New York Times Publishes Full-Page Anti-Catholic Ad

“Dogma should not trump our civil liberties.”  That’s the UN-civil message from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in a full-page ad which appears in the front news section of today’s New York Times.

Pictured at the top is birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger, the racist, atheist founder of Planned Parenthood whose motto was “No Gods – No Masters.”  The ad criticizes the “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” of the Supreme Court who voted to protect Americans’ religious rights in the Hobby Lobby case–accusing them of “putting religious wrongs over women’s rights.”

According to the FFRF website,

“Allowing employers to decide what kind of birth control an employee can use is not, as the Supreme Court ruled, an ‘exercise of religion.’ It is an exercise of tyranny. Employers should have no right to impose their religious beliefs upon workers,” reads the ad.

“Dogma should not trump our civil liberties.”

Perhaps the atheists would tame their histrionics a bit if they realized that Hobby Lobby’s owners have always, in fact, covered the cost of no fewer than sixteen different contraceptives for their employees.  According to the National Review, the following drugs–including oral birth control–have always been offered free of charge to Hobby Lobby employees:

  1. Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

The only contraceptives which Hobby Lobby’s owners specifically refused to provide were Plan B, which is also known as the “morning after pill”; Ella, another emergency contraceptive; Copper Intrauterine Device; and IUD with progestin.  All of these forms of birth control can, in some instances, cause abortion or are themselves akin to abortion.

*     *     *     *     *

The New York Times has, in its Statement of Standards and Ethics, affirmed its commitment to truth.  That Statement reads, in part:

The core purpose of The New York Times is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news and information. Producing content of the highest quality and integrity is the basis for our reputation and the means by which we fulfill the public trust and our customers’ expectations.

But in fact, The New York Times has accepted the advertising dollars of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to publish a blatant untruth, and a political screed against the Catholic Church.

No big deal?  Just get over it?

Take a look at the advertisement itself.  Get your highlighter pen and mark the rhetoric–charges like:

  • “zealous fundamentalists”
  • “an exercise of tyranny”
  • “growing dangers of theocracy”

Those humorless guys at FFRF may be “dismayed and alarmed”, but try using the same inflammatory rhetoric to express one’s disagreement with a person of another race, or of the Muslim faith.  Sounds pretty discriminatory, doesn’t it?

Lucifer must be laughing.

Here, for your information, is the ad:

  • Dennis Mahon

    The irony that never seems to penetrate the heads of people like this, is that the same same law that protects religious people from secular infringement protects them from religious infringement as well – no one can force Freedom From Religion Foundation from hosting a religious service at their own expense.

    They just don’t think about the consequences….

    • D Blyth

      A good observation!

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      Atheists are not evidence based.

      • Jeff See

        .
        .

        • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

          Cute, but the point is, that atheists use a definition of evidence that is so narrow that they turn science into a mere appeal to authority- into a religion.

          • Asemodeus

            Seeber is quite famous for his epic levels of projection.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I have no reason to believe anything Asemodeus says. Oddly enough, neither does Asemodeus, who is constantly appealing to the authority of logic and peer-reviewed papers with no understanding whatsoever.

          • Asemodeus

            I already told everyone that you enjoy projection seeber, you don’t have to back me up on this.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Funny how atheists call their own problems “projection”, as if they are perfect and never sin.

            Bet there are a few ex girlfriends who wish you were more traditional though.

          • Jeff See

            ..

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Yep, no hope of civilization in secularism. And Asemodeus’s evidence-free accusations below prove the point.

          • Jeff See

            Have you just now discovered the internet? Finally make it out of IRC? It’s like you singularly moved that debate about secular/theocratic back 10 years.

            Do you even understand the basic concept of “evidence” to begin with? Do you not understand the irony of you making the claim that there is no help for civilization based on secularism, while voicing that opinion, freely, in a secular country born of individuals who, secular or not themselves notwithstanding, meant for it to be that way?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            10 years? Try 500 years. The cause of atheism began with Sola Scripture and reductionism.

            Your own post shows the intolerance of secularism, the lack of civility that has been lost since the Reformation.

            There is no freedom in slavery to sin.

          • Jeff See

            There is no freedom in your subjugation to the imaginary. At all. The definition of “sin” comes from that subjugation; therefore the only person who’s bound to it, between the two of us, is you. The reality is, there is only good or bad, and they’re not defined by anything more or less than the harm, or good, that actions do to/for/with other people. But you aren’t worried about reality, so we can just leave that right there.

            And if you think that atheism only began then, you’re sorely mistaken. Which should be obvious to most by now, given your statements up to this point. The first atheist? He’s the guy who didn’t buy the bull shit from the first person who proposed a deity. The Egyptian who didn’t believe the king was a god. The fisherman in ancient Greece who didn’t believe in Poseidon.

            And if you feel like your religion has a lock on civility, maybe explain why you find it necessary to feed your deity the foreskins of little kids, stolen from them before they have a voice, and why you feel that is so friggin civil. Or why you participate in blood ritual, and mock cannibalism, and how civil THAT is.

            Nope, keep trying to justify your willing ignorance, your willing subjugation, by feeling superior, and enjoy the piety that comes from trying to will manifest destiny into being. In the meantime, the rest of us, grounded in reality, will continue, dragged down by the likes of people like you, who are too busy waiting to die to gain their reward from their imaginary friend.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “There is no freedom in your subjugation to the imaginary. ”

            There is nothing imaginary in 2000 years of observation of human behavior resulting in a rational faith.

            But your kind wants it to be imaginary because you’d rather be slaves to your passions than actually sacrifice anything to civility and the art of civilization at all.

          • Jeff See

            You have got to be kidding me. Just because a myth has been around a long time, doesn’t make it true, regardless of who/how many have believed in it.

            Other ancient religions and their deities were around for way longer than 2000 years; I guess they were real right up until they were not. Man what a ridiculous conclusion on your part. Utterly delusional.

            And there you go equating civility and religion; civilizations have existed, and continue to come into existence, with or without religion. Calling an imaginary being imaginary, does not make someone uncivil. It makes them truthful.

            You are seriously ill equipped to debate this. Your arguments have been soundly, repeatedly, defeated time and again, by people much greater and much lesser, than I. You have to realize that your arguments supporting myth cannot be logically supported. Better luck next time, eh?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “You have got to be kidding me. Just because a myth has been around a long time, doesn’t make it true, regardless of who/how many have believed in it.”

            I said the observations occurred over a long time. Doctrine develops from that evidence, in accordance with the councilar method, which is the precursor to the scientific method and inspired it.

            What you have yet to realize is that I am specifically NOT debating you. I am utterly rejecting your worldview as civilized or having any value whatsoever. I do not consider anything you have to say or might say to be truth, because you are following invalid authorities.

            I am not using logic because your entire use of logic is an appeal to authority fallacy that I will not commit. I have NO evidence that logic is real, I have specific evidence that God is real.

          • Jeff See

            If your doctrine develops from evidence, (which it definitely does not, otherwise it wouldn’t state the world was flat with a dome over it), then it wouldn’t be born of divinity, would it?

            You are straight up nuts. You have no evidence logic is real? That has to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve read in a Disqus thread yet.

            You are right about one thing; you’re definitely not debating. I’m not sure what you would call it, but you’re decidedly not debating. Someone who’s debating would be attempting to make sense.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “If your doctrine develops from evidence, (which it definitely does not, otherwise it wouldn’t state the world was flat with a dome over it), then it wouldn’t be born of divinity, would it?”

            Catholic Doctrine never stated that. Catholicism wrote scripture, but is not bound to scripture.

            “You have no evidence logic is real? ”

            I have no evidence that YOUR logic is real- and in fact, anything other than a bunch of made up rules that work in some instances and don’t work in others. Part of the problem is that the rules themselves are self-contradictory.

            ” Someone who’s debating would be attempting to make sense.”

            I make sense for those who have sense to hear. I’m not going to make sense to you, because you have an irrational world view.

          • Jeff See

            So basically you’re following the same precedent every other religious apologist/believer has before you, and when you’re shown where you’re wrong, you further move the goal posts in hopes of finding a position unassailable. Guess what? When you decide to eschew logic and reason, no position you will hold will afford you that protection.

            Your statements are utterly, completely ridiculous. You can claim piety based on your belief, but in reality you make absolutely no sense at all. And it’s all based on a belief that was made up as it went along, based itself on a myth for which there is no corroborating evidence.

            Logic is as follows: when approaching a door, logic dictates that in order to proceed through it, you must open the door. You operate under a different set of rules? Your Catholicism means you don’t have to have open doors in order to pass through them? Catholicism wrote it’s own rules, (which they don’t have to follow apparently, according to you), yet that’s doctrine from divinity? That view is your rationality, your “logic”? That isn’t reason, that’s lunacy.

            Thanks for the heartfelt belly laughs today. Imagining someone for whom reality is so easily ignored, suffering from existence because they are so obviously utterly confused, put a smile on my face. Reading your responses has given me an idea of what it must be like arguing with a pigeon. So please, type your response, then prance around pooping on everything in your self-evident victory. I only hope this “discussion” brings someone else the same humor and chuckles it brought me.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I haven’t “moved the goal posts”. It is Atheists who moved the goal posts when they accepted the philosophy of reductionism.

            “Logic is as follows: when approaching a door, logic dictates that in order to proceed through it, you must open the door. ”

            Fallacy of appeal to authority- and a nebulous authority at that :”Logic”.

            It also neglects technology that might open the door for you (you can experience this at your local supermarket), the existence of a hidden doorman, the air curtain door technology which doesn’t need to be opened at all.

            By eliminating evidence, and instead appealing to “Logic” you jumped to a very common sense, but also very wrong conclusion.

          • Jeff See

            You answer to logic every moment of every day, until you cease to exist. Your ignorance does not affect that, regardless of what you believe.

            By changing the argument, you moved the goal posts, and even then, did so in error; the doorway requires logical conclusions, in order to be successfully breached. Your straw-men did not eliminate that.

            Logic gave you the means to reply to an internet comment section. Logic provides the technology you enjoy, the house you live in, and food you eat. You can choose to ignore it; in fact, you’ve proven quite adept at ignoring it to convince yourself of the illogical. That doesn’t change reality.

            Seriously though, that’s enough. Continue to reply; in fact, I’m confident you will. I’m done with trying to communicate with you, however. Your willingness to ignore even the most basic aspects of reality, is simply too great a barrier to overcome, and eliminates the possibility of reasonable discourse.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “You answer to logic every moment of every day, until you cease to exist. ”

            Not your logic. I answer to Natural Law, yes, but your logic is only a dim model of natural law, and a largely inaccurate one at that.

            “By changing the argument, you moved the goal posts,”

            I never changed the argument. My initial statement was that atheists are not evidence bound, and fail to consider all the evidence available. Your door example proved my point, you failed to consider all the forms of doors that the person passing through does *not* need to open.

