In my previous post I showed the latest liberal spin on President Obama’s contraception mandate.
But there were some great political cartoons from our side this week as well, beginning with one by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I see santorum is still bewildered/horrified/nauseous that JFK gave a speech extolling the separation of church and state. Santorum does seem to think that the church should play a significant role in the operations of the state. No wonder the GOP are looking around for new candidates now that santorum looks like a real danger to romney securing the nomination.
i like the last one the best.
Reality,
Did you have a problem with the Rev Martin Luther King leading a civil rights movement?
How about the Quakers being the first to organize against slavery?
How about Bill Clinton and Mario Cuomo campaigning in a black church?
How about the Revs Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton involving themselves in political activities?
I mean, you having such “concern” about the seperation of church and state.
ZOEgirl:
I agree. The last was the best. Sadly, that is about where we are. The brutish thug pounding on the priest against the backdrop of wall to wall contraceptives and condoms was pretty good too.
Mary, santorum has said “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” – see, he wants to head in the direction of theocracy.
I don’t think that the people you mentioned were/have been involved to the extent that santorum is talking about.
I don’t think that the people you mentioned were/have been involved to the extent that santorum is talking about.
Umm…how do you know what extent he’s talking about? Has he drafted up plans or outlined anything definitive? What you quoted sounds pretty…insubstantial to me.
Reality,
LOLLLLLLLLL. My friend do some historical research and you will find religious people did much to influence the course of this country by their overt political activity.
You’ll find religious people took a very active role in abolishing slavery, with preachers thundering on its evils from the pulpits. The Quakers formed the first anti slavery society in this country and were very active in the anti slavery movement for decades.
The civil rights movement was very religiously oriented, with Dr. King meeting with presidents Kennedy and Johnson.
How about the Berrigan brothers? Catholic priests who took an active role in the anti Vietnam War movement.
BTW Reality, what about Jesse Jackson? Is there ever any political activity he isn’t sticking his left wing nose in? Wasn’t he leading the charge down in Florida in 2000 over the vote? You know, when people in Florida didn’t know how to read ballots.
Seperation of church and state, which by the way is no where in the Constitution, never became an issue until the abortion debate, when the Catholic Church was targeted as a common enemy against which abortion advocates could rally the troops.
You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.
~Religious fanatic George Washington.
While encamiped on the banks of a river, Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools.
xalisae, santorum has made a number of statements indicating that he intends for religion to have a greater influence on policy and legislation, such as states having the power to ban contraception.
Read it again Mary, santroum said “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”
Activism, lobbying etc. such as you have described is one thing, ‘involvement in the operation of the state’ is quite another.
Reality, states having the power to ban contraception is a constitutional opinion, not a religious one. It is a logical result if one believes there is no constitutional right to privacy, which I understand Griswald v. Connecticut was based on. Now actually banning contraception, which Santourum is opposed to, would indeed involve religious influence.
Santorum would at most use his “bully pulpit” to speak out against contraception, probably on public health concerns. Just because President Obama issues mandates in the reproductive health area doesn’t mean that any Republican President would even contemplate such a thing. None of the Republican candidates would commit the types of anti-constitutional outrages that the Obama administration has been doing with impunity, unchallenged by the “free” press (which is supposed to guard our liberties).
PS I’m not trying to provoke any “bully” smears – the phrase was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt)
Uh Reality,
You think influencing laws and societal change, such as done by the Quakers and Dr. King isn’t involvement in the operation of the state? The Berrigan Brothers weren’t trying to influence the gov’t concerning our involvement in the Vietnam War? Rev Jesse Jackson wasn’t trying to influence the outcome of an election?
The Bill of Rights, First Amendment included, is all about the government not throwing it’s weight around to restrict our rights. Not to protect the government from our influence and grievances.
“You think influencing laws and societal change, such as done by the Quakers and Dr. King isn’t involvement in the operation of the state?” – involvement in the operation of the state, no. Influence, yes.
“The Berrigan Brothers weren’t trying to influence the gov’t concerning our involvement in the Vietnam War? Rev Jesse Jackson wasn’t trying to influence the outcome of an election?” – influence, yes. Involvement in the operation of the state, no.
