Romney Ad Accuses Obama of Declaring War on Religion

The Republican National Committee has just released a new commercial accusing President Obama of being a big meanie-pants to religious people:

So after the regular rhetoric of “Obama doesn’t share your values” — Side note: Am I the only one frustrated with the Religious Right’s hijacking of the word “values”? It infuriates me — they go into this little ditty:

The latest ad then cuts to Romney praising Pope John Paul II, who helped end officially atheist communism in Poland. “[I]n 1979, a son of Poland, Pope John Paul II, spoke words that would bring down an empire. ‘Be not afraid,’” says Romney, speaking from a recent trip to Poland.

Drawing a comparison between what it portrays as the repressive Polish communist regime and a preventative health care mandate, the narrator says, “When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?”

Yup.  Making insurance companies cover women’s healthcare needs is totally the same thing as Communism.  Nailed it!

About Jessica Bluemke

Jessica Bluemke grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and graduated from Ball State University in 2008 with a BA in Literature. She currently works as a writer and resides on the North side of Chicago.

  • http://www.seriousbusiness.ca/ Darryl Wright

    I know we have our own problems but I see stuff like this and I am *so* glad I am not American. Even if Harper is an idiot (and he is) he is nowhere near the scale of idiot as a Romney. To think that it’s even conceivable that anyone in their right mind would vote for that guy – let alone half the population of a powerful nation –  is more than just a little scary.

    • Ibis3

      Harper is no idiot. He’s a controlling, greedy, sexist, racist, power grabbing, propagandist smear of slime whom I happen to loathe with the heat of a thousand suns, but he’s not stupid.

      Related to the comparison between the two, I don’t see much to choose between them. However, unlike Romney, he treats his pets well (he loves cats), but he doesn’t extend that care to the ducks drowned in the tar sands or the marine life of the Pacific that would be threatened by oil tankers being allowed near Haida Gwaii.

    • Agnostic

      Yes. US should borrow more. Let the future generations pay. US should call others masters for a change. Hopefully she will get there soon. Just spend more.

      • Patterrssonn

        Better check the OP I think you might be ranting on the wrong page.

    • Itarion

      You think that’s scary? Imagine actually living in “this great country.” And the worst bit is all of the people who I know that disagree with the religious right, but don’t want to get involved. “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” -Elie Weisel

      (Although to call atheists victims is hardly apt… But the quote fits otherwise.)

    • NickDB

       Was just going to post something like this. I know it’s a small demographic but most of my mates and colleagues prefer the democrats to the republicans. I know it’s a small possibility but the feeling is that under the republicans the possibility exists that the US will just be a christian Iran with nukes.

      • http://www.seriousbusiness.ca/ Darryl Wright

        Nailed it.

  • Gus Snarp

    Disgusting, and simply below the dignity of the office he’s running for.

    • Rwlawoffice

      Obama using a liar to say that Romney killed his wife is an example of disgusting. At least this one is true.

      • Itarion

        When did that happen? Source of information, please.

        • Rwlawoffice

          Obama used a man in an ad that said when Bain closed a plant he lost his insurance and his wife who had cancer died. Proven to be false. She still had insurance for two years until she was injured on the job. Obama has tried to say the campaign didn’t do this because the ad was from a PAC, but the same guy told the same story in a campaign conference call in may.

          • Itarion

            When I say source, it’s because I intend to look for it myself. Where did you hear this story, and what was it titled?

            • Stev84

              Give it up. You’re arguing with a pathological liar

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/HXMGJONKJJ35BYMNFHNGXMXH2U Mary P.

               Sorry, he’s right.
              It made all the major news outlets.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slR_1s7hRho

              • Findog53

                I can’t wait for the nihilistic rebuttals now.

            • Rwlawoffice

              Could not attach the link from my I pad. Despite Steve’s comment Mary is right. It is all over the news. Google false Obama cancer ad. Even the Obama supporting CNN has blasted it as being blatantly false

              • Patterrssonn

                Kind of reminds you of that plumber guy the GOP used. If the Dems are gonna use GOP dirty tricks they should vet them a little more thoroughly.

          • unclemike

             So Bain didn’t close the company this man worked for? And he never lost his insurance?  Because, to a logical person, the theme of Obama’s ad was, if Bain had never closed the company, then when his wife lost her job, she could have been put on her husband’s insurance and been treated and, hopefully, survived.

            But that’s being logical.

            Ah, I see my error.

            • Donalbain

               It wasn’t an Obama ad. It was a PAC ad.

            • Rwlawoffice

              Another fact or two- when the plant closed he was offered a buyout and refused. Also he got another job afterwards and chose not to cover his wife.

              By your logic, when Obama took over gm and closed plants and cancelled pensions for thousands of people, how many did he kill?

              • Gunstargreen

                The difference is that ad wasn’t made or paid for by the Obama campaign nor was it approved by him.

                This ad may not be approved by Romney either, but it still uses his own words falsely describing an “attack on religion” which is the real subject of this blog post.

                Honestly I don’t care about the lying on both sides at this point. They’re both rotten beyond redemption. 

                The Republicans have done nothing but sling mud and lie in every recent election with insane conspiracies about Obama’s nationality and religion, it’s not surprising the Democrats have finally stooped to rolling in the dirt with them.

              • unclemike

                 He did get another job–at 32% of his former salary. He went from making $46,000 to $15,000.

                And my original point still stands: if the plant never closed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

                Also, Obama was never the CEO and sole shareholder of GM.

                p.s. to Donalbain: My bad, I know it’s a PAC ad, but I was hasty.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Her are a few more facts for you- Romney left Bain in 199, the plant was closed in 2001, His wife was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 and does 22 days later because of its advanced state. 

                  The ad is a deliberate lie and despite it being a pac ad, Obama has used this very same guy in a campaign conference call in May of this year to tell the same story. 