            There was no straw man, the argument stayed exactly the same, and you walked directly into the doorjam. That must hurt- and thus you respond with:
            “Logic gave you the means to reply to an internet comment section.”

            But not YOUR logic. If we depended on your logic for software engineering, instead of entering comments, I’d be entering bugs into the webserver log file.

            My point isn’t that Logic is flawed, it is that Atheists use Logic and reductionist arguments incorrectly, and thus model the world wrong. Or to put it more succinctly, atheists are not evidence based.

            “Seriously though, that’s enough. Continue to reply; in fact, I’m confident you will. I’m done with trying to communicate with you, however. Your willingness to ignore even the most basic aspects of reality, is simply too great a barrier to overcome, and eliminates the possibility of reasonable discourse.”

            It was enough before your first reply that failed to understand my point: that your view of reality is so deeply flawed, due to ignorance of evidence, that you make incorrect statements that cannot be trusted.

  • oregon nurse

    Do you think it’s wise for Catholics to be making arguments that call out just how many contraceptives Hobby Lobby does cover? You are not the only one I’ve seen doing this.

    • Martha Wrightis

      we don’t hide the truth like so many other groups do.

      • oregon nurse

        My point is why should Catholics be pointing out the media errors re: the Hobby Lobby case when Catholic businesses will hopefully be able to use this ruling to refuse payment of all contraception. I mean, what are we trying to accomplish here? Shouldn’t Catholics be hoping the media is right on their concerns that this ruling will extend to all contraception?

        • sez

          We aren’t afraid of the truth. Even when it doesn’t help our cause.

  • captcrisis

    “The only contraceptives which Hobby Lobby’s owners specifically refused to provide were Plan
    B, which is also known as the “morning after pill”; Ella, another
    emergency contraceptive; Copper Intrauterine Device; and IUD with
    progestin. All of these forms of birth control can, in some instances,
    cause abortion or are themselves akin to abortion.”

    Time to withdraw this post and admit that they’re probably right. On Tuesday the Supreme Court opened the door to applying the decision to ANY kind of birth control. See http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/3-female-justices-dissent-in-first-post-hobby-lobby-contraception-case

  • iris

    “Allowing employers to decide what kind of birth control an employee can use…”

    That right there is the biggest lie of all. The ruling doesn’t even allow the employer to decide that an employee can’t use abortifacients. Any employee can still use whatever evil drug/device they want. The employer just isn’t being forced to pay for it. These people are truly their father’s sons, for their is no truth in him either.

    • iris

      *there

      Oh, for an edit button.

    • Andy

      Except that SCOTUS has issued a statement saying that the ruling includes all contraception.

      • BlM

        You should re-read Iris’s post and reply to the actual argument: no matter if the Supreme Court included all, some, or no contraceptives, the women are free to buy them with their own money. The ruling does not restrict that freedom.

        • Andy

          I am trying to make sure that all facts are known – I agree that the decision in theory doesn’t allow for employers telling employees what they can use – yet. And by extension HL can now say we will not allow our insurance to pay for any contraceptions. Therein lies the problem the SCOTUS is providing corporations with more an more power and removing it from us.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Where does the SCOTUS decision say that a woman can’t buy contraception with her own money? I did the math. Even with high rate interest cards- EVERY form of contraception works out to less than $9/month. Some of the longer term ones work out to $2/month over the life of the contraception.

          • Andy

            I was clarifying what the court said, not commenting on cost. I also expressed a concern about where this decision might lead. Please read carefully.

          • asmondius

            Hey, it might rain tomorrow.

          • kenofken

            If you believe those figures, you haven’t gone into a pharmacy in 20 years. My wife’s pills – longtime generic – are $60 a month. They are not all interchangeable. Some people can do well on the dirt cheap formulations, others not. IUDs are $500 plus doctors visit, every few years.

            Let’s also drop the charade that this fight is ultimately over whose money gets spent. The end game of the pro-life movement is to de-legitimize and ban/radically reduce access to birth control for everyone. They blocked access to Plan B for years through political machinations. That had nothing to do with employer’s rights or insurance money. Adult women willing to spend their own money were denied access. Pro-lifers, at least the strongest currents in the movement, have defined essentially all medication forms of birth control as abortifacients. They mean to outlaw them, eventually. They have shown that through the push for “personhood/life begins at conception” state law initiatives.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Why are you going to a normal pharmacy for something that is on Walgreen’s $4 list?

          • asmondius

            Does not wish to mix with the sweaty masses.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Actually- very likely yes. It’s amazing how much classism you find when you scratch the surface.

          • Douglas Pearson

            Life does begin at conception… that’s simply a scientific reality.

          • William Neal

            Support and Sign “The Life at Conception Act”. Help save the lives of 4000 innocent lives that are killed every day in the US alone. Since the legalization of abortion on demand, over 65 million innocent lives has been murdered. These innocents are being eliminated and killed because they are an inconvenience.

            I had to modify and break up the link due to “censorship” and “moderation”. go to “national pro life alliance” at that com address and then look up (rlacys petition)

          • jess

            I hope you plan on raising your taxes 10 fold to pay for foster homes and food s stamps and welfare for unwanted children that could have been prevented by birth control and education. Moron. People like you make me wish hell existed. pro-choicepro-choice you ignorant ignorant ignorant MAN.. Ladies start standing up for yourselves!

          • asmondius

            Yes, IUD’s cost $500 but they last for several years. A 5-year life works out to 8.33 per month.

          • jess

            UP TO 5 years and that’s if you don’t have complications. Plus check ups. will they pay for the doctor visit or no because they know you have birth control they don’t agree with. And who has $500 up front, working on minimum wage. Get a clue. Catholicism is Christianity are ruining our country from protection of freedom of religion and demeaning women daily. We are people. Corporations are NOT.

          • Sharon bourassa

            Stay out of my Catholicism Andy. It trumps civil rights. The govt can pay for abortifacients and sterilization. My Jesus is against killing. I lost two grandchildren to abortion. Two souls I will never know. It nearly killed me.

          • Andy

            I didn’t know you owned Catholicism – when did you buy it. My comment dealt with the SCOTUS decision, not the Catholic Church. For your loss I am sorry. For your attack I will forgive. For not reading what I wrote I wonder.

          • irena mangone

            Sharon if you read Heaven is for real. Your grandchildren will be waiting for you n Heaven. God bless you

          • Jeff See

            Your imaginary friend does not trump the rights of real, living people, and neither do corporations, nor tissue. And your emotions do not trump fact.

          • Faustina11

            Perhaps the FFRF folks can join the black helicopter types living their fearful lives in the wilderness.

          • asmondius

            Instead of bullets and MRE rations, they’ll be stockpiling contraceptives.

          • Douglas Pearson

            How does allowing Hobby Lobby to make a decision about what benefits it offers limit my personal freedom in any way? I don’t have to work there, or shop there or agree with them.

          • Andy

            The HL decision, plus several others is giving corporations the rights of humans. A corporation us a legal entity, not a person – so corporations now have the right of free speech or to use their money in elections in an unlimited fashion, it is now harder to sue corporations, but easier to sue individuals. I was not referring to working at HL, I was speaking to the growing oligarchy in the US. I agree with the HL end result, not the way the court got there.

          • Douglas Pearson

            How would you have liked to see the decision written so as to preserve religious liberty without the HL corporation having the right to exercise that liberty? I hope the way I have written my question is not taken to be sarcastic, I am genuinely curious to know how you would have liked to see this unfold. Thanks.

          • Andy

            Your question was not sarcastic, and thank you for asking it. My concern comes from what I see as a rising plutarchracy or oligarchy in the US,and so I am not sure this is a religious liberty concern, for HL. For Catholic Charities, as an example I wonder as well. For the little Sisters of the Poor, it is religious liberty. I think that when a private entity receives something from the public and gains an advantage because what is given, then the private entity becomes public and is bounded by public rules – thus my concern about the HL decision. To Catholic Charities – taking a grant to perform a public task is not the same thing as HL being incorporated. For Catholic Charities to meet some level of accommodation about who is served is not an infringement, being told who to hire may be. To answer your question, I would have like the decision to offer a way for entities to demonstrate how an act violate religious freedom. This decision did not do that and so now we are left with guessing and to my mind giving corporations more rights than individuals.

          • Douglas Pearson

            I am more sympathetic to your Catholic Charities example. I think that if Catholic Charities takes federal money they should only do so with the explicit understanding that it will not be used for anything that violates a teaching of the Church and that it will not be grounds for compelling Catholic Charities to do anything that would violate Church teaching… if that limited the money received, so be it.

            The little Sisters of the Poor obviously are religious but your concerns about HL should cause you to be concerned about them as well. They are incorporated as a non-profit and have the federal designation as a 501 c3. They have received this from the public and it provides an advantage.

            Thanks for the conversation, I pray your Independence day was blessed.

          • jess

            Have you not heard of our judicial system? This judgement sets a precedent that lawyers use to decide further cases…… It doesn’t stop with hobby lobby. And how ignorant of you to only think of yourself. You only understand the ramifications when it hits your door and the supreme Court tyranny will find you.

          • Douglas Pearson

            You seem to like saying disparaging things about people that you don’t agree with but you find it difficult to actually make an argument apparently.

            How exactly do think this decision impedes your liberty?

          • Joseph Lammers

            All it says is that the employer cannot be forced to actually subsidize it. If the employee wants to spend her money on something after she is paid, the employer has no control over that. Let me make it perfectly clear: If you work for me and I refuse to directly buy something for you, I am not “restricting” your freedom in any sense. After I pay you I have no say over how you spend your paycheck.

          • Andy

            If I work for you and you refuse to buy something for me you are not restricting my freedom – interesting. How about this, if the law says you should and as an individual you say no, I agree. However, Hobby Lobby is not an individual, it is a corporation, and the Green family established it as such to take advantage of the rights and so on that corporations have. SCOTUS in a series of decisions is making or giving corporations more and more Hunan rights, and removing many legal restraints designed to keep us from the oligarchy that is growing. I do not agree with the ad, but I do worry about where our country us headed in terms of our republic.

          • asmondius

            I like the feeling of entitlement expressed here. ‘Freedom’ is based upon not having to take care of yourself but demanding that others do so.

          • Andy

            Entitlement – like the one you have to ignore what I wrote – I am writing about the decision giving corporations greater human rights as people and not responsibility.

          • asmondius

            Yet you want the corporation to be your Mommy and buy contraceptives for you. Seems a tad hypocritical.

          • Andy

            Please read what I write – I didn’t say that – I wrote about long term consequences of the decision in terms of granting corporations greater powers – that may not square with what you wanted me to have said – by the way I don’t use contraceptives, nor does my wife – your remark demonstrates why people reject what you write and say.

        • Asemodeus

          ” The ruling does not restrict that freedom.”

          It does, actually. Health insurance through your work is a earned entitlement. You worked for it, and you are entitled to it, regardless of what crazy ideals your boss may have on it.

