone out.
    – Yeah, “generally” as in ‘generic’ as in ‘no regard for religious freedom’. No matter how hard you try, you libs will never erase the distinctions between people in the name of ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’.
    [The fact that you actually pretend to erase distinctions as you exploit them just makes your side all that more precious. Witness the "African-Americans for Obama" website; an official part of the President's re-election campaign. Watch for the imminent launch of "White Mormons for Romney" and "White Catholics for Santorum" sites (the less said about "White Supremacists for Paul" and "White Women of Low Self-Esteem for Gingrich" the better). Yep, that's our president: The Great Uniter.]

    Icy (d609fb)

  243. But on the whole, I think your use of the word “right” can be confusing. Think of a minimum wage — there’s no constitutional right to one, but there’s still law that requires one.
    – Ya know, if you vote Gingrich he will promise you a spot to plant your goal posts on the moon!
    Has there been ANY federal court case in which the court asserted that there is a “constitutional right” to a minimum wage? Go ahead, look it up; I’ll wait. Take your time.

    We do have the oh so popular congressional republicans now grandstanding against providing something that nearly all women use. So we do have that.
    – Will you ever answer the question of WHY this needs to be ‘provided’?

    Icy (d609fb)

  244. The Catholic Church’s anti-abortion facade has always been just that – a facade, a fakery, a false pretense.

    The accommodation they struck with Obama was a meager fig leaf to avoid being scorned from polite company. Even evil people find hypocrites insufferable. Obama apparently wasn’t smart enough to let them keep pretending they hadn’t already sold out.

    Those Catholics who resisted the pressure to conform to the accommodation with abortion have long since left the Catholic Church. A friend of mine mentioned that his family and many of his new friends were practically run out of the Catholic Church because of the irreconcilable differences. He’s now a Baptist, Jesus is his Savior, and Tim Tebow’s his hero lol; that’s one guy my friend will never have to worry about “selling out” on the question of abortion.

    As everybody in America knows, Catholics have never been the bulwark against abortion/contraception/eugenics (whatever you want to call it). There was a time not so long ago in America when the question of abortion was not so starkly “against” it. And during those times, the Left had only one real religious ally in their fight to “normalize” abortion in our country: the Catholics Church.

    Maybe it’s Catholicism’s fundamental centralization that makes it so vulnerable to corruption and atrocity.

    And maybe they thought they could collude with Obama by forcing every other Church in America to pay for abortions – neatly cutting away their own special privileges and making them the new “Authorities on the abortion question”.

    Only God knows for sure.

    I only know that I’m glad the Catholics have lost this battle – even their leaders are forced to pretend they’re on the “Right” side of the dead “fetus”.

    Rykehaven (35fbab)

  245. I work here is lun…

    Colonel Haiku (b48130)

  246. “The accommodation they struck with Obama was a meager fig leaf to avoid being scorned from polite company.”

    Rykehaven – I was unaware an accommodation had been reached. I thought the Administration merely announced some smoke and mirrors word changes without putting anything on paper. Do you have any links?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  247. A friend of mine mentioned that his family and many of his new friends were practically run out of the Catholic Church because of the irreconcilable differences. He’s now a Baptist, Jesus is his Savior, and Tim Tebow’s his hero lol; that’s one guy my friend will never have to worry about “selling out” on the question of abortion.

    With “friends” like you, who needs enemies.

    Colonel Haiku (b48130)

  248. Comment by Rykehaven — 2/14/2012 @ 2:56 pm

    Heh — nice attempt at Newspeak.

    If you had bothered to read what the USCCB actually said, both before and after the announcement and subsequent “accomodation,” the intention was always that other churches — actually, ANY conscientious objector, not only churches — would be respected re: this matter of conscience. IMO they didn’t go far enough, because the mandate to purchase insurance in the first place isn’t right. But they aren’t hypocrites as you claim.

    Second, proabortion factions in America — from Bernard Nathanson and NARAL (two of the first big promoters of legal abortion in the US) to current day proaborts — freely admit that the Catholic Church is the biggest thing standing in the way of their dream of free and unfettered extramarital sex and abortion — and infanticide as a backup — worldwide today.

    The Church as a teaching institution has been under attack literally since Day One of efforts to legalize, promote and encourage more birth control and abortion in the US.

    no one you know (325a59)

  249. no one you know – Newspeak? Heh. You mean like, some people say………..