                • 3lemenope

                  Of course, that glosses over the fact that while Romney “left” Bain in 1999, he was legally (and from some significant evidence, actually) still the CEO and primary stockholder well into 2001. He certainly drew a salary from Bain during that period, and participated in some functional decisions past the claimed 1999 date.

                  Honestly I don’t know why it is so hard for Obama supporters to admit it is, at best, a misleading ad. On the other hand, Romney’s team has laid some really unbelievable stinkers of the pants-on-fire variety so far too. Instead of that tu quoque indicating that both sides are employing tactics that cheapen the discourse and disgrace the office they’re competing for, it becomes an inane conversation about how “my side” is blameless because of technicality XYZ, while “your side” is the worst thing to happen to American electoral politics since Elbridge Gerry drew lines on a map.

                  And, for what it’s worth, I really don’t endorse a strict equivalence based on the tu quoque, either. So far, the mendacity of the Romney campaign easily outstrips the Obama campaign, even as they have started to go dirty. It is a dangerous strategy for Romney supporters to start crowing about how “Obama lied” (or, more accurately, a PAC supporting Obama lied), considering they’ve been, on the whole, far worse. Neither side should get out of jail free on this sort of thing, but seriously check the mote in thine own eye first.

      • Margaret Whitestone

        If you weren’t so obnoxious that statement would be amusing.  Christians are simply not oppressed in the USA.   If you want a theocracy move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. 

      • Gus Snarp

        Your pathetic tu quoque is irrelevant.

        • Findog53

          Wow when you are hit with reality you all curl up and hide in a corner

  • Bobout185

    So glad I’m demonized for being atheist, and depicted as a communist

    • Agnostic

      So glad you think you are a martyr. Give you the drive to go on doing your thing doesn’t it?

      • vexorian

        So, when did Bobout185 claim to be a martyr? Does the ad not demonize atheists? Does it not say they are communists?

      • Bender

        So glad you think you are a martyr. Give you the drive to go on doing your thing doesn’t it?

        Says the guy who just complained of atheists “imposing him their views”.

    • Rwlawoffice

      So exactly where in the ad does anyone mention atheism or call atheists communists?

  • Margaret Whitestone

    Not letting religious zealots impose their beliefs on everyone is a “war on religion”, because religious freedom is only for RW Christian types.

    • Agnostic

      True. So you should not impose your athiest views on others too.

      • Margaret Whitestone

        Let me know when that happens outside of your imagination.

      • http://twitter.com/ftsor ftsor

        …Says the misnamed “Agnostic” who can’t seem to stop hanging out on an atheist site.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Andrew-Gibby/1663461682 David Andrew Gibby

        This just in, Atheists Attempt to Legislate Absolutism of Non-Theism as the Required Belief System for all Americans, reported by Onion News.

    • Rwlawoffice

      Attacking relgious beliefs in violation of the first amendment is a war on religion. You don’t have to belief in religion but the govt. can’t stop us from doing so and limits on religious expression is subject to limitations .

      • Itarion

        Which is why churches and religious organizations strictly for worship are not being limited by this mandate. The mandate goes for organizations that are primarily healthcare providers (hospitals, clinics, the like) and religious as a secondary purpose. Hospitals still have to meet federal requirements in order to operate, and this healthcare mandate is merely a change to the requirements. If someone doesn’t like providing some forms of preventative care, they are more than welcome to exit the healthcare sector.

        • Rwlawoffice

          The freedom of religious expression is not the freedom to worship. It is the freedom to express and live your faith. They don’t have to give up their faith to runa hospital. To suggest they do proves the point that there is a war on religion. Thank you for that.

          • Findog53

            Again go gettum counselor!!

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              If all you’re going to contribute is mindless sycophancy, you might as well not bother.

          • smrnda

             If religious belief could get an exemption for running a hospital, I could invent a religion and argue that is just designed to get my business out of complying with any rules, laws or regulations I didn’t want to follow. Could I declare it against my religious beliefs to say, abide by board of health regulations when running a restaurant, on the grounds that my religion dictates that I prepare food in a different way? could I demand that insurance I provide not cover mental health services to employees because my religion disbelieves in it?

            The law has to clearly distinguish between what is a religious entity and what is not, or else anyone is just a law unto his or her self under the guise of religion.

            Plus, I don’t think that what medical care a worker has access to should depend on the religious opinions of their employers.

            • Rwlawoffice

              Religious expression is limited when the state has a compelling reason to limit it, such as criminal laws for example.  However, the reason must be a compelling state reason and the limits must be narrowly written to not put an undue burden on the religious organization. In other words, accommodations are made to protect religious freedom. 

              Actually, as an employer paying for insurance, the employer does have the right to say what they will pay for and what they won’t.  If you don’t like it, get a job elsewhere or start your own business, put  your own money and capital at risk and do things as your conscious dictates.

              • allein

                My employer does not solely pay for my insurance, part of it comes out of my paycheck. What they do pay for is part of my compensation for working for them. They have no more right to tell me what services I can use my insurance for, based on their personal beliefs, than they do to tell me how to spend my paycheck.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  But your employer does have the right to determine what insurance they will pay for. If you do not like the benefit package offered by your employer then find a different job.

                • allein

                  Fine, the premium for the specific items they don’t like can come out of the portion that I pay out of my paycheck.

                • Nordog

                  Fine.  But neither do you have a right to force anyone to pay for your insurance.

                  Oh I know, we have this thing called Obamacare, but remember, not only is that of very recent vintage, but the final word has yet to be spoken on that.

                  An employer should have the right to NOT pay for any health care if that is their choice.

                  Of course the far left libs around here will be clutching the pearls over that assertion.  Meh.

                • allein

                  I didn’t say they had to provide health care. But they choose to do so (and it is in their best interest to have healthy employees). And regardless of individual people’s religious beliefs, they get to follow the same laws as everyone else.