Reality,
I agree with you on Rick Santorum. I was disgusted by his remarks about Iran and why it would be great to just go off and bomb another country. I saw this clip of an interview he did on Fox News (not something that I normally read or watch, but I figure that if I get much of my political news from Mother Jones these days I should at least try to be fair and get the opposite viewpoint) and he was prompted about Iran and he mentioned the need to destabilize the government then went on to say, “We need to tell the Iranians…that they either begin to dismantle those facilities or we will have to dismantle them for you.” My mouth was hanging open, I think, by the end of the interview and all I could think was, “But if you get even a little more theocratic you might as well call yourself Ayatollah Santorum…”
I am myself very interested in religion and its ability to mold American policy, particularly foreign policy. I know that religion gets such a bad reputation and in this country we are constantly engaged in a fight about the role of religion in our government. I am interested in how religion shapes social justice movements but also how religious and philosophical movements come in waves. Our country was founded on the principles of John Locke, not religious principles, but religion has still played such a huge role in our daily lives- some of it positive and some of it negative. I think that Christianity is such a beautiful thing and I though I am an agnostic myself I cannot help but find the teachings of Jesus and other religious figures to be very true and wise. I love to read about the Buddha as well.
I’m sorry, by the way, to make an assumption about your nationality or religious affiliation. I would just be curious to hear your thoughts on the positive power of religion or the negative power of religion (people are horribly vindictive when they want to be and regardless of where they are or what religion they are seeking to manipulate, there are always people who twist peaceful commandments into something else entirely- just for profit). May I get your opinion?
Vannah, are you really that ignorant of the obligations we have to our allies around the world?
You DO realize that Israel is an ally of ours, and Iran has openly threatened them repeatedly, right?
Ugh. Kids these days.
I’m not completely sure exactly what you want my opinion of Vannah. I can write a short precis on why I think religion is both bogus and negative but I’d have to couch it in terms which wouldn’t lead to the ususal suspects here accusing me of simply slam-dunking religion, even if I explain why I take the positions I do. Maybe you could break it down and I could address specific points.
Santorum actually opposes some of the things that the catholic church has called for but which do not suit republican policy. I think that says something itself.
I don’t think that religion itself plays a significant part in US foreign policy, strange as that may sound.
Reality,
D’oh! I meant to say domestic policy, not foreign policy (albeit I have heard some people grumble, “Oh the only reason we’re allied with Israel is because of the Bible,” I’ve no idea if this is true). I suppose one could make the argument that religion has dictated our foreign policy in the Middle East, but I won’t go there because my knowledge on the relationship between religion, the US, and the Middle East is limited.
What I would ask you is this:
1). Do you believe religion has an overall positive or negative effect on society?
2). If you believe that religion has a negative effect on society, do you believe it is a problem with religion or individual actions?
We can go ahead and couch it in American society if you want. We don’t have to run over all of global history. I just want to gather as many opinions on this matter as possible. I know the opinions of other people here and I was just curious about yours. I hope that I don’t sound too pushy or demanding- I am not trying to go on the attack against you. I just want to see things from your point of view on this topic. :)
I find the claim made by some that “Oh the only reason we’re allied with Israel is because of the Bible,” is fatuous, shallow and ill-informed. It’s much more complex and has historical underpinnings.
To your questions, in the context of american society:
1) negative. Yes it can be said that many good things have been done because of religion. But those same things could have been done without religion. Why do people need religion as an excuse to do good things? And there have been ‘bad’ things done in the name of religion which mostly would not have occurred without that religion. So overall the impact of religion on society is negative.
2) mostly individual actions claimed to be in the name of religion. The selectiveness with which people adhere to ‘god’s word’ appears to directly correlate to their own opinions, prejudices, greed, need, weaknesses and bigotry. Religion is an excuse for some peoples actions.
