.@JessicaValenti What I most enjoy about your Twitter feed is the sophistication and nuance.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) June 30, 2014
ht/ChipA
.@JessicaValenti What I most enjoy about your Twitter feed is the sophistication and nuance.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) June 30, 2014
170 comments:
Shane would charge admission for "live birth control demonstration." (No refunds).
So... people refuse to go into her bedroom, so she's wanting to move it to the glitter aisle?
I thought the left liked the idea of separation of church and state?
of course, to much of the left their church is the state.
I notice also that the latest "news" talking point is lacing "for profit" in front of everything they don't like.
I wonder if the publishing house that paid Hillary millions in advance of her book-- is "for profit"? Is Goldman Sachs "for Profit"? is Hollywood "for profit"? What about Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway - are they "for profit?"
I want Sandra Fluke out of my bedroom.
Sandra Fluke in the bedroom would be automatic free birth control.
As if obtaining birth control were difficult or costly.
It's astonishing that the politico sex hysterics can't leave any refuge to people who don't want to play their game.
Why can't these morons tolerate the notion of leaving other people alone?
It's a tough call: do the femmes come up with the nine bucks to buy BC; or do they commit hari-kari to protest this fascist ruling by the Supremes?
They won't kill themselves, only their unborn children. That's how they roll.
Keep Jessica Valenti out of the glitter aisle!
Did you see the "oh noes! women are talking about getting sterilized if they can't get their abortions paid for!"
I'm kinda like... and?
If you don't want kids, maybe you oughta, huh sweetie?
I don't get it.
Guess you had to be there.
Better to cost employers hundreds if not thousands a year on insurance premiums for all employees so Sandra Fluke can avoid paying $10 a month on BC.
I would be willing to chip in to keep that cow from dropping a calf.
Ahh hunh. That oughta teach 'em to respect the right of a woman to have public sex anywhere she chooses!
Wait. What was the point again?
There's not much sophistication and nuance to five justices declaring "Catholics and Evangelicals are afforded more rights under the 1st amendment than Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses, even though we decline to explain why."
Guys, give Jessica Valenti a break. She just doesn't understand why a Catholic obsession with sex doesn't merit a sexualized response. Only a celibate guy can explain why. Everyone knows five conservative members of the government cloth can't.
Hobby Lobby's insurance plan includes birth control pills. This decision was about Hobby Lobby not wanting to include abortifacient drugs in the insurance plan.
The rights in the constitution are applied uniformly to all Americans, despite what the proggs want to believe.
Why should private businesses be required to provide morning after pills to their employees? (with or without religious objection?
For that matter, what power allows the government to force insurance companies give out free birth control?
oh right- that hated law your party passed in the dead of night on party line vote.
Please enlighten the class, Balls.
The rights in the constitution are applied uniformly to all Americans, despite what the proggs want to believe.
Bullshit(!)
Alito blatantly claimed that Jehovah's Witness objections to covering transfusions and Christian Scientist objections to covering any medical care were NOT protected. He just didn't say why.
This is a patent privileging of conservative Catholic religious objections over those of any other religion. And with the make-up of the just-as-narrow-as-ever majority, I suppose we're supposed to wonder why.
Sure thing, Ritmo.
Let's just stipulate that you are totally smarter and wiser than the Supreme Court, and that being fully anti-religious is what all Americans should be.
Now go to some progg blog where everyone will agree with your awesome point of view, and there's no need at all to respect that others have equally valid opposing points of view.
...this decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. A "progg" justice (according to some) who obviously privileges some religions over others.
The ruling was on the basis of the government getting what it wants... and since there are other ways to get what it wants it can't force people to violate their religious convictions.
The easy way (coercing people against their 1st Ammendment freedoms) isn't the only way... therefore government has to find a different way.
And Ritmo... the way this works is just like the way religious homeschooling opened up homeschooling to all those various religions or atheist hippies who wanted to do it. Do you think that Wiccans could have won in court to keep their children home to homeschool them? A whole lot of people have freedoms they wouldn't otherwise have if it weren't for Protestants.
And really, Ritmo... Hobby Lobby isn't anti-birth control and isn't Catholic. Should it matter?
Nor should there be a religious test given for the right to be part of the economy, to hold a job, to pursue happiness. Making a religious test in order for people to participate in the economy is far nastier, far more evil, that making a religious test for public office.
Let's just stipulate that you are totally smarter and wiser than the Supreme Court, and that being fully anti-religious is what all Americans should be.
Well, unlike you, I can actually read what they say.
A "religious" objection isn't an excuse for anything you want. There's no stopping someone from inventing a religion that, let's say, says medical science is worse than praying (actually, there is one), and therefore their kids should be denied treatment.
But your guys on the court handily get around that by deciding that their religion is worse than yours. Nice. Nice way to guarantee "religious freedom" for everybody! (Only the "good" everybodies!)
Now go to some progg blog where everyone will agree with your awesome point of view, and there's no need at all to respect that others have equally valid opposing points of view.
I don't find that over there. I find that there are other points of view discussed. But they're usually rational. I knock about here from time to time because I want to see what the ill-read and irrational are up to, given that they make up a larger-than-normal proportion of America.
Personally I think they erred in not allowing Christian Scientists to not cover anyone's medical care. You have a choice not to work for that corporation. Similarly with Jehovah's witnesses not covering transfusions or vaccinations. I think the owners of a business can tailor their health plans so they don't violate their religious beliefs and you can choose to not be employed by them or to not shop with them.
It's called freedom.
The Court did not go far enough.
... and all Alito's explanation means is that they have to try those other things separately and apply the same question... is there some other way for government to get what it wants?
In all likelihood, the answer would be "yes".
And really, Ritmo... Hobby Lobby isn't anti-birth control and isn't Catholic. Should it matter?
According to the justices on the majority, apparently no. And gee, I wonder why…
I said "and Evangelicals". They're getting their supposedly religiously sanctioned from God ideas about she-person-parts somewhere. The ruling says is about a "religious" objection, whatever wacky theology that religion is, obviously. The name or particular sect doesn't matter.
