Arguing for Obama, Justice Antonin Scalia
I’ve been reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in “Employment Division v. Smith,” a 1990 case in which the Supreme Court pretty much settled the question of whether the federal government can require or outlaw actions that might bump up against religious beliefs. The decision makes it clear that the Catholic bishops have no legal or constitutional basis for their complaint.
Scalia, himself a devout and very conservative Catholic, wrote in the majority decision:
“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
Scalia traces Supreme Court rulings on the issue back to an 1879 decision that upheld federal laws against polygamy. A member of the Mormon Church had argued that because his faith required men to marry multiple wives, polygamy was protected under the First Amendment and that Mormons could claim a religious exemption from such a law.
The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding:
“… the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. … Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
… To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Now, polygamy, human sacrifice and the Hindu practice of “sati” are admittedly rather extreme and obvious cases. However, Scalia went on to note a string of other Supreme Court cases decided to the same effect.
The most relevent to the current controversy is a a 1982 case that closely parallels the current discussion over contraception. In United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing unconstitutional in requiring an Amish employer to withhold and pay Social Security taxes for his workers even though “the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs.”
Here’s how they put it:
“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”
You would not need to change a single word of that paragraph to apply it to the contraceptive debate.
In his own opinion in the Smith case, Scalia wraps it up rather bluntly:
“Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.”
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
334 comments Add your comment
Lord Help Us
February 10th, 2012
12:20 pm
It’s still unconstitutional according to John Boehner…
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:21 pm
damnit…ninja’d
Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"
February 10th, 2012
12:22 pm
Heads are gonna explode after reading that one. That is, if they even bother to read.
carlosgvv
February 10th, 2012
12:22 pm
Catholic leaders have believed for centuries that they are a law unto themselves. This will never change. The only real question is will our political leaders have the courage to stand up to these old celebate child rapists and do the right thing for American women. Since real political courage is as rare these days as common sense, which is no longer common, the answer is clear. Cave in and hope you get votes out of it.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
12:23 pm
Geez, The GOP…let them scream…they want to divert their minions from the fact they got nothin’, so they bring out this rerun, hoping that the emotional rise it brings will do the trick. Pathetic.
Lord Help Us
February 10th, 2012
12:23 pm
It’s still unconstitutional according to John Boehner…
And Marco Rubio…
Guess they’ll have to take it up with Antonin.
HDB
February 10th, 2012
12:23 pm
Interesting that a Catholic makes the case FOR the President!! Also, if one had listened to Lawrence O’Donnell’s show the other day, the legal precedent was made by David Boies…..
28 STATES also speak for the President…..so all this is is superfluous noise, signifying NOTHING!!
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:24 pm
Good job, Mr. President, for back-tracking and compromising.
(Even though you did a horrible job of hiding your poutrage during the press conference.)
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:24 pm
Right, wrong, or indifferent, I see it as ANOTHER occasion where President Obama caved in.
It’s a shame all the Republican candidates are such nutcases. You right wingers remember that when Obama wins again. It’s not because he’s “great” or even “good.” It’s because what you are trotting out there against him is SO pathetic.
Mick
February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
Let’s see if scalia can stick to his guns or will ideology win out? By the way, I do recall the coptic church down here in miami taiking this issue to court arguing that marijuana was considered a sacred herb and they should be permitted to use in their ceremonies – they did not win…dern
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
Cal Lightman would have been embarrassed….
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
Obama reversed his decision on this and I AM OUTRAGED AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM NOW AGHAGHAGH. ROMNEY ALL THE WAY. NOBAMA 2012!
Would that satisfy you, cons, if I was serious?
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
12:25 pm
When the administration tries to exempt the churches it will
be sued into removing the exemption but that will be after
November. Good political move.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
12:26 pm
John Boehner and Antonin Scalia!
Swords and baby oil, to the death, in the ring. Who will draw first blood?
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:26 pm
“Right, wrong, or indifferent, I see it as ANOTHER occasion where President Obama caved in.”
On this issue, I don’t see it as caving. I see it as a very smart compromise.
Don’t piss off any entire voting block 9 months before the election.
Guy Incognito
February 10th, 2012
12:27 pm
I think the state of FL tried to stop Haitian refugees from slaughtering chickens, but the Haitians were able to continue due to it being a part of Santeria
I could be wrong
Lord Help Us
February 10th, 2012
12:27 pm
It’s unconstitutional because Obama is for it…
That is the difference that renders the precedents moot…
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:27 pm
I left you a parting note on Germany downstairs Brocephus.
USinUK
February 10th, 2012
12:28 pm
“Religiously-affiliated non-profit employers such as schools, charities, universities, and hospitals will be able to provide their workers with plans that exclude such coverage. However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html
frankly – sounds like a win-win for everyone.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
12:28 pm
Normal, I think this has to be viewed as the blowback from the Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco. Having been routed in that one, conservatives are angry and looking for payback in this one. And I don’t think they’re going to get it, because that Obama “compromise” isn’t much of a compromise at all, to be frank.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:29 pm
I listened to the statement, seemed fine to me. But already the pundits are screaming outrage on both sides that he reversed his decision, but either 1) too late or 2) not enough. No one is ever f***ing satisfied.
I predict the Bishop with the Taco Bell comment will be out on the right wing media for weeks telling Fox News and Hannity that Obama hates the Catholic church and didn’t reverse his decision “enough.” Either that, or Hannity and other right wing propaganda operatives will try to use this as an issue for weeks even though it’s basically over.
Lord Help Us
February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm
‘because that Obama “compromise” isn’t much of a compromise at all, to be frank.’
The end result is the same.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm
Guy Incognito, 12:27, The Haitians were allowed to continue
because more Baptists were slaughtering chickens on Sunday
than they were.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm
I do Peadawg. A “compromise” means you discuss it with the concerned party before you open your mouth and say “This is how it’s going to be.” A cave is when you say, “This is how it’s going to be,” and then go “oops, do over” 24 hours later.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm
Well he just compromised as predicted.
The gop will continue to run on it because they got nothing else but the Catholic dems will agree.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:30 pm
However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.
Ok, if that is true I am satisfied.
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
12:31 pm
what do you call a “male chauvinist theocrat” without spine?…President Obama…that swooshing sound you just heard was the millions of Obama’s faithful throwing their pom poms down at the mere mention of any “accomodations”…let not you’re heart be worried, for they will surely rise again.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:33 pm
ty: OUTRAGE./ OBAMA COMRPOMISED. I’m NEVER VOTING FOR HIM AGAIN. GRAAAAAAAAHHHH!
Do you feel better now that I have portrayed the stereotype you wish existed?
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
12:33 pm
Guess maybe the Church has to get involved in the State to
get a compromise. Maybe the Bishops can move over to Congress
and help out there.
Bryan G.
February 10th, 2012
12:34 pm
There are several issues here:
1. There is a debate as to whether the health care law is Constitutional.
2. There is a legitimate debate about this Birth Control provision.
But, whether what the government did was valid Constitutionally or otherwise, it was bad policy. It was unfair to the Catholic employers.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
12:34 pm
However, the insurance companies that provide the plans will have to offer those workers the opportunity to obtain additional contraceptive coverage directly, at no additional charge.
I’m thinking insurance companies will find a way to make someone else pay.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:35 pm
Can you believe after all this Brother Barry STILL has the nerve to email me?
Jay
February 10th, 2012
12:36 pm
The Obama “compromise” is a mere fig leaf of the sort that the Catholic Church itself once pasted onto naked statues and slapped onto paintings. The conservatives aren’t buying it for a minute, and if I were them, I wouldn’t either.
It’s so obviously nothing that it’s almost an insult to even offer it. Just tellin’ the truth.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:36 pm
Fred: I know right? How dare anyone support him if he doesn’t do 100% what *I* want! (whine)
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:37 pm
“I’m thinking insurance companies will find a way to make someone else pay.”
Yeah…probably just jack up rates on other costumers.
All about making hc more affordable for EVERYONE, right?
USinUK
February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm
Jay – meh – it lets everyone walk away and feel like they got something out of the deal
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm
dam
February 10th, 2012
12:36 pm
Fred: I know right? How dare anyone support him if he doesn’t do 100% what *I* want! (whine)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I know, you want a democrat. I want a LEADER.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm
Jay: So Obama’s pawn takes conservative’s Bishop?
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
I disagree, Jay @ 12:36. Not making the religious institution have to pay for the contraceptive coverage seems good to me. Or did I miss something?
Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"
February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
I’m thinking insurance companies will find a way to make someone else pay.
Nothing, in America, is ever free of cost…
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
Jay, 12:36, I’m betting you’re right and the argument continues
as a campaign issue.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
Fred: Leader is another word for dictator/Svengali the way the conservatives use it. What do you mean when you say LEADER?
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:40 pm
barking frog: Jay, 12:36, I’m betting you’re right and the argument continues
as a campaign issue.
It’s the TERROR MOSQUE wedge issue of 2012.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
12:41 pm
Speaking of the corrupt sc, I listened to the inventor of citizen united and the next step is unlimited donations straight to the candidate and not outside groups.
BTW, this compromise was for the dems to stop stabbing our President in the back.
Tune Gal
February 10th, 2012
12:41 pm
Everyone is so quick to make this into a religious issue, and I’m not saying that it is or is not. But when is this going to become a women’s health issue? Just like the Komen/Planned Parenthood fight, too many people want to ignore women’s health issues and make it all about morality.
When is freedom of religion going to start including the freedom to NOT have someone else’s religion and moral values thrust upon you?
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
12:41 pm
All about making
hc more affordable for EVERYONEsure executive pay doesn’t get cut , right?Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:42 pm
Kam @ 12:41
Barking up the wrong tree on that one…executives get no sympathy from me.
Midori
February 10th, 2012
12:43 pm
pearl clutching attack @12:31!!!
we need a fainting couch — STAT!!
godless heathen
February 10th, 2012
12:43 pm
“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.”
But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed? That’s what the argument should be.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 10th, 2012
12:44 pm
Well, it’s lunch time and I’m glad to see Bookman come up with another post on birth control. Might as well. I was getting mighty tired of that guy with the needle You-Know-What bragging about how much Magnums cost. One of those would probly fall off of his arm, much less his You-Know-What.
Anyhow, this whole to-do is pretty simple. If it’s something I don’t like, it’s Unconstitutional. And if a judge says I’m wrong, then he’s a Activist Judge. I don’t give a hang what you think, in my heart I know I’m right.