Xalisae,
I am well aware of the tensions between Iran and Israel, as well as the tensions between Israel and her other neighbors, the Arab League states. Many of the tensions flare because of the continued occupation of Palestine, but I don’t want to make the problems between Iran and Israel seem simple, as though they are all Israel’s fault or all Iran’s fault. The general consensus among the Iranian people is that Iran is not a threat to Israel or the United States and therefore they do not know what we are on about. There is debate over whether or not Iran will be able to ever attack Israel because the comments about destroying Israel were made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not the Supreme Leader, and there is friction among the religious leaders over the best course of actions. This of course is assuming that Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon. They may well be, but is it for defensive purposes (this is a country that watched two of its neighbors invaded and occupied in the last ten years…by our country)? We, the United States, have a poor track record, especially in light of the Iraq War.
The problems with Santorum’s comments come from his intent to insert the United States into Iran’s domestic affairs as well as his misguided confidence that a strike on Iran would not a). trigger a larger regional conflagration and b). unite the entire world against the United States and Israel. The complaint Santorum made in one debate- and to be fair lots of people made it, not just Santorum- is that Obama did not arm the Iranian protesters in 2009. But the simple answer is that Iranians have made it clear that they do not want our involvement in their country’s affairs. To them, US involvement has brought nothing but misery; they want us to keep our hands off.
I agree with your sentiment that we have a responsibility to our allies and Israel has a right to defend herself. But we must seriously ask ourselves how to solve this with diplomacy. Is Iran a threat or are we just being exposed to the same lies that took us into a disastrous war with Iraq? There are a lot of questions to ask and a lot of places to go carefully. I don’t know how the Iranian government will react. I despise the government- it treats its people horribly and is utterly crooked- but we don’t have the right to interfere in their domestic situation and force regime change. But if the Iranian government tries anything, they know that the world will not sit by and watch without acting. One thing is clear: Iran does not have a bomb right now so now is the time to push diplomacy.
An excellent summary of the situation Vannah.
Reality 11:45PM
By “influencing” they were involving themselves in the operation of the state.
Get over it Reality, religion has long played a role in the “operation” of the state in this country.
Also, if anyone has exercised dictatorial powers and disregarded the Constitution concerning religious freedom, its Obama.
Reality: Activism, lobbying etc. such as you have described is one thing, ‘involvement in the operation of the state’ is quite another.
Indeed, and people came to the “new world” to get away from people like Santorum in England, etc.
Vannah, nice posts.
We, the United States, have a poor track record, especially in light of the Iraq War.
This whole being the “world’s police force” thing has its downside…. ;)
Truthseeker, you around? A couple weeks ago you mentioned that to have contraception be free while charging for blood pressure medication (as an example) seems, at the least, a bit odd. Something like that. I agreed with you, but the thread was soon buried away in the back pages.
Lots of good questions around that – should anything be free? If so, what?
If the issue is as simple as whether or not an employer should have to offer contraception within health insurance provided to employees, that is one thing, and I’m not saying Obama is necessarily correct.
It’s not “forcing contraception on people,” in the first place, as the individual employee is still free to use it or not. I’m also wondering if the employees share the cost of the insurance. Most employers don’t pay 100% anymore. Mine pays 80%, and we consider ourselves lucky – quite a few only pay 50%. If the employees are paying, then they should have a say on an individual basis, same as for using birth control or not. Granted that many times it’s necessary to have a “package deal” that covers all employees, perhaps with a few options, i.e. single person, couple, family, etc.
William Wilberforce was a socially conservative, born-again Christian legislator. I can’t say the same about Hitler or Stalin. So I think Mr. Santorum is in good company.
I think the one word that best describes Rick Santorum: vision. He has vision. He sees where he wants to take the American people and country. It is there even in his sometimes awkward phrases and sentences (previously known as straight talk). In any event, he can and has always explained his straight talk very well later when asked by the MSM. It is this vision that allows him to skip the Obama style rhetoric and focus instead on the content of his message.
I think Rick is a person that perseveres – which is not too bad of a quality to have in a leader.
The State should not be forcing any religions to close or step out of the public arena, the state should not stomp on the religious freedom of any individual. Religion via every individual’s disintinct and religiously (or anti-religiously) formed conscience necessarily impacts that the state and government. A person has to be living in a fantasy land to think that a person’s worldview/values (or lack thereof) will not inform the way they will govern. reality’s desrie for a neutral person is a red herring – there is no such thing as a neutral person. A neutral person is not neutral about desiring neutrality, and especially if the said neutral person gets to define what is neutral!! So give me a break reality. You need to go back to the 1960’s when people bought this faulty notion of neutrality.