                • Nordog

                  Talk about a distinction without a difference.

                  Yet, frequently the old saw, “they get to follow the same laws as everyone else” bandied about.

                  The problem with that idea, especially in this regard, is that no one should be made to obey that law.  It is an unjust law.

                  You say on one hand that you DON’T say “they” have to provide healthcare, but then appeal to the law that seeks to force “them” to do just that.

                  No one should be forced by the government to provide for someone else’s premiums, period.

                  Most around here want government out of our bedrooms.  Great. So do I.  But while we’re at it, let’s get government out of our wallets.

      • Margaret Whitestone

        If attacking beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment then that ad is in and of itself a violation since it attacks atheists.  Granted atheism isn’t a religious belief but religious zealots like to clam it is when it suits them so…

        And you have every right to believe as you choose, and to express your beliefs.  Restricting women’s access to health care is not an expression of religious expression, but an act of religious oppression.

        • Findog53

          It’s not religious zealots claim that atheism is a religion it’s the Supreme Courts declaration.

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            No, the Supreme Court ruled in Kaufman that atheism merits equivalent protection as religions, but they didn’t say that it is a religion. A choice quote from that decision:

            Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. … We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. … Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held. The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions. [emphasis mine]

            Please do us all a favor and stop repeating this lie.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Andrew-Gibby/1663461682 David Andrew Gibby

              Don’t post quotations in their full context from their original source, it makes people who post nonsense look bad.

            • Findog53

              So equivalent to a religion and a religion for 1st amendment purposes different? Another one who thinks asphalt is a rectum problem.

            • Findog53

              I’ll get back to you with several other cases where the high court ruled non-theist factions a religion.

      • LesterBallard

        Yeah, those 220,000 plus churches have been shut down with armed guards standing watch so no one tries to get in. Fucking shit stain trolls.

        • Findog53

          Another one who brings nothing more than mockery to the table.

          • LesterBallard

            Would you like some cheese with your whine?

      • Miss_Beara

        The Religious Right not getting their way isn’t attacking their religious beliefs. They can moan and cry and complain that their beliefs are getting trampled on because they can’t deny people reproductive rights or the right to marry. That is not an attack. Where does it say that religious freedom means forcing people to conform to what you believe, even if they are Christian and their god “believes” the opposite that your god does? 

        If you want to know what an attack of religious belief is, go travel to Saudi Arabia and proclaim that you are a Christian. See what happens. 

        • Rwlawoffice

          Just tell me whose reproductive rights are being denied? Nobody has said anyone else can’t use birth control, those that oppose it for religious reasons simply don’t want to be forced by the government to pay for it.

          • Patterrssonn

            But they aren’t are they, it’s a benefit, the employees are paying for it with their labour. If they dont like employees using their benefits for contraception they shouldn’t be offering benefits.

            • Rwlawoffice

              I am sure that some employers will drop the benefits because they don’t want to pay for it. You can thank Obama for that.

              • Patterrssonn

                No, we can thank the nasty mean spirited mysoginist scumbags who run religious organizations.

          • smrnda

             The money a business takes in comes from the labor of employees, not the ‘job creator’ who sits at the top of the pyramid and takes the $$$ while doing less work. Given that workers are creating this wealth through their labor, they ought to have a say in what type of health care they get. If it’s a conflict between worker and employer, I’m always going to side with the worker.

            I would hope that employees of organizations that want to not offer contraceptive coverage would all go on strike and refuse to work until they get it. If a workplace was what it should be – a democratic regime where everybody gets a say, this wouldn’t be an issue.

            And quit with the bullshit that you can’t promote your religion. I can’t go anywhere without some jackass promoting his religion in my face or banging on my door to promote his religion on a Saturday morning, or tracts left everyplace I go.

          • Margaret Whitestone

             You’re not paying for it.   Health insurance is compensation for full-time employees just like their paycheck.  You have no more right telling employees what they can or cannot use their  health insurance for than you have to tell them what they can spend their paycheck on. 

      • Piet Puk

        You are not being persecuted, give it a rest.
        To bad your god did not bless you with the humility and respect to keep your religion to yourself.

        • Rwlawoffice

          Actually my God gave be the call to go and proclaim the good news to all corners of the earth. And the founding fathers gave us the right to do so freely in this country. That right is now being attacked by the policies of this administration. I am counting down the days until I pray that changes.

          • Patterrssonn

            It is? In what way?

            • Rwlawoffice
              • Patterrssonn

                Sorry couldn’t make it far enough past the racist bullshit to get to the religious bullshit.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Nothing racist in that link.  You just must not have liked the examples because it invaded your false reality.  Calling the truth bullshit is a typical response from those that want to avoid the truth, kind of like calling people who disagree with you names to shut down the discussion.

                • Patterrssonn

                  Complaining that a black man has an anti-slavery mindset isn’t racist? I guess not beneath the rock you live under, and like I said I didn’t read the examples, I couldn’t get past the racism.

                • Nordog

                  Except that’s not what’s at that link.  Instead, the writer properly faults Black Liberation Theology for denying that anti-slavery aspects of US history.  In fact, the writer specifically refers to slavery as “despicable and inhuman.”

                  Basically, you’re just a liar and a bigot.

                • Patterrssonn

                  “basically you’re a liar and a bigot” When all your arguments fail there’s always ad hominem to fall back on.

              • Itarion

                Those examples are just as likely to be overblown as not. For example, take a look at the one accusing Obama of omitting the reference to a Creator in his quote of the Declaration. Problem? It wasn’t a quote, he was paraphrasing, and he omitted at least half of the passage in question. It was a reference to the Declaration, not a quote. 

          • Margaret Whitestone

             Yeah, we know.   Your religious beliefs demand you be allowed to do whatever you want to anyone with impunity, and never be challenged or criticized in any way because that would be “religious persecution”.

            You’re pathologically selfish and odious.