    Or friends of my friends…………..

    I think you do. Heh.

    I keep wondering if so many Catholics are using birth control, why do I still see so many large Catholic families in my area? It is a puzzlement.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  250. Maybe they’re doing it wrong or something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  251. “That has nothing to do with whether it’s an infringement on freedom of religion.”

    But it does have to do with whether religious liberty is overriden. A law that picks on just churchs is much more clearly an infringement that must be stopped than a law that is aimed at being a general regulation of all employers.

    “Their efforts are rooted in John XXIII‟s encyclical Pacem in Terris, which listed medical care among those basic human rights flowing from the basic dignity of the human person.”

    Liberals inventing rights. Next thing you know they’ll be supporting immigration reform.

    “– I forget, is the EEOC a legislative body? or is it a court?”

    The EEOC was following the supreme court’s interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

    “Has there been ANY federal court case in which the court asserted that there is a “constitutional right” to a minimum wage?”

    You quoted me saying there wasn’t one. That answers your question.

    “He’s now a Baptist, Jesus is his Savior, and Tim Tebow’s his hero lol; that’s one guy my friend will never have to worry about “selling out” on the question of abortion.”

    Advise him to convert back. As anyone knows, converts make the best Catholics.

    lun (6554f2)

  252. “I keep wondering if so many Catholics are using birth control, why do I still see so many large Catholic families in my area? It is a puzzlement.”

    Doesn’t seem so hard to realize it is possible to do both.

    lun (6554f2)

  253. So for the third time, “lun,” are you that insufferable jerk imdw or not? Stashiu3, what do you think?

    Further, Stashiu3, what kind of person goes to this much trouble to post—the different ISPs, the nicknames, all the rest? It seems pathological and kind of creepy to me.

    Simon Jester (817275)

  254. “The EEOC was following the supreme court’s interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.”

    lun – Then wht didn’t you use a Supreme Court precedent to make your argument?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  255. “lun – Then wht didn’t you use a Supreme Court precedent to make your argument?”

    Because the EEOC is right on point. I later linked it, in response to you, so you could read it.

    lun (6554f2)

  256. Imadimwit is a sociopath. A dissembling douchenozzle

    JD (59fe1b)

  257. “lun” – you have posted under a variety of names, including but not limited to imdw. True, or false? Kthxby

    JD (59fe1b)

  258. I guess we all know that JD is correct. “Lun” (or is “loon” better?), go away. You remain a despicable person. If you want to post, write to Patterico about lifting your ban.

    Simon Jester (817275)

  259. no one you know – Newspeak? Heh. You mean like, some people say………..

    Or friends of my friends…………..

    I think you do. Heh.

    I keep wondering if so many Catholics are using birth control, why do I still see so many large Catholic families in my area? It is a puzzlement.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 2/14/2012 @ 3:59 pm

    Heh indeed :) . Actually what I was referring to was this:

    As everybody in America knows, Catholics have never been the bulwark against abortion/contraception/eugenics (whatever you want to call it). There was a time not so long ago in America when the question of abortion was not so starkly “against” it. And during those times, the Left had only one real religious ally in their fight to “normalize” abortion in our country: the Catholics Church.

    Hilarious. Esp given how loud and frequent the screeching complaints have been from liberals for–let’s see, decades now–how that eeeeeeevil Catholic Church and the patriarchy hates any kind of fun, and oppresses all women, by fulminating against any form of liberation and progressivism, esp when it involves a suction machine. Or a hospital closet. Or a pair of surgical scissors and the back of a baby’s head.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  260. oh my goodness sounds like somebody never learned not to run with scissors

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  261. also there are lots of catholics with beautiful tidy parsimonious families featuring 2 or at most 3 wazzles what can look forward to four whole years at the same college without “doing the basics” at some wretched community colleges with the welfare mommies

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  262. oh my goodness sounds like somebody never learned not to run with scissors

    Comment by happyfeet — 2/14/2012 @ 7:48 pm

    yes it’s all fun and games until someone loses the contents of a cranial cavity

    no one you know (577ce5)

  263. Comment by happyfeet — 2/14/2012 @ 7:51 pm

    Am # 4 of 5 and I did the basics at the wretched local community college. A fun two years and didn’t seem to hurt the job prospectings at all.

