Freedom for Some

For some Americans “Freedom” means that Christians and “conservatives” should be allowed to discriminate everyone who isn’t straight like they used to and often enough still discriminate everyone who isn’t white. On the other hand they liken those who demand the freedom to love whoever they want to the Nazis. Literally. In their eyes not wanting to be treated as a second class citizen because of your sexual preference makes you just as bad as those guys who killed millions of Jews, gays, intellectuals and socialists in concentration camps in World War II. Literally.

This mind-set is once again expressed in a film US senator Rick Santorum is producing in the wake of a verdict from the US Supreme Court that ruled that companies are people and can have religious views and therefore are allowed to circumvent the law that would require them to cover women’s contraceptives in their health care plans (which, unlike Viagra that these companies don’t object to at all is something many women actually need) and also gives them the freedom to just ignore laws made for example to protect queer employees from discrimination.

Please read more about you being a Nazi on Bilerico and watch the trailer for the film below…

  

50 thoughts on “Freedom for Some”

  1. These religious nutcases just keep on LYING ABOUT and DENYING true freedoms and (I think they are truly so stupid as to) contiune to shoot themselves in their feet with their own words:

    Our First Amendment (beginning):
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …

    Since this in in an English document and ALL English documents are read from top to bottom and left to right, these nutcases lie and deny the very first phrase:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and its PRIORITY to their ad nauseum second phrase. And that phrase MEANS, NO LAWS for ANY religion, not just “some” religions which means in essence, Congress was meant to be at least agnostic if not outright atheist in their law making. And just because there should NEVER be ANY laws for any religion, that doesn’t mean that they can force their religion onto everyone in the public square nor does that mean that there is any less religious “freedoms” to be held privately.

    .

    Quote from the trailor:
    “The cross is ubiquitous; it’s the preeminent symbol of christianity. It’s a government advertisement for one religion.”

    Again, according to our Constitution, they just shoot themselves in their own feet: If you’re going to force “freedoms” for religions, then it stands to reason that ALL relgions should get these “freedoms” and NOT just christiantiy. But by that quote, it’s clear that these christians seem to think that it’s the only religion that means anything and should be “protected”.

    PURE STUPIDITY on both counts.

    1. Penboy, our American civil society and our rule of law were based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. You cannot tease morality away from many of the basic religious concepts. Should we make killing legal because to make it illegal would be the government recognizing and practicing a religion? (The Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”)

      1. Morality exists independently of religions, it’s derived from the our biological social nature.

        So reference to Judeo-Christian tradition is unnecessary to explain most of the laws, as well as the principles behind American Constitution, except from a historic perspective (and even there we should be careful about shortcuts).

      2. “our American civil society and our rule of law were based on the Judeo-Christian tradition”

        NO THEY WEREN’T. What you just said is the most common LIE that all christians want everyone to believe.

        See here for just a sampling of sites that refute that FALSE idealogy:
        http:// http://www.radicalnewthoughts.com/america-not-christian-nation.html ……. [delete the space]

        But in summary,
        From John Adams:
        As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – From a treaty with Tripoli, under George Washington, signed by John Adams 1797

    2. “Our First Amendment (beginning):
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”

      I don’t know a lot about US politics, but it seems to me that statement from the 1st Amendment is totally non-commital and practically useless. It just says that Congress wants nothing to do with religion – neither establishing it nor preventing it. That’s fine, but it does nothing to stop religious abuse. The statement is too “hands off” in my opinion.

      Don’t you think it would be better to have laws that are more pro-active? For example, the NZ Bill of Rights includes laws about non-discrimination and minority rights …

      You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation. If you belong to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority you must not be denied the right to enjoy the culture or practise the religion or use the language of that minority.

      1. @rokker:
        “I don’t know a lot about US politics, but it seems to me that statement from the 1st Amendment is totally non-commital and practically useless. It just says that Congress wants nothing to do with religion – neither establishing it nor preventing it. That’s fine, but it does nothing to stop religious abuse. The statement is too “hands off” in my opinion.”