          What you are basically arguing is that any boss should be allowed to mandate what can and cannot be spent with a workers paycheck, since that money was originally theirs. Health insurance is a extension of the paycheck.

  • bluesuede

    This lying ad is inciting headline-only-readers who only read the headlines for the complete story and can’t be convinced otherwise.

    It could be that there is something more sinister going on here. It could mean that the repeal of the RFRA has always been the main target. Once they sink their fangs into the jugular, they won’t let go until it quits squirming.

    If RFRA is repealed, there will be no protection for religious freedom in this country.

  • standtall909

    ‘Lucifer must be laughing…………’ along with possibly Margaret Sanger herself. I wouldn’t doubt they’re having a good ol time…………………together at last.

  • Gerald Donahue

    If you want to live your life truly free, BUY YOUR OWN CONTRACETIVES & PAY FOR YOU OWN ABORTIONS.

    • April Spring

      Right on! YOUR FERTILITY IS NOT A DISEASE. If it is your “choice” Liberal, pay for it yourself. If it’s your “choice” then pay for your own damnation. It it’s your “choice” then pay for your own ticket to HELL! If it’s your “choice” to kill your own offspring then pay the hit man (the abortionist) yourself. I am not going to become an accomplice to your MURDER!

  • Mal

    Some so-called civil liberties are being treated as Dogma by certain activists.

  • Magdalene

    intolerant bigots!

    • April Spring

      Since you believe in a “choice” to kill your own offspring. I also have a “choice” to not pay for your murder.

  • fredx2

    The ad urges you to read Marci Hamilton’s brief in the Hobby Lobby case. Marci Hamilton is one of those activist professors who demean the profession. After she wrote her book, one of the real Constitutional scholars who is respected throughout the country, Douglas Laycock took the very unusual step of publishing an article in the Michigan Law Review, stating that

    Occasional errors are inevitable, but here the extraordinary number of errors, often with reference to famous cases and basic doctrines, implies a reckless disregard for truth. I document these errors for a reason. No one should cite this book. No one should rely on it for any purpose …

    Its many footnotes offer the patina of scholarship, but there is no substance of scholarship. This book is unworthy of the Cambridge University Press and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

    Atheists seem to have trouble telling the truth. The ad lies in so many ways.

  • Tom Harris

    Wow, this is so freakin anti-Catholic shit. Whens the shooting start? I wonder what the ADL would be doing and the Jewish Lobby if Jewish were placed where Catholic is? Holy shit, all hell would break out and The New York Times would have its ass dragged across every news program in America as being anti-semitic. Anybody know were these owners of The New York Times lives so people can show up at their door step and show them what they think of their hatred. If so publish it so people can track these criminals down.

    • Jim Dailey

      You are the first poster I have seen that has addressed the core issue – that of the New York Times to selectively publish and promote absolute filthy bigoted garbage, and use it’s “impact factor” to put a veneer of truth and respectability on what is essentially anti-Catholic propaganda.

      Margaret Sanger was a racist – and in many ways worse than ANY KKK skinhead dope walking around spouting neo-Nazi slogans. She actually advocated the extermination of black people – and her brain child – Planned Parenthood – which is supported by tax dollars – was her mechanism for doing so. She was a scummy, filthy hate monger – but s and ironically if you tried to run an ad with say – David Duke – as it’s chief hero, you would get the proposed ad as far as the nearest trash can.

      But let’s delve deeper into the dirty fishwrap New York Times, shall we? These are the same people to run an anti-Catholic screed (It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church – March 9, 2012 – paid for by these same Freedom from religion creeps) and then REFUSED to run an ad from the Catholic League which merely posted “Islam” or “Muslim” in place of the word “Catholic”. NYT reasoning? The ad would be “offensive”!!!

      The New York Times is published and chaired by Arthur Ochs Sulzberger.You can likley find him idling away the afternoons in a beachfront mansion in the Hamptons on Long Island, enjoying the profits of publishing hatred.

      • PGMGN

        Margaret Sanger, if I’m not mistaken, openly advocated against abortion in favor of contraception. So now we have deluded individuals using Margaret Sanger who, in what she vocalized as a means to push for contraception, demonized abortion only to now be put up as a poster child for abortion inducing drugs.

        And yes, she was racist.

        • Jim Dailey

          From the mouth of Margaret Sanger:

          The
          campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is
          practically identical with the final aims of eugenics…. We are convinced
          that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come ‘from
          within.’ That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not
          imposed from without

          … a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive
          functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her
          child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is
          her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether
          she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if
          she chooses to become a mother… Only upon a free, self-determining
          motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment. ”

          THIS is the poster child the New York Times allows in a FULL PAGE AD?

          • John D

            I have read that she actually came from a Catholic background. Whether a practicing Catholic family or not , who knows? As a Catholic myself that is a shame. But she was an open admirier of Adolf Hitler and so one must wonder, was she , like Hitler (and Stalin for that matter) possessed by the devil? This is no jokeing matter because the chief exorcist of Rome, Fr. Gabriel amorth has claimed that both Hitler and Stalin were possessed.

          • bluesuede

            Ex-Catholics can be some of the the biggest enemies to Catholicism.

          • PGMGN

            You are correct, bluesude. Only the real problem is many of these so-called former ‘Catholics’ never really possessed the Catholic Faith or any true understanding thereof. (Much like CINOS who seek to change the Church based upon how they like to live life.) I think much of their rage is because they just never got it and resent the fact that they have not received the gift of understanding. Especially difficult for those who consider themselves highly educated and intellectual.

          • Ande

            The old copout. “Then you never really were… (insert religion here)”.

          • PGMGN

            Great soundbite, Ande, the whole ‘copout’ line, but you’re not really doing anything save copping out with a one liner that says zip.

          • Ande

            It’s just all garbage. That’s all you all do is make excuses for yourselves and each other. The one liner is true.

          • PGMGN

            You seem to be attempting to make an excuse for your own laziness, Ande. Look in the mirror and seek the truth behind your own excuses.

          • Jim Dailey

            Margaret Sanger was a pig, no doubt. But she is a dead pig, and is hopefully spending lots of time with one of her pig buddies, Hitler. Our forefathers knew how to deal with these pigs, and our forefathers successfully limited the damage these pigs did.
            It is up to us to confront the greedy, disgusting pigs at the New York Times, and to limit the damage they are doing to us as Catholics and to our children and grandchildren.
            Arthur Ochs Sulzberger is the modern equivalent of Joseph Goebbels and we must confront this evil as soon as possible and as definitively as possible.

          • irena mangone

            Calling these people pigs is insulting pigs.

          • Jim Dailey

            You are right. Apologies to Wilbur. ; )

          • William Neal

            Once you are baptised Catholic, you are forever Catholic. You can leave the Church, use birth control, have an abortion, commit murder, etc,, but you will always be a Catholic. You may be excommunicated by your own actions for having an abortion, or by teaching falsehood about the Church and doctrinal error, abuse of the Pope, or by denial of the Christian faith, and desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Even through excommunication, the person remains a Catholic by the effects of Baptism. Excommunications are reversible. The primary reason for excommunication is the hope that the person comes to repentance and back into communion with God, his Church and the faithful.

          • asmondius

            Excommunication has been described as ‘chemo for the Catholic soul’.

          • PGMGN

            Jim,

            My point wasn’t to say that Margaret Sanger was pro life. No. My point was to indicate that she herself positioned herself as believing abortion to be horrible so as to PROMOTE contraception. Based on the following:

            “The real alternative to birth control is abortion,” wrote Dean Inge, [Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London].
            Margaret Sanger’s response:
            “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring isdangerous and vicious. [Emphasis added] I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life. [Source: Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope," 1931, Margaret Sanger Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College MSM S71-243.]

            The above words of Margaret Sanger is why it is so absurd to me that those who are pro-anything goes: contraception, sterilization, abortion etc are using this woman as their poster girl.

          • William Neal

            Either one or the other, they all are the same. They prevent the chance of life, the development of life, and completely destroy life.

          • PGMGN

            William, you are correct in that. My point was not to say that one is better than the other or to advocate for contraception.

            But it is absurd that those who promote abortion and then say that ‘we do not know when life begins’ would use Margaret Sanger who, when trying to warm the public up to butchering its own children, actually called out abortion for what it is – killing a child. In other words, the so called ‘followers’ of Margaret Sanger negate her own proclamation about abortion. And that, too, is true, William.

            God bless.

          • William Neal

            And I think the most sickening part of the SCOTUS and Roe v Wade is that (Norma McCorvey) Jane Roe, never had an abortion. By the time a decision was rendered in the case, the child to be aborted had been born and had already been adopted by another family.

            In a recent interview, As Roe v. Wade and its allowance for unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy, the woman behind the infamous Supreme Court case has pledged her life to overturning it.

            In her interview, Norma McCorvey never wanted an abortion — she was seeking a divorce from her husband — but young, pro-abortion feminist attorney Sarah Weddington used McCorvey’s case as a means of attempting to overturn Texas’ law making most abortions illegal. Weddington took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which invalidated every pro-life state law in the nation protecting unborn children and the rest is history.

          • PGMGN

            Thank you for posting this, William. Many ‘progressives’ are completely ignorant of the fact that their so-called heartstrings and/or core of right and haha justice are being used, plucked, and played like the Devil went down to Georgia when it comes to pushing social agendas.

            These progressive advocates like ‘Sarah Weddington’ are just socialist ambulance chasers that care nothing of their supposed ‘poor victim’, but rather victimize these individuals further and then dump them or shut them up when they are no longer useful.

            Why folks can’t realize that they are just being USED is beyond me. Planned Parenthood is nothing but a farming tool to separate the sheep from the true farmers (God/Parents), overstimulate them, indiscriminately breed them, and then reap the profits off the product. Even on a secular level, the practice is degrading to the human being and uncaring as the ‘wounded’ animal is then discarded in favor of the fresh new crop of breeders. It’s vile on so many levels.

          • Jim Dailey

            PGMGN
            I think we both agree that holding out the racist pro-eugenics Margaret Sanger as your spokesperson for freedom pretty much means you would also be stupid enough to idolize – hmmm… Joseph Stalin? Nathan Bedford Forrest? Adolph Hitler?

          • PGMGN

            Exactly, Jim. For when those pro-Sanger folks reach a certain age and /or incapacity, they will then be on the undesirable hit list. And oh, how the tune will change then.
            I don’t see anybody lining up for extermination for the sake of saving the earth or improving the global carbon footprint.

            Somehow I cannot imagine Nancy Pelosi, having been put on the past-her-usefulness-stage, claiming that the debate on euthanasia is sacred ground. Or Elizabeth Warren claiming that the precepts that would see her strapped down and dismembered or given a poison bath are somehow ‘vague’. Everything would suddenly, miraculously, become crystal clear and FAST.

          • Jim Dailey

            PGMGN –
            It is too bad you can’t imagine the scenarios you mentioned. I just did, and I enjoyed them very much! (Going to Confession for that one)

          • PGMGN

            Sorry for putting you in the occasion, Jim.