    More to the point, my dear feets, am pretty happy my mom decided to have me after the old unreliable rhythm method (NOT to be confused with the much more scientific and almost 100% accurate Natural Family Planning) failed her and my dad.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  264. #269 I think that’s called “pithing” – it’s mostly a frog thing

    nonono I heart community colleges and I took a really awesome Milton class at one once

    but I looked at the one here in my zone and it was ungodly depressing… but every once in awhile I get a hankering to study… but that will probably have to wait til I find my back to Texas

    I just meant to say that people with fewer bambinos can offer them more, as a rule

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  265. I was a complete and total on purpose accident too… my mom, who was apparently sorta trampy, being a young single mom already and all and having an affair with this married engineer guy at work –

    anyways we figure she thought if she got pregnant he’d leave his wife

    she was very wrong about that, and she waited so long there wasn’t anything she could do but put me up for adoption

    which, wise choice, lady

    never think for a second you didn’t do the right thing

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  266. Comment by happyfeet — 2/14/2012 @ 8:11 pm

    Wow, feets, didn’t know you were adopted

    very glad you’re here to tell the tale

    not that it’s any of my business so feel free to tell me so if you want, but if it’s OK to ask, did you ever want to be in contact w/ your birth mom?

    no one you know (577ce5)

  267. no I have no desire at all to meet her my mom and dad I got were really way way better than I would’ve ended up with if trampy single mom lady had decided to keep me, and just really really wonderful people, if not terribly long-lived (or especially well-located – but to her credit mom was always a lot annoyed at how dad’s mom had connived to get us to relocate to the less than metropolitan town in south texas where I grew up)

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  268. Rykehaven — he’s one and lun.

    Icy (d609fb)

  269. But it does have to do with whether religious liberty is overriden. A law that picks on just churchs is much more clearly an infringement that must be stopped than a law that is aimed at being a general regulation of all employers.
    – Yeah. One-size-fits-all doesn’t always fit all. Go figure.

    The EEOC was following the supreme court’s interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
    – What Supreme Court interpretation and what EEOC ruling?

    You quoted me saying there wasn’t one. That answers your question.
    – Hence, my point that you were making an apples to oranges comparison. Thank you for admitting it.

    Icy (d609fb)

  270. It sounds exactly like imdw, but has a consistent IP and there is nothing to indicate a proxy server yet. If it’s not imdw, the differences are negligible. I’ll keep an eye on it because imdw always trips up eventually, then goes ballistic because we’re “cowards” for enforcing the ban.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  271. And there it is. A stray comment caught in the spam filter showing lun is imdw. Buh bye.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  272. too clever by half
    did not give as good as got
    “I work here is lun”

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)

  273. Stashiu3, his responses to JD’s challenge said it all. Everyone appreciates you removing the garbage.

    I think it is amusing that he calls others “cowards,” based on his own creepy and dishonest and clearly obsessive behavior.

    Is this fellow a “journalist,” the way that “Hax” fellow supposedly was (ditto DCSCA)?

    Simon Jester (817275)

  274. Maybe folks shouldn’t give imdw what he wants.

    Why repeat the same comment to imdw 50 times with no attempt to talk about, in this case, hypocrisy or religious liberty or contraception?

    We might as well buy imdw a beer.

    What’s unfortunate is someone coming here to discuss the actual topic is drastically less likely to be engaged than a troll will be.

    Stashiu does a great job moderating the blog, and the rest of us should show our appreciation by having a conversation about the post. That’s my opinion, anyway, and it’s better than your opinion because I am the expert.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  275. Given imdw’s past behavior toward Patterico, I for one don’t want him here, until he apologies to and works it out with Patterico. Period. There is little of “good faith” about this individual, Dustin.

    Simon Jester (2d53db)

  276. There is little of “good faith” about this individual, Dustin.

    The way you phrase that suggests you think I disagree, but there’s absolutely no reason why you should think that. Of course imdw should be banned for posting someone’s address. Even if he did apologize, I would prefer he be banned.

    That’s not free speech… it’s an attempt to intimidate people and chill speech, and free speech is sacred.

    But, Simon, when are you going to talk about something else?

    Dustin (401f3a)

  277. There is little of “good faith” about this individual, Dustin.

    Comment by Simon Jester

    btw, there are several commenters here who have little good faith. I wouldn’t ban someone for that.