        I agree with everything except, “1st Amendment is totally non-commital and practically useless”. The sole problem lies with these nut-crazy christians that DEMAND their say in EVERYTHING of our government and public policies. Just like the islamists, they are forever trying to push the envelope of what they can get put into our laws to govern every State.

        .

        “Don’t you think it would be better to have laws that are more pro-active?”

        Yes, absolutely. But, unfortunately, the founders of our nation did not anticipate the christian right’s continuous demands on our lives. Back then, they held their tongues and they knew their places in our government ….. but, today, it’s the total opposite and when offered just ONE INCH, they DEMAND and attempt to STEAL (and subvert) our entire country’s land and policies.

    3. I hate organized religion. I love the idea of a benevolent loving god. The problem with religion is that once they get the freedom to speak…they try to push their religious views and ideology and morals on the rest of us. They begin saying that this country was founded on religion. NO it was not! America was founded on FEAR! Fear of an all powerful monarchy and fear of an all powerful church. The fact that many signers of the constitution were men of faith at that time means nothing. You couldn’t openly live otherwise. If you were an atheist or agnostic you were called a heretic and punished or treated badly. The biggest threat to western civilization has always been the institution of religion.

  2. I maintain that religious freedom has no bearing on business policies. Until Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A or any other business can pull up from its foundations and march into a church, then the BUSINESS cannot have religious affiliation and denying employees or discriminating against employees or customers based on religion is unconstitutional.
    The people running the business have the right to whatever beliefs they want, and can go to any church they want, but in the execution of their jobs, those beliefs are meaningless.

  3. Forcing one person (or company owned by a person) to purchase someone else’s contraceptives or abortion pills has nothing to do with religion in my book. It just sounds like liberty to me.

    1. ” … someone else’s contraceptives or abortion pills has nothing to do with religion in my book. It just sounds like liberty to me.”

      You’re absolutely correct. But, it’s religion (i.e., churches) and their constant hold on our society — their incredible political lobby — that attempt to force us to believe that anything we do with our bodies and in our bedrooms should be at their consent only — that we, as humans, don’t have the mental capacity to have our own opinions that matter in these societies. They are using anything and everything now to maintain what control they think they still have on us — even to the point of making absolutely absurd accusations which simply don’t make any sense to any intelligent person.

      1. “…anything we do with our bodies and in our bedrooms should be at their consent only”

        No: anything we do with THEIR MONEY should be with their consent. Despite the supernatural fantasies guiding their actions, they have the right to dictate where their money goes. Anything else is theft.

        1. Me think you listen too much To FREETALKLIVE. Look, my line is where when your freedom threatens to kill me is where I will defend myself. If they want to make money by offering jobs fine. Discriminating on religious beliefs is exactly the same as racial discrimination. If the owner is worried where his money goes or how his money is used here’s a simple solution. Shut down your business and get a job.

        2. “No: anything we do with THEIR MONEY should be with their consent.”

          WHERE do you get the idea that it’s “THEIR MONEY”? Churches have a carte blanche non-profit and tax-free status. Therefore, they [churches/religious organizations] don’t pay taxes that EVERYONE ELSE does. So, WHERE are you getting that statement?

  4. My understanding is that there were 20 contraceptives they were being commanded to offer, most of them were the type that are designed to prevent one from becoming pregnant, while four of them were the type you take when you first find out you’re pregnant, that is, those four were ones to be used in the very early stages of a pregnancy. Basically, 16 preventative-type, and 4 instant-abortion type. They ONLY objected to the 4 instant-abortion ones, and had no issue with the other 16 contraceptives. In fact, they still provide the other 16 at their blessing. At that, I gather its fairly easy for those that want them to still get the instant-abortion type through other means, so this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. A whole lot of heat but not a lot of light. oO

    1. I suffer from migraines. Anyone having those know how painful they are. The meds I use to manage them are easily available… for now. But what is some religious moron decided that it was against the will of his invisible friend that my meds should be banned not only in the workplace but everywhere? Think that can’t happen? One word. Prohibition.

      From the moment religion starts to try to play either in my wallet or my medicine cabinet I call that a theocracy.