            Even so, envisioning justice being done and/or mentally carrying a situation to its logical conclusion is no sin. For even though some may be asking for the punishments imagined, they would still likely receive your defense and support if they asked for mercy. Unlike the poor innocents who receive no mercy from them now.

  • HigherCalling

    There is no liberty, civil or otherwise, without truth. Real liberty demands truth. It is the truth, after all, that makes and keeps us free. Contraception is a lie introduced into perhaps the greatest truth of human life. The negative consequences connected with accepting a lie, especially the lie and cowardice of contraception, are inescapable. The acceptance of contraception is organically linked to the precipitous fall in sexual morality, contributing significantly to the Culture of Death. Lies beget lies. Cowardice begets cowardice.

    Claiming that the “All-male, all-Roman Catholic majority on the Supreme Court” put religious dogma over civil liberties is laughable. If the Catholic justices on the Supreme Court were to place Catholic teaching over Liberalism, Obamacare (and dozens of other violations of Catholic and Natural Law) would have been unequivocally shot down last summer. The NY Times, ever advancing modern error, rejects the very means that is indispensable for producing what they so ardently desire. Liberalism smugly shuns truth and then expects liberty to flourish in a barren desert. It is Liberalism, not right dogma, that ends in tyranny. But print the word “Dogma” and the Liberal audience sheepishly applauds. If only Catholic dogma trumped false liberty there would be hope for our nation. Here is ‘dogma’ properly understood:

    “The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. …Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.” — (GK Chesterton, Heretics)

    • John D

      So well said! I add only this: It is a well known fact that the majority of N.Y. Times editors are homosexuals. Is anything else a surprise from that perverted rag?

      • Ande

        A religious homophobe. How very shocking. Then you people wonder why decent people like me want your fairytales ended.

        • bluesuede

          If it is truth, then it is not a fairy tale Ande.

          • Ande

            You’re right, the truth is not a fairytale. Exactly. The truth is is that religion is dividing, immoral, hateful and based on imagination.

          • bluesuede

            That is not truth Ande, that is opinion.

          • Ande

            When I get back to my laptop, I will show you the proof.

          • Ande

            Also, I have to wonder, are you condoning the homophobia of John D.? You haven’t mentioned it.

          • bluesuede

            Again, you wonder wrong and are biased in your opinions and insulting in your willingness to laugh at Christians for being faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          • Ande

            So do you condone John D.’s homophobia or not?

          • bluesuede

            Ande, I will not go for the bait.

          • Ande

            You mean: I will not openly say whether or not I believe it is moral to be homophobic.

          • bluesuede

            You’re words. Have a nice day Ande.

          • Ande

            I didn’t hear any one of you call him out.

          • Ande

            I didn’t hear any one of you call John D. on his homophobia.

        • asmondius

          Ah, so your true motivation seeps out under the door.
          Are you a homosexual, or a trans person in denial?

          • Ande

            Hahaha, you kill me! Seriously, the odds are better that your priest is a homosexual lol.

  • http://abortionprophecy.wordpress.com TreeOfLifeSword

    I often wonder if those who support abortion will have to witness EVERY ABORTION that ever took place on the earth for all of eternity.
    And I bet it’s called ‘THE BOOK OF LIFE’ For a reason…

    • ann ketzlick

      I often imagine that they will hear the cries of those babies for all eternity.

  • Anon from australia

    Ridiculous argument! Why should employers have to provide any contraception at all???? In Australia each person is responsible for their own choices and associated costs! This expectation by this ridiculous & rather pointless organisation thAt their employer should foot the bill for the choices in their private lives is beyond reason!!! And then to insist that abortion pills be paid for by employers is even more ridiculous – I’m speechless

    • Donalbain

      No, they are not. Healthcare is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, including abortion and contraception.

  • Hank

    Kathy, I completely agree that this add may be described as a “political screed,” but I couldn’t actually find the “Blatant untruth” you refer to. You offer us this quotation from the advertisement: Is this supposed to be where the blatant untruth is expressed?

    “Allowing employers to decide what kind of birth control an employee
    can use is not, as the Supreme Court ruled, an ‘exercise of religion.’
    It is an exercise of tyranny. Employers should have no right to impose
    their religious beliefs upon workers,”

    You go on to itemize the forms of birth control Hobby Lobby will provide for its employees, but the fact that they will provide some, and not all, of the medically
    approved methods of contraception is the point of the
    objection: “employers decide what kind of birth control an employee can use.”

    Or am I missing something?

    • PGMGN

      Employers are not deciding what kind of birth control an employee ‘can’ use. They are choosing which benefits they will offer. An employee can decide they want to work elsewhere or buy those items not offered elsewhere.

      Or are you suggesting that employees are being ‘forced’ to work for Hobby Lobby?

      We may be ‘free’ in principle, but the mindset is more and more than of slaves incapable of choosing.

      • Hank

        Thanks, PGMGN. No, of course I don’t think anyone is being forced into working for Hobby Lobby. My impression is that they are quite good employers, and that this is due to their commitment to living the principles of their faith. I also understand that employees wanting one of the forms of birth control not covered are free to get it by other means. If that was the blatant untruth Kathy was referring to, I missed it. I Thought she had something else in mind, and was curious what it might be.

        Happy Independence Day.

        • PGMGN

          Happy Independence Day to you, too, Hank.

          That said, blatant untruths can also be ascribed to omitting proper context so as to mislead. Or perhaps it should be blatant misrepresentations – the motive being to promote that which is false. Lying.

          i.e. Newsflash: Holy Scripture admits, “…there is NO God!!!” By leaving out the context, that it is, ‘the fool’ who says, there is no God,’ the obvious intent of the publisher/writer is to deceive or LIE.

          • Hank

            I appreciate your taking the time to explain. As others have often pointed out, my thinking is not the stuff of Nobel Prizes.

          • PGMGN

            Anytime, Hank. As to Nobel Prize thinking, don’t worry. Plain logic is far better. Too many ‘Nobel Prize’ winners use their brains to foist that which is illogical and detrimental under the guise of deep thought. Bunch of schlock is the word.

          • William Neal

            Hank. I’m lucky to get an honorable mention when it comes to awards and prizes. *sigh*

          • Jim Dailey

            Sorry for going way off topic here, but I am pretty sure Nobel was a murderous weasel arms-dealer who happily sold his technology to the Confederacy in the Civil war and went on to murder his brother to get control of his company. I just find it funny that the same crowd that would cite the racist Sanger as some icon of freedom cites the greedy Nobel as some icon of “peace”.
            Also, happy to be wrong on Nobel. Basically my “source” is Wikipedia.

    • John D

      Yes Hank, you are missing something…about 1 1/2 of your 2 frontal lobes……

    • ClassicalTeacher

      Um….how about employees paying for their own CHOICES???? Ridiculous propaganda from a marxist-communist rag.

    • ucfengr

      The Court didn’t rule that employers could “decide what kind of birth control an employee can use”. The Court ruled that employers have the right to decide which they will pay for. That’s the blatant lie.

    • William Neal

      Why should I as a male have to buy insurance that pays for contraception and birth control? Or pap smears and hysterectomies?
      I would advise any corporation that is forced to offer any method of birth control against their moral convictions and faith, to cancel the company’s insurance completely and send the employees to the obamacare/aca line to get insurance.

  • Jfd6400

    What a sick demented newspaper! Honoring that disgusting woman and attacking most of America. Good for you NY Times!! Bravo!! Alienate more people because its not like your making tons of money from your rag. Liberals are the dumbest people on earth!!

  • donna

    this is what happens when people get accustomed to belief they have some right to insist that others are responsible for their health care. There is no such thing as a right to health care which is nothing more than picking some other persons pocket to satisfy one’s needs. If someone wishes to purchase these products let them do so. I think almost all listed above are medically dangerous (check out WHO on topic) and I see no reason for their use. if one is this hysterical about unwanted pregnancy let them live a chaste life. also very inexpensive condoms are available everywhere and they also should not be covered on health care as it has nothing to do with one’s health.

    • kenofken

      I agree that condoms don’t need insurance coverage, but they have “nothing to do with one’s health”…. Have you been stationed off-planet since 1981?

      • asmondius

        Put one on and call me in the morning.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      I agree donna. Obamacare itself should have been unconstitutional. Period. Then we wouldn’t be arguing over who has to pay for what.

  • Maggie

    If people want to use contraception, then they should pay for it themselves. It should not be something that is offered through any ‘health’ insurance plan. It means taking responsibility for one’s actions and self. And any Catholic worth their salt should certainly know all about the truth about contraception by now. There are more than a few Catholic news papers, etc. that have pointed out the real truth. Also shame on that newspaper as well. But then, they have never been any good and are totally biased. Why waste time buying or reading anything that comes from that garbage. However, if one does, then write them a huge commentary back and tell it like it is supposed to be. Maybe sue them too for defamation of character.

    • Jenn

      Then health insurance should not cover cholesterol medicine. People should know how and what to eat. Blood pressure medication as well since in most cases it can be controlled with diet and exercise. In fact I should not have to pay for Medicare or social security. You knew you were going to get old and should have planned better. And for those who want to argue with this, everything seniors paid into SS is long gone yet i have to pay into a system that wont exsist when its my turn. Erectile dysfunction drugs should not be covered. Lap band surgeries and other procedures that could have been avoided should not be covered.

  • Martha Wrightis

    And where is the outrage fron NY’s Cardinal Dolan?

    • William Neal

      The Church is and always has stated its opposition to birth control and abortion, and to the defense of life, from conception to natural death. Her teachings on birth control, contraception, sterilization, and abortion are well known and understood. The evil of abortion, the murder and killing of the Holy Innocents, needs no defense.
      “We pray for the innocent. We pray for the defense of life from conception to natural death. The Church offers its prayers for the defeat of this evil and when the time comes, we leave all judgement to God and his mercy.”

      That one basic comment would be enough for a full page ad and reply. It would stir the fires of hell and the fires of hate within the pro-death, pro-abortion lovers and those who hate and despise the Church.

  • Babagranny

    Have you looked at some of the ads that appear on THIS page? And, will someone be answering this NYT ad with an equally bold statement of facts?

    • kathyschiffer

      Babagranny, If you see something offensive being advertised on my page, would you please let me know? Patheos has been very responsive on those rare occasions when something inappropriate shows up in the advertising feed–and they’ve blocked certain ads on request. I know we need advertising, but I want the advertising on “Seasons of Grace” to reflect my own values. Thanks!

      • Babagranny

        The ads change frequently, so it’s hard to catch them, but some of them are just so misleading, sometimes hateful, and kind of stupid. I haven’t seen any that promote immorality yet, but I don’t click on any of them because I would bombarded with their stuff. But you probably look at the page more than I do. I’m happy to hear that they have been responsive to you for removals.