Have a good p.m. everybody. I’m pretty sure Bookman will duck out of work by 3 or so and post some weird guy’s music. Most of us will of never heard of the guy, but there’s always two or three that will claim to of seen him in concert and know all about him. There’s a-holes everywhere you go in this country.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
12:44 pm
The conservatives aren’t buying it for a minute, and if I were them, I wouldn’t either.
Let’s see–CPAC goes on for another day, I’m sure the proceedings will be most entertaining.
From the other side, here’s what my favorite DFH on the topic of reproductive rights had to say about the after-effects
[...] it seems that the compromise is actually, for once, a real compromise. So I got all bent out of shape for nothing. The White House is saying that women who work at religiously affiliated employers will get coverage, but by the insurance companies directly, instead of through their employers. So far, no rub. If it’s as clean a win as it looks, then this is very good news indeed.
[...]
The good news is this: By choosing to fight over this, the right has exposed their anti-contraception agenda. To win this battle, they may well have planted the seeds to lose the war. Pretending to care about “life” was always a key component to the war on female sexuality. But by doing this, conservatives insured that the abortion rate will be higher than it otherwise would be. Given the choice between reducing the abortion rate and fining women for [bleep]ing, they chose the latter. They need their noses rubbed in that fact every single time they pretend to care about fetuses to attack women.
Maybe not EVERY single time, but certainly often enough to remind everyone that Romney and Man-on-Dog were totally on the same page on this issue.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
12:45 pm
Barking up the wrong tree on that one…executives get no sympathy from me.
Uh, huh.
Sure.
And I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.
With Morgan Fairchild.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:45 pm
godless: But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed? That’s what the argument should be.
Unless you’re suggesting the church is a “private company” I am not sure what your point is.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm
probably just jack up rates on other costumers.
funding contraception, I’m fairly sure, is a lot cheaper than funding pregnancies, both those carried to term and those that aren’t.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm
But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed?
Perhaps you’re unaware of something called an Insurance Commissioner.
Mick
February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm
guy
You are correct, in mimai-dade county, santeria priest are allowed to use chickens and goats for sacrifice – legally. Go figure, no weed but goats and chickens have no rights. Hey, that’s floriduh…
jewcowboy
February 10th, 2012
12:46 pm
All the Catholic church is doing is to ensure more fetus’s are chucked into the dustbin. But that is how they roll.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:48 pm
Kam,
You obviously know nothing about me.
‘Nuff said.
Moderate Line
February 10th, 2012
12:49 pm
The right are people who don’t feel like anyone should tell them how to spend their money. In fact they lobby for the government to protect their wealth. The left are people who don’t want anyone to tell them who they can have sex with. In fact they believe you ought to pay for their birth control. The country is all about “I” and will continue to decline.
In other words “There is no sacrifice to great.” In fact it is not a sacrifice because it is an entitlement which means it is thief if not granted.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:49 pm
“fetus’s are chucked into the dustbi”
What what happens to aborted babies? They still have to be delivered…
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
12:50 pm
G. Heathen — “But is the State free to regulate the terms between a private company and an individual, as long as nothing illegal is proposed? That’s what the argument should be.”
If it’s a matter of interstate commerce, then the Federal government is totally within its rights to regulate it.
Mick
February 10th, 2012
12:50 pm
Man, I swear I can’t type anymore, thats – miami dade county…
ByteMe
February 10th, 2012
12:51 pm
Typical Obama compromise: let’s change what we call it, but I still get what I want.
Can’t understand why Dems aren’t loving him.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:51 pm
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:38 pm
Jay: So Obama’s pawn takes conservative’s Bishop?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL Freaking hilarious, Adam
Mr_B
February 10th, 2012
12:52 pm
“Not making the religious institution have to pay for the contraceptive coverage seems good to me. Or did I miss something?”
My guess is the the insurers just won’t tell the buyers how much of the cost of the “free” additional coverage they’re paying for.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:52 pm
Peadawg: What what happens to aborted babies? They still have to be delivered…
Not Intended to Be a Factual Statement
Intended instead to be a statement where the term babies is used improperly and pretend that all abortions are the scooping out of said “baby”
getalife
February 10th, 2012
12:53 pm
Our President tried dealing in good faith with the gop but they did not.
This compromise is not with them.
That is not going to happen.
This compromise will keep the women happy and Catholic dems happy.
The gop can run on it because they got nothing else to run on.
Stonethrower
February 10th, 2012
12:53 pm
The Lord said “be fruitful and multiply!” So does this mean they will cover viagra but not birth control?
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:54 pm
ByteMe: Can’t understand why Dems aren’t loving him.
Well, didn’t you know? EVERYONE hates Obama, and NO ONE wants/promises to vote for him!
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm
“Then I got Mary pregnant
and man that was all she wrote
And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat
We went down to the courthouse
and the judge put it all to rest
No wedding day smiles no walk down the aisle
No flowers no wedding dress”
– Thomas Jefferson
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm
ByteMe, 12:51, the governments now regulating an
insurance company, not a church affilliate ,but I’m not
sure it can order a private company to do anything for
free except as punishment for a civil crime.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:39 pm
Fred: Leader is another word for dictator/Svengali the way the conservatives use it. What do you mean when you say LEADER?
__________________________________
We’ve had this conversation before. you didn’t get it then and I doubt you would now. Some people are managers, some administrators and some are leaders. A Leader CAN and DOES manage and administrate. A mere manager cannot be a leader, nor can a mere administrator.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
12:55 pm
EVERYONE hates Obama, and NO ONE wants/promises to vote for him!
heh. which is why the normally cautious Gallup has him up a coupla points this week…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
Tune Gal
February 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
I grow weary of a bunch of wrinkly old white dudes deciding they are my moral compass, i.e. “you can’t have an abortion, but we’re not going to let you use contraception, either.” As an adult woman, I can make decisions on my own, thank you, without having the morality police on my back. And if I make a bad decision, then I have to deal with the consequences.
USinUK
February 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
“Jay: So Obama’s pawn takes conservative’s Bishop?”
ohsweetjeebus … that’s brilliant.
(golf clap)
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:56 pm
Adam
February 10th, 2012
12:52 pm
Funny how Adam thinks he speaks for me.
pat
February 10th, 2012
12:57 pm
Oh goody, more sponsored anti-Catholic hate speech.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
12:58 pm
Yeah Pat.
That Scalia, he really hates himself some Catholics, doesn’t he?
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
I wish they had the morning after pill in vending machines when I was being a problem child
ByteMe
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
the governments now regulating an
insurance company, not a church affilliate ,but I’m not
sure it can order a private company to do anything for
free except as punishment for a civil crime.
Near as I can tell, it’s not ordering the insurance company to give it away, but to make it cost nothing to the covered person. Doesn’t mean rates won’t go up so that the coverage gets provided.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
12:45 pm
Barking up the wrong tree on that one…executives get no sympathy from me.
Uh, huh.
Sure.
And I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.
With Morgan Fairchild.
_____________________________
DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!! You should have seen her when she did “The Graduate” at the Fox a few years ago. She was Mrs. Robinson. When she got out of the bed wearing nothing but a g-string I like to have fell out of the logue. The lady next to me gave me her opera glasses lol and my wife kept me from going over the rail………..
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
Fred: You haven’t really said how Obama does one but not the other. Which is Obama, Manager or Administrator? (and you didn’t use those terms before btw). And what do you base this on? I see him doing both in many cases.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
12:48 pm
Kam,
You obviously know nothing about me.
Funny how
Adampeapup thinks he speaks for me.‘Nuff said.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:01 pm
the official White House announcement, for you tea-leaf readers, is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/10/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions
USinUK
February 10th, 2012
1:02 pm
Jay – 12:58 –
JohnnyReb
February 10th, 2012
1:03 pm
Here you go again, Jay. Arguing this morning for individual liberty to local school boards but this afternoon for Federal Control over everyone’s healthcare.
This is a perfect example of what most often happens with Liberal’s good intentions. There is always collateral damage.
The big lesson here will be repeal of Obamacare. There were already huge numbers in favor of repeal. This incident will only grow those numbers as people realize Obamacare strips liberties in the name of good intentions.
Next, many who were asleep at the wheel will have awakened to realize that unchecked Obama would “transform” this Nation into something unrecognizable to the founders.
Obama at present is doing more to unite the Republicans than any of the candidates.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
1:03 pm
For Kamcheck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDjQRgoOcpk
_Thomas Jefferson
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:03 pm
That’s not fair Fred.
You make me regret missing a performance that I didn’t even know happened.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
1:04 pm
In my opinion i think its a win win all around. For women, they’ll see it as Prez O fighting for womens rights and women putting notice that the CONs aren’t for THAT aspect of woman’s rights or health. He11, the only people that were bent outta shape about this were’nt voting for Prez O any dayum way.
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:04 pm
And neither of the above Red Herrings are relevent to the current situation. This is so rediculously simple, it escapes you people. The government does not have the right to make institutions pay for goods or services they stand against, period. It’s not a moratorium on birth control, abortion or anything else, it’s simply a matter of the government forcing institutions to pay for things they are against.
Instead, you turn this into an opportunity to bash Catholicism and religion in general under the guise of an opinion column. You are stoking the fires of hate, you know it and you do it gladly.
I have read people here wanting to lash out at, or vandalize churches because they don’t like the stance. Or that people will accuse it of being against women and for child molestation because a few people committed some horrible crimes year and years back. You are not only ok with it, you welcome it because you believe in equality for all, except Christians. We deserve your ire because we’re sooooo close minded and backwards about issues you don’t actually understand.
mm
February 10th, 2012
1:05 pm
“Can’t understand why Dems aren’t loving him.”
No comment necessary.
The Catholic church leaders seem to think they speak for all Catholic’s. Other than a few bishops and crazies, I think Obama garnered quite a few Catholic votes with this. Cosn, you lost another faux poutrage. I believe you are now 0 for 4 this year.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
1:05 pm
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:00 pm
Your comment makes no sense, leghumper. Off with you and your squirrel.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
pat — “Oh goody, more sponsored anti-Catholic hate speech.”
Jay, may I suggest The Jim Carroll Band for the Friday music, please? Preferably “People Who Died,” from his “Catholic Boy” album?
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
reb,
Actually, the health care bill is open to compromise and ongoing updates.
If you repeal it, nobody can afford it.
Then what are you going to do after the system collapses?
USinUK
February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
“Next, many who were asleep at the wheel will have awakened to realize that unchecked Obama would “transform” this Nation into something unrecognizable to the founders.”
ohfercryingoutloud …
hysteria. it’s what’s for lunch.
evidently.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:06 pm
This incident will only grow those numbers as people realize Obamacare strips liberties in the name of good intentions.