      Tempest in a teapot? Any rule that takes away freedom is much more than a tempest in a teapot, much, much more.

      Here’s an other point to ponder. In many places jobs aren’t that easy to find and put that extra barrier is completely obscene in my mind. If the boss wants to whip himself bloody for god he can do that as much as he wants at home but not at his workplace even if he owns the damn place.

      1. But what is some religious moron decided that it was against the will of his invisible friend that my meds should be banned not only in the workplace but everywhere?

        Should have read as follows.

        But what if some religious moron decided that it was against the will of his invisible friend that my meds should be available and therefore should be banned not only in the workplace but everywhere?

    2. You are correct: most people who report on this story screech “they’re banning ALL contraceptives!” when the reality is they’re refusing to fund the abortion-provoking meds. There is NOTHING stopping the affected employees from acquiring aborters on their own dime, except the knee-jerk classification of said women as hopelessly incompetent to make purchases because they’re uniformly uneducated single mothers–and NO OTHER FEMALES exist.

      1. @Esteban

        You seem to be missing the point. A medical plan should never be under religious rule. Never. At the moment they refuse to cover a certain pill? What is to stop them from refusing to cover blood transfusions or any other life saving treatment of medecine? Or in-vetro fertilization? Or what ever they decide should be banned under their religious beliefs? See? That is the real point. A medical plan has got to be absolutely free from religious interference. If a medical treatment or a medicine is legally available then religion must have no say in it.

        One final point. Saying that a woman or a man still has the choice to buy the treatment or the medicine with his own money is a cop-out. Far too often, the worker is a low wage earner that so happens to have medical coverage provided by his workplace. If a worker next door has the same coverage but also no religious bars from getting the treatment or medicine shouldn’t it be the same for all and any worker?

        1. Religion has no place in scientific or medical decisions. The question will always come to whose religion or whose particular interpretation of religion should be followed. We already know they are not referring Buddhism, Hindu, or Islam.

      2. Lets cut the bullshit on Corporations are not people. This is a means for people who own these corporations to impose their will on the workers.

        It is the worker that pays into their benefit plans. So it is their money not the corporations. A worker does a job for a company and in exchange gets paid. Would the owner of a company tolerate an employee telling him or her how, where, when and what they can spend there money? Hell No!

        In essence this decision says that a “corporation person’s” (actually the owner) have rights that are more important than individual workers (actual people) rights. What ever happened to equal protection under the law. Someone has put their thumb on the scales of justice or a big bag of money to tip the scales in their favor. Basically they are cheating to get their way. Buying the right to take away freedom.

        Corporations and religions are seeking to gain special rights they should not have.

  5. I’ve noticed a tendency for many political posts to be anti-US here, not just policy critiques – unpleasant.

    The predominant political view of those officials in the US and state governments today tends to be statist or collectivist, a more leftist totalitarian orientation. The founding traditional Liberal principles of limited government embodied in the US Constitution are being ignored to the detriment of liberty for all.

    1. You couldn’t be more incorrect. The predominant political view of those officials in the federal and state governments today tends to be conservative, not collectivist, and certainly not leftist-totalitarian. About 3/5’s of the 50 states are controlled by the Republican Party. The states with Democratic-led governments are certainly not totalitarian in any stretch of the imagination. You are dead wrong that the Founding Fathers endorsed limited government in the Constitution; the founders favored use of government in any way that fostered the greater good for American citizens. The major reason Americans are less free today than they were a couple decades ago can be traced directly to George Bush and the Patriot Act. The greatest threat to America is not liberals and progressives or the Democrats; the greatest threat is neocons, the Religious Right, Wall Street, and Big Business.

      And to address one false note in the story: Rick Santorum WAS a U.S. senator, but has held no office since his defeat. Santorum is no threat to my freedom, he’s just a big windbag who has found lucrative employment by telling Big Lies.

      1. @ Mike
        “The greatest threat to America is not liberals and progressives or the Democrats; the greatest threat is neocons, the Religious Right, Wall Street, and Big Business.”
        Bingo, bango, spot on; excellent!