Personally I think they erred in not allowing Christian Scientists to not cover anyone's medical care.
Trooper gets it. At least that would be consistent.
I think Synova you're under the impression that there was some sort of nuance to deciding this that could also be applied to different test cases, but I don't see where you got that from the ruling. It's about "government getting what it wants"? Where?
Recently there have been cases in Williamsburg where half naked hipster broads want to shop in Hassidic stores with their tits hanging out. Now I am in favor of that generally speaking but I think a shop owner has the right to establish the type of store he wants to have. If he is servicing his community he has the right to fashion his business to be in concert with their beliefs.
The government shouldn't be able to force him to do what they want.
That is how America used to work.
Mormons don't have the right to have multiple wives and if your kid dies because you refuse to bring her to the doctor, you'll get tried and convicted of some variety of murder. You also can't get away with animal cruelty and claim your religion requires you to sacrifice them.
Why? Because there isn't a different way for the government to meet that particular need of protecting children or protecting animals from cruelty.
There are many other ways for government to provide free abortions.
The difference isn't that hard to grasp.
(The Mormons and their wives thing probably is a firm example of the government choosing which religion is bad and which is good.)
He's so cute when he tosses around snark and insults and anti-religious banter. It's like having our own college sophomore in the family again.
"But “[t]he least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.” Under RFRA, if the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/
Similarly if some gay dude wanted to open a store to sell chocolate dildos and sex toys then I don't think a religious person should go in there and demand that he stop or cover it up so they won't be offended. But it has to work both ways.
The libertines and the secular left can not have it all their way. They can do whatever outrageous thing they want in their own stores and bars and bathhouses and traditionalists can do what they want in their businesses. You can't force religious people to pay for abortions on their health plans. Just as you shouldn't force businesses to pay for female circumcision or castration or whatever other crazy shit they come up with next.
I was using "government gets what it wants" for "compelling interest."
In order for the government to infringe religious rights it has to have a 1) compelling interest, and 2) no other way to meet that interest.
The standard is not 1) compelling interest, 2) *easiest* way to meet that interest.
If the government can *get what it wants* some other way, it has to do it the other way.
Mormons don't have the right to have multiple wives and if your kid dies because you refuse to bring her to the doctor, you'll get tried and convicted of some variety of murder. You also can't get away with animal cruelty and claim your religion requires you to sacrifice them.
Exactly. Religious "freedom" isn't absolute. Nor should it be. The only absolute should be what you can be allowed to believe and keep in your own mind. Everything else, every other practice, is negotiable.
In America, we try to err as much as possible in allowing a practice to continue unhindered. We bend over backward to accommodate the strangest of practices, by the most extreme of communities -- as we should. If it doesn't pose any problem to others, live and let live. That's how it should be.
So here we had a tricky test case. Was it provoked by a government order? Sure. That was a damn provocative thing for Obama to do. And due to the culture of religious liberty in America, which I respect, I initially thought it was an over-reach.
But the thing is, here comes the test case. And the decision was handed down on narrow grounds that exempts the plaintiffs but dismisses, with no explanation given as to why, just as legitimate challenges that were brought up in the course of the arguments.
The justices were put in a corner into which they felt they had to defend religious/conservative Catholic/Evangelical interests in not covering care that could just as easily be female cycle-regulating medicine, but not those of other religions. And that will be a weak basis upon which to make any precedent at all.
We look to these people to make precedents that can stand for others, and for Americans more broadly. Not to protect some narrow and perhaps even biased or personal interest.
I wish I could see another interest at play here. But it seems like a broad and sectarian one, cloaked in whatever else they could throw in there. Perfectly understandable when you're talking about religious interests that maybe a good third to 45% of the country might sympathize with -- you can say it's part of the culture.
But that's not what the Constitution's about, as I understand it. It's about everyone's individual liberty, no matter who that individual is or what they believe.
If this ruling stands the test of time, it's hard to see how it will benefit anyone else, let alone become incorporated into a useful body of judicial thought.
Sorry, wish I could say more for it.
I think Mormons should be able to marry as many wives as they want. Marriage is different now right? It is no longer just between a man and a woman. So there is no impediment if it is between a man and many women. Or siblings. Or animals.
To outlaw that is just narrow thinking. We need to be consistent as Ritmo says.
Let marriage remain as a sacrament and be what religious people be concerned about. As long as the government does not force a church or temple or mosque to perform their sacraments in a way directed by the government then the civil obligation and legalities will properly be the province of the government and none of our concern anymore.
The fact that it flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded human history is not relevant.
Obama's new dope of a press secretary bemoaned the loss of "free" birth control. Free? Nothing is free in life - what a maroon - of course he is a Dem so he is an innumerate.
He's so cute when he tosses around snark and insults and anti-religious banter.
I know you're capable of being more responsive than that. But perhaps you're not able to defend the ruling, either.
I brought up several issues with the ruling. Issues that even Trooper sees the point of and the problem with.
So I don't see the point of being dismissive with talk of college sophomores. The ruling's logic simply isn't sound enough to bolster freedom in an unbiased way. I wish I could say it was. But it's not.
Where's the snark in simply pointing that out?
What you should realize Ritmo is that Obama did not put this to a vote in Congress. He lied again.
He indicated that abortion coverage would not be mandated by Obamacare and picked up enough Pro-life Democrats to pass it. Then regulations were promulgated by the HHS that covered abortion drugs. It was a Trojan horse. This is what is at issue. There are many other forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby did not object to and would serve to cover contraception. This was another Obama lie and once again the Supreme Court called him out on it.
I don't know that we always need to be 100% consistent. Synova brings up conflicting rights that challenge efforts at consistency. But the more consistent a ruling can be made, the more powerful it is. The stronger the precedent. And the problem here is, that they didn't even say why it couldn't be made consistent. Just that it wouldn't be!
That's a problem. Isn't it?