    The answer to the bigoted and dishonest commenters here is to occasionally call it out with links and quotes, and usually to ignore it so we can talk about something more interesting.

    The reason trolls troll is to get the reaction. Some times you need to call it out. But calling it out so much that the thread is destroyed is something we all need to work harder on. Myself included.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  278. Indeed, sir. Indeed. I get a lot from reading what other people think. Trolls get in the way of that. Especially long term worms like imdw.

    But I am posting less and less, which is all to the good. I have learned a great deal here.

    Simon Jester (2d53db)

  279. We’re very similar in how we think about these people.

    There was a time when I was railing so hard against EPWJ for lying about me that Patterico asked me to chill out. Believe it or not, it was because my comments about supporting Perry for Governor were heavily qualified with ‘the other candidates are quite good, relative to other states’.

    many times I’ve looked back on my bashing of Eric or this imdw or some of the right leaning trolls and realized I just made a muddy pig very happy by wrestling with him.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  280. And yeah, when I chilled on Eric, I realized he’s not all bad. I still had to criticize him when he made things personal (with JD for example) or when he said something that just wasn’t true, but Eric actually turned out to be a lot less bad than I initially said of him.

    That’s not the case for imdw, whose behavior is quite worse than just trashing people in comments.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  281. But I am posting less and less, which is all to the good

    And I disagree with you here. I hope you comment more, because you’re a good faith and intelligent commenter. It’s a waste of your time to worry about the ants.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  282. no I have no desire at all to meet her my mom and dad I got were really way way better than I would’ve ended up with if trampy single mom lady had decided to keep me, and just really really wonderful people, if not terribly long-lived (or especially well-located – but to her credit mom was always a lot annoyed at how dad’s mom had connived to get us to relocate to the less than metropolitan town in south texas where I grew up

    happyfeet, I was surprised to read you are adopted. Thank you for sharing that. Personal pieces of information like that can add dimension or context to comments on other subjects.

    And I am so thankful your birth mother opted to have you and give you up for adoption, rather than run with scissors. How sad for everyone to not be able to know you (virtually) and be amused, delighted, aggravated and puzzled by your wordsmithing.

    I’m in Texas right now. And it’s true, everything is much bigger here.

    Dana (a93e63)

  283. I was a lucky lucky kid for sure and I thank you for being thankful

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  284. Dustin is right. We need more thoughtful commenters like Simon (and Dustin, Dana, Dr. Capt. Mike K., etc) to stick around.

    I think much of this dissension is deliberately caused by trolls and Mobys. Ordinary disagreements can be amplified into the nastiest quarrels with such blog sabotage. And be sure that we’ll get a lot more before the election is over. We need to be aware of this and decline to be baited.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  285. How you doing, Bradley? The old ticker holding up ok?

    It’s great to see you commenting more frequently.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  286. For my part, I’m looking for commentors on the left to argue honestly, without resorting to ad homs, non sequiturs, patronizing know-it-allness, goal post moving, etc. And, FWIW, I feel it is important to point out when they’ve got nothin’.

    Icy (83a940)

  287. For my part, I’m looking for commentors on the left to argue honestly, without resorting to ad homs, non sequiturs, patronizing know-it-allness, goal post moving, etc. And, FWIW, I feel it is important to point out when they’ve got nothin’.

    Comment by Icy

    It’s very difficult for democrats in particular to defend Reid, Pelosi, and Obama with the results they have had. Their record is simply too powerful to argue out of.

    Of course, honest lefties simply grant that and don’t attempt to defend the party. But I also think a lot of them won’t have much fun debating politics these days because it must be quite frustrating.

    There are a few very honest lefties who do stop by here, which is one of the things that sets this blog apart from, say, Red State.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  288. No-one-you-know said: “If you had bothered to read what the USCCB actually said, both before and after the announcement and subsequent “accomodation,” the intention was always that other churches — actually, ANY conscientious objector, not only churches — would be respected re: this matter of conscience. IMO they didn’t go far enough, because the mandate to purchase insurance in the first place isn’t right. But they aren’t hypocrites as you claim.