I like the 2nd and 4th cartoonsthe most, although they are all good. I really like all the pharmacy shops in the background of the 2nd cartoon.
Doug and Reality,
Religious people don’t vote? Sounds to me they, like every American, are involved in “the operation of the state”.
Well, we have a fundamental disagreement about our involvement in Iraq and Afganistan then, Vannah, which makes me kinda chuckle at your notion that Iran is only making the bomb for defensive purposes.
Yeah, the Iranian protesters totally didn’t even need or want our help when they were being shot to death in the streets. Riiiight.
I can’t wait until you grow up.
Reality and Doug,
Thank you!
Reality,
Thanks for your response. I am always trying to see things from as many eyes as possible. I would like to respond in depth, but unfortunately have two essays to finish and math to study. Hopefully I can get back to you at a better time.
Some of the posters on this site should move to Hollywood insteading of testing their acting skills on this website.
Thanking Reality and Doug is too much - that is what is called over-acting!! No Oscar for you.
Vannah if either one of them was your father there is good chance you wouldn’t even be around to talk about world religions and politics.
Mary: Religious people don’t vote? Sounds to me they, like every American, are involved in “the operation of the state”.
Some do, some don’t. They don’t “run the country” to the extent that the President does. Not saying that Santorum’s agenda is “instant theocracy,” but as far as having a “state religion,” even if unofficially, he’s the worst candidate in recent memory, IMO. Ever?
Tyler: Thanking Reality and Doug is too much - that is what is called over-acting!! No Oscar for you.
:: sticks tongue out at Tyler ::
Not saying that Santorum’s agenda is “instant theocracy,” but as far as having a “state religion,” even if unofficially, he’s the worst candidate in recent memory, IMO. Ever?
Are we serious, here? A political candidate who possesses religious beliefs is now akin to having a “state religion?”
The guy has already said he is not interested in banning contraceptives. Get over yourselves, fer cryin’ out loud.
Doug 4:43PM
The president isn’t supposed to run the country but be one of three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. This is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people, remember? The ELECTED representatives of the people, and that includes religious people.
So, sorry to say, religious people are as involved as anyone else in making policy and law and have every right to be.
If you are so concerned about religious dictating and violation of the First Amendment, you might have some very serious concerns about the present occupant of the White House.
I hope and pray–yes, fervently and deeply–that Rick Santorum will receive the Republican nomination.
Will my prayers be heard?
See you in November!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-santorum-shows-hes-the-wrong-man-to-be-president/2012/02/27/gIQAFwZHeR_story.html
While I would not expect everyone to agree with what you wrote Vannah, I found your piece on Iran to be well informed and well reasoned.
“Yeah, the Iranian protesters totally didn’t even need or want our help when they were being shot to death in the streets. Riiiight.” – really? Are you sure?
“I hope and pray–yes, fervently and deeply–that Rick Santorum will receive the Republican nomination.” – me too….well the hope bit anyway.
“Will my prayers be heard?” – only if you say them out loud and another person is listening. But no, santorum will not win the nomination.
Durn. You trolls saw through us. We wanted a president who took his marching orders from the pope, just like we were hoping Kennedy would. It turned out he was living by his own rules, what with the interns and all the affairs.
And his being from American royalty dazzled us then, since the Kennedys were so much better than we peons. But this Santorum not only has a set core of beliefs, but he’s not so rich. So maybe this time we can rally all our fellow bigots and yell, “Papist! Theocrat!”
Ain’t it fun to be part of the mob? Pass me a torch and pitchfork, there’s some free exercise of religion to stamp out!
No, Hans. I don’t think Santorum is a Papist; I think he’s a loser.
And I’m looking forward to early 2013, after the party’s implosion, when it’s likely the Republican National Committee will meet to re-organize the party after having decided that the American Taliban shouldn’t be invited.
It’s time for the Republican Party to get out of women’s uteruses and start dealing with issues that affect the mainstream of American life.