I differ with you in that I believe in absolute religious freedom.
Even honor killings by Muslims would be on the table.
Because you can never have enough dead Muslims. Just sayn'
Are you skipping Synova's comments, Ritmo? Althouse had a similar take.
And I don't think Hobby Lobby was concerned with she-person parts in particular, unless you mean baby she(and he)-person parts.
Also we might want to revisit human sacrifice.
Maybe we can get the Mexicans to get back to their Aztec roots and start tending to their excess population in the old fashioned way.
Thus we answer our immigration problems and cement our devotion to religious freedom. It's a twofer.
@7:45, Oh, you're bad, Trooper! ;-)
It was pretty funny though when that guy owning the tv station to improve the image of Muslims was brought in on charges of beheading his wife, though.
I'm trying to make my way to Old Blonde's take on this, Darcy, but had a long day and got distracted here and elsewhere. PLus, I respect the opinions of the crowd here more than at TOP. I suppose I should try to be less biased about that, but it's hard. TOP is a crazy and usually less humane place. I don't know that her opinions are always cookoo, sometimes they're ok, but I just haven't made it over there yet. Sorry.
I know you are all interested in the must have cd in ptown this summer...think you know what it is?
Guess?
Ultraviolence by Lana natch.
The extended dance dubs are abs to die for.
tits
Ok. If EBL says it's about whether a countervailing interest was at stake I guess I'll take that state employee's word for it.
LOL.
Freedom only in your own mind is no freedom at all.
Dear Freaking Dog.
Maybe the men who love each other could do so only *in their own minds*.
It would be *consistent*.
I still don't know what this has to do with sex in the glitter aisle.
Freedom only in your own mind is no freedom at all.
It's actually the most important part. Most actions are preceded by thoughts. Most speech is preceded by thoughts. For centuries government-religious bureaucracies tried to proscribe around thoughts. Freedom of conscience is even more important than freedom of speech, and that's why we look at the worst tyrannies, (North Korea, etc.) that actually tell you what to think as the ones that actually attempt mind control.
Religions tell you what to think (or some just gently encourage you what to think) but no longer with the power of governments to back them up - unless you're in Saudi Arabia etc. where apostasy means death.
It's hard to believe you missed that whole section of human history involving the life-or-death decision of which person and ideology to swear allegiance to. We're not so big on that any more, thank (as you say) "Dog".
Sex in the glitter aisle is about open-carry AR-15 envy.
Because everyone should have the right to be a douche in public.
I still don't know what this has to do with sex in the glitter aisle.
She's just a liberal Catholic rebelling (as they sometimes do) against what she finds to be sexually fixating in more conservative traditions. Which, to be honest, I'm not even sure if it applies. I don't know what the exact forms of contraception were that they were allowed to exempt.
Based on Obama's edicts, I thought it was OC. And this is important because a whole lot of lady issues require the medicine in OC regardless of how they change the cycle's response to fertilization, er, "attempts".
Also, Old Blonde didn't, as far as I can tell, address the inconsistency re: Christian Scientist/Jehovah Witness "unworthiness" to benefit from the ruling.
The only forms exempted were abortion-inducing.
Swearing allegiance isn't in your mind, it's in public.
Anyone can lie... but is that freedom? No, it's not.
This is about conscience, Ritmo. Conscience vs. forced public action.
It's hard to fathom that you think that other people can so easily live public lies and can so easily accept the coercion of the state to materially violate their beliefs.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga were willing to close down and put thousands of people out of work instead of violating their beliefs.
Just as Catholic Charities had to close down many social services because the government forced them to violate the church's teachings when provide services to the poor and the sick and the orphaned.
That of course doesn't matter to Obama and the progressive mafia. They will destroy anything to enforce their "belief's" on the rest of us.
Swearing allegiance isn't in your mind, it's in public.
Anyone can lie... but is that freedom? No, it's not.
This is about conscience, Ritmo. Conscience vs. forced public action.
The only meaning to asking allegiances to be sworn is if you feel you are enforcing something upon their conscience. Hence, the only way to remove that burden is to allow freedom of conscience -- which is essentially what freedom of religion and speech is. Restrictions on those were the most powerful proxies for restricting thought. It's not a coincidence that the Bill of Rights came so historically soon after the English Civil Wars and other religious wars following the enlightenment came to an end.
It's hard to fathom that you think that other people can so easily live public lies and can so easily accept the coercion of the state to materially violate their beliefs.
I'm sure that prior to the 1st amendment, they had to do that all the time. It sucked. The 1st amendment is better.
But it wasn't easy. It's easier for politicians to do, but not everyone else.
Conscience vs. forced public action.
And this is a silly point. Conscience doesn't mean you can't be forced to do something you disagree with. Or forced to avoid something you'd rather do. You can speak out on it, but the only societies that permit people to say that what they think is right allows them to do it (without checking the law first) are anarchies.
It's crazy to think any society could be constructed or exist to allow people to never have to do what they don't want to do, whether you call it a moral objection or a preference, or whatever. There will always be moral disagreements that the law won't be able to reconcile or prevent or even allow to peacefully coexist if followed through.
The Catholic Church and the Mormon Church have become the last refuges of political dissidents.
I am amazed at how quickly that has happened.
The only remaining opposition to all encompassing government is the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church.
Conscience vs. forced public action.
I'm falsely accused of a crime of which I'm convicted. The public action forced upon me says I must go to jail, even though my conscience says it's wrong. I go to jail, and protest my innocence, as my conscience demands and the state allows, but that doesn't mean there's not a conflict.
Unless one lives in a utopia of perfect justice.
I'm forced to pay taxes for things that I rarely/sometimes/often/always disagree with. My conscience says I shouldn't be forced to abide by this public action. But the law says otherwise. I respect the society that the law allows to exist, and my other freedoms along with it, and go along with the law while speaking out, conscientiously, regarding what I think is an immoral application of this public act. I do so in the hopes that others will eventually agree more and more with me.