    • Jim Dailey

      Babagranny, as I pointed out above, in Mach 2012 the NYT published another anti-Catholic screed from this same hate group “It’s time to leave the Catholic Church”.
      The ad was a vitriolic, nasty piece of garbage. If you like, I will dig it up and let you read it.
      The Catholic League responded by submitting and ad that ssentially copied the word “Muslim” or “Islam” in place of Catholic. The NYT REFUSED to publish it. I will leave it to you to wonder why.
      There is no responding to that bunch of bigots with facts. They will deny the truth – they have a long, long history of doing that, and they will claim “freedom of the press”. They are liars and they are scum.

      • Babagranny

        So we just let it stand as it is? Doesn’t that imply either acceptance or “no contest” especially to the many readers who don’t know the truth?

        • Jim Dailey

          Can you please expand your question? I do not know what you are asking.

        • William Neal

          Did not Pontius Pilate ask the same? “Truth! What is truth?”

  • Babagranny

    Before the ACA, all insurance companies had the power to decide what they would or would not pay for. Remember? Did anyone consider that to be someone’s tyranny. Yes. That’s one reason why we do have the ACA. Now we are only dealing with some exceptions because we have a constitutional right to practice our religion.

  • bluesuede

    Margaret Sanger clearly advocated eliminating the Black race through birth control and abortion. Shame NYT.

    • kenofken

      Before you get too high on that soapbox, it’s important to remember that Sanger’s ideas on race and eugenics were not some evil anomaly unique to her and proponents of birth control. They were the mainstream of scientific and political thought in America and most of the West up through the mid 20th Century and well past. We also tend to have a very selective memory when it comes to deciding whose racism should discredit our memory of them. Our nation’s founders were slavers, pure and simple. Abraham Lincoln, for most of his life, was as racist as any of his contemporaries, and in no way saw blacks as his equals. To this day, we consider the Rhodes Scholarship a very prestigious prize. It’s namesake and founder, Cecil Rhodes, was arguably the most accomplished white supremacist in history.

      • oregon nurse

        So, is that your backdoor way of showing support for Sanger?

        • kenofken

          It’s my front door way of showing support for the right of adults to make their own reproductive choices, especially as it regards contraception. In doing so, I can acknowledge Sanger’s contribution to that fight while repudiating her ideas on race and eugenics. I am also simply calling out the deception of the pro-life meme which pretends that Sanger’s racism was somehow unique to her or to her movement.

          • oregon nurse

            Gotcha. Like that similar secular liberal meme that pretends that priests are the only sexual abusers worth mentioning.

          • kenofken

            For my part as a secular liberal (though not an atheist), I believe all sexual abusers are worth mentioning and punishing equally. Within my own faith community, the pagan community, we are confronting the issue and confronting our own failures to take abuse seriously enough in our recent and distant past.

            I’ll name a couple of names: Kenny Klein, a fairly well known pagan musician and celebrity figure, who is facing charges of multiple counts of child pornography possession. More recently, the daughter of deceased author Marion Zimmer Bradley has come forward with allegations of horrible abuse her mother and late husband inflicted on her and other children for decades. There is debate whether Bradley was pagan or not at different times in her life, but she was an iconic figure as author of Mists of Avalon and other books modern pagans have identified with and enjoyed.

            The daughter’s allegations were not the first time the issue came to light. The abuse issues were raised shortly after Bradley’s death in 1999 and had been known or suspected for years before that. Because we do not have large authoritarian institutions, we do not have the history of institutional cover-up of abuse, but we have had our failings in that area, and it has prompted us to have some very serious and wide-ranging discussions on how to change that.

            You and I and our respective tribes are going to have deep and irreconcilable differences about theology and virtually all aspects of the culture war, but it does no one any good to make child abuse a political and cultural football. Every faith community and secular institutions have and continue to have their failings in dealing with this issue, and all of us should be able to agree on one point: It has to end.

          • bluesuede

            There’s hope for you yet kenofken.

            At least you don’t feel you have to resort to name calling only, like most liberals do when they run out of a defense for their views.
            To have the intelligence to admit what @oregon nurse said, that priests aren’t the only abusers running around out there. Not afraid to admit the truth is a beginning kenofken.

          • kenofken

            I’ve never proposed that priests were the only abusers running around. I don’t even believe that they abused at any appreciably different rate than any other profession.

            What made the Church abuse scandal a unique horror was the scale at which bishops covered up and actively enabled further abuse, and the blind deference of secular society which allowed it to happen. I see little evidence that the culture of secrecy and cover-up have changed among most bishops.

            Until it does, the many sensible and progressive policies put in place will be meaningless. I think – hope – the new pope has brought a fundamentally different approach to the issue. That has yet to be fully demonstrated.

          • bluesuede

            “Woe to him through whom scandal comes. ”
            The zero policy of tolerance for abuse and cover-up is in effect and it works. It will make the Church the safest place to be–the world is a different matter.

          • Ande

            The world is a terribly dangerous place to be, thanks to religion.

          • bluesuede

            Are you a troll Ande?

          • Ande

            Honestly, I don’t know how I ended up here! I was about to leave when I read too many of your enabling comments to each other and felt I could not hold my tongue in the face of such detrimental backpatting that you were all giving each other. It is difficult to ignore, so I didn’t.

          • bluesuede

            Like this website, I welcome honest, respectful discourse Ande.

          • asmondius

            For the right kinds of people – sure.

          • Ande

            I believe they do abuse at a higher rate. Here’s why: Their chosen profession fosters, encourages, and protects abusers, and every man who chooses this profession knows it.

          • bluesuede

            Ande you want to believe the worst about clergy, because you have already said how you “laugh” at Christians.

            You could say the same thing about the Boy Scouts, doctors, teachers, coaches and all those who have access to children Ande.
            People tend to protect their profession above their duty to report a crime—-all of them not just the clergy.

          • Ande

            No you couldn’t. It is known worldwide that if you want to abuse little boys and get away with it, go to work for the catholic church.

          • bluesuede

            That’s your biased opinion Ande. It is from an emotional root that is based on a dislike for Christianity.

          • Ande

            No. You got it wrong. Not surprising, considering you don’t know me. That is an informed, researched position that is based on an intimate understanding of religion, which has, in turn, led to an intense mistrust,distrust, and dislike of ALL religions.

          • bluesuede

            No Ande. You made a very crude and hateful comment that the moderator deleted. You cursed and said you laugh at Christians. Now, how does that make anything else you say believable?

          • Ande

            Deleted? Censored? Again, I am shocked that this could happen in such a religious place as this! It’s true, I said you all were f*cking hilarious. That you all have the same damaging imaginary friend is laughable to me. Why should that be deleted? I’ll tell you why, because your fragile psyches need to keep your enabling bubble in tact, and how can you do that if the real world intrudes? Only option? Delete the dissenting opinion. How long will this comment last, I wonder…..

          • bluesuede

            It is so typical for liberal/leftists to start throwing insults when they can’t defend their views.

          • Ande

            Please. If you’re so confident, why would my comment be deleted? You can’t handle the truth lol. Also, who said that I’m a liberal? There you go again, assuming. There’s a saying about that…..Anywayz, I am more than capable of defending my views, albeit it’s slow-going on my phone, which doesn’t always work properly. I digress, my point is that any opposing belief in scientific fact is unacceptable to you, and through that logic you turn yourselves into clowns, that I laugh at. You’ve done it to yourselves, now you are reaping the consequences of what you have sown.

          • PGMGN

            How true, bluesuede. How true.

          • asmondius

            Sayin’ bad words make me big!

          • PGMGN

            Ande, you accuse others of being wrong about you because they do not know you and yet you expect Catholics who know the Church to take your word for what the Church teaches when you do not know Her at all.

            Where’s the logic in that?

          • asmondius

            Can we see your posts on the imam blog?

          • William Neal

            Ande. Since you seem to be on an attack against the Catholic Church in regards to pedophia and sex abuse, actually having nothing to do with this article, I thought I would help you have a better idea of the problem on the other side of the fence.
            The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a study on pedophilia by clergy. At that time, two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children.

            And since most Americans are Protestants, the Catholic sex abuse scandal is a story about “those evil Catholics”, whereas the highlights of Protestant Pedophilia is a story about “oh no, not us”, which makes it less gratifying and more uncomfortable for protestants and probably yourself. What would your Grandma say?

            Of course, Protestant numbers are harder to come by, because the protestant denominations are less centralized than the Catholic Church. Many, perhaps most, Protestant churches are independent, (at least their ministers are), making reporting even harder and less likely to be discussed openly.

            The Associated Press reported recently that three insurance companies receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by….Protestant clergy,…. challenging the assumption that clergy sexual abuse is an exclusively Catholic problem that does not take place in other churches. The AP obtained figures on sex-abuse claims from three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in America–Church Mutual Insurance Company, GuideOne Insurance and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company

            If you want more detailed information by protestant denomination, go check out reformation.com

            The phenomenon of sexual abuse of minors in church settings is the story of sick human beings taking advantage of their position of moral authority to prey on the weak and vulnerable. There is no excusing pedophilia, child or sexual abuse by anyone, but especially by the clergy.

            Also, The John Jay Institute did do a study that showed that from 1950 to 2006 there were approximately 4500 US pedophile priest cases reported? If all these cases were proven to be legitimate, how does it correlate with the fact that there have been approximately 100,000 US Catholic priests during that time? 4500:100000 (c. 4.5%) If accurate, we’ve had a great many holy men of God.;)

            Let’s face it … the Catholic Church is a big target with big pockets. Most Protestant churches are individual corporations. And we all know about the infamous “building fund” in the protestant churches? In the Catholic Church, the diocese is the corporation, so it has a big bank account. When legal action is involved, the media focus on dollar amounts, and the Catholic Church has deep pockets because of its financial structure.

            Statistically, schools and scout troops and youth sports programs have a much greater incidence of abuse than any church. And Protestant churches have a greater incidence of abuse than Catholic churches. But the Catholic lawsuits are bigger. And that draws media attention.

            The Catholic Church has met often with many individuals, groups and churches regarding the sexual abuse crisis that occurred. The Church has met with nations and national leaders. The Church has called special councils with all its Bishops and Priests. The Church has offered many times its apologies for the hurt and pain and has also given offers of penance and change. The Church has universally apologized to the whole Catholic Church and its faithful. It has asked for forgiveness.

            Unfortunately, even with all its efforts and apologies for its recent errors and its acts of repentance and forgiveness, it will never be forgiven. The Church has now, for decades past, and even centuries past, made mistakes and asked for forgiveness but has yet to receive any. Our Church will for another century be apologizing and it will never be forgiven for recent events or even the Crusades.

          • asmondius

            er, Andy, it’s more like adolescent boys, not ‘little boys’.
            You know, the same predilection as your hero Harvey Milk had.

          • Ande

            This is because the church is worldwide, and can/does network to hide, transfer abusers, and enables future abuse by the same offenders.