          • Piet Puk

            How could I forget the depth of your delusion.
            You persecution complex is almost at the same level.

        • Findog53

          As you should yours.

      • Patterrssonn

        So where’s the campaign to support Rastafarians Shouldn’t the religious right be clamoring for their religious freedom to smoke pot or is it only the Catholic Church that gets to break the law in the name of religion?

        • Findog53

          So it’s ok to promote the use of an illegal substance?

          • Patterrssonn

            Apparently everything’s ok in the name of religious freedom.

    • http://twitter.com/bnt0 brian thomson

      I find it particularly amusing how “RW Christian types” forget that Romney is a Mormon. He believes that his church is the “only true Christian church” and all others are invalid. If you are a mainstream Christian, he will always be looking down his nose at you, with an attitude of theological superiority. Mormons really do think they are *better* than you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Andrew-Gibby/1663461682 David Andrew Gibby

        During my past years of being a Mormon, (being an ex-Mormon atheist, now), I never felt superior to other Christians. Maybe this was because my local and extended church leaders constantly told us that we claimed to have “the most truth”, but we did not have “a monopoly on truth”, and that we must recognize that other churches also have “much truth in them”. Maybe it was because I was told that though we claim to have additional truths to add to a divided Christianity, we mustn’t be given over to pride or feeling superior to our fellow men, Christian or otherwise, and that all men and women were our brothers and sisters.

        On the other hand, I was repeatedly told by various evangelical leaders and apologists that Mormonism was founded on lies, that Mormons weren’t true Christians because they didn’t believe in the real Jesus, and that it might not be possible for Mormons to enter heaven, and that Mormons just didn’t know their own history or have good educations, and were prone to leave their faith once they became educated. Ha!

        Maybe, just maybe, the internet community could take a break from posting falsities about Mormons, a group that, as a whole, most commentators clearly know nothing about.

  • Nordog

    “My body.  My choice.  Your money.”  – Sandra Fluke

    • Agnostic

      Yes. Let me sleep around and you take care of me.

      • Peter Eakin

        Yes! Every hospital should ban sluts at the door.

        • Agnostic

          Free will buddy. My body, your money. Oh dear, it’s starting to sound like…….?

          • Margaret Whitestone

             So when you get cancer or break your leg you’re going to pay for it out of pocket and not expect your insurance company to foot the bill?  Or is it only when it comes to lady parts that you’re an insufferable git?

            • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

              Why so kind, Margaret? This one deserves “self-centered misogynist” as a descriptor.

              • Margaret Whitestone

                Agreed.  Funny how many of them come crawling out of the woodwork whenever ladybits come up.

            • Agnostic

              Sure. There should be insurance for major long drawn illnesses but shouln’t there be a line drawn somewhere? Should the public be made to pay for individual lifestyles. Everything has opportunity cost.

              • vexorian

                 We all love lines. But I don’t think there is any justification (besides believing in bearded deities, that is) to draw the line exactly there.

                Contraception will (rather obviously) save up on health care expenses in the future. So, economically there are tons of reasons to do this and no reason not to.

                • Agnostic

                  Economically, if each pay for their own lifestyle choice, scare resources could be allocated to other more productive and urgent needs.

                • Strawnkm

                  So, you want the obese person to pay for his/her diabetics care, the smoker to pay for his/her COPD care? We should just throw them out of the insurance pool because of their lifestyle choices. Do you really understand how insurance works? Do you understand that the reason contraception is being mandated? Because it will SAVE money! It will save money by reducing pregnancy, by reducing ovarian cysts and thus reducing emergency room visits. The argument against covering contraceptive because it is a “lifestyle” just FAILS when you stop to consider that everyone’s lifestyle contributes the the insurance pool that they are in. I don’t want to be in a insurance pool that covers someone who makes no effort to maintain their health. Why? Because thier healthcare costs increase my premiums. but I also don’t want to live in a society that would delve so in depth into everyone’s personal life.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

                  No, but I do expect them to pay premiums that reflect their health risks, which means they should have to pay a lot more than me.

                • Margaret Whitestone

                   Let me guess–you know what  the “more productive and urgent needs” are, right?

              • Bender

                There should be insurance for major long drawn illnesses but shouln’t there be a line drawn somewhere?

                No.

                Should the public be made to pay for individual lifestyles.

                That’s funny, I thought America was a free country. Who the fuck named you king to decide which lifestliles deserve health care?

                • Agnostic

                  So, that right. Spend, spend and spend more. No need to draw the lines. If I am an unmarried mother with five children out of wed lock, the state should pay. Borrow more .

                • Bender

                  So you deny women access to contraceptives and proper sexual education, and then you blame them for having 5 children. Beautiful.

                • Findog53

                  Out of wedlock and probably  5 different  sperm donors yes. Also others having to pay for those childrens upbringing down the road.    “cost benefit analysis”  

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/HXMGJONKJJ35BYMNFHNGXMXH2U Mary P.

                   What if you’re a married woman with ten children?

                  See the difference?  It’s in your mind

                  Why are single woman always vilified? I guess because it’s ingrained in our society, but this mindset is wrong.

                  What about smokers who then want help with oxygen when they develop emphysema….I had a father-in-law and uncle  like that!  Medicare paid, they kept smoking I kept working .
                  It’s the greater good we pay into the system.

                • Donalbain

                   Remember when Romney said that Israel spent LESS on healthcare than the USA? Maybe the USA should copy the Israeli system.

          • Itarion

            communism? Do you actually understand the actual premise of it, or do you merely assume it to be the heavily flawed Russian and Chinese examples of the late 20th centuries? Communism was created as an attempt to allow everyone to live at the same level, and so have everyone prosper equally. Emphasis being on “prosper”, rather than on “suffer”.
            Socialism? Again, do you understand it? Socialism is an edit of communism, attempting to grant everyone an equal starting point so that no one has to suffer to fund the ostentatious lifestyles of heirs to incredible fortunes.
            Did you bother to read this before responding?