Democracy 101.
It is going to be a bitter rearguard action.
They don't realize what they might unleash if they keep pushing so hard to destroy every traditional belief system in this country.
What you omit Ritmo is that Hobby Lobby submitted their objections to the court and they won. They were correct in that they could not and should not be forced to pay for other peoples abortions.
That is why the liberals and progressives are weeping and wailing.
Their God is abortion and all must bow down to it. In all things.
@Ritmo
Killing babies with abortifacients is an entirely differently issue than whether your taxes pay for something you don't like.
Liberals made it possible for you to live in freedom in the first place.
No one is weeping and wailing. They're just noting the pretzel that the majority tied themselves into.
ST is provoking you. There will be no crosses on big banners held by people on horses with lances in armor charging out of D.C. to bring religious liberty to the people, and all the little not-yet-people, either.
I'm proud to be Catholic, and to be among the last standing who will not submit.
The Church will win over the long run.
The Communists in Eastern Europe thought that the Church could be defeated with persecution and ridicule.
I was in Warsaw when the fucking commies marched out in humiliation, with the Poles taunting them as they left. I visited Pope John Paul II parish in Krakow shortly after he said Mass in the open for 1 million people who chanted: "We want God! We want God!"
Ritmo, you don't know what you are up against here.
Killing babies with abortifacients is an entirely differently issue than whether your taxes pay for something you don't like.
Like paying taxes to kill babies in other countries with cluster bombs?
Or paying to torture?
We know you like playing faster and looser with some of your "sins" than others. Especially those which make the insentient symbols of rights.
You are such a childish, insincere, shallow man, Ritmo. All you've got is wiseass.
The lack of religious faith is what makes you that way.
Ritmo, you don't know what you are up against here.
Not something that JFK would have ever agreed with you on. Or any other Catholic with a snowball's chance of winning the presidency.
I don't give a fuck about presidential elections, Ritmo.
I've told you this a thousand times, but you continue to make yourself stupid with your wiseass teenager thing.
You are such a childish, insincere, shallow man, Ritmo. All you've got is wiseass.
Better than dumbass.
The lack of religious faith is what makes you that way.
Faith can't debate faith, though. That's what fascists like you don't get. But since you're incapable of reason, you rely on things that can't be argued with.
And everyone else knows that can't go anywhere productive.
Keep it to yourself. Stop forcing your faith on others.
Are you able to do anything for yourself that you don't force on others? Ever?
And following tu quoque I am out. Just no point.
'Night, all.
Ritmo, are you really as childish and stupid as you appear to be?
You're obsessed with the notion that somebody's trying to stop you from playing with your pee-pee.
You keep going on about it, so I gather you really are that dumb.
Wiseasses and teenagers don't force themselves on others, though. I'll tell you that.
They just want the dumbasses and the control freaks to leave them alone.
I can do very well for and by myself, thank you very much. Keep your parenting to yourself, and your inability to control yourself.
Learn to control your own damn self first. Then tell me (and others) what we must supposedly do.
Similarly if some gay dude wanted to open a store to sell chocolate dildos and sex toys then I don't think a religious person should go in there and demand that he stop or cover it up so they won't be offended.
A chocolate dildo would mask a multitude of such sins.
I'm doing fine, Ritmo.
You are the one with the odd obsession that some authority figure is getting in the way of you getting laid and playing with your pee-pee.
Who's doing this?
Like paying taxes to kill babies in other countries with cluster bombs?
Are you implying that babies were deliberately targeted in such bombings as they are in abortions? Intent, Ritmo, intent.
Who's doing this?
Seeing as how you're the one bringing up "pee-pee" and "getting laid", I'd say it's YOU. Lol.
As I said, learn to control yourself first. Then poke about in others' business and tell them what to do, you consummate busy-body.
If you didn't hate yourself so much, you'd stop trying to "improve" all the others. THe last thing they or anyone else needs is your meddling.
But you can't help it. Can you?
Faith can't debate faith, though. That's what fascists like you don't get. But since you're incapable of reason, you rely on things that can't be argued with.
No more reason to keep reading comments here.
Adios.
Are you implying that babies were deliberately targeted in such bombings as they are in abortions? Intent, Ritmo, intent.
Oh brother. Do we need to have another argument about abortion? Can't people ever make their point any other way? I suppose not. Details, details.
But as long as you need to get into it to, I notice you also refuse to make the zygote/embryo/"baby" distinction, either. Which makes your unscientific position un-debateable.
But even if it were, imperial warriors need to concede that their own trade-offs have costs.
I understand that it's an economic cost-benefit analysis on your part, this killing babies for liberating the eminently liberate-able Iraqis. But it's still a cost you have to account for.
Ask your tax consultant if it's worth it.
It's ok Michael. Your "side" won and that's all that you need to worry about. I just don't know how durable a "victory" it is, given its narrowness - the same "narrowness" that the victors admitted. Not sectarian, narrow. There's a difference. Or so they say.
So enjoy your night.
R & B do you realize that when you said (vis a vis Alito & Ginsburg)...
... Christian Scientist objections to covering any medical care were NOT protected.
...you repeated a commonly held but false belief?
I'm not going to Google anything, I already own the "Science & Health", the "Prose Works" and even an early, now unauthorized edition, by the then Mary Baker Glover...subsequently Mary Baker Eddy.
Unless you yourself are a registered Christian
Scientist (usually done at age 21 or later), I doubt you want to go chapter and verse on the subject with me. Beyond that, I'll not insult those Christian Scientists I know who are still steadfast in what the texts say, not what some lunatic claims is the right interpretation.
See...my mother became a "Christian Scientist" and I wanted to know as much as I could about the religion....so we could converse intelligently. I disagreed with her but respected her.
I will tell you flat out it DOES NOT prohibit medical care of all kinds. The CS community is allowed to skip vaccinations in most states, which I question as wise, but there is no exception for provision of medical care per se. You only read about the lunatics within CS that claim the no medical anything line of thinking.