      2. I felt compelled to comment here for a number of reasons. This entire comment section is rife with generalizations and hatred. The things a lot of you are accusing the right of (some of which is fair, some of which is intellectually dishonest) you yourselves are committing.

        First, “the states with Democratic-led governments are certainly not totalitarian in any stretch of the imagination.” I point you in the direction of New York and California. Easily two of the most progressive liberal states in the country. New York City is under defacto martial law. Random stop and frisks, cameras everywhere, drones. Simply put, it is the definition of a totalitarian police state.

        Next, “the major reason Americans are less free today than they were a couple decades ago can be traced directly to George Bush and the Patriot Act.” Absolutely correct. But why is it that we never hear about Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act? Easily the Big Brother of the Patriot Act. Obama runs the least transparent and most authoritarian administration in American history. But a lot of leftists are so blinded by the hope and change that they easily forgive whatever he does. Something those on the right are just as guilty of under Bush.

        To the rest of the comments (that I’ve read, at least) condemning the recent Supreme Court ruling, I am glad to see that a number of you at least have the facts straight as to what the ruling was and what it means. I don’t necessarily believe a corporation is the same as an individual, but I will absolutely defend someone who doesn’t want to foot the financial burden of systematic murder. It’s always funny to me as well that the left will use children to try and shovel gun control down our throats, while the same group OK’s the million plus murders that occur in this country alone each year from abortion.

        Just fyi, I’m a registered independent that usually votes Libertarian, I am a young gay white male, and believe firmly in the Constitution and the rule of law. I think basically every president since Kennedy (and most before him) were tyrants, and this screaming match between the left and right is exactly what the puppet masters at the very top need and want to maintain power.

        1. “Next, ‘the major reason Americans are less free today than they were a couple decades ago can be traced directly to George Bush and the Patriot Act.’ Absolutely correct. But why is it that we never hear about Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act? Easily the Big Brother of the Patriot Act.”

          Huh? You really need to get your facts straight …. and as well, learn what the concept of “Big Brother” means.

          First, since “Big” in “Big Brother” means older [and not "size"], you are WAY OFF your mark in that statment:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warner_National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2007
          “H.R. 5122, also known as the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 was a bill passed in the United States Congress on September 29, 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006 becoming Public Law 109-364.”

          So, that proves that Obama certainly isn’t GW Bush’s “Big Brother”. But, is he continuing this asinine bill? YES, because, like ANY President, he would naturally continue something as far-reaching as this bill. It is unfortunate, though and I wish it would be abolished.

          But, your blaming Obama of this is just like the media (and the far-right, now) blaming him for TARP and other FAILED economic adjustments that was started by GW Bush. While we didn’t start losing our rights with that Patriot Act, it most definitely was George Bush who got that ball rolling using our fears of another terrorist attack — just like he “terrorized us” when he went after Saddam Hussein for “weapons of mass destruction” which didn’t exist (at least for the reason we went into Iraq).

          You’re just as bad as you’re trying to make [us, liberals] out to be without using the proper facts.

    2. Limit the government and limit the power of the people to stand up to corporations. So you would be happy to have Corporate controlled government. With politicians who have stickers slapped on them showing their corporate sponsors who put them in office. Corporations know better how to take care of people, the environment or the economy. Let us do away with clean air, water, untainted food supply. Lets get rid of the educational system for the masses and reserve it for the few. Freedom and independence is overrated. Only a special few should have rights. Is that it?

  6. Let’s all make Obama happy and suck a big Donkey Dick. There hanging every where and will tell what to do and when to do it and take all your freedoms of choice away from you.

    1. That was real intelligent, wasn’t it? /sarcasm
      And you couldn’t even get “There” [They're] correct …. with your lovely Republican/conservative/far-right tone. Did you stay up all night just thinking up that comment?

  7. on the other hand, why should your boss be buying condoms for you?