            • Ken

              Isn’t Communism simply an extrapolation of what Jesus and  Paul were promoting in the Bible — care for one another, give away your wealth, care for the poor.  Chew on that for a while thumpers.

              • Nordog

                Ken, apparently your brilliance has blinded you to the distinction between giving something away, and having it confiscated. 

                Pardon the pun, but apparently that distinction is beyone your ken.

                • http://www.facebook.com/eukota Darrell Ross

                  Oh right. Taxation is theft. LOL

                • Agnostic

                  The really rich don’t pay full taxes. There are plenty of loopholes. It ‘s the middle and upper middle classes who pay full taxes. Misallocated taxes is not a form of theft?

                • Nordog

                  I said confiscate, not steal.  Yet, taxation can in some cases be the same as theft.  Are you saying that it never can be?

                • 3lemenope

                  Can water, in a high enough dose, act as a poison? Yes.

                  If one goes around preferentially calling water a poison, are they being ridiculous? Yes.

                • Nordog

                  Agreed.  But then again, I didn’t say “theft” or “steal”, rather I said “confiscate” which is an accurate term to describe even low and proper levels of taxation.  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confiscate

            • Findog53

              ….”Communism was created  as an attempt to allow everyone to live at the same level” you are on some serious mind altering substances. Tell that to all the baseball players players that defected from Cuba. 

          • Donalbain

             She wanted to be able to choose to buy insurance that covers contraception. See that word “buy”?

      • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

        Nothing makes your point more tactful than when you completely miss it.

      • unclemike

         Are you so ignorant of the female anatomy that you think birth control pills are only for sleeping around?

        I’m gay and even I know better.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/HXMGJONKJJ35BYMNFHNGXMXH2U Mary P.

           Exactly.
          I have said it until I am blue in the face that we can’t help that we ovulate! 
          But, hey, let’s pay for Viagra (The VA does!) so men can ejaculate even more!

          • Tainda

            Don’t even get me started on Viagra!

            I’m so sick of misogynistic men worrying about what I do with my body!  I don’t care if I am a slut, I should be afforded the opportunity to get birth control.

            They don’t want birth control and yet they are the same people who bitch about women having too many kids while they are on welfare.  Make up your fucking mind or shut up!

            • Findog53

              For your information viagra wasn’t invented so men can have sex in the later years. It was invented so they don’t fall out of bed.
                Lets do you one better, instead of affording you birth control, why don’t we just cut off yours and your partners sperm supply and ease the health care system a bit.
               They should bitch about women who have to many kids while on the GOVERNMENT payroll.

              • Tainda

                I don’t have a sperm supply.

                Trust me, I bitch about women having too many kids on government help ALL the time.  I was using it as a point.  If we offer birth control for these women, the problem will possibly lessen.

                • Findog53

                  Vasectomies and tubal  tyings will solve the problem also. If you are on the govermnment payroll and have another child maybe it should become a crime. Educating them won’t solve the problem they think it’s an entitlement.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HXMGJONKJJ35BYMNFHNGXMXH2U Mary P.

         Who said anything about promiscuity?  Not that it’s anyone’s business.
        (Why is sex such a huge issue with religious people?)
         I was on oral contraception for ten years of marriage as re MANY women who work and have health insurance.
         
        What if we didn’t want to pay for health insurance for people who eat too much and develop high blood pressure, diabetes, joint problems when it’s THEIR doing?

        What about judging women who choose to have multiple pregnancies and have complications?

        Are those denials okay if I say it’s against a religion?

        • Rwlawoffice

          That is hilarious that you think it’s all about sex when all we are doing is responding to sex issues raised by the left. As for your other concerns, just wait. They will come under rationing if obamacare continues.

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            1) Mary’s statement was general. 2) Contraception is not inherently about sex, as Mary was explaining. You’re not helping your case any by falsely claiming that “The left started it!”

            • Nordog

              Contraception is all about sex.  Specifically, it’s about the deliberate sterilizaton of sexual activity.  That’s what makes it contraception.

              Now, on the other hand, a drug normally used for contraception can be used for something else, in which case it is not contraception.

              But the whacky notion of contraception without sex is like hydration without water.

              • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                This is an equivocation, since what we mean by “contraception” is generally hormonal contraception that has multiple uses. We’re talking about the actual things being blocked, not the purpose for which they’re used. If I use a knife as a screwdriver, that doesn’t mean that I can no longer call it a knife or that I must say that I didn’t turn the screw but instead cut it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

          If unbelievers were demanding to receive the Eucharist without converting, we’d be harping on the integrity of the Eucharist to defend the Eucharist from sacrilege.  So too with sex, which is also holy, though not as sacred as the Eucharist (you don’t get more sacred than receiving the Living God into your body).

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            Are you seriously drawing a comparison between a wafer and sex? I get that you group them together as sacraments, but for those of us not in your social club, those two things are night and day. Try a better analogy.

    • 3lemenope

      Of course, her testimony was actually about prevention of ovarian cancer with hormone treatment, but whatever. Carry on, Nordog.

      Cute use of quotes, BTW.

      • jdm8

        That’s what was so shocking about Limbaugh’s comments about her. She was trying to do something selfless and stand up for her friend, and Limbaugh flatly lied about her testimony and the mocked Sandra for that courage.

      • Nordog

        Actually, your presentation was about birth control and contraception.  She then mentioned the non contraceptive uses of prescription contraception.

        However, non contraceptive use of something is NOT contraception or birth control.

        All this misses the bigger point.  Employers should be forced to pay for someone else’s health care, and until recently, none had been.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Yup. Just like everyone else takes care of your body monetarily. You know, through taxes and insurance pools. It’s pathetic that you only care when women’s reproductive rights are involved. 

      Thankfully, your “moral outrage” is only shared by a small group. 