Yes, the liberty that people have to use religion as a reason to deny someone help or health care is SACRED
Jefferson
February 10th, 2012
1:07 pm
Is that the Sat night live Pat ?
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:07 pm
“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you?”
– Thomas Jefferson
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
Peadawg — “Your comment makes no sense, leghumper.”
As much as you use that term, it makes me wonder if a dog did something really disturbing to you when you were little.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:04 pm
How is it that if you disagree with something, its “vile” or Hate” as you say it?
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:08 pm
Medicare for everyone. Same policy, same requirements, same payments.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
If it’s something I don’t like, it’s Unconstitutional. And if a judge says I’m wrong, then he’s a Activist Judge.
Woo Hoo! We have a winner!
Granted, I’m not a widely recognized expert in American jurisprudence, pertinent case law or the decades of intricacies involving US Supreme Court decisions on this matter, like pat and so many of our respected right-wingers here, but that is my cross to bear…
mm
February 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
“The big lesson here will be repeal of Obamacare. There were already huge numbers in favor of repeal. This incident will only grow those numbers as people realize Obamacare strips liberties in the name of good intentions.
Next, many who were asleep at the wheel will have awakened to realize that unchecked Obama would “transform” this Nation into something unrecognizable to the founders.”
Dream on, Johny Reb.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:09 pm
instead, you turn this into an opportunity to bash Catholicism and religion in general under the guise of an opinion column. You are stoking the fires of hate, you know it and you do it gladly.
Somebody else needs to switch to decaf.
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
I am accusing you, Jay, not Scalia… You know damn well you are inviting and welcoming anti-Catholic bashing. It’s not the first time.
Scalia was not talking about forcing church or any other institution to pay for things they are against. Polygamy is not the same as forcing churches to pay for abortions or birth control.
If obama wants to give everybody free contraception, let him pay for it.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
You know, reading that White House press release, sounds like they just reframed the issue to say that really, the insurance companies are dealing directly with the individual ANYWAY, and that the religious organizations are not paying for the cost of the contraceptives ANYWAY.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders. They knew that would happen. That is why the constiturion was written as a guidline on how laws shoule be passed instead of stating laws. Only one law is written in the Constituiton.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
1:11 pm
“As much as you use that term”
1st time in a very long time, Joe.
But don’t let that get in the way of a bad joke.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:12 pm
A group policy for a Religious affiliate will not provide employees
with contraceptive benefits but employees who desire contraceptive
benefits can obtain a policy that provides those benefits from the
group carrier free of charge. o.k.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
pat, I’ve been out doing my part to keep the wounded American economic engine humming, so maybe you’ll humor me and show me all of the apparently vast number of Catholic-bashing posts here?
Thanks, you’re a peach…
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
“Leghumper” is old school.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
Well, I declare, I almost forgot. I was catching up on the news last night and found this item on a new book about Wallis Simpson—you know, that American woman the King of England left the throne for way back there. Seems like the book author said the Simpson woman was something called a intersex, kind of a man in some ways and a woman in the others. Heck, I never even knowed there was anything but XX and XY kids. Seems like there’s all kind. Anyhow, the author claims this Simpson woman was a expert in, uh, other ways to please a man. She was kinda flat-chested like a man but had some woman features. And the author claims there’s more intersex people than anybody thinks. One of the reviewers of the new book has two kids that are intersex.
Anyhow, I thought I’d bring it up, seeing as how this blog right now is about birth control. It’s for dang sure you won’t have kids if you hook up with a intersex person.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
pat — “If obama wants to give everybody free contraception, let him pay for it.”
If people want to send their kids to private school, let them pay for it.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:14 pm
free of charge. o.k.
You think anyone is foolish enough to think the cost won’t be spread back to them to cover the carrier’s overhead.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
You can accuse all you wish, Pat.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders.
It’s kinda hard to recognize anything when your eyeballs are dust.
mm
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
pat,
Catholics are fools. They treat the Pope like some kind of god.
Hows that for bashing?
Jefferson
February 10th, 2012
1:15 pm
Spread the cost so it won’t be so great, greedy Pat ?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
Peadawg — “1st time in a very long time, Joe.”
Aha, you’re keeping count. I knew it.
I predict you’ll pick up Dave’s old insult about ‘yappy teacup poodles’ soon.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Now he is a dead liberal.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
I’m listening to Mitt Romney speaking at CPAC. The reception is rather mild so far, to say the least.
Guy Incognito
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
Mick
I was going to ask you if you remebered that haitian chicken case.
and you are right………boo for not allowing the Rasta’s to practice thier religion freely (puff-puff)
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
dust to eyeball. eyeball to dust.
Peadawg
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
“I predict you’ll pick up Dave’s old insult about ‘yappy teacup poodles’ soon. ”
First time I’ve heard that.
JohnnyReb
February 10th, 2012
1:17 pm
A lot of Moonbats here who won’t face even the possibility that Obama will not be reelected.
And, that the majority of the Nation is for repeal of Obamacare.
My guess is, these same folks thinks it’s OK for federal tax dollars to be used to pay over a billion dollars for poor people to receive a free cell phone with the monthy bill paid.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
He is flatter than roadkill so far.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
You are stoking the fires of hate, you know it and you do it gladly.
yeah, I totally imagine Jay making like Snidely Whiplash and twirling his ’stache and going “MWAH-HA-HA!” any time he’s posted on reproductive rights issues.
Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
“Leghumper” is old school.
Wrong. Leghumper is a damn good beer!!!
http://sat.gmncdn.com/Blogs/tombedell/files/2011/03/old-leghumper.jpg
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
The fellows who accused Catholic priests of molesting them were accusing of bashing the Catholic church when he news came out, weren’t they?
Just sayin’.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:19 pm
Jay, didn’t you mean to delete the words “flatter than” from your sentence @ 1.18?
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:19 pm
Joe: I predict you’ll pick up Dave’s old insult about ‘yappy teacup poodles’ soon.
Dumbest. Insult. Ever.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
“This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders.”
Yeah, K Street, unlimited bribes, occupations, peeing in a cup, drones, etc….
True.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
A lot of wingnuts EVERYwhere who won’t face even the possibility that Obama WILL be reelected.
FYT
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
a little early for that one, sfd …. but I get your point.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
off to the Oyster Barn and a catholic bashing Scallop salad with their homemade blue cheese dressing. Yum. $2.00 off if I say, “The pope wears a funny hat.”
I’ll be thinking of you pat.
Don't Forget
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:18 pm
He is flatter than roadkill so far.
He still hasn’t brought out the miniature bicycle though.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
Bro,
I learn something new everyday .
Thanks
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:22 pm
I’m listening to Mitt Romney speaking at CPAC. The reception is rather mild so far, to say the least.
Much like voter turnout in the primaries.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:24 pm
Fred, 1:22, Do not say the pope wears a dress with the buttons
up the back or you will be accused of hatemongering.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:25 pm
By the way, “leghumper” is one of those words Jay said he doesn’t tolerate.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:25 pm
barking frog: Fred, 1:22, Do not say the pope wears a dress with the buttons
up the back or you will be accused of hatemongering.
If I tell someone that when they’re wearing a snuggie they are just wearing a backwards robe, am I hatemongering?
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
“And, that the majority of the Nation is for repeal of Obamacare.”
And then what happens when the costs are too high and the system collapses?
cons never can answer this question.
Midori
February 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
Is that the Sat night live Pat ?
I’ve asked but he/she/it won’t tell me
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:26 pm
Bro, all I can say is that that is one lucky hound dog!
BTW, I had some yummy Rogue Chocolate Stout last night.
And may have to go see what delicacies my local purveyer up the street is offering today…
Brosephus - "Ever tried teaching a cinder block how to bark?"
February 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
getalife
I’m sure AmVet would probably agree with that one. I’m not a big fan of porter beers, but I had no problem with drinking that one.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
Actually, the majority of Americans are for repealing the ACA because they think it’s some weird government overreach. Btu when you ask them about EVERY LAST PROVISION in the law, they don’t want those parts repealed.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
1:27 pm
Adam — “Dumbest. Insult. Ever.”
I know; I see the “teacup poodle” and “leghumper” insults as being cut from the same cloth.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:28 pm
Adam, 1:25, as long as it’s not the pope and there’s no sexual
connotation you’re free to monger.
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:29 pm
And then what happens when the costs are too high and the system collapses?
But…but…but… the free market RULZ and would therefore, never let that occur.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:29 pm
Maybe it’s just me — we’ll see what the conservative target audience has to say — but I cannot think that Mitt won over anybody with that presentation…. He seemed nervous and halting throughout.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
JHM, 1:27, why do you hate puppies?
Vinny
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
Meanwhile, Barrack Hussein Obama, the man of no principles capitulates for politcal purposes because he is afraid that it will cost him the election. So much for integrity.
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes because Obumbles deemed it so.
To have sex is not mandatory, so taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it just because a bunch of skanks can’t keep their legs together.
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:31 pm
Jay, 1:27, Mitts bulletproof vest may have been too tight.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:31 pm
Jay,
He sounded boring as usual so I switched it to ESPN.
He lost me at inhale.
The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling
February 10th, 2012
1:32 pm
The catholic church needs to stay out of the female uterus.
The catholic church should use the same enthusiasm in prosecuting pedophile priests.
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:32 pm
To have sex is not mandatory, so taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it just because a bunch of skanks can’t keep their legs together.
When did Bill Orvis change his handle?
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:33 pm
It’s funny that NOBODY denies the bashing or the bigotry. At least you admit it.
And I will accuse all I want because it’s true. If you have attempted the same strawman parallels about something with the LGBT, NAACP, planned parenthood, NARAL, or any other type of organization, you’d be called all kinds of names and probably would have had the blog pulled. But you attempt some ridiculous parallel between the supreme court and polygamy as somehow being even remotely related to forcing institutions to pay for that which they stand against, just to inspire the hatred and the much welcomed hate speech of your minions.
This particular column doesn’t even make sense, 22 years ago, Scalia pronounced that churches need to follow the law too, some how relates to making organizations pay for that which they are against? That’s a very tortured parallel to make. You need a jack hammer to make that peg fit.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:33 pm
Porters are both pretty rare, relative to other ales, and apparently hard to do “right”. For every good one I’ve tried, I’ve had one that was forgettable…
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes…
So THAT’S where hand-held farming implements come from.
I always thought they were made in a factory.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
Vinny
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
tick, tick, tick
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:34 pm
The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling
February 10th, 2012
1:32 pm
The catholic church needs to stay out of the female uterus.