          • bluesuede

            Get current with the changes. The Church has gotten rid of the pederast abusers and taken action to have zero tolerance for those who have hidden them. You are reporting old news and sticking with it.

          • Ande

            You need to do some research. If I wasn’t posting from my phone I could do it for you, unfortunately it is up to you to dig a little deeper and see past their propaganda.

          • kenofken

            http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2013/09/clergy-abuse/

            Is 2012 “old news” already? This hardly smelled of “zero tolerance” or a fundamental new approach to things. It was the same pattern we’ve seen since the worst of the crisis 30 and 40 years ago, only without any excuse of ignorance. This was a priest that was putting off five-alarm warning bells about his behavior. His superiors worked very hard to convince themselves it was no big deal, sweeping it under the rug until police and attorneys forced their hand to action.

          • bluesuede

            Anyone who quotes public radio is instantly known as a liberal/leftist bobblehead.

            It is difficult to get “the good ole boys” to rat on each other in any profession. Some men do tend to circle the wagons, clam up and then try put it all behind them real fast. Be patient, they’ll all be found out, this one did, didn’t he?

          • kenofken

            Bobblehead or no, the nuts and bolts of the story are the same as those reported by Fox News and others. Men and organizations do tend to circle the wagon, but the Church has had a solid quarter century of incredibly expensive lessons in why not to do that. They’ve paid over something like $3 billion. Probably much more. That’s just the dollar cost. The scandal de-converted Ireland and has completely gutted whatever moral authority the Church had in secular society anywhere in the West. In Wehmeyer’s case, his superiors had a couple of decades worth of guidelines and supposed institutional commitment from the highest levels to do the right thing. No one has ever been better positioned to know how and why to do the right thing proactively. They did not. Yeah, they did “find this one out” – after another victim had been created. I’m not terribly reassured by your “wait and it will all shake out eventually” method for confronting abuse in the church.

          • bluesuede

            If you find one cockroach, there will be others hiding. Scandal has cost the Church dearly. The faithful bear the brunt of it all. It has been predicted that there will be scandal and Church will have much to suffer.
            If these are the end times, as Jesus told St. Faustina when He offered us the last chance of His Divine Mercy before the end, after which time there will be no more time for mercy, but judgement. Then we are going to see the Church battered by more scandal and persecution.
            Yes, these sins are gravely wrong and need to be judged accordingly, they have enabled the Church to be a punching bag for all its enemies. Many will leave it, some will point a finger at it and some will mock it, others will join in the persecution and hammer it some more, but it will never be extinguished completely (we have the promise of Christ), but will be renewed, glorified and will triumph through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

          • asmondius

            Despite all of your protestatiobns –

            ‘I see little evidence that the culture of secrecy and cover-up have changed among most bishops.’

          • William Neal

            as soon as America and the world become dominated by islam, we won’t have to worry about this problem at all.

          • kenofken

            The difference between domination by Islam or conservative dominionist Christianity is only one of style and liturgy, not substance.

          • William Neal

            I was speaking of the pedophile problem. Under islam, there is no court, no hearings, no jail. Even if you are “accused” of such an evil, you are instantly beheaded. End of problem.

          • kenofken

            I don’t think they’d get a hell of a lot of due process or benefit of the doubt under a Christian theocracy either, not if it’s in any way informed by the attitudes toward women which you seem to be projecting here.

            Both the misogynistic branches of Christianity and Islam reserve vicious condemnation (and punishment) for women who fall short of men’s ideals of their morality, while more or less giving the men involved a free pass on their behavior. Whether we’re talking about physical safety or just plain human dignity, a woman’s life isn’t worth spit in either system if men decide she’s a “whore.”

            For all of its supposed obsession with virtuous living, conservative Islamic societies also foster some of the worst rape cultures on the planet. (Also a lot of pedophilia. Traditionalist Islamic areas are big on child brides). Officially non/pre/extra-marital sex simply doesn’t exist between “decent” people, so when it happens, even under the most brutal of circumstances, the woman is blamed. This was also the case in the “good old days” of Christian moralism in this country. Until very recently, men were presumed to have “rights” to their wives bodies, and defense attorneys could routinely use “blame the victim” defenses.

            Until the early 70s in Texas, it was legal for a man to kill his wife’s lover and her if caught in the act of adultery (but not the reverse). In Texas just TWO years ago, a jury let a guy skate for shooting and killing a prostitute he felt had ripped him off for $150. He was defending his property from theft, you see, and they figured she was trash anyway.

            Radical Islam is a more present danger than Christian theocracy in the foreseeable future, but when it comes down to the root attitudes toward women, I don’t see much daylight between the sort of society you would create and the one being created by that ISIS dude in Iraq.

          • William Neal

            I personally was referring to the pedophile problem in the “male” priesthood of the church. But you make it what you want.

          • William Neal

            please go up one comment a read it again. Nothing about women.

          • kenofken

            I was referring to the three or so other comments which define your opposition to contraception and promiscuity almost entirely as a problem of women being “whores.”

          • bluesuede

            You’re either ignorant of historical facts and information or are trying to be insulting.
            Civilization, especially Western civilization owes its civility to Christianity. Justice, peace, compassion, care, love and a society based on the common good, we have, thanks to the teachings of Christ and God.

            Liberal humanists make the mistake of believing that they can create a perfect world with perfect humans by just getting rid of anyone who disagrees with them. Instead, they create a tyrannical world of authoritarianism and unlivable laws, where each one of them is his own god.

            Only through God’s help, can we do good to each other, because without God, mankind is not loveable.

            The only thing we can agree on is, that, human beings are sinful and fallen short of their desired end. Christianity and salvation are from Jesus Christ and it’s built on the Judeo/Christian foundation formed by God.

            It is no real astounding act of revelation to be able to shine a light on man’s sinful and fallen nature kenofken. Try looking at the many good things people have done.

      • bluesuede

        Before you go any further, you are mistaken about most of your points.

        Margaret Sanger was one of the early female, pioneer, racist, abortion activists of our country that made any real headway in getting women to accept the killing of their offspring acceptable and without guilt, while being at the forefront of a movement that was supported by equally racist men.

        There is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln was racist at any time in his life. Prove it without citing any revisionist history.

        Rhodes Scholarship is a false front hiding an elitist agenda of population control. Clinton was a “Rhodes Scholar”.

        • kenofken

          “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

          Abraham Lincoln, in a speech delivered in Charleston, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858.

          That’s the real deal, unless you consider the National Park Service and curators of the Lincoln Home to be revisionist historians.

          • Jim Dailey

            Margaret Sanger was a racist creep, pure and simple. I do not care about your “mainstream thought” crap. She and Adolph Hitler were really on to something there, right, genius?

          • kenofken

            You don’t care about any historical fact which doesn’t serve your rhetoric.

            Let’s unpack the whole Hitler/prominent American history a bit further (to say nothing of the fact that half the British aristocracy admired Hitler until the war). Among American admirers of Hitler and Nazi Germany were William Randolph Hearst, Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford.

            Good Ole Hank deserves special mention. He was not just an American supporter of Hitler. He was THE American supporter of Hitler, nonpareil. His resume in that area is, to say the least, impressive. Underwrote the publication of half a million copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in addition to other gems such as his newspaper series “The International Jew:The World’s Foremost Problem.” He helped personally finance Hitler and his regime and supplied massive amounts of industrial material which would later be used against us, and humanity. Hitler and Henry were personal, mutual admirers of one another. Ford got a special mention in Mein Kampf. He was also awarded a Nazi medal, The Grand Cross of the German Eagle, in 1938. For all of her troubling associations with racial eugenecists, Sanger never met Hitler and certainly was no friend of his. She spoke out against the regime more than once and had her books burned by the Nazis in the early 30s.

            If the discussion really is rooted in moral outrage over American support of National Socalism, it’s a little curious why nobody here gave Henry Ford any mention. The answer of course is that you’re not interested in this period of history except as a cheap Godwin’s Law analogy to equate contraception and Nazism.

          • Jim Dailey

            Ummm – because it’s pretty obvious Henry Ford is not being cited as some big defender of freedom by the New York Times and by a bunch of baby murdering creeps.
            Incidentally, history-boy, Margaret Sanger herself was opposed to abortion, and basically had her whole schtick stolen by people like you that like to take suond-bites out of context.

          • kenofken

            This one issue of NYT aside, Henry Ford has much higher standing as an American icon than Margaret Sanger. If we were to poll people randomly on the streets of New York, or anywhere else in this country, I’d bet a majority of those who went to school in this country know who Henry Ford is. I’d also bet not 5 in 100 would recognize Sanger’s name. Her name carries no water at all outside of the militant ranks of the abortion debate. Sanger is not cited by the New York Times for anything. It was a paid ad by an advocacy group which cites one Sanger quote. The Times is well within its rights to run whatever ads it chooses. Everyone else has the right to speak against it.

            If Sanger was opposed to abortion, why is it that you all characterize her as Satan’s first-born daughter and Hitler’s true soul mate west of the Atlantic?

          • Jim Dailey

            Not sure why you keep mentioning Henry Ford.

            The fact that the New York Times took the ad in the first place besepeaks their endorsement of the bigoted FFRF and the racist Sanger. (If you recall the NYT took an ad from this same group (FFRF) on March 12, 2012 attacking Catholics, When the Catholic League tried to place a similar ad which basically substituted in the word “Muslim” for “Catholic”, the NYT suddenly deemed the ad “offensive”, and refused to post it.) Need I say more?
            Sanger is “Satan’s daughter” and “Hitlers true soul mate” (your phrases – but I do like them) since she was an enthusiastic supporter of both eugenics and sex outside of marriage. I am pretty sure you understood this already (the general Catholic disdain for Sanger and her viewpoint), and are posting truly rhetorical questions at this point. We both know that you can get far better and far more eloquent rhetoric from other people posting here.

          • bluesuede

            Lincoln NEVER says he favors slavery of another human being.

            Lincoln never owned a slave nor did he embrace those who accepted slavery as a moral right, nor did he fight a war with the South to keep slavery in place. No he made it a condition of victory over the South to set the Black race free and put a stop to slavery. In today’s political climate, could a president stop abortion? He’d have to fight a civil war first.

            You make the mistake of judging other places and times and political climate and culture like so many liberals do–by today’s standards and evolution of thought and progression of events. 60 years ago in this country, before the civil rights movement, Lincoln’s same words can be applied, because it took a fight, the civil rights movement to bring about a total change and it was slow in coming when you think of abolition of slavery to equal rights.

            You must admit that even in those days, it was very bold to be an abolitionist. It was political suicide and unheard of from a president.
            They faced the same hatred, misunderstanding and repression that today’s pro-life politicians do. People don’t change much–only time changes and now the shoe is on another foot.

            Ask yourself, wouldn’t this quote apply today if you replaced the words with pro-life or anti-abortion.

          • kenofken

            I happen to think very highly of Lincoln and believe that his views must be judged in the context of their time and take into account the evolution of his beliefs, and the actions which ultimately transcended some of those beliefs. This was never about a contention that Lincoln was a a horrible person or advocate of slavery.