It is no big deal as you, Alito, & Ginsburg posed it...just rather not accurate. I mentioned this issue only as a honest correction of a commonly held myth.
That's all folks. :-))
You are definitely getting stupider as you go along, Ritmo.
What in the hell gets into you that you go into your pseudo-intellectual idiot routine?
No, you're just getting less effective. ;-)
The descent into claims of stupidity are amusing, as they basically amount to ST yelling "I just don't get what you're saying any more! Math is hard!"
Have a good one, ST. Maybe play your guitar, or something. Charge up the audience at the local bar and grille.
It's all good.
In the morning you'll forget about the impending American Apocalypse. Or whatever it is that keeps you up at night.
Sleep well, Tough Guy!
Shouting Thomas said..."Killing babies with abortifacients is an entirely differently issue than whether your taxes pay for something you don't like."
Alito touched on that:
"The Hahns and Greens [Hobby Lobby] believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we [the Supreme Court] have repeatedly refused to take such a step."
When are you going to change, Ritmo?
You've got to be pretty miserable with that act.
@Ritmo: Abortion aside, I was struck by the logical error in your cluster bomb analogy. I can understand and respect a pacifist who declines to pay taxes because he or she is anti-war. The bombs are intended to kill people. You have to accept killing to wage a war. Murder is different than killing. I believe there is even some Biblical ambiguity about the verb in the Commandment. But you need to cite where and when US armed forces targeted babies or even zygotes for the analogy to stick.
"When are you going to change, Ritmo?"
Seeing as how his meddling can't be helped, and what the hell, I'm in the mood for amusement:
Just what is it ST, that you need me to change? (Since as you imply, it's for "my" sake that I supposedly need to change something).
Careful, someone might call you an Obama-ist with all that talk of change!
But as I say, I'm in the mood for a make-over.
Make me over, Mr. Shouting Thomas.
Have at it. Where should I start?
No Ritmo - leftwing fascists who wont let go of dying failed 19th century ideologies tell people what to think.
Religion - you can chose it or not.
The government? We all have no choice but to obey.
We don't expect you to understand.
Oh, ok. CHickie's up on the "murder light" argument for collateral damage. I get it. I realized it's not as bad, I just didn't realize it wasn't bad at all. And all that talk of targeting. I didn't realize targeting was so bad. After all, why do zygotes target uteruses if targeting is such a bad thing? Maybe the zygotes are evil, too.
You're also like a baby, Ritmo, in that once you lose it you just accelerate the gibberish.
When you get to the "zygote" thing, you've lost all control and it appears to be time you took a nap.
Religion - you can chose it or not.
And thanks to a decision by the SCOTUS, you can even chose the best religion that its narrow five-person majority decided to give ALL the perks to! The besets religions out there!
Not those phony non-religions. They don't deserve constitutional protection. Phooey! Inferior!
Another dollop of epic failure squirrel logic from Schemdrick.
When you get to the "zygote" thing, you've lost all control and it appears to be time you took a nap.
AKA "Science is hard!" "It's not religious enough!"
Maybe the zygotes are evil, too.
Teutonic implications there, Ritmo.
The Catholic Church is the religion at issue here, Ritmo, because, along with the Mormon Church, it is the last standing institution of dissent.
You, who always preach about what a rebellious lad you are, find yourself, as usual, butt-licking the real authority... government.
Rhythm and Balls said...
When you get to the "zygote" thing, you've lost all control and it appears to be time you took a nap.
AKA "Science is hard!" "It's not religious enough!"
I understand conception and birth in law by analogy to invention in law. I'm not basing my stance on religion at all.
@ST: But Ritmo does a a way with words, which is perhaps why he is so readable.
The Catholic Church is the religion at issue here, Ritmo, because, along with the Mormon Church, it is the last standing institution of dissent.
Mormons weren't part of this ruling. Do you even know what's being talked about?
You, who always preach about what a rebellious lad you are, find yourself, as usual, butt-licking the real authority... government.
What can I say? It's butt tastes better than yours. ;-)
Lol. Get a sense of humor, man. Apocalypse has been delayed, hasn't it? The court did what you thought it should do and made a sectarian judgment, which is good, right? So why are you so alarmed?
I said that I can't imagine how you stand the bullshit whirling around in your brain.
Jealous? ;-)
No. Peace of mind is a very good thing.
You are reeling under the indoctrination. The indoctrination is a hall of mirrors. The authorities told you that you were a daring critical thinker for spouting the dull orthodoxy.
Of course, the Valenti plan would never work. In Valenti-world women can't have safe sex unless their bosses pay for it. Sex has to have a corporate backer. So, what corporation would fund the f-in?
The collective left are really going bat shit crazy on this one.
@ST: But Ritmo does a a way with words, which is perhaps why he is so readable.
I, on the other hand, struggle with basic word omission.
I understand conception and birth in law by analogy to invention in law. I'm not basing my stance on religion at all.
Your point would be an interesting one, if the courts had ever wrongly decided that human genome sequences could be patented. But as I understand it, they recently codified the judgment that, no, naturally occurring human genome sequences could not be patented. Hence, they're not inventions.
And even if they were, you don't protect the models of the inventions. You protect the codes behind them. The blueprints. The DNA. The humans resulting from them? Just production models. I mean, as long as we're going to get all inventive here...
So, what corporation would fund the f-in?
Hefner or Flynt, Inc?
Not exactly friends of feminists...
No. Peace of mind is a very good thing.
Oh. So that's what you call it!
You are reeling under the indoctrination. The indoctrination is a hall of mirrors. The authorities told you that you were a daring critical thinker for spouting the dull orthodoxy.
Translation: "Proclaiming myself as a foot-soldier in a religious crusade makes me sound like more of a crackpot in America than just generic anti-liberal/anti-government bashing."
I get it. You traded in the less fancy shoes for the new ones. Cool! They really suit you, Shouting!
Shouting Thomas said..." it appears that the only proper role for women that the left can envision is as a pay-per-trick whore, with the right to murder her bastard offspring at will."