    Second, proabortion factions in America — from Bernard Nathanson and NARAL (two of the first big promoters of legal abortion in the US) to current day proaborts — freely admit that the Catholic Church is the biggest thing standing in the way of their dream of free and unfettered extramarital sex and abortion — and infanticide as a backup — worldwide today.

    I’m sorry, but this is a bald-faced lie.

    You can slice it any way you want about some ephemeral “intentions” on the part of the Catholics and their leaders; at the end of the day they negotiated for EXCLUSIVE “waivers” from Obamacare’s contraceptive mandates.

    Those are the facts.

    Also, you’re trying to limit the time frame relative to the Catholic Church’s most recent shenanigans on abortion.

    (A) I wasn’t referring to Obama’s recent pronouncements of a “compromise”. Widen your limited scope; I’m talking about the numerous accommodations the Catholic Church has already made with the Obama administration to support Obamacare (and similar siezures of power) for years. Or did you think every American has forgotten all those transparent endorsements Catholics and their leaders gave Obamacare as it was getting passed? Sorry if this is a HUGE talking point amongst American Christians, at least 70% of whom are NOT Catholic. And while the Catholic Church tries to inflate the size of its influence with such pitiful tactics as including illegal alien Hispanics and double-counting, the truth is that their real numbers are only about 15% of American Christianity (and dwindling for years). Given their loss of influence, it’s probably unsurprising that Catholics are resorting desperately to aligning themselves with someone like Obama.

    What do Catholics have to lose except their souls? After all, most American Christians don’t think Obama really believes in Jesus or abortion-as-sin, so it’s no surprise Catholics support Obama.

    (B)Obamacare is hardly the first time the Catholic Church has sold out or stayed mum about abortion issues. Stop pretending otherwise.

    (C)The noise from non-Catholic quarters in America is that the Church did it so that every other protestant/non-aligned denomination in America would have to go through Catholicism if they wanted to save their souls on the issue of abortion.

    Yeah, this is a BIG deal and if the Catholic Church thought it would be able to garner converts, using abortion as a wedge issue against other Christians, having so publicly played footsie with Obama – well – the strategy has long since backfired in a way that the MSM and even the blogosphere will never really admit (this is old news).

    American Christians are not simply outraged at Obama.

    American Christians are infuriated with the Catholic Church which unsurprisingly is bleeding devout followers Left and Right – has been for years. I just happened to run into a few (it’s impossible not to these days). No amount of pandering is going to change things because that’s all these Bishops are really doing; pandering so that their diminished and no-so-devout followers can save face.

    And this is the key takeaway which you are clearly ignorant of and misinforms your entire evaluation of what’s happening on the abortion issue: The Catholic Church is weak to the point of irrelevance in America.

    They’re not really in control of events because they have no real political say over what Christians think about abortion (they never did).

    Here’s my little tidbit: I think Obama knows this now. He knows the Catholics can’t deliver the goods; they can’t deliver religious Americans and – ultimately – an election victory.

    So of course he’s throwing them under the bus in favor of a constituency in America who are in favor of abortion at any cost – a constituency much larger than the Catholics in America can deliver (think about THAT).

    The real power in America is not the Catholic Church. It NEVER has been despite the pretensions of Catholics and the Left. Yes, I know that liberals like to pretend that religious people are mindless automotons led by evil religious leaders who break bread with Rush Limbaugh. They’d like to believe that they only have to deal with religious liberals (there’s an oximoron) in the same way that the only conservatives they have to deal with are those that show up on MSNBC and “The View”.

    Like you, they’re entitled to their own delusions.

    But the truth is that religious fervor (I can’t really say “power”) is diffuse, spread out over numerous denominations, all devout Christians for whom Jesus is a central guidepost in their lives, all answerable to God alone and not a central authority like that of the Vatican or Obama.

    All of whom outnumber the Catholics since this country’s founding, have held the line against abortion since its introduction, and will continue to hold the line long after Obama leaves office.

    Rykehaven (35fbab)

  289. :/

    Dustin (401f3a)

  290. Rykehaven,

    IMO Obama developed the Occupy Movement to undermine Romney and so-called rich Republicans, and he’s using the Catholic Church and contraception to undermine Santorum and social conservatives. Obama doesn’t care who “wins.” All he cares about is the narrative so the media can deliver the appropriate message, depending on who is the GOP nominee.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  291. It’s mostly just to keep folks from focusing on the economy and Obama’s sorry record. I bet the democrats would love us to focus on social issues even if we’re winning on those in polls, because it’s a lot less harmful to Obama’s campaign.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  292. Rykehaven is a dlck. Noyk has more integrity in one of her pinky nails than the ‘tard of thunder has in his entire existence.