      • Rwlawoffice

        Using your logic why don’t we buy your food and drinks too because it goes into your body.

        • Itarion

          Yeah, that happens too. Food stamps. Any questions?

          • Piet Puk

            It reminds me of a mythical person who said you should feed the hungry and care for the sick.
            Hmm, what was his name again? ”Jebus” something.
            Actually has a whole bunch of hypocritical, lying, bigotted followers at the moment.

            • Rwlawoffice

              Christians who you hate so much lead the world in giving to the poor and providing for the needy and sick. By margins over atheists that it is pathetic. If you have to go to the hospital good luck finding a secular one. My bet is you will be taken to a Methodist, baptist, or catholic hospital and you will be thankful Christians followed their teachings. Or if you are an orphan in Africa try finding an atheist orphanage. Good luck with that.

              • Findog53

                Once again, very well said.

              • Margaret Whitestone

                 You act like church-affiliated hospitals are a good thing, or that the churches are running the hospitals out of the kindness of their hearts.  Neither could be farther from the truth. 

                The biggest problem with church-affiliated hospitals is that it allows the people who run them and work there to think they’re practicing their religion rather than providing medical care.  They then have no qualms about refusing a life-saving abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, denying care to a transgender woman who was beaten to a bloody pulp in a hate crime, telling a gay man’s husband “you have no visitation rights because we don’t recognize your so-called marriage”, or refusing emergency contraception to the victim of a violent rape.  In short, they put their arbitrary religious beliefs before their obligation to the patients.  That’s a horrible thing, particularly in areas where the church-affiliated hospital may be the only hospital for many miles around.

                • Nordog

                  Margaret, everything you just accused religious hospitals of doing is complete bullshit.  Now, you might be able to make the “emergency contraception” charge stick, but that’s because Christians think that in the case of violent rape it’s not the baby who needs killin’.

                  But all the other stuff is bullshit.

                  In fact, Catholic teaching specifically addresses the subject of ectopic pregnancies and why saving the life of the mother is the appropriate thing to do despite the loss of the babies life.
                  Did you know that?

                  In fact Catholic teaching allows for non-contraceptive uses of contraceptive drugs for conditions such as those cited by Sandra Fluke in her infamous testimony.

                  Catholic health care was up front in treating AIDS patients back in the early days when most people would run in horror.

                  Also, I work in health care; in a hospital.  I don’t know of anyone denied visitation because Catholics don’t recognize gay marriage.  Catholics don’t have to recognize gay marriage to recognize a close relationship.

                  Where are all these cases of people being denied visitation by hospitals because Christians reject gay marriage?

                  So we are left with the fact that despite all the good Christian hospitals do you would want to see it all go away because of some type of fatal ideological purity regrading “emergency contraception”.

                  Forget about all the lives saved or all the lives brought into the world, you would wipe that all away over one issue.

                  You are blinded by your hatred and bigotry.

                • Margaret Whitestone

                   82% of Catholic hospitals refuse to supply emergency contraception even to rape victims: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178894

                  Catholic hospital refuses to treat gay man and says his HIV is “God’s Judgement”
                  http://v.gd/hHmGl8

                  Woman suffers miscarriage.  Has to drive 80 miles because Catholic hospital won’t perform uterine evacuation to remove *already dead* fetus from her body.

                  http://v.gd/9Ou5Fe

                  Yes, church-affiliated hospitals routinely put their religion before proper patient care.  What’s worse, RRRW zealots are constantly pushing legislation to make this legal. 
                  http://v.gd/F4CVIX

                  I couldn’t care less what people choose to believe, but when they start thinking their chosen religious lifestyles trump other peoples’ rights and very lives, you’re damn right I get offended and outraged.  

                • Nordog

                  Well, it must be true if it’s on the world wide interwebz.
                   
                  I still call bullshit.

                  Bullshit.

                • Margaret Whitestone

                   Typical response when a religious person is presented actual evidence.  Stick your fingers in your ears and go “la la la la”.   Pathetic.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

                  Has it occurred to you that a Catholic hospital might not know how to safely extract a dead fetus from the mother after a miscarriage on account of the fact that they don’t perform abortions and therefore don’t practice this procedure?  

                  Attempting a procedure you don’t know how to do (except as an absolute last resort when the patient will die otherwise and there is no time to find someone qualified to do the procedure) is both malpractice and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

                  As to Emergency Contraception, Catholic Hospitals don’t carry contraceptive drugs, precisely because it doesn’t matter that a rape ins involved; the drug is still intended as a poison, and furthermore, generally functions by preventing an embryo from implanting, making it abortifacient, rather than contraceptive.

                • Stev84

                  Any doctor specializing in obstetrics needs to know how to perform such a procedure. If not, they shouldn’t be practicing medicine.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

              First, His name is Jesus and He is the Son of the Living God.  You WILL show Him respect before you DARE criticize any supposed hypocrisy on the part of Christians.

              Second, while He did command us to feed the hungry and care for the sick, it is NEVER licit to use evil means to do those things, nor can we subordinate obeying Him to fulfilling those works of mercy.  That means we cannot murder one person to use their organs to heal ten sick people, nor feed the hungry using robbery.  Neither can we keep hospitals open if administering contraceptives, abortions, sterilizations or drugs intended to kill is a condition of doing so.

              • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                Showing someone their hypocrisy never requires respecting their views first. You can stop with your sanctimonious ALL CAPS-laden rants.

              • Piet Puk

                Are you being obnoxious for fun or because of your religion?

                • Findog53

                  You sound like a descendant of Glasofruix.

          • Rwlawoffice

            The birth control mandate is not income based so food stamps are irrelevant but it interesting to note that under Obama those that use them and welfare has grown tremendously.

            • eonL5

              Sure, because all those people who lost their jobs and their houses due to rampant deregulation of the banking/investment industries decided: “Oh, Obama is president! Now I get to claim Welfare and food stamps for not other reason!”