Well that would be the most effective final solution for the problem of the family, wouldn't it? Isn't that their goal?
I thought we were talking about inventions here, Chickie. Stay on task!
You almost had me with that analogy.
Oh brother. Do we need to have another argument about abortion? Can't people ever make their point any other way? I suppose not. Details, details.
Well....since this whole topic, Hobby Lobby case, IS about abortion and the right to not be forced to fund abortion against your religious principles....the discussion does seem to be on topic.
I agree. There are many many things that I don't want to fund through my taxes. However, when we pay taxes it all goes into a general pot and is used for all sorts of things (some of which I agree with and some which I don't) without any accountability. I don't get a statement at the end of the year to tell me how much of my individual taxes went to fund abortion, to the war, to support the death penalty, to pay for welfare. I bet it would be interesting to see what the public would do IF we did get such a breakdown :-)
The difference is that the people who own the business were being forced to directly fund some abortion causing medical procedures and drugs. That is the deal. The money was coming directly from the employer for a specific purpose.
As Synova said there has to be a compelling interest AND no other way for the government to act to force such funding against making people violate their religious beliefs. The cost of the abortion methods is CHEAP and easily available through other organizations OR the government could just set up a fund to provide the few dollars that it would require.
You can likely make a case that a war and protection of the country is a compelling interest and that there is not any other way to do those actions than to raise and maintain an army through taxes. I guess we could hire mercenary armies.
So when you are making the comparison between taxes for war or forcing people to buy or pay for something that they have strong religious objections to....it is apples and oranges.
Yes, Ritmo, Christianity is the best moral, ethical, legal and practical system humans have ever created.
The choice in the future is going to be between the Caliphate or the enlightened principles of Christianity.
Your wiseass toady religion will be left in the dust.
I'm not a crusader. This will happen without my help.
The humans resulting from them? Just production models. I mean, as long as we're going to get all inventive here...
There is still too much unpredictabilty in the product of normal sexual reproduction. The relevant statutory bars against patentability, utility, novelty, and non-obviousness wouldn't apply. I think the unpatentability of DNA is more of a stand alone statutory bar. There are many such other example -- perpetual motion machines and tuber-propagating plants come to mind.
But you are a Crusader, ST. The Christianity you envision is precisely about that. You're even going on making this about a fight with Muslims (i.e. what do you think the crusades were?) But we are talking about whether a court ruling in a non-sectarian country was good enough to include all (and all of them pretty much Christian varieties) faith objections or just a few of the bestest ones out there. Muslims had jack-all to do with anything here. You're totally reaching. And you even bring up "crusades"? Talk about confusion.
There is still too much unpredictabilty in the product of normal sexual reproduction.
By whose standard?
I actually see your larger point here, but I need you to see the problem with what you're proposing, also.
So Ritmo - you WANT the government to be successful in forcing private companies to pay for abortifacient drugs.
As Synova said there has to be a compelling interest AND no other way for the government to act to force such funding against making people violate their religious beliefs.
I'll bet this blindsided the left. They never were really in this to help people get or pay for abortions. It was all about slapping down religion and the free expression thereof. That's really all it was to them. They're upset because now they will have to find a new hobby horse to lobby and ride into the ground.
You brought up crusades, Ritmo.
Who said we are a "non-sectarian" country?
What do you want to fight about now, kid? I was the one who told you why the Catholic Church is at the center of this.
I didn't "envision" Christianity. It's been around for 2,000 years.
Truth is, the left wants and needs the heretics (christofascist godbags) to be forced to pay directly for things that violate their principles.
Just as they forced bakers to sell wedding cakes to gays against their principles.
Just as soon they will demand Catholics perform gay marriage rites, like they must do in Denmark, and force grade school kids to practice transgenderism, and require vocal positive support for Global warming to receive government funds.
It's to humiliate you into acquiescence, to accept as the 'truth' even the most blatant and ridiculous lies.
Because they can, and because they own us.
I didn't "envision" Christianity.
It should be understood that I refer to the specific version that you envision.
If we are not a non-sectarian country then by all means, clarify for me which sect we are supposed to go by.
Yes, Denmark. Coming to a constitution near you. Okay...
As usual, the hack "news" media are not being clear or honest about any of this. Just heard on a local station - the Supreme court just took away your birth control, grrrls.
And....by the way. Sex and glitter....not a really good idea.
Just sayin'
I won't ask how you came by that info DBQ. ;-)
By whose standard?
I actually see your larger point here, but I need you to see the problem with what you're proposing, also.
The standard is usually the fictitious "one of ordinary skill" or "skilled artisan." Let's say that you are such a person. Can you precisely predict the DNA product of two donors, even given the sequence of the parents? How much variability is in play? Why is each child from the same two parents different?
Yes, Denmark. Coming to a constitution near you. Okay.
Yup. We are just one vote away from it on the Supreme Court.
If we are not a non-sectarian country then by all means, clarify for me which sect we are supposed to go by.
Christianity is the best by far.
You should learn to be grateful for being born into a society ruled by Judeo-Christian ideals, theology and law. Because those Judeo-Christian tenets are the best.
The ingrate thing is at the center of the wiseass religion. You can always count on that.
Pogo wrote: It's to humiliate you into acquiescence, to accept as the 'truth' even the most blatant and ridiculous lies.
In the end, it's about "Submission Accomplished."
Yup. We are just one vote away from it on the Supreme Court.
Whatever. No we aren't.
If a someone wants to run a hospital then they can do it according to what the health regulations demand. If they want to run a church then they can perform pretty much whatever kind of a rite in whatever fashion they want to. The U.S. gov't doesn't go into churches, and never has. You're thinking of the State of Vatican.
April Apple,
My favorite quote from the left thus far comes from Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
“It’s very clear to American women yet again that Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government and now the long hand of business reach into a woman’s body and make health-care decisions for her.”
Christianity is the best by far.