    JD (59fe1b)

  293. Is it time yet to ask Rykehaven what other names it has commented under?

    Icy (83a940)

  294. I would spend some time fisking its idiocy; but I have to head off to work, so I’ll just hit one snippet:

    The real power in America is not the Catholic Church. It NEVER has been despite the pretensions of Catholics and the Left.
    – I will give Rykestag this much: it takes a fair amount of skill to write an on-topic non sequitur.

    Icy (83a940)

  295. Comment by Rykehaven — 2/15/2012 @ 1:23 pm

    It was pretty amusing to see that you’re still trying to claim the polar opposite of the truth (the truth that the Church has been thundering against abortion and birth control for a very long time, and has been attacked esp for the last few decades because of it), until I realized maybe you’re talking about some very public-figure Catholics (ie those in politics and the media) who aren’t following their own church’s teachings at all. It’s a scandal and they’ll be responsible for that decision. But it’s simply not true that they represent what the Church teaches — they’re rebelling against it, in a very public way.

    Of course if you meant official Catholic teaching, you’re still very much mistaken.

    First though, I want to clarify, and emphasize, that of course evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have been very forceful and faithful about being pro-life. Wasn’t trying to exclude the other Christian voices at all. But Catholics should be included in those Christian voices (you seem to draw a distinction, but Catholics ARE Christians). And since the Church is rather large, its bishops speaking as one tend to get media attention. Hence the attacks from proabortion liberals who see this large unified voice as threatening to their agenda.

    Am always happy to be corrected if I’m mistaken in my facts. But (sorry I can’t google better today; not much time, bur there is LOTS out there) here are just a few links which talk about what the bishops were saying last year, and before Obamacare passed.

    The data is out there because it’s simply a fact that conscience protection — for EVERYONE, not just Catholics — and wanting to ensure abortion wouldn’t be covered, were two of the most paramount concerns of the public statements of the bishops just before the time Obamacare got passed rammed through in the middle of the night.

    Link 1 (note the dates on these)
    Link 2

    Link 3

    As for decades-long recognition from proaborts about the effect of this unity of Catholic teaching, I’ll refer you to then-atheist Bernard Nathanson’s Aborting America, which describes in detail the efforts of some of the original “pioneers” trying to legalize abortion in the US, to attack the Catholic Church and its hierarchy, Alinsky-style, to try to undermine a large church’s consistent teaching about life and the dignity of the human person.

    Hope the links make it past the spam filter but may post the info w/o links also. Links will show up later if so I guess.

    If this double posts, sorry for the repeat.

    no one you know (577ce5)

  296. I realized maybe you’re talking about some very public-figure Catholics (ie those in politics and the media) who aren’t following their own church’s teachings at all. It’s a scandal and they’ll be responsible for that decision. But it’s simply not true that they represent what the Church teaches — they’re rebelling against it, in a very public way.

    Well said.

    Yes, plenty of people like Pelosi will claim to stand for Catholics while doing what I consider the opposite. IE her recent “I’m going to stick with my fellow Catholics” when discussing something quite obviously opposite.

    They do this *because* they think that’s clever, basically as you allude when you call it Alinsky-Style.

    I don’t see what we get, politically, out of worrying about denominations of religion. It’s not relevant apart from my not wanting government to run my life in this respect any more than I want it to run anything else.

    What matters is the stuff this contraception meme is meant to divert attention from.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  297. It will interesting to see, if “this” keeps up, that if some Bishops start publicly calleing for the excommunication of Pelosi and others in the public eye who try to say what they think the “Catholic” view is/should be.

    Times of decision sometimes rise up and smack us in the face.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  298. The State can’t coerce the subsidization of practices the Catholic (or any other religious) organization views as “intrinsically evil”.

    This point needs to be made, but should not obscure the focus we need to place on Obama’s pathetic record, his incompetent actions vis-a-vis our economy, his tone deaf trampling on our Constitution, his unprecedented attempts to expand the reach and control of the federal government and dependency on the State.

    Colonel Haiku (1d81d3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0707 secs.