The catholic church should use the same enthusiasm in prosecuting pedophile priests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Case in point! Hopefully this person will also stay out of a female uterus.
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:37 pm
vinny,
We don’t call women “skanks” on this blog.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
1:41 pm
It’s funny that NOBODY denies the bashing or the bigotry.
Hello? Is this thing on?
I realize that to numerous neo-cons here I am NOBODY, but I flat out asked you to show me some examples of this “Catholic-bashing” here.
And as always, when asked to do so you’ve produced nothing, nada, nary, nilch, zip, zero.
At least you are consistent…
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
1:41 pm
I just love to see CONs get bend outta shape……
Occupiers @ CPAC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FQBcpCNsAwE
Understanding the Law
February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
Thanks for clearing this one up. I was sitting on the fence because the religious laws are sometimes confusing.
The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling
February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
@Vinny
February 10th, 2012
1:30 pm
Meanwhile, Barrack Hussein Obama, the man of no principles capitulates for politcal purposes because he is afraid that it will cost him the election. So much for integrity.
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes because Obumbles deemed it so.
To have sex is not mandatory, so taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it just because a bunch of skanks can’t keep their legs together.
*************************************************************************
Some of you need to go back to school and get your GED.
Obviously you are total idiots.
Do you not understand what this is all about?
Instead of spewing your stench of racism and your putrid odor of ignorance – say something of substance and not something of IGNORANCE.
Obama 2012
getalife
February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
“Case in point! Hopefully this person will also stay out of a female uterus.”
It is Pat from SNL.
FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)
February 10th, 2012
1:45 pm
I just wonder how these GOP and religious hypocrits defend insurance coverage of male enhancement drugs. If the good Lord intended for these guys to naturally procreate (the “obvious intention” of heterosexual intercouse) then He would provide them the natural ability to ummm…make it happen. Just sayin..
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:47 pm
AmVet,1:41, one definition of catholic is liberal, if this is the usage,
examples should be easy pickings..
Understanding the Law
February 10th, 2012
1:47 pm
Vinny says…
Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes …
How would you phrase or what would you call men when taxpayers have to pay for Viagra or Cialis?
Jay
February 10th, 2012
1:48 pm
Get Real, as I posted earlier, I don’t think it’s much of a compromise at all. And if you DO think Obama backtracked, the prez is even slicker than I thought.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
1:49 pm
Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
Or, “Mr. Tibbs,” in a pinch.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:50 pm
Vinny: Now, all taxpayers are FORCED to pay for contraception for hoes
….annnnnd I stopped reading. Someone who thinks garden implements need contraceptives clearly is not worth listening to
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:52 pm
Jay: And if you DO think Obama backtracked, the prez is even slicker than I thought.
Checkmate in
5 moves10 months.Bruno
February 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
You would not need to change a single word of that paragraph to apply it to the contraceptive debate.
In case there was any confusion regarding my position earlier, my objection to the forced inclusion of contraception coverage is strictly made along the lines of free commerce. It has nothing to do with religion. I agree wholeheartedly with Scalia’s opinion:
“… To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
barking frog
February 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
Adam, 1:50, I believe that kind of hoe can be used as a
permanent male contraceptive…
Aquagirl
February 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
Someone who thinks garden implements need contraceptives clearly is not worth listening to
You really wonder what these people are up to in their, um, personal lives. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
pat
February 10th, 2012
1:54 pm
Amvet, I don’t owe you anything and I am not going to do you work for you. Just look up and down the page, look at any blog where the Catholic Church is the topic and it’s flat prevalent. Hell, it’s right here, in front of you on this page. Are deliberately being obtuse? Hell just look at this little gems’ post at 1:32
“The Hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is Appalling”…. Hell, even the name is basing. What if we changed it to “The hypocrisy of the Lesbian and Gay community is appalling”. Then you’d be mad, wouldn’t you.
Bruno
February 10th, 2012
1:54 pm
I just wonder how these GOP and religious hypocrits defend insurance coverage of male enhancement drugs.
Insurance companies should be free to offer–or not offer–any type of coverage they want. That isn’t the issue. The issue is government-mandated coverage.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
1:55 pm
Bruno: Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
To the fringe right, that is the point. Hence why I refer to the fringe right as anarchists.
I am not sure what your objection is to including it in all insurance coverage. You said “along the lines of free commerce.” Are you saying there should be NO law with respect to what insurance companies decide to cover or not cover?
Normal
February 10th, 2012
1:57 pm
Isn’t it funny how one can accuse another of lack of integrity for doing something very astute, when that one has compromised his own integrity by backing a party that has shown no integrity at all by refusing to work with that person for the betterment of the people of this country…ever. Funny, or downright sad?
Bruno
February 10th, 2012
2:00 pm
Are you saying there should be NO law with respect to what insurance companies decide to cover or not cover?
As long as fair business practices are followed, e.g. full disclosure of the contract terms, etc., then absolutely I believe that insurance companies should be allowed to offer any product they wish. For auto insurance, minimum coverage amounts can be mandated because auto insurance is liability insurance–it protects others from our own dangerous actions. Very different from health insurance which only protects you from your own poor choices.
Recon 2533 1811
February 10th, 2012
2:00 pm
I’ve heard of sea lawyers, jail house lawyers and the like, so now we have blog lawyers.
TaxPayer
February 10th, 2012
2:01 pm
Maddow did an excellent job of summarizing the Republican hypocrisy regarding contraceptives as well as many other issues.
Bruno
February 10th, 2012
2:01 pm
Back to work…..Catch you guys later on FNM.
Thug
February 10th, 2012
2:02 pm
Constitution? what constitution. it’s just a piece of paper
come on peoples, ‘bama’s only doing what anyone of us would do
in a similar situation. Nothing is unconstitutional to Obozo
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
2:02 pm
right Jay, it’s definitely you regarding Romney at CPAC…but why do you care? he’s not on your “team”.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:05 pm
Bruno: I am not sure I totally agree with the idea that auto insurance and health insurance are different for the reasons you state. Health insurance claims can be triggered as a result of simply living normally, even within the bounds of what many deem “normal” and “acceptable” etc. If that is admitted, though, then perhaps we would be having a conversation about just how far into people’s private lives a health insurance company can pry to find out if they are looking for “your own poor choices.”
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:06 pm
Young Vin is just one of the more repulsive Tucker refugees lost at sea and without a daily forum to spew his bigoted bile.
Butch Cassidy
February 10th, 2012
2:07 pm
Can someone please get pat a Sean Hannity doll?
Guy Incognito
February 10th, 2012
2:07 pm
Kam
Check it out. A Purple Squirrel!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-the-purple-squirrel-discovered-in-pennsylvania/
JKL2
February 10th, 2012
2:08 pm
the hypocracy- – say something of substance and not something of IGNORANCE. Obama 2012
nice oxymoron…
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
2:08 pm
Bruno — ” Very different from health insurance which only protects you from your own poor choices.”
I am deeply dismayed at the notion that a physician would apparently suggest that health issues only stem from poor personal choices.
There are many individuals, myself included, who suffer from health issues that have little or nothing whatsoever to do with choices we’ve made.
I may be reading you wrong, Bruno, but you certainly seem to be suggesting that health problems *only* result from poor personal choices. If I’m incorrect in that perception, I would genuinely welcome some clarification and elaboration on that point.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
Butch: Hannity is not as sacred as Saint Ronnie. Ronald Reagan dolls are set to be delivered to console conservatives in November. There will be protection from liquid, so that tears do not degrade the quality of the doll over time.
Butch Cassidy
February 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
JohnnyReb – “This nation is already unrecognizable to its founders.”
Of course it is. You think they had planes, trains and automobiles in the 1700’s? Not to mention the fact that no one currently owns slaves. Geez.
JKL2
February 10th, 2012
2:10 pm
taxpayer- Maddow did an excellent job…
Last I checked, lesbians don’t need contraception. Kind of a moot point for her.
pat
February 10th, 2012
2:11 pm
Yes, please present your dolls on your commemorative Barrack Obama plate surrounded by fully grown obama chia pets.
godless heathen
February 10th, 2012
2:12 pm
Adam: “Unless you’re suggesting the church is a “private company” I am not sure what your point is.”
An insurance company is a private company. And as someone who appears to have no qualms about unlimited governmental power, I’m sure you wouldn’t see the point.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
2:13 pm
Last I checked, lesbians don’t need contraception. Kind of a moot point for her.
There’s your sign…geez…
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
“Yes, please present your dolls on your commemorative Barrack Obama plate surrounded by fully grown obama chia pets.”
You left out MESSIAH!!!
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
but why do you care? he’s not on your “team”.
for the same reason, one imagines, Kyle might care about the speakers at a Netroots nation gathering, particularly if there were Democratic presidential aspirants speaking there.
Or perhaps Jay feels he’s gotta pinch hit here, since Kyle’s out on paternity leave?
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
lay off Maddow…he’s seems like a nice enough guy.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
Hypocracy?
Is that similar to Hip-hopcracy?
I know it is a useless gesture, but starting next week, I will be conducting a fund drive to buy dictionaries and other reference materials for our Republican friends.
Please contribute generously to:
The AmVet Relief Fund
c/o Con Dictionaries
P.O. Box 6969
Doraville, Ga. 30360
godless heathen
February 10th, 2012
2:16 pm
“If it’s a matter of interstate commerce, then the Federal government is totally within its rights to regulate it.”
Oh yea. Interstate commerce. That’s the same power the Federal government tried to use to regulate water bodies that have no inlets or outlets. But ducks land on the water bodies and they cross state lines was the Government’s argument.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:16 pm
Conservatives sure do get weird when it comes to Rachel, don’t they?
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:16 pm
Cal Thomas is a disgusting pig; it’s no wonder you homophobes like him.
Guy Incognito
February 10th, 2012
2:17 pm
AmVet
Nice P.O. Box
………..that’s what he said
Butch Cassidy
February 10th, 2012
2:17 pm
pat – “Yes, please present your dolls on your commemorative Barrack Obama plate surrounded by fully grown obama chia pets.”
Actually I don’t have a plate, it’s more like a shrine. 50 feet tall and surrounded by candles and a large painting depicting John McCain comceding the election to Obama who is standing in the glow of eternal sunshine as Sarah Palin circles in a helicopter.
Yes, that is how much I love Obama, may he live for a thousand years!
I would paste an eye roll, but I don’t know how.
St Simons- island off the coast of New Somalia
February 10th, 2012
2:18 pm
After the beating Rmoney took this week,
he’s hoping it’s covered by Obamacare.