You're losing it, man. The SCOTUS noted different sects of Christianity. You're pretending they weren't noticed.
You should learn to be grateful for being born into a society ruled by Judeo-Christian ideals, theology and law. Because those Judeo-Christian tenets are the best.
I chalk it up to the Bill of Rights but to each their own. I know I'm glad I was born here and not in Vatican City. I know I'm glad I was born here and not in 15th c. Spain. Or 21st c. Saudi Arabia. Or France or other papal states prior to the enlightenment. Or Rome after Constantine. Or the Dark Ages.
The ingrate thing is at the center of the wiseass religion. You can always count on that.
Like I said, I'm grateful for an American system and American Bill of Rights, no matter how much you want to place a church-steeple above it.
The U.S. gov't doesn't go into churches, and never has.
The Catholic Church and the Mormon Church are the only holdouts.
My work as a church musician takes me inside many different Protestant denominations, such as United Methodist and Presbyterian.
Many of these churches have become little more than agencies of the state. They have virtually no congregation, outside of a few old people. No children.
Their entire sustenance comes from federal, state and county grants given because the church produces "diversity" events and promotes various government programs.
Many of these churches are little more than HQs for ward heelers for the Democratic Party.
Like I said, I'm grateful for an American system and American Bill of Rights, no matter how much you want to place a church-steeple above it.
I didn't place a church-steeple above it.
Those great advances occurred within societies ruled by Judeo-Christian tradition and ethics.
Because Judeo-Christian tradition and ethics is the soil in which freedom, individual rights and liberty grew.
Praise the religion of our fathers that gave you everything you have, Ritmo.
My work as a church musician takes me inside many different Protestant denominations, such as United Methodist and Presbyterian.
Many of these churches have become little more than agencies of the state. They have virtually no congregation, outside of a few old people. No children.
So you're saying that the only thing that will stop the state from taking over religion is the state of Vatican City.
But that doesn't tell the whole story. White Catholics are in decline, and even Hispanics are converting to Protestantism.
The bigger issue is the decline of religion. Which is an interesting thing to blame on the state if you feel the only thing to defend the one you find most important actually IS a state. Just one in Europe.
I think Ward Heeler should just Leave It To Beaver.
Lydia quotes DWS: It’s very clear to American women yet again that Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government and now the long hand of business reach into a woman’s body and make health-care decisions for her.
DWS' passage could stand a good fisking.
Praise the religion of our fathers that gave you everything you have, Ritmo.
Ok fine I'll do that. Even if Thomas Jefferson made his own cut-out versions of what he believed would be a better bible.
It's simplistic to think that people are nothing other than creations of their faith. Those guys had a lot more going on in their heads. Whether those innovations would have taken place in other cultures at other times remains to be seen, but if you want to say that Christianity was necessary for making the revolution possible, I'll entertain that with ya. It's hard to disprove as a path-independent historical analysis is a virtually impossible thing to do.
Anyway, I'm hungry as (Heaven). And have to eat a burger. Praise be and catch you later.
chickelit,
My first thought after reading the Wasserman Schultz quote was can you imagine the ridicule if a Republican had said something like that? She was probably thinking "long arm of the law" but "hand" seemed more appropriate. The penetration idea was most important to her, a continuation of the Dem uproar over vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion.
The misinformation train is chugging away -- here's Hillary giving it her best:
"...it’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception."
Personally, I find 5-4 rulings boring and predictable and I don't give a shit about the whores who want to prevent getting pregnant. They are just sluts who need to take personal responsibilty and suffer the consequences....bitches.
I find it more interesting when the supreme court votes are surprising.
tits and keep reaching for the sky!
"...it’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs a beer, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be drinking alcohol."
Oh wait, that's not troubling. That's perfectly fine.
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said…
Anyway, I'm hungry as (Heaven). And have to eat a burger. Praise be and catch you later.
The one thing you and Trooper agree on is that I am excellent for dinner!
Have some pork or chicken!
It’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.
Abortion is not contraception. Any amateur etymologist can prove that. If you think that's pedantic, you don't get the point.
DWS fix:
It’s very clear to Americans yet again that Democrats want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government reach into private business and force Americans to set aside personal religious freedoms in order to make health care decisions that go against their individual principles.
Chickens, you sadden me. What's the point of skewing phantasmagorical on extended bonding orbitals if you're ignorant enough of biology to keep up the BS of denying that morning after pills prevent ovulation, not implantation?
Easily googleable, man. Easily googleable. It's almost like the easier it is to google, the less you know about it. Do you engage in competitions to see who can get by knowing the least? I just don't get it. There's got to be room up there in that brain of yours for things like this. There's just got to be.
I just know that it's a good day when a government run by corruption and small men in a far away capital full of back room dealing and stolen money is told the oft-forgotten law that we have rules that prevent you from sticking your control hungry fingers into a pie made by a free employer and a free person who choose to work together, and that you corrupt old hacks should just fuck off and screw each other for your kicks.
Praise the religion of our fathers that gave you everything you have, Ritmo.
I like distilled sprits. Distillation wasn't a "western" invention, so far as I know.
the long hand of government and now the long hand of business reach into a woman’s body and make health-care decisions for her.
No one is making health care decisions for "her". Refusing to PAY for something is not the same thing as making a decision or even denying something.
People can pay for their own abortions or birth control or whatever. There is no denial or making of decisions. Walmart carries a full compliment of drugs and doctors can prescribe. Forcing someone else to pay for it it is the issue.
If I can't force my neighbor or employer to pay for a new car for me....are they denying me a car? Not hardly. If the grocery store won't give me free milk....are they denying me milk or am I just making the decision to only drink FREE milk?
The Notorious BAG
oH2O.
That'a funny, cause I'm listening to Black Sabbath "Paranoid" Album right now.
Walmart carries a full compliment of drugs and doctors can prescribe.
Can you seriously expect a Georgetown University student to be seen in a Walmart?
@bagoh20: Personal favorite
It's rude but I saw someone today said something like... I'll get my rosaries off your ovaries when you get my wallet out of your vagina.