      1. Yes and evidently women want others to take that responsibility for them.

  8. I have notice a lot of what ifs in these comments, and also “invisible friend”. I am not a enthusiastic follower of Rick Santorum, but as some have commented this ban is on only the four instant abortion contraceptives. I myself do not believe in abortion, but that’s my belief. I don’t suffer from Migraines, but I had a friend who did and they are very pain full, but I have not heard or seen where they might be banned. On the “invisible friend”. I would like one of you intellectuals to tell me how this universe came about and why it did come about. I don’t believe science has given any answers. Old Dan was quick to say that if an owner doesn’t wish to put his money out for contraceptives then he should shut down his business and get a job. I don’t know what Old Dan does for a living, but if the owner shut his place of business down then he would not be the only one looking for work. @ Frank, Your comment# 16 was very good and your right. It is very anti-U.S. I saw a chart on T.V. the other night, where it has 138 million coming to this country as fu*k up as some think it is. 42 million to the U.K. 32 million to Canada. 14 million to France. Maybe we should have the Government pay for our toilet paper, tooth brush and paste. Better yet just have no Corporations, no business and we could all be one by living off the Government. No, no no , that wouldn’t work because the Government only collects and prints money. Living as one big welfare country on the Governments dime would not work. Its bad now with Obama pushing for more people to use food stamps. @ cornflakes and Esteban had good comments. The only time a boss should be buying condoms for you is if he is having sex with you. That is one thing that has come about in the past years, men and women not taken responsibility for their choices. Over 55 million abortions have taken place since that law was passed. I wonder how many Doctors and Teachers where thrown in the trash can out of that 55 million.

  9. The Declaration of Independence, which is the enabling document for the Revolution and without which, along with the Treaty of Paris of 1983, neither Nation or Constitution would legitimately exist, clearly defines life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as among the inalienable rights granted to mankind by the Creator – thus placing God above the State, and our freedom outside and beyond the jurisdiction of government to infringe or abridge.

    If we deny our Creator, and His supremacy over the State, we are left with the State as the sole, remaining supreme entity, and we deliver our life and liberty to its discretion. Not a very happy prospect. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and governments, over the centuries, have shown themselves to be somewhat untrustworthy, even cavalier regarding the sanctity and preservation of individual liberty and opportunity.

    The 1st Amendment denies to government the power to establish a state religion. Such establishment exists elsewhere, such as the Church of England and other Christian denominations throughout Yurup, the Islamic states and Buddhist states. Some other nations, like Germany, have no official state religion, but have close entanglements with their dominant churches, even levying and collecting taxes for their support. Americans are spared this intrusion into our conscience and our wallets.

    The 1st Amendment also guarantees the free exercise of religion. The Constitution specifies no exclusions as to public or private property, within or without government schools, public service, or the armed forces. Our judges, who apparently can’t read or comprehend the obvious, have successfully tried far too hard to interpret the 1st Amendment, to the angry confusion of many who think they’ve gone too far, or not nearly far enough. They’ve made a mess out of the 2nd Amendment as well, although a few lucid rulings have recently slipped out. As we speak, the 4th Amendment is undergoing its own re-interpretation. It all depends on what ‘unreasonable’ means in these times of terrorism and amazing electronic capabilities. God help us.

    1. The Declaration of Independence was to give us Independence ONLY — it is NOT any government document as we know it today (and anytime since it was written), so therefore …..
      “… inalienable rights granted to mankind by the Creator – thus placing God above the State,”

      As I said, that document has had NO POWER since our Constitution was drafted and ratified. And in that document (DoI), is the ONE AND ONLY TIME for reference to any “god”. So, since the writing of our Constitution, “god” is NOT ABOVE THE STATE, hence the First Amendment, “separation of church and state”.

      .

      “If we deny our Creator, and His supremacy over the State, we are left with the State as the sole, remaining supreme entity, and we deliver our life and liberty to its discretion.”

      NO, not at all. We (in USA) are left with the [OUR] PEOPLE as the “sole, remaining supreme entity” and it’s [OUR] PEOPLE to “deliver our life and liberty to [OUR] discretion.

      Sorry, but THAT IS EXACTLY what is wrong with the Republicans/far-right today — you never read these documents correctly as they were written.

      “The 1st Amendment denies to government the power to establish a state religion.”

      AS IT SHOULD BE.