And no, Mittens, cialis ISN”T covered ’cause this election won’t last more than 4 hours
Normal
February 10th, 2012
2:18 pm
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:16 pm
Stands,
It’s only because she shows them up for what they really are. They can’t refute her so they try to impugn her.
John Birch
February 10th, 2012
2:19 pm
People whose moms should have had free birth control – Bookman, USinUK, Normal, Amvet, Aqua Girl, Peadawg…..
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:19 pm
godless: Ok, your argument makes more sense now. I understand your point, even though I disagree with it.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:20 pm
Butch: colon-symbol, “roll”, colon symbol. Also, if you select one of the emotes and hit copy, then paste it into the box, you will see what characters it is made of. Like this:
Normal
February 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
Damn JOHN BIRCH, you have put me in fine company…THANKS!!!
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
Guy, funny.
Maybe Vinny would contribute to his own education if the address were:
HO Box 6969
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
G. Heathen — “Oh yea. Interstate commerce. That’s the same power the Federal government tried to use to regulate water bodies that have no inlets or outlets. But ducks land on the water bodies and they cross state lines was the Government’s argument.”
I do not believe that waterfowl or lakes and ponds figure into the government’s argument here.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
“Yes, that is how much I love Obama, may he live for a thousand years!”
May he splash holy water on my forehead…..lol
godless heathen
February 10th, 2012
2:23 pm
Aquagirl: “Perhaps you’re unaware of something called an Insurance Commissioner.”
No I am not familiar with a Federal Insurance Commissioner. Is that a new cabinet position or one of Obama’s czars?
TaxPayer
February 10th, 2012
2:24 pm
Last I checked, lesbians don’t need contraception. Kind of a moot point for her.
Last time I checked, that was not the topic of my post so you are kind of the moot point, JKL2.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:24 pm
They can’t refute her so they try to impugn her.
but…How is childishly pointing to her sexual orientation (or noting her rather androgynous wardrobe choices) constitute “impugning” someone?
It’s just dumb. She’s out and proud, we all know it, she’s always just seemed like a really cool, smart lady to me, nothing more or less. And I figure most of her straight male viewers feel more or less the same.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:25 pm
Vinny “leaves” and John Birch “shows up”. Hysterical.
Normal, the McCarthyite is a real work of art, ain’t he?
Well, I was feelin’ sad and kind of blue
I didn’t know what I was gonna do
The Communists were comin’ around
They was in the air, they were on the ground
They were all over
So I ran down most hurriedly
And joined the John Birch Society
I got me a secret membership card
Went back to my backyard
And started looking on the sidewalk
‘Neath the rose bush
Well, I was lookin’ everywhere for them gold darned Reds
I got up in the mornin’ and looked under my bed
Looked behind the kitchen, behind the door
Even tore loose the kitchen floor, couldn’t find any
I looked beneath the sofa, beneath the chair
Looking for them Reds everywhere
I looked way up my chimney hole
Even looked deep inside my toilet bowl
They got away
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AylFqdxRMwE
getalife
February 10th, 2012
2:28 pm
vinny is from jersey shore so he has women issues.
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
2:30 pm
sfd,
you’d have more credibility if you said the same thing’s when the appearance of other women cam up…Mccain, and Gingrich were/are often compared to stepford wives here…and Ann Coulter’s femininity has been questioned here quiet often…and nary a word from you…wonder why that is?
TaxPayer
February 10th, 2012
2:30 pm
How does Cal Thomas beam out his “bat in the belfry signal” to his colleagues? Is there a high intensity bulb mounted behind the “L” on his forehead that he flicks on and off.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:31 pm
I know it’s hard for you guys to stomach Rachel Maddow but she has laid out SEVERAL issues last night that show the Republicans propose and push issues and then walk them back. My theory: it’s because Democrats and Obama then said “cool, good idea.” And that’s just UNACCEPTABLE.
Don't Forget
February 10th, 2012
2:31 pm
Another dimension to this discussion:
Some native American tribes are legally exempt from laws against using peyote. I believe the use has to be “ceremonial” but the “right” is protected by statute not by the constitution. I tend to think that is how the contraception issue should be handled
gm
February 10th, 2012
2:33 pm
Obama why could you not be more like your predecessor GW? just did not care about any body feelings or belief, why do you have to care for other Americans? nd always trying to do the right thing.
Why could you be more like Bush, ie to American people, my way or nothing, be hated around the world, the right, loves Presidents who tell them where to get off and love Presidents who care less about other Americans, I guess this what seperate you from that idiot before you and why you are loved around the world except for the inside terrorist of the right.
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
2:33 pm
Like Thomas, Coulter is a disgusting, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, trash-talking pig.
Nuff said.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:33 pm
Mccain, and Gingrich were/are often compared to stepford wives here…and Ann Coulter’s femininity has been questioned here quiet often…and nary a word from you…wonder why that is?
Did you ever think to ask me what I thought of them?
I can’t recall ever making any catty comments about any of those women. I don’t like Coulter’s politics at all, but you’ll never hear me slipping in a stupid “Mann Coulter” crack. In fact, I find those particular type of comments to be insensitive to the transgender folks.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
2:36 pm
stands: Apparently if you criticize people at all you’re supposed to spend your time finding every single objectionable comment on the blog and policing them.
It gets especially funny for them to demand this when they are trying to get you to do their hair splitting for them.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
2:39 pm
Don’t Forget — “Some native American tribes are legally exempt from laws against using peyote. I believe the use has to be “ceremonial” but the “right” is protected by statute not by the constitution. I tend to think that is how the contraception issue should be handled”
Actually, no.
This is specifically addressed with in the case Jay notes at the top of the thread.
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
2:40 pm
No one asked you this time regarding Rachel Maddow, yet that didn’t stop you from swooping in against the “childish” attacks…just pointing out your inconsistency
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
2:41 pm
JKL2 — “Last I checked, lesbians don’t need contraception. Kind of a moot point for her.”
I imagine that some women, lesbians or not, might want the morning-after pill if they had been raped.
Jefferson
February 10th, 2012
2:43 pm
I never liked this justice much, myself.
Tommy Maddox
February 10th, 2012
2:47 pm
Let’s see: The Smith case dealt with the religious use of peyote – a previously codified felonious substance. Polygamy – also outlawed. No protection for you. So what have we here?
The Government is Ordering that all institutions must provide something to folks that is already legal and already attainable by other means. It is somewhat akin to rather than driving over to Rio Vista or to the river to pick up a mess of catfish [at your own expense], your employer must instead provide it for you. I don’t see that dinosaur flying.
Beyond that, how can the Pres “cave in’ [typical however] and offer up to a lesser degree something that he had no right to promulgate in the first place?
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:49 pm
I imagine that some women, lesbians or not, might want the morning-after pill if they had been raped.
Not that it’s especially relevant, but I just remembered that Dr. Maddow’s dissertation was about the spread of AIDS in prison; she’s had a long history, I guess, of empathy for (or maybe just curiousity about) people who aren’t necessarily like her.
Grasshopper
February 10th, 2012
2:51 pm
Too funny.
Obama makes a(nother) dumb mandate.
Obama caves to pressure to change it (sort of.)
Bookman turns the whole fiasco into a diatribe against Scalia (in a way.)
Bookman acolytes slurp it up (wholeheartedly.)
Doggone/GA
February 10th, 2012
2:52 pm
“she’s had a long history, I guess, of empathy for (or maybe just curiousity about) people who aren’t necessarily like her.”
Or both.
Tommy Maddox
February 10th, 2012
2:53 pm
Scalia’s opinions are a great read.
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
2:56 pm
Ghopper @ 2.51, it’s more like—
Obama takes forthright stand in defense of reproductive rights;
right wing goes collectively bat-crap crazy and starts claiming mid-week that he’s going to “cave,”
Obama doesn’t cave at all, but reveals the right wing (once again) to be utterly out of touch with the opinion of a clear majority of Americans.
Put another way—I suspect it’ll be your side playing defense on this issue in the general election, not mine.
The Anti-Wooten
February 10th, 2012
3:00 pm
My favorite part of this entire situation it this – The No Compromise as it comes from the President today causes this issue to fade into the background within 2 days other than the obvious right wing nutbars that noone really pays attention to anyway. The President’s long game wins again.
Grasshopper
February 10th, 2012
3:00 pm
Thanks for proving my point sfb.
I really do not have a side. Just pointing out the dumbness.
Doggone/GA
February 10th, 2012
3:02 pm
“Onion article makes congressman weep”
http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/2012/02/10/onion-article-makes-congressman-weep/?cxntlid=thbz_hm
“TheAtlanticWire.com reports the unfortunate turn of events for U.S. Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana) who is alleged to have taken as legit an Onion article bearing the headline “Planned Parenthood Opens $8 billion Abortionplex.”
“Fleming, or his staff, posted a link to the article on his Facebook page with the message “More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale.”
“A Facebook commenter quickly opined — “The Onion is satire. How exactly did you get elected?”
stands for decibels
February 10th, 2012
3:03 pm
I really do not have a side.
I apologize for my presumptuousness, then.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
3:06 pm
“A Facebook commenter quickly opined — “The Onion is satire. How exactly did you get elected?”
HA! AHAHAHAHHA!
Don't Forget
February 10th, 2012
3:07 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
2:39 pm
What, exactly, are you in disagreement with?
Where there is exclusive federal jurisdiction or state law is not “racially” limited, peyote use by Native American Church members is legal and “racially” neutral in the United States.[25] This exemption from federal criminalization is as old as creation of federal law creating peyote related offenses.
This law has been codified as a statute in The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 92 U.S.C.A. § 469, and made part of the common law in Peyote Way Church of God v. Thornburgh, (5th Cir. 1991);[26] it is also in administrative law at the Code of Federal Regulations § 1307.31. The C.F.R. part dealing with “SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS” states:
Section 1307.31 Native American Church. The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law.
U.S. v. Boyll, 774 F.Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1991)[27] addresses this racial issue specifically and concludes:
For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (1990), the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled substance, see 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(12), does not apply to the importation, possession or use of peyote for ‘bona fide’ ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church, regardless of race.
John
February 10th, 2012
3:10 pm
Remember, Jay was against Justice Scalia before he was for him…
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
3:10 pm
Don’t Forget — (snip)
The case cited by Jay above, Employment Division v Smith, speaks *directly* to the matter of peyote usage for religious purposes. In it, the majority decision, written by Justice Scalia, found *against* the Native American Church members.
I encourage you to have a look.