      • Findog53

        Small group? 76% is not a small group.

    • Margaret Whitestone

      When churches pay their taxes and stop leeching off the rest of us maybe I’ll take their whining a little more seriously.  Until then they need to stop crying about how MY money is used.  If I can’t dictate that my tax money can’t be used to prop up churches, why should employers who happen to be religious be allowed to whine because they’re required to follow the same laws as every other business/organization?

      • Findog53

        Your factions gets the same tax break as religious ones!

        • Rwlawoffice

           Good point.  The Freedom from religion foundation is a 501 (c)(3) organization that pays no taxes.

          • Piet Puk

            And they don’t discriminate.

        • Margaret Whitestone

           Let me know when the FFRF or AU demand the right to disobey laws others have to obey by citing their “deeply held non-belief”.  Until then you have no point.

          • Stev84

            There is another huge difference. Ordinary non-profits need to open their books and prove their status. Churches don’t. Their books are top secret. Which means many of them are run as tax-exempt for-profit businesses.

            • Findog53

              You are so off base it’s not even worth rebutting.

          • Nordog

            And who’s demanding the right to disobey laws.

            An unjust law is no law at all.

            Margaret, stop the H8.  Start with yourself.

          • Findog53

            Oh that’s where you are wrong.  By shoving there non-beliefs down our throats all the time on public property mind you, your faction is in violation of the 1st amendment. your non-belief is considered a religion whether you like to hear it or not.

    • Patterrssonn

      If they don’t like it they can always leave. I hear Russia’s pretty church friendly these days.

  • NewEnglandBob

    Willard “Flip Flop Mitt the Nitwit” Romney is against his own Romneycare. What a buffoon!

    • Itarion

      Oh, absolutely not. Romneycare is different, because it isn’t a federal project. Were every state to enact a Romneycare thing, it would be quite alright… /sarcasm
      The problem is that so goddamned many people don’t bother to check the history of their candidate. Oh, and the other problem is that Romney has mostly just been saying “Trustmetrustmetrustmetrustmeobamasasocialisttrustmetrustme” and keeping any of his current views/policies under wraps. And people listen. Thats another issue.

    • Findog53

      Hey NewEngland Bob, Flipflop Mitt as you call him Vetoed Romneycare as you call it. The leftist controlled Mass government senate and house overrode the veto.

  • Keulan

    Republicans keep using the term “religious freedom.” I do not think it means what they think it means.

    • Findog53

      They know exactly what it means

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Side note: Am I the only one frustrated with the Religious Right’s hijacking of the word “values”?

    No, you’re not. I’m constantly annoyed by the way the RR uses terms like values, family, marriage, morality, and patriotism, seemingly to imply that they invented these concepts, that they’ve cornered the market on these things, and that they have a copyright on them. 

    I’m also annoyed by their behaving as if they own the month of December.
     

    • Gus Snarp

      The co-opting of values by the right has pissed me off for some time. I’ll tell you when it really got to me, and this is a bit off topic, but nevertheless – I’d known since I was probably twenty exactly how the Boy Scouts felt about gay scouts and leaders. Sadly, at that time I agreed with them. It wasn’t long after that that I learned how very wrong we were.  But I hadn’t heard much about efforts to get them to change, and a few years back I got my official National Eagle Scout Association magazine, and it had something in it about a new book being put out by the BSA about “Values”. I started looking around and realized that the BSA was using “values” exactly the way the right does, and that they were doing it as a conscious message to the religious right: “You’re at home here, we think like you and talk like you, don’t worry, you won’t find us listening to the left or ever accepting gays”. No, they didn’t say those words, but they were sending that dog whistle message. That began my disillusionment from the BSA. So yeah, these people think they own family values, and values. they don’t. The values I learned in scouting and practice in my family revolve around kindness and honesty, two things that seem absent from the Religious Right.

      • Findog53

        Seeing you are off topic may i ask you, would you allow your son to attend a BSA camp knowing three camp counselors are gay?  I don’t have a problem with gays, yet my son will never attend a camp with knowingly gay counselors. I just don’t trust them not getting excited about little mens backsides. The state I live in just recently convicted 2 gay counselors of groping little men.    

    • Findog53

      We don’t claim to own the month of December. Do you sir take part in the activities in that month? A month in which a deity is worshipped? If you answer yes you would be quite the hypocrite.

      • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

        My remark about December is a reference to something of which you might not be aware. Atheists who are familiar with the ridiculous posturing of “offense” that some Christians (not all) practice about atheist advertizing, particularly billboards, are familiar with some Christians’ demands that any public references to atheism should not be made during the month of December, because it’s “insensitive” to the Christmas season.  These atheist billboards are not necessarily directly contradicting Christmas per se, they’re simply call-outs to other atheists who are isolated and unaware that there are supportive groups who don’t condemn and despise them because of their lack of belief. Hence my figurative, not literal characterization of some Christians’ stance that they own the month of December.

        No, I don’t partake in religious activities or quasi-religious activities during December, more than simply going along with the childish and materialistic lunacy to which almost everyone around me succumb.  However, even if I did take part in some level, I don’t understand your assertion that that would amount to hypocrisy.  Your remark smacks of the same attitude of privilege and ownership of the end of the year season, implying that unless I am as religious as you, I have no business taking any part in the activities, so I hope that I am misinterpreting you. 

  • Stev84

    If only

  • mikespeir

    ‘Be not afraid,’ huh?  Isn’t strange how a little swapping around of syntax can take something from bland to exal—well, silly?

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    This just shows the unstated, but ever-present, syllogism which lies behind everything that religionists say and do:

    1) I have certain religious beliefs, and am entitled to follow them by virtue of America’s religious freedom.

    2) One of those beliefs, is that everyone … regardless of what s/he might personally believe … must follow my beliefs nonetheless.