Hi Hans Johnson,
How well I remember the bigotry, ignorance and fear when Kennedy ran for president. Surely he was channeling the pope! I just wonder at Kennedy’s ability to even govern, however mediocre, given his bedhopping. You folks think Bill Clinton is a hounddog? Next to JFK he’s a monk.
However Bill Clinton did get spiritual, attending church with Hillary after he was caught with Monica under his desk. I’m sure that was on the advise of his “spiritual advisor” Rev. Jesse Jackson, who paid a visit to the president with his pregnant mistress in tow.
mp 6:36pm
How timely is my post about bigotry, ignorance, and fear.
You might talk to the present occupant of the White House concerning issuing Taliban like edicts. You might also tell him to own up to his dismal record and stop wasting time and energy on non issues, such as contraception.
It’s disturbing how more than half the country would rather be ruled by phony cardboard cut-outs like Gore and Obama than someone with actual beliefs like the four Republican candidates.
The president isn’t supposed to run the country but be one of three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial.
Mary, I said, “They (religious people, whether they vote or not) don’t “run the country” to the extent that the President does.” Mega-difference.
Doug 8:56PM
Explain.
mp and Reality: “I hope and pray–yes, fervently and deeply–that Rick Santorum will receive the Republican nomination.” – me too….well the hope bit anyway.
Can we say, “A ‘gimme’ for Obama”?
Mary, how does pointing out that the President is but one of the 3 branches of gov’t negate, refute, or ever affect what I said about the enormous difference between the President and the religious people (be they voters or not)?
Hans Johnson: 7:10 pm
“It’s disturbing how more than half the country would rather be ruled by phony cardboard cut-outs like Gore and Obama than someone with actual beliefs like the four Republican candidates.”
Hans, do you really think the country would be much different had Gore beaten Bush or had McCain beaten Obama?
Romney = slightly to one side of the American populace, with Obama slightly to the other side.
Gingrich = what do you think he would really do?
Satanrom = <shudder> No. Just no way.
Paul = so “wacky” that he has no chance, but he would “make some changes,” eh?
Great info. Lucky me I came across your blog by chance (stumbleupon). I have saved as a favorite for later!
Doug 9:11pm
Kindly explain your 8:56 post as I asked you to do.
Come to think of it, a president issuing edicts that dictate to people or religious groups what they will or will not do, however it may violate the beliefs of that religious group, is a rather unsettling prospect. Don’t you agree Doug?
Mary: Kindly explain your 8:56 post as I asked you to do.
There is a *mega-difference* between the two. You can’t state one and logically act like it somehow refutes the other.
___
Come to think of it, a president issuing edicts that dictate to people or religious groups what they will or will not do, however it may violate the beliefs of that religious group, is a rather unsettling prospect. Don’t you agree Doug?
Geez, Mary, how many times are you going to change things? ;)
Good question, there, however, On the face of it, I agree with you, at least somewhat. I don’t favor forcing people that way. I also don’t favor other people being denied because of the beliefs of others, i.e. there’s a big difference between the gov’t saying, “You will be forced to take birth-control pills,” and the gov’t saying, “It should be the choice of the individual whether to make use of certain health-care benefits or not.”
I mentioned previously (on one of these threads) that it may be that the employees pay for part of their insurance. If so, then I think they should get a vote. Nobody’s forcing them to use contraception if they don’t want to. But if they want it on an individual basis, why not have it as an option?
I’m not saying “Obama is right,” either. I don’t think it’s that simple, and I haven’t followed this issue closely. I’m not saying that “contraception should be free,” per se, as well. Here, yet again, it’s a question of where to draw the line. Do we say that Jehovah’s Witnesses (or the like, if I’ve got it right) cannot be overruled if they choose not to take their kids for medical treatment?
Hi Doug,
I poiinted out to you the president is but one branch of government. He answers to the people’s representatives. This includes religious people. He is elected by the people, which also includes religious people. Religious people definitely have a say in running the government and making laws. The Constitution prohibits the president from issuing religious edicts like Zeus hurtling thunderbolts from Mt. Olympus, so I wouldn’t exactly sweat about a theocracy under Santorum. I can’t say the same for the present White House occupant however.