St Simons - we're on Island time
February 10th, 2012
3:13 pm
Don’t Forget – some native American tribes are legally exempt from
laws against using peyote
no way…really? really?…no way……josef, is this true? not that i care
or anything…just inquisitive, you know
getalife
February 10th, 2012
3:15 pm
Yeah he could break precedent.
Our President should get all the women votes.
The gop attack them.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
3:16 pm
Hussein and Forget are both correct.
Federally, there are religious exemptions.
However, states are free to pass their own laws in such matters, and Oregon outlawed peyote use without religious exemption. So that’s what the Scalia opinion wrestled with.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
3:17 pm
This is interesting…
Right Wing Watch: Steve King and White Nationalist CPAC Panel Warn that America’s Greatest Threat is its Diversity
Today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the group ProEnglish organized the panel, “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American identity,” and host Robert Vandervoort thanked CPAC for hosting the panel despite the work of “leftist thugs” who are trying to “shut down freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.” Vandervoort is a former leader of the White Nationalist group Chicagoland Friends of the American Renaissance, a racist magazine published by fellow White Nationalist Jared Taylor. Presumably, Vandervoort was referring to the efforts of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which issued an alert on his background, and People For the American Way, which called on Republican leaders attending CPAC to denounce another panelist, Peter Brimelow, founder and head of the White Nationalist hate website VDARE.
In 2009, Brimelow reflected on CPAC after “Obama’s racial-socialist coup” and expressed his fear that the U.S. is doomed to face a “minority occupation government.” He called on the Republican Party to start focusing on becoming the party of white voters by attacking “ethnic lobbies,” affirmative action, bilingual education and “taxpayer subsidies to illegal aliens.”
Prior to Brimelow’s talk, Vandervoort delivered a rambling speech from Serge Trifkovic (who wasn’t able to attend) that focused on how the “cult of non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood” and “multiculturalist indoctrination” is ruining the West. “The native Western majorities will melt away,” Trifkovic’s speech concluded, “Europeans and our trans-Atlantic cousins are literally endangered species. The facilitators of our destruction must be neutralized if we are to survive.” Afterwards, Rosalie Porter bemoaned the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act for giving too much political influence to minorities.
Brimelow stayed on message and warned that multiculturalism and bilingualism were “diseases” that could wreck American society as they empower minorities and suppress traditional American (read: white) groups. He claimed that Canada, which is officially bilingual, was a good example of how bilingualism becomes a tool of elites to help minorities (Quebecers) at the expense of the majority, and went on to call multiculturalism and bilingualism a “ferocious attack on the working class.”
But the surprise guest of the panel was the fiercely anti-immigrant Rep. Steve King (R-IA) who came to discuss his bill to make English the official language of the U.S.
During a panel discussion, Brimelow said that the Democratic Party has “given up on the white working class” and is using immigration to “elect a new polity,” i.e. increase the number of ethnic minorities. Before he could turn to King, the congressman giddily told Brimelow, “I read your books!” King went on to say that Brimelow “eloquently wrote about the balkanization of America.”
Following the panel, King dismissed the Southern Poverty Law Center’s classification of VDARE as a hate group in an interview with BuzzFeed, saying, “I wouldn’t take them seriously.”
With the blessing of a leading Republican congressman, it looks like Brimelow’s dream of having a conservative movement which focuses on challenging cultural diversity may finally be coming to fruition.
St Simons - we're on Island time
February 10th, 2012
3:19 pm
we get it, we get it. With 2 catholics in the clown car, the Republicans
are making a ham-handed play for the catholic vote. But what this
clumsy stunt really shows is how out-of-touch the cons are from
not only mainstrewam ‘merka, but mainstream catholics.
ohhh, the beatdown that is coming. Epic. Epic.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
3:22 pm
Normal, sounds like Nathan Deal ought to recruit those guys to join Phil Kent on our state immigration board…..
Tommy Maddox
February 10th, 2012
3:23 pm
No – the Republicans are not promising to give Catholics something they are not entitled to.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
3:24 pm
Jay,
Don’t make suggestions like that…they might hear you…
AmVet - If you're a Republican, please punch yourself in the face.
February 10th, 2012
3:28 pm
He called on the Republican Party to start focusing on becoming the party of white voters…
START focusing???!!!
Hilarious!
OK, peeps partying calls, so you good folks will have to soldier on without me.
Lay down the righteous stuff tonight and I’ll check it out tomorrow.
I’ll leave with this one…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlBEIUJIqvI
They BOTH suck
February 10th, 2012
3:33 pm
AmVet
Great tune to leave us on this great Friday……….
Peace
Matti
February 10th, 2012
3:35 pm
Normal,
That was indeed interesting… and scary, how people use something like diversity to foster fear and hatred. Genetic diversity makes a bloodline stronger. Cultural diversity makes a society smarter. I believe it’s also true that people innately hunger for a sense of identity that comes from being a part of a well-defined bigger group. (It’s just a silly plaid scarf, but it’s my tartan, and I feel connected to my kin when I wear it and listen to bagpipe music… silly, huh?) Why do these freaks have to take something positive and turn it into something so destructive?
A question?
February 10th, 2012
3:37 pm
Jay, you love you some big government, huh? The more the better!
josef
February 10th, 2012
3:42 pm
NORMAL
You might want to buy a whole box of the iodized stuff when listening to the SPLC. They’re about the biggest lot of silly twits the left has ever been able to pull together under one acronym and that includes some dearly loved friends and relatives who play with them.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
3:42 pm
Matti,
When a group of people only have race to make themselves feel important, the fear of its loss makes them feel deminished and scared because of it. What IS scary is when they act on it.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
3:43 pm
Jay, you love you some big government, huh?
I know I do! I would just LOVE it if the government would make sure my girlfriend, wife, or daughter carries a pregnancy to term by the point of a gun. I would LOVE it if government forced me to get a new form of ID in order to vote, while also having hours at the offices I cannot possibly meet and requiring documents I cannot possibly get if I don’t already have them. I just LOVE that the government decides that I need credit counseling if I go bankrupt after a divorce.
Normal
February 10th, 2012
3:43 pm
Josef,
Yes, I went in and washed my eyes out after I read it.
josef
February 10th, 2012
3:45 pm
On topic of this and so many other from Jay and the media of late…I read the memo when it first came out. The pundits are slow on the uptake on this one…
ty webb
February 10th, 2012
3:45 pm
“Right Wing Watch”.?..that’s funny…the fact that someone gives them and SPLC, credence?…Not so much.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
3:46 pm
Obama puts forth a rule, sure to outrage the conservatives, just in time for CPAC, and then pulls the rug out from under them by changing it, just in time for CPAC to be mostly over.
Checkmate in 9 months.
Fred
February 10th, 2012
3:47 pm
A question?
February 10th, 2012
3:37 pm
Jay, you love you some big government, huh? The more the better!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there not a shred of intellectual content in that post or am I missing something? Is it just me or is this just a drive by troll reading a bumper sticker?
Normal
February 10th, 2012
3:51 pm
Ty,
Don’t be so narrow minded and you will learn much more.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
3:56 pm
Normal — “Vandervoort is a former leader of the White Nationalist group Chicagoland Friends of the American Renaissance, a racist magazine published by fellow White Nationalist Jared Taylor.”
Ever notice how white nationalists and supremacists look like the kind of mooks no one would want to have kids with anyway?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/the_conspiracy_videos_in_the_hutarees_library.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Well, except for other mooks, anyhow.
Brosephus™ "Browning America since 1973"
February 10th, 2012
3:57 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGLhx3oiU3M
Scooter
February 10th, 2012
4:06 pm
I am a 48 year old gay man and I think religious groups should NOT BE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE! I am a Christian and there is good evidence that even Jesus may have been Gay. See the secret Mark story!
Paul
February 10th, 2012
4:07 pm
I guess this about does it when liberals on the blog want to cite Justice Scalia as a backwards-thinking Neanderthal who doesn’t understand the realities of his rulings.
As far as the 1879 upholding the ban on polygamy, that strikes me more along the order of thinking congruent with the prejudices of the time. Rather like the infamous case from the same time period, Plessy v Ferguson, in which the Court said it was constitutional for states to have racial segregation under the ’separate but equal’ concept. That ruling was, of course overturned, eliminating that precedent from further consideration. I’ve wondered if the same might occur with Reynolds v United States (the polygamy decision), given the ban is essentially on what society considers ‘immoral’ behavior. Just like what many use to justify the ban on gay marriage (which is, I think, a major reason justification has shifted to marriage as a ‘right’).
All in all, this is a most interesting case.
They BOTH suck
February 10th, 2012
4:12 pm
Scooter
Not sure if Jesus was gay but when you look at the Roman Centurion story in its factual translation………. his “helper/slave” may have been more than that
Of course………. I’m not Christian. but grew up as such and have studied the Bible a decent amount
ODD OWL
February 10th, 2012
4:13 pm
The Catholic Church insurance policies cover the cost of condoms used by the Catholic Priests… But they refuse to pay for contraceptives for Women employed by the Catholic Church… Could someone please explain this to me ??? I’m so confused… Catholic Priests = Creeps…
Paul
February 10th, 2012
4:18 pm
Scooter – They both
Important to keep in mind sexuality views in that (Roman) world were radically different from now. Jews had proscriptions against extra-marital sexual interaction. Most others did not. For many pagan societies, our codes of morality and conduct were not even a religious issue. There may have been rules or attitudes, but they were not based upon the practiced religion.
Don't Forget
February 10th, 2012
4:29 pm
Paul
February 10th, 2012
4:07 pm
Actually, when you consider the fact that the “left” now cites quotes from Reagan, Scalia, Buckley and many other R’s of the past to defend their position, it’s obvious how far to the right this country has moved.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
4:33 pm
Don’t Forget — “Actually, when you consider the fact that the “left” now cites quotes from Reagan, Scalia, Buckley and many other R’s of the past to defend their position, it’s obvious how far to the right this country has moved.”
Or maybe it’s just obvious how far to the right *today’s conservatives* have moved, compared to those in Buckley and Reagan’s day.
Thulsa Doom
February 10th, 2012
4:33 pm
Been too busy today to blog or follow this. But I did notice Obama blinked- big time. He should be an NFL cornerback. The way he backpedaled on this thing qualifies him as an all pro corner.
Paul
February 10th, 2012
4:35 pm
Don’t forget
And when one considers the actual record of those such as Reagan, not just the words, or the records and words of such as Sen Goldwater (the “I’d like to kick Jerry Falwell in the (backside)” guy) and how the Right idolizes them, yet if someone with their record or words ran today they’d be dismissed as a RINO and given no further consideration (like what happened to Huntsman) – it is also obvious how far to the Right the Right has moved.