            It was as challenge to the absurd idea that the anti-abortion movement scored some sort of a coup by finding racism in an early 20th Century historical figure and implying that this was somehow a unique failing to contraception advocates. You asserted “there was absolutely no evidence to suggest Lincoln was a racist at any time in his life.” That was a pathetically easy and irresistable target.

          • bluesuede

            You have not made your point with that erroneous assertion that Lincoln was racist.

          • kenofken

            So his own words stating the supremacy of the white race and supporting the categorical denial of ordinary civil rights and equality for black Americans doesn’t pass your bar for “racist”? Were you the guy who taught Clinton that the word “is” has many shades of nuance?

          • bluesuede

            It’s so easy to look back at any point in time, and put our 21st century spin on it. Oh, wait, let’s put that back only 60 years in America before civil rights.
            I am not a guy and now you are getting smarmy with the Clinton remark.
            It took an honest man to tell it like it was, not some phony who hides behind a false front of respectability and charms every voter to get what he wants.
            Lincoln spoke the words that explained the mindset up to that time—before there was any equality of the races or of women for that matter.

            Try to keep it in perspective.

          • William Neal

            Lincoln was a racist. It is really that simple. No need to compare then to now. His words are his to own.

          • bluesuede

            I strongly disagree.
            What is a racist?

          • William Neal

            bluesuede. You posted “There is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln was racist at any time in his life. Prove it without citing any revisionist history.”

            Now according to the quote that was provided to you in reply, it is very apparent Lincoln was a racist in his time. If you read his words at today’s “Essence Festival” in NOLA or at “The Apollo”, you would also find that most “negroes” would be very offended and find his statement very racist. Or read it on the Senate floor on Martin Luther King Jr’s holiday celebration and see what reaction you get about his words being racist.

            So you claim Lincoln was not a racist. So please explain your definition of “racist” and if you feel his words would be appropriate to speak towards “negroes” today.

          • bluesuede

            Racism is hatred, period. I don’t see that in Lincoln.

            If you are a hating racist, you don’t give someone their freedom.

            I base my opinion on the facts of Lincoln’s life, his writings, his actions. Not by the revisionists who want to trash every prominent American of the past who can’t defend themselves.

          • William Neal

            Getting back to the article, do you think Lincoln would have supported abortion, or birth control?

          • bluesuede

            I’m not going to be his judge. You already have decided that you know what went on in his head. Why do you need to ask?

          • William Neal

            I am not asking you to judge him bs, and I never claimed to know what went on in his head. I only repeated what he himself stated. His words were pretty much self explanatory on what he was thinking when he said them. Read his words again. That sir is racism as we define it today. So at his “prescribed time and the age he lived in” do you think he would have supported birth control or abortion?

          • bluesuede

            No, I don’t.
            You prove my point by saying, “…racism as we define it today”. I’ve been trying to tell you that we can’t measure everything people said from the past with the same definitions that we have now, because events can change a persons viewpoint.

            No one at the time would have understood or accepted equality of the races. But that doesn’t mean in time, they wouldn’t change their minds. I feel Lincoln was a man of high integrity and he hated no one.

          • William Neal

            Then why do negroes of today hold whites of today responsible for the actions of the past?

          • kenofken

            What is “is”?

          • bluesuede

            If a racist is a hater,(which I believe is accurate) then doesn’t it follow that Lincoln would have kept slavery in tact after the Civil War, not freeing slaves and abolishing slavery?

          • William Neal

            No it doesn’t. Lincoln’s words were his own and he meant them sincerely. His duty to free the slaves was his duty as president of the Union, the result of a tragic deadly war, and his promise to reunite the nation.

          • Jim Dailey

            William – Thank you for your posts. I find them thoughtful and well written and generally very accurate. However….
            I disagree with “His duty to free the slaves was his duty as president of the Union…” and frankly I was pretty surprised that you wrote that.
            You do realize that he had to get elected and that it was a minority of people in the Union who agreed with abolishing slavery – yes? Lincoln had to wait for good news from his generals before he could issue the Emancipation Proclamation due to unbelievable amounts of pressure from well-funded copperheads and the like. I am pretty sure Lincoln was busy fending off impeachment with one hand while fighting a war with the other. That is, there were PLENTY of people in our democracy who saw Lincolns “duty” as almost diametrically opposed to your assertion.
            Which is what made him a brilliant politician, and I think should be considered when reading anything he may have had to say to “soften” the impact of his master plan to end slavery.
            This goes back to kenofken who in some bizarre leap of logic has equated a person who ended centuries of slavery with a person who advocated using science to pervert nature’s rytthms in order that women can get their jollies on demand. I am pretty surprised you did not use your super-powers of logic to blow that idiotic assertion out of the water.

          • William Neal

            Bravo Kenofken. That was the exact quote I was going to provide. Pretty much to the point. Thanks Abe.

          • asmondius

            Did Margaret work for Abe?

      • asmondius

        ‘They were the mainstream of scientific and political thought in America and most of the West up through the mid 20th Century and well past. ‘
        Hey, that makes it OK!

  • donna

    i have been accused of that before being off planet. I actually did not think about the issue of AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases so prevalent in our time. Still think this further reinforces my position people have a personal obligation to tend to prevention of its spread without assuming any one else should bear responsibility. Perhaps understanding they must directly bear financial consequences of dire outcome might produce more circumspect behavior. Lord only knows nothing else appears to be working. AIDS epidemic in NY and SF again claim that 25% of people under age 25 have some form of VD. Very shocking after decades of public health advocacy campaigns to prevent its spread with access to free support provided from many quarters

    • William Neal

      Sexual promiscuity is the problem. Sex is glamorized on TV, in the movies and elsewhere. I witness young women enter Mass with tank tops, no bras, short-shorts and flip flops, yet they dress like models going out to the clubs. And the same disrespect for the males also. Condoms are free at every nightclub, sex club, bath house, strip club, dance club, and many restaurants and retail malls, but no one is using them. Bareback and raw sex are prevalent among teens and young adults. Education has failed because their is no personal responsibility and no one cares if they spread a deadly virus or disease. Some viruses like HIV, Hep B or Hep C, or syphilis may be treated and your life prolonged, but the “life saving” meds destroy your heart, liver, stomach, and kidneys after prolonged use. Also you have mono and gonorrhea which are now becoming drug resistant. Also you have diseases like HPV and Herpes that have minimal treatments and no cures.
      I get so angered when I hear or meet someone between 13 – 35 years old and they say they are HIV Positive, or have HepC or HPV or any other disease. Their failure to act responsibly makes me less than concerned, just disgusted, and I lose my compassion for stupidity.

      • donna

        i am not certain these decisions are the result of stupidity but rather manifestations of rule of unbridled passions over the soul which can be so intense they overwhelm reason in face of such potential dire and catastrophic consequences. I had seen a series of ads years ago from GMHC in SF for AIDS prevention. Examining how artfully and seductively they were produced I had the chilling realisation that for some they would be an inducement to continue unprotected sex. Not long after one started to read that some men were actively pursuing infection as an “authentic” experience of their “gayness”. Termed “bug chasers”. How this affects the rest of society does not appear to be a consideration. Sounds as if some of the 15-35 year olds are proud of the medical status. Disgust is the natural reaction to evil. Comments about inappropriate attire at Mass agreed. People are inappropriate in their attire in almost all venues but it is especially shocking at Mass. Traditional Catholic Church in garment center (Dolan trying to close) now under the guidance of Fr. Rutler first thing which impressed me after the beautifully Latin liturgy; everyone properly attired.
        sometimes i think I am only person left who thinks along these lines.

  • RDPaul

    Well which was it? The all Catholic all male court or the Law which they tell us we must repeal? Because the court says it was the law which was almost universally supported by both democrats and republicans and signed by Bill Clinton

  • Nina

    You choose, you want to kill Gods innocent creation, you pay. Others don’t have to help you. The father of lies does that. If you do not want children there are many ways you can use. But you have no self control, so pay for your control not us Christians.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I heard about the advertisement but I had not seen it until now. Why anyone would glamorize Margret Sanger is beyond me. No one should have to be an accomplice to other people’s sins and crimes against humanity.

  • Robert M

    First of all no one should be paying for another persons birth control which is absolutely absurd. If you want to have sex its certainly your civil liberty to do so. But not on my dime. Go buy your own condoms or what ever it is you use or don’t use.

    • kenofken

      That’s fair enough, but here’s a thought experiment I’ve run many times before with the pro-life movment, to no avail. Let’s say all of the rest of us sent a delegate to meet with the bishops and leaders of the movement. We agree to never again ask anyone to underwrite anyone else’s contraception. No tax dollars, no employer mandates, no nuthin. We’ll put it in writing, in our own blood, binding upon all of our descendants forever. Our one condition is this: you all must agree, also in writing, to permanently affirm the right of adults to access birth control with their own money. What are the odds I’d get any takers on that deal?

      • sez

        The Church states that birth control is sinful. The Church doesn’t stand in the way of anyone buying it. Never has! If you added “keeping in mind that using birth control is gravely sinful, so we do not, will not, and cannot ever endorse its use” to your condition, then you’d get takers.

        But if your goal is to get the Church to condone sin, you are wasting your time.

        • kenofken

          I’m not proposing the Church condone anything. I’m proposing that they, and the broader movement, would agree not to pursue legal or regulatory sanctions of any kind against access. They could preface every paragraph in the treaty with their theological position in foot-high type if they so chose.

          • William Neal

            The Church can and will never condone sexual promiscuity, being a whore or prostitute, sexual relations outside of marriage, birth control to prevent conception, sterilization, or abortion. To ask the Church to sign a document that allows what it considers sinful acts and to ask it to turn its back and not speak out against it is absurd.

          • sez

            When, in the last 50 years, has the Church ever attempted to “pursue legal or regulatory sanctions of any kind against access” to birth control? No, sorry: that isn’t happening. And that was my point: the Church’s job is to teach us how to get to Heaven. Period. She doesn’t – and can’t! – force anyone.
            .
            As to the “broader movement”, um…. Guess what? The Church cannot speak for individuals or outside groups. Not even if every member is Catholic. The most she can do is remove their right to call themselves “Catholic” (and she doesn’t even do that very often). You see, we don’t lose our free speech rights just because we adhere to Catholic teaching.
            .
            So your proposal is ridiculous. And, really: why are you hell-bent on silencing the Church re: birth control? Reminder: If one organization can be forcibly silenced, then beware: your favorite group may be next.

          • Donalbain
        • Ande

          That is a lie. The church absolutely forbids birth control and will excommunicate over it. If that’s not standing in someone’s way…..

          • PGMGN

            “…and will excommunicate over it.”

            What an absurd misinterpretation of Church teaching. But, sadly, sound byte, I-think-I-know, is as far as many will go in their search for anything save indulging their own misguided opinions.