    3) Thus, my religious freedom entitles me to impose my beliefs on everyone.

    4) Anyone who thwarts me in my effort to force everyone to live the way I want them to live, is therefore taking away my religious freedom and is attacking my religion.

    Contrary to this axiomatic reasoning, “religious freedom” does not entitle a believer to control everyone. An individual’s religious freedom begins and ends with him/her. An institution’s religious freedom begins and ends with that institution’s personnel. Period.

    It’s time we all understood this deluded thinking and started dealing with it. Stating overtly that preventing religionists from controlling other people is not a violation of their religious freedom, would be a great place to start.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      I have no idea how or why my comments got mangled. Is there any guide to how markup works in these comments?

      • eonL5

        In other posts, people have said that ‘em’ tags format properly, while ‘i’ tags do not (presumably because the ‘i’ tag has long been deprecated). Since you are logged in, you should be able to edit your original post to try it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

      Who is imposing?  We are merely asserting our right not to be compelled to choose between shutting down hospitals and committing mortal sins by participating in contraception and abortion.  We can’t stop you from obtaining contraception, but we most certainly have the right to say, “We will not help you do this evil thing in any way shape or form.  We will not even tell you where you can find the drugs you seek.”

      • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

        Re: “Who is imposing?”

        You are. And you described precisely how you plan to go about it:

        Re: “We can’t stop you from obtaining contraception, but we most certainly have the right to say, “We will not help you do this evil thing in any way shape or form.  We will not even tell you where you can find the drugs you seek.”

        By throwing hurdles in people’s paths — which you explicitly just admitted you’re doing — you are, in fact, forcing them to overcome your own beliefs.

        As for “participating” in things you’d rather people didn’t do … to f-ing bad. In a society such as ours, of which you are a part, you cannot avoid the possibility of becoming enmeshed in what you consider other people’s vile sins. This includes the possibility of having to pay for them. This fact is well established. Quakers, for instance, are pacifists. In the past some of them have tried to litigate the requirement that they pay taxes, some of which go to the Pentagon and thus fund military efforts. Court decisions have established, though, that Quakers do have to pay taxes, even if some of their tax money pays for warfare which is against their beliefs.

        If the Quakers can be forced to pay for warfare … which they object to on religious grounds … then Catholics can be forced to pay for contraception. If you don’t like it, I suggest moving to some other country whose law is based on Catholic doctrine. The Vatican City is one such place. I don’t know if they’ll allow you to emigrate, but it would seem the proper place for you.

  • Gunstargreen

    Because government never bans religious practices like polygamy or presses charges against Christian scientist families who let their kids suffer because they believe in faith healing, right? And they allow Muslims to commit honor killings all the time, correct?

    Because apparently religious freedom is supposed to mean “ignore the law of the land and do whatever the fuck you want.”

  • The Other Weirdo

    Pope John Paul II? I think someone’s spinning historical lies again. The Soviet Union fell apart, the Warsaw Pact went with it.

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    In this country, the Constitution defines the bounds of religion, not the other way around.

    Defending the Constitution does not constitute an attack on religion. On the other hand, anybody who believes that religious businesses  should be allowed to operate under different rules than secular ones is standing totally at odds with the Constitution.

    If Obama has declared war on religion (which is a pretty absurd claim), Romney has declared war on the Constitution, and that’s far, far worse.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

      No, the Constitution defines the bounds of the government, and “free exercise of religion” means that the government can’t order people to do things their religion says are wrong.

      • Patterrssonn

        Sounds like that argument was dreamt up by 10 yr old, when their parent asks them to clean up their room “t’s a free country you can’t make me!” Just what you’d expect from a bunch of spoiled brats.

  • Nordog

    “Typical response when a religious person is presented actual evidence. Stick your fingers in your ears and go “la la la la”. Pathetic.”

    Either you’re a liar, or your hatred and bigotry have blinded you, or (my vote) you’re both.

    What you present with your links isn’t evidence of anything, let alone evidence of what you charged.

    Your tortured understanding of reality is astounding.

    Let’s look at this one by one:

    1) You charge “They then have no qualms about refusing a life-saving abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy…”

    Your “evidence”?  A link to Sodahead about a woman who was not denied treatement, she was denied an abortion that directly killed the dying child.  She chose to leave in order to have an abortion.  As we all know, post Roe v. Wade, it’s her choice.  But you want to blame that on the Catholic church.

    In any event, this was not a case of refusing life-saving abortion to a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.  There was no ectopic pregnancy involved.  Further, it is nowhere shown that she was denied “life saving” treatment.  She was denied a “life ending” procedure.

    Additionally, the termination of ectopic pregnancies is not against Catholic teaching.  The article is simply wrong.  If some Catholic refuses such treatment, they are wrong to do so and wrong about Catholic teaching.

    2) You charge “[They deny] care to a transgender woman who was beaten to a bloody pulp in a hate crime, telling a gay man’s husband “you have no visitation rights because we don’t recognize your so-called marriage…”

    Your evidence?  Nothing.  You do have some link to a weird polemic about a man with HIV in a psych ward.  Basically a “he said” story presented by a polemicist.  For the record, that’s not evidence.

    3) You charge “…or [their] refusing emergency contraception to the victim of a violent rape.

    I’ve addressed this already.  Suffice it to say you will never care for the answer.

    So, you’ve presented various anecdotes of dubious veracity that do not at all address the charges you made.

    Yet, even if these stories are true, so what?  They are still anecdotes and prove nothing regarding the nature of Catholic hospitals in general.

    In fact, you can find the same type of stories about any type of hospital.

    Stop the H8. Start with yourself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/angela.chong.144 Angela Chong

    We are happy to introduce Gaballi! A faith based movement to save 30 – 70 % off your groceries. (  PRODUCTS OF USA – Locally grown ).Gaballi Dollar Store – The first online dollar store in the USA,Gaballi


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X