Jay
February 10th, 2012
4:44 pm
Thulsa, if you think Obama “blinked — big time,” you just go right on thinking that.
A lot of your fellow conservatives understand what really happened here; go read them, and let THEM explain it to you.
bman
February 10th, 2012
4:49 pm
Health Care will be a major topic in November. This is only the beginning.
Mighty Righty
February 10th, 2012
4:59 pm
It must be difficult for poor Jay to defend Obama policies when Obama policies change from day to day.
Craig
February 10th, 2012
5:00 pm
Jay, I’m not sure the examples you cite are parallel to this issue. It’s one thing for government to restrict your religious activity (especially something deemed criminal). It’s an entirely different thing for the government to compel your action or participation (against a fundamental belief – especially one accepted as reasonable) in fulfilling some effort to “regulate” commerce. For example, the courts have long held that religiously-grounded pacifism is a legitimate reason to avoid combat, even in wartime.
md
February 10th, 2012
5:03 pm
Not sure which is worse, the shell game being played or folks falling for the shell game……
Thulsa Doom
February 10th, 2012
5:14 pm
Jay
February 10th, 2012
4:44 pm
Thulsa, if you think Obama “blinked — big time,” you just go right on thinking that.
Just telling you what I read from the news on my droid- none of it from Faux news either. The con side of the story that I read was that he’s just playing a shell game. Either way it looks like the man is just plain dishonest. Nothing new there with this president.
Oscar
February 10th, 2012
5:18 pm
Everyone shoue be elible to go on medicare if they want to. We need to get away from health coverage furnished by employers. That’s a nutty system that started in WWII and we should get away from it.
0311/1811
February 10th, 2012
5:20 pm
JAY:
1) I don’t think there is any comparison here and I can almost bet you Scalia would agree if/when he writes his part of the next opinion. Apples and Oranges. In this case there are other options available to women vs. thousands of years of Catholic doctrine. They DON”T have to work there, they can pay for their own insurance or they can pay direct themselves.
2) Now that said, I am sure you would support the above decision by Scalia against ANY part of Sharia law that “butts heads” with U.S. law at any level ? Hummmmmm ……………………. ?
Geo
February 10th, 2012
5:29 pm
“A lot of your fellow conservatives understand what really happened here; go read them, and let THEM explain it to you.”
Doom – Obama has tried to pass the buck over to the individual groups’ insurers. That way the individual groups will have to pay more in premiums for the coverage their insurance carriers are being forced to provide.
Yeah that’s pretty sly.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 10th, 2012
5:41 pm
Oh, look who’s back.
Mimm
February 10th, 2012
5:51 pm
Liberals think it just fine for the government to suddenly require that tens of millions of Christians violate their conscience to provide a free good to people in the country for the very first tiime, even though there is no real inablity to procure this good other wise. It’s just an ideological power grab by the state, another case in which our liberty is trashed by the far left.
The notion of an “accomodation” is ridiculous. How do you reach an “accomodation” on a constitutional right. Either its your right or it’s not. I don’t believe that Obama can win this in court and I don’t think he can win this in the legislature. His arrogant usurpation of our values and our constituion has finally come into the open for tens of millions of us to see.
As for Bookman’s supposed and irrelevant argument…I did not expect any better from this ideologically captive lightweight.
0311/1811
February 10th, 2012
5:53 pm
Voters:
Just remember, if you think the stunts Obama has pulled over the last few months are bad just wait and see if he is elected for a second “lame duck” term. He will pull out all of the stops and it will be UGLY.
Unhappy
February 10th, 2012
5:57 pm
Just to clarify, I am paying for free housing, free food, free cellphone, free internet, free schools and NOW FREE HEALTHCARE AND CONTRACEPTION for anyone too lazy to work for it themselves
0311/1811
February 10th, 2012
5:58 pm
Unhappy:
Sorry to say that doesn’t even start to be the complete list.
Paul
February 10th, 2012
6:06 pm
Mimm
Rule of Thumb: read Jay’s remarks before posting -
Paul
February 10th, 2012
6:12 pm
If we accept Catholic law on this, doesn’t that mean we have to accept Sharia Law for the Muslim community?
A TAT
February 10th, 2012
6:14 pm
Oh, look who’s back.
A TAT?
“What he doth, he doth by rule of thumb, and not by art.”
Rules
thbppbbbt
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
6:16 pm
“Every kiss begins with Kay.”
– Thomas Jefferson
As expected....
February 10th, 2012
6:32 pm
Pelosi: Obama Flip-Flopped On Super PACs Because He Didn’t Want The “Koch Brothers Deciding The Presidency”…
Kamchak
February 10th, 2012
6:37 pm
Oh, look who’s back.
Now you see it, now you don’t.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Schnirt”
– Thomas Jefferson
gm
February 10th, 2012
6:50 pm
Newt” Obama has pledge war on Religion
I am sure Newt makes the Catholic pride, Newt are you declaring war on adultry, 30 ethics violations, 3 ex wifes, I am sure the Catholics are big on divorce ?
0311/1811
Oh you mean stunts like killing 50 out of 65 terrorist on the top list around the world that would love to destroy right wing nut jobs like you.
Adam
February 10th, 2012
6:52 pm
even though there is no real inablity to procure this good other wise.
uhhhhh….
Adam
February 10th, 2012
6:53 pm
I’m starting to wonder if Newt wants a talk radio show. He can certainly spread lies as easily and with as much vitriol as Rush.
gm
February 10th, 2012
7:00 pm
Thanks Obama, with your wise leader ship, have any of the idiots on the right notice there is no more fear in America against terrorist? just maybe he should have let some of these people over here and shake up these right wing Anti American idiots we have.
The right wing have to talk about this issue because they have nothing to run on, Rick wants to blow Iran away, but not with his kids, Mitt is to rich to care,
Newt, immorality problems, the rep with their doom and gloom of America is not going to work, Obama will win in a land slide, nobody likes the rep but angry old white men from the south and submissive southern conservative old women.
Paul
February 10th, 2012
7:00 pm
Adam
Well, there’s a lot more money and fawning adoration in that line of work than there is in the presidency -
0311/1811
February 10th, 2012
7:38 pm
gm:
“Oh you mean stunts like killing 50 out of 65 terrorist on the top list around the world that would love to destroy right wing nut jobs like you.”
I hate to disappointed you but that would have been done by our elite special forces under any president.
0311/1811
February 10th, 2012
7:39 pm
Excuse me: disappoint
JKL2
February 10th, 2012
8:10 pm
joe mama- I imagine that some women, lesbians or not, might want the morning-after pill if they had been raped
We know every woman seeking an abortion is a rape or incest victims. I suppose that next you’ll be saying evil banks make people take out loans…
ld
February 10th, 2012
8:14 pm
whether or not this was a “real” compromise, the fact that Obama stepped up to the mics and declared he was compromising indicates that religion still has more political clout than women’s rights groups
instead of Obamacare–which I hope will be declared unconstitutitonal this spring–medical care, including birth control, for those that cannot get it elsewhere because of lack of $ or tyranny of their church could be provided via EXISTING county health departments–w/funds and mandates expanded/extended for that purpose–cheaper than Obamacare via private for mega-profit insurance companies if properly set up.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
February 10th, 2012
9:05 pm
Well, if Justice Scalia went over to the Dark Side, shame on him. We will see how he votes on the Obamacare case when it comes up later this year. President Food Stamps has a real problem here. His “back up” was not really a “back up”. That is plain for all to see. I have no idea how many Catholics utilize contraceptives, but I am willing to bet that even those that do are not interested in seeing the Catholic Church pushed around like this. If Emperor Nero loses the Catholic vote, he is history. I would assume the Supreme Leader’s ultimate goal is to take over all the hospitals – I wonder if he believes he can do that by 2016? This clown has some odd ideas.
Lysander
February 10th, 2012
11:06 pm
In more than a few areas of the law, the subtle difference between commission and omission is an important distinction.
Jay: read the selection of Scalia’s opinion you excised more carefully and you’ll see why it doesn’t demand the same result in the contraception issue. The ACA requires Catholics to act in a particular way that is contrary to their beliefs.
On the other hand, Scalia’s examples involve a government proscription of positive behavior. Seems like an insignificant difference, but many judicial opinions turn on such a distinction. And, I’m certain, Scalia chose the words “prohibiting conduct” very carefully.
Scooter
February 11th, 2012
12:17 am
Women should not abort little vab
Scooter
February 11th, 2012
12:19 am
I meant women should not abort little babies! And you say us gays are evil! wsm_marathoner
Oscar
February 11th, 2012
2:13 am
The ACA requires Catholics to act in a particular way that is contrary to their beliefs.
__________
All religious gourps have to abandon practices that are against the law. There is a very long list of examples of this. In this case, the religious group in question follow the law. Polls show members of Catholic churches are more highly in favor of contraception than any other group. Whoever is purporting to speak for Catholic does not represent their views.
Right Thinker
February 11th, 2012
9:19 am
You lefties are amazing, simply amazing. The issue is requiring a religious organization to provide (which means the organization must pay for) contraception “no cost to the employee” which means 100% payment, no customary co-pay as is normal for prescription drugs. Maybe I missed the memo, but is there A ban on employees purchasing their birth control pills? Requiring an organization to provide an item to which they are opposed, for no cost, and absorb those costs is far different than the cases cited.
As to the insurance companies, don’t fret about them. Unless this socialist takeover of 18% of the nation’s economy isn’t stopped the legislation is crafted in such a way as to put those companies out of business. Companies must pay 85% of premiums out in claims. Meaning they must operate on 15% of revenues. Can you name any organization which can operate on 15% of revenues? Generally speaking expenses including state premium taxes, employee compensation, utilities, Federal taxes, office and operating overhead run 28%. No agency of Federal Government operates anywhere remotely compared to 28%, much less 15%. Social Security spends more on operating expenses than it distributes in benefits, same for Medicare and Medicaid. Yet, Obamacare demands health insurance carriers operate with overhead at a rate such that companies will vacate their business. Single payer has always been the goal of Democrats/Socialists, they are closer.
If you like the Post Office, if you like the efficiency of Social Security and Medicare you’re going to love Obamacare. Long lines, subpar care, rationing, it’s coming to your town.
RAMZAD
February 11th, 2012
9:32 am
Catholics need to handle their international pedophilia problem and provide health insurance in their businesses like all other regular business do. I do not rate Catholics, because they have been either party to or indifferent spectators to just about every horror that one side of humanity has ever visited upon another. You name the atrocity and Catholics were there pushing the fire or minding their own business.