          • William Neal

            The Church has never excommunicated anyone for using birth control.

      • William Neal

        I would not sign anything, and especially not in blood, that affirmed the right to destroy or prevent life. It is my belief, as I have been instructed from my youth, that murder is murder. Also that pre marital sex is a sin. That being a whore or prostitute is a sin. That most sexual acts outside of marriage is a sin. So no, I would not agree.

      • SteveP

        As you know from experience, vows can be easily broken. One just needs a de-binding rite, correct? So I’d say your “let’s make a deal” is less than sincere.

  • Faithr

    For some reason I don’t see the actual ad at the end of this post.

    The Freedom From Religion folks are obviously, by their very name, into changing the meaning of the Constitution but the ‘dogma’ they are talking about IS a civil liberty – the free exercise of religion. And this is the reason that even though in the abstract sense, I had no problem with reforming healthcare to help people who needed it and couldn’t afford it, the whole thing seemed like a huge ruse to push abortion. I think the misleading, angry, mendacious reaction we are seeing and all the virulent anti-Catholicism, exposes just how much the ACA was part of the abortion agenda.

  • Pamela Zuppo

    Christians are very hostile people and that’s why I’m an atheist.

    • bluesuede

      You have the freedom to choose Pamela. Let Christians have that same freedom that you enjoy to chose to live according to your beliefs.

  • kwdayboise

    To veer back to the premise of the headline, how did pointing out someone is Catholic, and that this coincided with his decision making, become “anti-Catholic”? Is pointing out that they’re male also “sexist”? The religious right of all denominations really needs to overcome its equation that arguing principles is a form of religious oppression.

  • pennyhammack

    People, people, we’re getting off point here as is the NYT. The point is really that maybe some people can’t afford birth control in any of its permutations because they simply can’t make enough in today’s economy. And that not every form of birth control will work for every person. Hobby Lobby’s favored sixteen include a lot of marginal, fallible or male only methods but the disfavored four are for women only.
    All the rhetoric about who was racist and/or a Hitler supporter is simply smokescreen and child abuse has no place in this argument.

    • bluesuede

      Isn’t it “off point” to say that abortifacient drugs provide the only infallible method for birth control that works for everyone, is gender neutral and safe?
      Hobby Lobby has the right to refuse to cover abortifacient drugs.

      The easy availability of birth control is no more unaffordable than a pack of cigarettes. It’s probably cheaper. This has nothing to do with male or female contraceptives. The NYT ad supports misinformation and is unworthy of the name journalism.

      • pennyhammack

        Did I say that? I said that not every method worked for every woman. And I’m long past the need for birth control but I couldn’t afford a pack of cigarettes either. Last time I looked rape, incest and child abuse were still happening and Hobby Lobby doesn’t make allowances for that either.

        • William Neal

          adoption is always a option. It is a terrible trauma for anyone to have to endure rape, or incest or sexual abuse, but killing an innocent child will not make the horror go away.

          • pennyhammack

            Ask someone who has endured same. Will Hobby Lobby keep an employee through nine months of pregnancy with all its attendant ills just so they can give the child up for adoption. What if they can’t work? Will Hobby Lobby pay them at full salary? Until you’ve been there, carried even a wanted child or even seen your daughter carry a child born of rape you don’t have the right to make judgement on whether abortion is justified or not and neither does Hobby Lobby.

          • bluesuede

            That’s not the real issue with Hobby Lobby.

          • William Neal

            Please do not assume that I do not know the pains of such horror as sexual abuse on a family or that I have not known someone or a family that has endured the same.

            And yes, as a Christian corporation, but more so as a Christian family, I am sure Hobby Lobby would allow the employee to remain on the job and support her as they would any other woman. Also, under the FMLA, an employee may take twelve weeks of unpaid leave to either bond with a child, or if ill and unable to work, or if required, to be absent under special circumstances, all without loss of employment. An employee may also use any sick leave or vacation time earned in addition to the FMLA period.

            Also let me add, if my tax dollars have to pay for the aca/obamacare fiasco and its directives, or if my tax dollars are being used for funding for planned parenthood (what a joke of a name) and their 98% abortion service rate, then yes, I do have a right to make such a judgement. As does any other tax paying American, Hobby Lobby or any other business that objects to such practice,

        • bluesuede

          Pennyh… you seem to avoid the fact that the only contraceptives that are totally objectionable are the abortifacient drugs that kill a fetus. That’s the issue, that’s what is being forced on everyone without recourse to religious and conscience rights.

    • William Neal

      Pre marital sex and sexual promiscuity is the cause of these problems. If todays women had any class or self respect for their bodies, instead of thinking only of their sexual pleasures, neither contraception or abortion would be an issue. If most of these women would stop being a whore. Save yourself for your husband. Why is that so hard to do?

      • pennyhammack

        Did you just call me a whore? Married couples in loving and chaste relationships still need birth control to limit the number of children that they have and can support. Are you willing to give up sex so your wife won’t become pregnant? So how is it not an issue? For the record, I’m seventy-four, widowed, and paid for my birth control back in the days. But I still think that the ACA mandate that requires companies to provide birth control along with other health care is a good thing.

        • William Neal

          Have you tried “Natural Family Planning”? It is actually as safe as condoms or birth control pills. The couples who followed these simple rules achieved a 100% effectiveness rate in avoiding pregnancy, i.e., zero unplanned pregnancies. Please don’t be misinformed or misled by people telling you that this is just the “rhythm method”, because they have no idea what they are talking about.

          Please check out and refer young couples to the following link. The Couple to Couple League has very qualified doctors and members for advice.
          http://www.ccli.org/

          My grandparents trusted that God would provide, and guess what? He did. Times were hard then. Much tougher and harder to find a job because of the effects of WWII and the Korean War, and the lack of jobs. My Mother, also 74, comes from a family of nine children and my Dad, 72, eight children, all growing up in the 40-50-60′s into adulthood. Nearly all of them have three to six children. No one ever went hungry. Everyone had underwear, dresses and jeans. Everyone had socks and shoes. No one ever went without medical care or dental care. And everyone went to school and graduated. Life was good and it still is.

          • Jim Dailey

            I don’t think Penny is going to take your advice.

          • William Neal

            #truth. Only God can change a hardened heart.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Well, then, maybe God can change your hardened cranial arteries, too.

          • William Neal

            thanks for you good wishes. yes, he has done that also.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            So now you’ll stop thinking all that hateful crap? Hallelujah! Miracles in the modern age! And He did it just as soon as I suggested it! Can I have an “amen?”

          • William Neal

            and the church says Amen

          • William Neal

            well thank you for you well wishes.

        • William Neal

          also in answer to your first question I offer this.

          whore: (1) A woman who is paid for sexual services. (2) A woman who has sex with numerous partners. The word is usually used in a negative manner as to imply the woman is figuratively dirty. (3) Another word for a prostitute. Usually refers to a woman, but can refer to a man. (4) someone who has sex with a lot of people, usually very frivolously or with promiscuity.

          • pennyhammack

            I’m still not clear – did you call me a whore or not? I also skimmed the info on CCLI. I notice that CCLI objects to even the contraceptives that Hobby Lobby likes. I had miserable pregnancies, morning sick for five months and acutely miserable for the rest. I couldn’t have worked during the pregnancy and we needed my salary to survive. Yes, with two salaries we had a pretty good life and we paid for both our children to finish college but there weren’t many extras. I used a spermacide, the pill, an IUD and finally my husband got a vasectomy. So much better than bringing an unwanted child into the world. And I would never have had a child just so you could adopt.

          • William Neal

            well penny. I am not going to get vulgar or say something against your character directly. I offered what I found as the definition to the word in question? Please read the definition and decide for yourself if you fit the descriptions. You should then be able to answer the question yourself.

          • pennyhammack

            I think that you are even worse than a whore by implying that I am one because I disagree with your premise. Last time I looked this country was founded on the concept that each of us has the right to our opinion. I reject your arguments – go pick on someone who won’t fight back.

          • William Neal

            I implied no such thing. if you applied the definition to yourself well that is on you.

  • Pamela Zuppo

    Christians are such hostile people and that’s why I’m an atheist. Obviously christians are also intolerant people as my previous post was deleted. Way to go, christians.

    • bluesuede

      Christians are very tolerant of free will.

      If you use it to sin and condemn yourself to hell, then we respect your free will to do so. But, we pray for you.

      • PGMGN

        Christians are tolerant of free will, bluesude, because they are part of that rare breed that actually accepts that we have a free will. So many people are convinced that they are no more than an animal and yet for all the talk of species superiority cannot even contain themselves as animals do. i.e. Sex = having offspring.

    • asmondius

      Yet here you are!

  • William Neal

    DEFEND LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH. Sign the petition to support “The Life At Conception Act.”

    http://prolifealliance.com/

  • Spudnik3

    Take away the lies and hysteria, and they got nothing.

  • Guest

    Here is a post to ponder.

  • Guest

    Here is a quote that hopefully turns your stomach.

  • SteveP

    I will admit to laughing when I read “the growing dangers of theocracy” followed by a donation request. Perhaps FFRF could divert the monies it receives to, you know, the women for whom they intend to fight. Just how many IUDs could they buy with that war chest?
    .
    There is a word I’m thinking of . . . starts with an “h” . . .

  • takluft

    I wrote that the decision was a great victory for Americans right before independence day 2014 and that govt should not have the right to impose its secular humanist beliefs on private employers or on any other groups for that matter and that employees shouldn’t impose what they do in the bedroom on employers…my comment was removed…it’s very clear by now, isn’t it folks, who is for and who is against freedom!!!…and no, that doesn’t mean you have the right to kill the innocent, hapless child in your womb…if you had as much concern about that child’s life as you do about your own life and your own “reproductive rights,” that would make sense to you but you don’t and that is why you will continue to talk about “choice” and “rights” while denying them to others

  • Ande

    Wow, I knew religion addicts were crazy, but you guys take the cake! I was never trying to pick on catholics, I despise all religion equally. That being said, I might be wrong, catholics seem to have a special kind of crazy going on.

    • SteveP

      It is my right to take the cake—is that not the upshot of
      some recent judicial rulings, that I have a right to cake? Are you attempting to limit my right by diminishing
      it through the pejorative use of “crazy”?
      I’ll bet you do not even know anyone who is challenged by mental
      illness!

      • Ande

        I thought you all didn’t believe in mental illness? Don’t you have to have the demons exorcised?

  • D bran

    This is Fantastic for Catholics. The Catholic Supreme Court justices took an oath to uphold the constitution and that’s just what they did! They have the other justices step down.

  • Jed Wheeler

    There’s nothing anti-catholic in that ad. It’s a protest against Catholic judges imposing their theological beliefs on the rest of us, not an attack against followers of the catholic faith. The fact that you can’t tell the difference makes you part of the problem.

  • Ande

    This has got to be the absolute most censored comments section I have ever encountered. Whoever is running this show is extremely manipulative, and has no shame.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X