      “The 1st Amendment also guarantees the free exercise of religion.”

      AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IN ANY JEOPARDY.

      .

      “The Constitution specifies no exclusions as to public or private property, within or without government schools, public service, or the armed forces.”

      AGAIN, you obviously DON’T KNOW HOW TO READ that document.
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

      By the very use of “CONGRESS”, it is the very meaning of “public property, within government schools, public service, AND the armed forces.” The very fact that CONGRESS PAYS for all of these — and taking these monies from the people through taxes — should be obvious to even the minimally intelligent that means ALL PUBLIC venues and to keep ALL religions out of it.

      .

      “Our [Supreme Court, I'm assuming you probably mean] judges, who apparently can’t read or comprehend the obvious, have successfully tried far too hard to interpret the 1st Amendment, to the angry confusion of many who think they’ve gone too far, or not nearly far enough.”

      That’s the only statement above that you seem to have gotten right (for the most part although I’m sure we differ on this as well when looking at the details).

      WHY are you bringing up the Second Amendment?

      And, have you actually read and payed any attention to the detailed wording the Fourth Amendment? It states:
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Hmmm …… Interesting, isn’t it? You know, how they “stuck in” the wording of ….. or affirmation? AGAIN, “god” is NOT NECESSARY for the workings of our government. ….. Who would have thunk?

  10. Just for those of you who may not be familiar with who Rick Santorum is, he was a 2012 Presidential Candidate who infamously said:

    1. That watching John F. Kennedy’s speech [of not following orders from the Pope because he is catholic] to the Baptist ministers in Houston in 1960:

    “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?”

    So, he wants to “throw up” because of our First Amendment providing for separation of church and state [since 1791]. And he wanted to “represent all Americans as President”?

    2. When President Obama doubled down on his efforts to boost college attendance, pushing to make schools more affordable and accountable, Rick Santorum said, “I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely. The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.” and, “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.”

    He thinks it’s “snobbish” to want Americans to get a higher education.

    Again, those were his platforms for running for President.

    Scary, isn’t it?

    1. I see a lot of people here citing “separation of church and state.” Please show me where those words appear in any of the founding documents or modern case law. They don’t.

      And as someone who has been to multiple Universities, I can personally attest to the progressive indoctrination that takes place there. Not a pretty picture, especially if you happen to disagree with a professor. I thought liberals were tolerant? Truth is, they are great at pretending to be tolerant. And while I don’t support and didn’t vote for Santorum, how about you remind everyone of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama’s stance on marriage equality? They were against it before they were for it. Political expedience doesn’t impress me. It shouldn’t impress you either.

      1. “I see a lot of people here citing “separation of church and state.” Please show me where those words appear in any of the founding documents or modern case law. They don’t.”

        In our Constitution (First Amendment), no, that phrase isn’t literally in it, but the first two phrases of that Amendment is the same meaning as that. To properly read that Amendment, “separation of church and state” is obvious in its meaning and purpose (unless you are pathetically religious and choose not to recognize common sense). …. To wit:

        Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. That letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.” The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

        Here is that letter: http:// http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html … [delete the space]

      2. “And as someone who has been to multiple Universities, I can personally attest to the progressive indoctrination that takes place there.”

        And, what about religious indoctrination [that Republicans and their ilk have been doing and continue to do] that this country has been doing for over 225 years (and counting), starting from ages 5 and even 4 or 3? And what about the indoctrination in public schools’ libraries that have NEVER provided any books on [TRUE] atheism/atheist values in them but have ALWAYS provided books of the christian religions — beginning with very young children’s books?

        There’s a whole lot more indoctrination from the RIGHT than is going on from the LEFT.

  11. So let’s say any of you guys own a business and employ people. And the government says that you must supply health insurance, and that insurance MUST provide coverage for gay conversion therapy, just in case any of your employees decide they want that. It does not matter what you believe or know about gay conversion therapy. The government says you must provide that (and hence you must use YOUR money to pay) for your employees. Wouldn’t you be screaming loudly in protest? That’s the whole point here. No women are being denied anything, it is only a question of who pays for it. I personally do not believe in abortion. If you do, go for it. Have as many abortions as your heart desires. Just don’t demand that I must pay for it.