Progressive Humanist
February 11th, 2012
9:37 am
Does anyone else find it disturbingly ironic that an organization with a record of rampant pedophilia would still be able to exert political influence on the topic of sexuality and contraception? I’m sorry, but grown men in flamboyant costumes who have never engaged in heterosexual intercourse and adhere to “talking snake” superstitions have no place in the discussion of health care or reproductive rights (or rational discussion of public policy for that matter).
TGT
February 11th, 2012
10:08 am
Nice pull from one of your favorite spots on the “blogroll” (Talking Points) Jay, however, as the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes:
As the text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act makes clear, there are four questions involved in determining whether the HHS mandate violates RFRA:
1. Does a person engage in an “exercise of religion” when he, for religious reasons, refuses to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients?
2. Does the HHS mandate “substantially burden” such exercise of religion?
3. Does application of the burden to the person further a “compelling governmental interest”?
4. Is application of the burden to the person the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest?
If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is no, then there is no issue under RFRA and no reason to reach questions 3 and 4. If the answers to question 1 and question 2 are yes, then questions 3 and 4 come into play; if the answer to either question 3 or question 4 is no, then RFRA has been violated.
…
I don’t see how anyone can seriously dispute that a person engages in an “exercise of religion” under RFRA when, for religious reasons, he performs, or abstains from performing, certain actions. (I’m not now addressing the distinct question whether and when a prohibition on that exercise of religion amounts to “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” in violation of the First Amendment.) Consider the “exercise of religion” involved in some leading Supreme Court cases: In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), an individual’s religious beliefs forbade her from working on Saturdays. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the parents of teenaged children had religious beliefs that prohibited them from sending their children to high school. In Thomas v. Review Board (1981), a worker’s religious beliefs barred him from participating in the production of armaments.
While the Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) altered the standard for assessing which laws will be deemed to “prohibit[] the free exercise [of religion]” (and thus violate the First Amendment), it reaffirmed that “the ‘exercise of religion’ often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation.” (And, of course, even if Smith had narrowed the constitutional definition of “exercise of religion,” the very point of RFRA was to restore the pre-Smith regime, so there would be no reason that Smith’s constitutional definition would narrow the meaning of RFRA’s statutory term “exercise of religion.”)
Indeed, HHS, in explaining its decision to allow the HHS bureaucracy to establish exemptions from the mandate for an extremely narrow category of “religious employers,” states that “it is appropriate [for the bureaucracy to take] into account the effect on the religious beliefs of certain religious employers if coverage of contraceptive services were required in the group health plans in which employees in certain religious positions participate.” (See page 46623 of HHS’s interim rule (emphasis added).) HHS is thus acknowledging that these employers are engaged in an “exercise of religion” (within the meaning of RFRA) when they refuse to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives. (Why else even contemplate a religious exemption?) Although HHS doesn’t see fit to allow exemptions to take into account the effect on the religious beliefs of other employers, that doesn’t change the fact that it implicitly concedes that other employers who refuse, for religious reasons, to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives are likewise engaged in an “exercise of religion.”
In short, it’s clear, for purposes of RFRA, that a person engages in an “exercise of religion” when he, for religious reasons, refuses to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.
Lysander
February 11th, 2012
10:25 am
Oscar – thank you for pointing out my imprecision. I’ll try again.
*The ACA (and related mandates) requires the Catholic Church to act in a way that is contrary to its religious beliefs.
I don’t seek to speak for Individual Catholics, and could not do so. However, the Church’s position on this issue is pretty clear.
In any event, the main premise of my comment is that Scalia’s prior opinions are distinguishable from the present issue. On account of the fact that the mandate requires a religious institution to act (and doesn’t proscribe an individual from acting), Scalia, if he pens an opinion on the issue this summer, will easily be able to avoid the same conclusion if he so chooses.
I remember
February 11th, 2012
2:14 pm
If Obama and the liberals can jam this new mandate down the throats of millions of people in America just becasue it’s politically expedient for them to fire up their base of support, what is to keep the collectivist Obama from requiring financial support for assisted suicide too.?How about infanticide? Euthanisia?
We have birthed a monster.
Are there no limits to this despot’s power?
Oscar
February 11th, 2012
2:57 pm
My overall point of view is that no employer should be required to provided health insurance of any kind to its employees. we need to get away from employers providing health insurance to employees. There are better ways for us to have access to medical care in this country.
Oscar
February 11th, 2012
2:58 pm
what is to keep the collectivist Obama from requiring financial support for assisted suicide too.?
Congress.
Kamchak
February 11th, 2012
3:43 pm
If Obama and the liberals can jam this new mandate down the throats…
I have found that those who complain the most about having something jammed down their throats, are the same one who will swallow anything.
Just sayin’.
David Green
February 11th, 2012
8:59 pm
Jay…
Both you and Scalia have it wrong. As the federal govt. nor the states have the right to force any church, religious organization or individual to violate their/his conscience. Unless of course they are receiving funding from the aforementioned federal govt. or state; all the catholic church needs to do is give up the public funding it receives {which is a breach of the wall of separation between the church and the state} then the leadership would be justified in excommunicating any and all politicians and employees of the federal and state govt. who are members of the catholic church.
On the other hand If the state has the right to interfere in the natural right to contract a marriage of its citizens in any form or fashion then it stands to reason that the state also has the right to decide who one marries as well. So that in reality what you and Scalia are defending in regards to polygamy is to put it simply tyranny – which always invites and justifies violent rebellion against the state.
This is why I remain independent politically by refusing to be a liberal democrat or a conservative republican as I will have no part of any group that claims to have the right to impose its will upon individual members of the community at large.
David Green
February 11th, 2012
9:04 pm
Oscar without the medical insurance employers provide their employees the health care industry would collapse in a matter of days.
Oscar
February 11th, 2012
9:39 pm
David =
To be replace by something else. Open market purchase of individual policies. Singal payer system. Medicard for everyone. Or a combination of all three. Each would be an emprovement over what we have.
AdamAnt as Kamchuck during getalife
February 11th, 2012
11:11 pm
You people are all wrong. GOD will not be mocked. Does the US Constitution mean anything to any of you people anymore? Jay you included.
Cory
February 12th, 2012
2:59 am
Jay,
A few problems with your analysis come to mind. First, Employment Division v. Smith was about a generally applicable CRIMINAL law. The Contraceptive law at issue here is not criminal. Second, most relevant case to the current controversy actually is NOT United States v. Lee; rather, it is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
In that case, a unanimous Court rejected the Government’s argument that granting to a church a religious exemption under the Free Exercise Clause would undermine the Government’s need for uniformity in enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. This is because Congress enacted RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in response to Employment Division to effectively overturn the Court’s decision (the opinion authored by Justice Scalia), which you fondly quote above.
Because of RFRA, a general governmental interest in applying a law uniformly, by itself, no longer justifies a substantial burden on religious exercise. RFRA requires the Government to demonstrate how its compelling interest is satisfied by enforcing the challenged law against the particular person (or religion in the contraceptive case) requesting an exemption. Here is the language stating why United States v. Lee (a case decided before Employment Division and before Scalia was even a member of the Court) is not on point:
“The Government points to some pre-Smith cases relying on a need for uniformity in rejecting claims for religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause, but those cases strike us as quite different from the present one. Those cases did not embrace the notion that a general interest in uniformity justified a substantial burden on religious exercise; they instead scrutinized the asserted need and explained why the denied exemptions could not be accommodated. In United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), for example, the Court rejected a claimed exception to the obligation to pay Social Security taxes, noting that “mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality of the social security system” and that the “tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief . . . . These cases show that the Government can demonstrate a compelling interest in uniform application of a particular program by offering evidence that granting the requested religious accommodations would seriously compromise its ability to administer the program.”
“Here the Government’s argument for uniformity is different; it rests not so much on the particular statutory program at issue as on slippery-slope concerns that could be invoked in response to any RFRA claim for an exception to a generally applicable law. The Government’s argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody.”
It all comes down to how the government defines its compelling interest in making contraceptives available through Catholic Hospitals, Employers, or their Insurance Cos.
And Justice Scalia is right: a generally applicable CRIMINAL LAW does not excuse one from failing to comply because his religious beliefs conflict with the law. So again, while you made some interesting points, there are also some interesting problems with those points.
Kamchak
February 12th, 2012
12:33 pm
GOD will not be mocked. Does the US Constitution mean anything to any of you people anymore?
GOD wrote the U.S. Constitution?
Once again I am amazed by what I learn here on a daily basis.
No, you are not … « Homeless on the High Desert
February 13th, 2012
1:21 pm
[...] Just because you are a “church” doesn’t mean you are exempt of the law. That’s for corporations: In fact, a century of American jurisprudence – including Antonin Scalia himself – prove that you can, and should.Scalia, himself a devout and very conservative Catholic, wrote in the majority decision: “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” Scalia traces Supreme Court rulings on the issue back to an 1879 decision that upheld federal laws against polygamy. A member of the Mormon Church had argued that because his faith required men to marry multiple wives, polygamy was protected under the First Amendment and that Mormons could claim a religious exemption from such a law. [...]
No, you are not. (Religious exemption from the law)
February 13th, 2012
5:31 pm
[...] you are not. (Religious exemption from the law)Ten Bears, on Feb 13, 2012, 3:30 pmJust because you are a “church” doesn’t mean you are exempt of the law:In fact, a century of American jurisprudence – including Antonin Scalia himself – prove that [...]
It Could Be Worse | TaylorMarsh.com
February 14th, 2012
12:02 am
[...] Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are backing Pres. Obama on the contraception mandate.“Arguing for Obama, Justice Scalia” (h/t wb), by Jay Bookman takes it from there.I’ve been reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s [...]
A Valentine’s Day for The Good Guys | The Moderate Voice
February 14th, 2012
12:10 pm
[...] “Arguing for Obama, Justice Scalia” (h/t wb), by Jay Bookman takes it from there. I’ve been reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in “Employment Division v. Smith,” a 1990 case in which the Supreme Court pretty much settled the question of whether the federal government can require or outlaw actions that might bump up against religious beliefs. The decision makes it clear that the Catholic bishops have no legal or constitutional basis for their complaint. [...]
“The Pharisees”: Bishops Go Off The Deep End « mykeystrokes.com
February 15th, 2012
11:47 am
[...] best argument on behalf of the Obama administration’s position comes from a very unlikely source, as Jay Bookman points out: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In two different decisions, the conservative Catholic Scalia [...]