Yes... rude but...
"...it’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs a beer, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be drinking alcohol."
Excellent Paddy O
"...HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we [the Supreme Court] have repeatedly refused to take such a step."
The first sentence of that is really important.
Any time it matters if one has the *correct* beliefs... if we're going to argue if the religious convictions of someone or other are Right or if they are Wrong... any time that's the standard, that people do not have the right to be wrong and are not protected by the Constitution when they have wrong beliefs...
The person who argues that is ideologically aligned with every political purge and religious progrom, every gulag and every holy war, every genocide in History... which were all of them undertaken on the basis that the persons who lost their rights to life and property were WRONG.
The reasonableness of the belief or the religious conviction is irrelevant. ALL First Amendment protections protect those who are wrong, who have "dangerous" political opinions, who worship false gods or no god at all, who hold opinions that are despised, and who say things that are either revolutionary or reactionary... either one.
It doesn't matter if the owners of the Hobby Lobby corporation are irrational or if they're not.
It matters if they hold the belief they say they hold (they do), it matters if the State has a compelling interest in free abortions (sure, whatever), and it matters if the way the State chooses to meet that supposed compelling interest puts the least possible burden on the moral conscience of those objecting.
Since there are any number of rather simple and workable ways to put much *less* moral burden on them, the State is compelled to seek those other methods.
It's not that difficult.
Actually... DWS statement about reaching hands into women's bodies fits with that rude saying pretty well... if you stop stuffing people's wallets up there, sweetheart, they'd stop sticking their hands in there to get them back.
(Yes, I know... drippingly rude...)
Synova said: "Any time it matters if one has the *correct* beliefs...
The person who argues that is ideologically aligned with every political purge and religious progrom, every gulag and every holy war, every genocide in History..."
Absolutely.
It's the totalitarian mindset, and it's taken over the left completely.
Gay marriage and illegal immigration come to mind.
Fun fact for Tuesday morning:
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced by Sen Chuck Schumer. It was passed by the Senate on a 97-3 vote. It was signed into law by President Clinton.
Notable senators who voted in favor of the RFRA include Kennedy, Wellstone, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, Biden, Lieberman, Moseley-Braun, Kerry, Levin, Moynihan, Daschle, Byrd, Rockefeller, Kohl and Feingold.
Link.
@Haz
so the war on women was started by democrats. How inconvenient.
@April - Yep. Remember that when you hear HRC whining about the War on Women.
HRC is just trying to keep up with the party's group-think marching orders.
The level of misinformation on this subject from the democrats and their media lapdogs is really something to behold.
They are going bat-crap crazy.
Way back up there, DBQ...you said ...
I don't get a statement at the end of the year to tell me how much of my individual taxes went to fund abortion, to the war, to support the death penalty, to pay for welfare. I bet it would be interesting to see what the public would do IF we did get such a breakdown :-)
To use R & B's favorite "dodge"...you can Google that! ;) Here and Here and Here
I don't like the inclusion of Medicare & Social Security in the "calculator" item, because I believe it would be more pertinent information if shown separately as specific taxes collected to support Medicare and Social Security, versus those specific expenditures, with only deficits showing up in the general tax allocation chart. YMMV.
@ Aridog
No!!! I want a personal statement showing how much and what percentage of the money that "I" personally had to fork over to the federal, state and local governments went to various programs. Road repair? I'm good with that. State police? County Mounties? Welfare? Social Security? Medicare (Medicaid is welfare and included there) Food Stamps? Military spending? Obamacare subsidies? Obama phones? Green energy subsidies? Farm subsidies. PENSIONS for public employees? On and on and on.
I think the waste and double dipping would be come painfully apparent to the general public. When they look at THEIR personal statement and realize what THEY could have done for themselves with the money extorted by the government....they will likely not see such great value in some of these pork barrel spending programs.
DBQ...okay then, we'd both like a calculator like the 2nd link (which shows your costs per item) for federal, state and local...and all with more detail. I agree.
I will look around, and I am sure there are some similar calculators with more detail but they may not cover the USA generally. BTW...when I see these kinds of simple "reports" or "calculators" I tend to save them...so I'll first dig in my stash labeled "Government."
As a former DoD "Fed" I have multiple war stories, of course, but they tend to be location specific, not necessarily a general trend...even if they imply one....evidence is only local.
Lydia said...
My favorite quote from the left thus far comes from Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
“It’s very clear to American women yet again that Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government and now the long hand of business reach into a woman’s body and make health-care decisions for her.”
Reaching into a woman's body is THE essential human activity. In fact, it's the essential DIVINE activity for Christians. No God reaching into a woman's body - no Jesus. No Jesus - no eternal life.
DBQ...with the above said, it pains me to do it, but if you dig down in to OMB records derived from the first link, you will find more than enough to extrapolate your portion from...and it will raise your blood pressure to levels not previously known to science.
I'm "casual" about it because I worked in it...e.g., I helped prepare the annual federal budget submission for Army, so very little surprises me anymore. From either party, frankly...although I liked Bush 43 generally, I despise his formulation of the Dept of Homeland Security....a pure waste of money to accomplish something he already had the authority to do directly...his advisors were part of the built in Washington DC institutionalized bureaucrats who never let a chance to enlarge government power pass them by. One of them (an old Nixon fixture) has been featured on television lately...I cannot stand the prick, and change the channel.
Oh, WTF?....TILT!
Ah, the ignorant garden monkey comes to enlighten us all on matters of canon law and divinity.
Is it divine to throw around homophobic slurs Larry?
@ Ari
I guess what I am looking for is that everyone who pays taxes gets a statement. Many people are not motivated enough to go to a website or are technically challenged.
My thinking is that once people SEE where their money is actually going they won't be so blase or reflexive about voting for the entrenched established politicos and maybe will be less likely to vote YES on every stupid ballot measure that requires more and more spending.
I know....fruitless hope.
Post a Comment