  12. I read a lot of the same old Constitutionality etc. here. But not getting much on people’s opinion on this or which way they would vote. Female contraceptives not only have prevention benefits for pregnancy, they also have health benefits. I read someone comparing female contraceptives to Viagra. Most insurance companies don’t cover that type of drug either. Now they are saying these drugs (viagra – cialis) possibly have health benefits for people with heart disease. I can understand that as it dilates arteries. I’d love for insurance to cover that as I am a heart patient and this would help me. And for other reasons too! But they don’t. They also don’t cover the vitamins the doctors have me on. I have to pay out of pocket for them. So why should women not have to take responsibility for this out of pocket? Why should my premiums go up in a group policy to pay for this? Its not a cure. Its preventative.

  13. Contraceptives should be covered because it’s cheaper to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then to deal with the consequences. It’s just sound economics.

    According to the analysis done in the freakanomics movie, the most probable explanation for the lowering crime rate is the legalization of abortion. The lowered crime rate matches the availability of abortion, and the beginning of the decline matches when an unwanted baby would have matured into a criminal.

    1. Funny how we try to educate women of 3rd world nations on the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, STD’s, and for other reasons. Yet women in this country, the USA, still don’t get it. Poverty seems to be the best excuse to procreate. That is a very general statement and I know I will get hammered for it. So how is it that, in this day in age where religion seems to have gone to hell, our own population can’t do better by using contraceptives? Or even better, abstaining? Oh no – I did not mention that!!

  14. Strange, but I saw only one black person in the trailer, and she’s in a wide shot, walking out of a subway. I wonder what that might mean…

    1. “Strange, but I saw only one black person in the trailer, and she’s in a wide shot, walking out of a subway. I wonder what that might mean…”

      Since this is produced by our Republican/religious-right political machine, you’re actually lucky you saw any black people. It was most probably a “mistake” [for them], but since it’s only one, they probably decided to “let it slide.”

      1. Your comments really make me laugh. What’s your opinion on the way conservative blacks are treated by the left? Yeah, everyone always seems to omit that inconvenient truth. They are treated in the same way in which you accuse the right of treating all minorities. Wow, I love this blog, but I had no idea there were so many intellectually dishonest people here. I thought we were here to talk about how cute boys are.

        1. “What’s your opinion on the way conservative blacks are treated by the left?”

          How about describing what you’re talking about in that statement? Something along the lines of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate, Herman Cain? It should be (have been) obvious why he lost so quickly — his personality and ignorance — NOT his ‘color’.

          Enlighten me as to who/what you are talking about.

  15. I hate organized religion. I love the idea of a benevolent loving god. The problem with religion is that once they get the freedom to speak…they try to push their religious views and ideology and morals on the rest of us. They begin saying that this country was founded on religion. NO it was not! America was founded on FEAR! Fear of an all powerful monarchy and fear of an all powerful church. The fact that many signers of the constitution were men of faith at that time means nothing. You couldn’t openly live otherwise. If you were an atheist or agnostic you were called a heretic and punished or treated badly. The biggest threat to western civilization has always been the institution of religion.

    1. The fact that many signers of the constitution were men of faith at that time means nothing. You couldn’t openly live otherwise. If you were an atheist or agnostic you were called a heretic and punished or treated badly.”

      Exactly that is what so many people don’t seem to understand and our religious-right lie about.

      That situation is exactly like being homosexual during those times (and of course, earlier) or any time until around 1985 (and later for so many as well). The fear of being known as such was so strong that probably 95% (if not more) of homosexuals would live “heterosexual” lives and marry and have offspring just so they wouldn’t be “found out.”

      .

      ” I love the idea of a benevolent loving god.”

      While that’s a nice idea, it unfortunately is simply not true and never has been. Critical [-thinking] reading of any jewish, christian bible or the koran shows that all “god” and supernatural stories are just that — totally fabricated in their intent to establish FEAR of such to all societies. Unfortunately, it has been way too successful.

Comments are closed.