How many times am I going to change things? Doug, just stating a fact. Kind of an unsettling prospect, don’t ya think?
When was birth control an issue? Who’s being denied access? For heaven’s sake people pay for rent, mortgages, gas, groceries, child care, schooling, etc. but they can’t pay for their contraception? Also if what we hear is true, that the majority of women use contraception, then apparently they can get it, right? We don’t need any edicts from King Obama. Certainly you see this for what it is, an effort by Obama to detract attention from his failures by focusing on a non issue.
If employees want contraception, freaking go buy it. What’s your paycheck for? Get a different insurance policy. No one is forcing you to take the insurance offered by the Catholic employer.
About the Jehovah Witnesses, that has usually been with a court order and it involved children. Adults have the option to refuse care even if it means the loss of their lives.
How about this question: Can Obama dictate that Amish elders must wire their communities and businesses for electricity? I say absolutely not. Does that make me anti-electricity? So why does opposing Obama’s edict on coverage of contraception make one anti-contraception?
Melanie,
Yes, the country would have been a lot different under Gore or McCain. Gore would have doubled-down on Obama’s kowtowing to the environmental extremists. And he would have given the Taliban a pass for 9/11, just as Clinton stood down from pursuing Bin Laden.
McCain would not have been whimpering and sucking his thumb over the BP oil spill. Energy is the engine of our economy, and Obama has made blunder after blunder. He’s the Gore we never had.
President Obama needs the VOTES of the femanist left, otherwise would he care?
Mary: I pointed out to you the president is but one branch of government. He answers to the people’s representatives. This includes religious people. He is elected by the people, which also includes religious people. Religious people definitely have a say in running the government and making laws.
Doesn’t change the fact that what I said is true: “They don’t “run the country” to the extent that the President does.”
JFK gave a speech, including this: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference…”
Santorum said that makes him “throw up.” Going way back, people left England and other countries to get away from gov’t that didn’t keep a good separation, and this is why lots of people are concerned, at the least, with the prospect of such a person as President, and why he’s easy to beat for Obama (among other reasons).
Mary: When was birth control an issue? Who’s being denied access? For heaven’s sake people pay for rent, mortgages, gas, groceries, child care, schooling, etc. but they can’t pay for their contraception? Also if what we hear is true, that the majority of women use contraception, then apparently they can get it, right? We don’t need any edicts from King Obama. Certainly you see this for what it is, an effort by Obama to detract attention from his failures by focusing on a non issue.
Well, all of a sudden it seems like it’s an issue to me – what with all the hoopla… ;) I’m not saying contraception should be “free.”
If employees want contraception, freaking go buy it. What’s your paycheck for? Get a different insurance policy. No one is forcing you to take the insurance offered by the Catholic employer.
Without the employer picking up a good bit or most of the cost, who can really afford health insurance? The health insurance is for the employees, it’s not that the employers are being forced to use it themselves – no one at all is being forced to use it against their will. It’s an interesting question – it comes down to “where do we draw the line”? – both on the specific thing under consideration and the extent that we’ll allow the impact on individual people’s beliefs.
About the Jehovah Witnesses, that has usually been with a court order and it involved children. Adults have the option to refuse care even if it means the loss of their lives.
And if an employer tried to deny them that option, i.e. “you’re all going to get vaccinated” (or other thing that went against their beliefs) then there would be objections, just as there are to all the employees of a religious organization being denied certain insurance coverages. Is the preference of the employer more important than that of the individual, for whom the insurance is intended?
I’m asking – not saying I feel all that strongly about it. I also feel it’s a strange situation, as most Catholic women use contraception. It’s not that ‘98%’ figure that’s been in the press lately – it’s more like 70%, but there’s a legitimate question for those who are buying the insurance: “You don’t want your employees to have this, even those who are not Catholic, while 70% of Catholic women themselves want it. What’s up with that?”
How about this question: Can Obama dictate that Amish elders must wire their communities and businesses for electricity? I say absolutely not. Does that make me anti-electricity? So why does opposing Obama’s edict on coverage of contraception make one anti-contraception?
Good discussion, Mary. No, I certainly don’t think the line need be drawn there – that the gov’t can mandate electricity. And of course it doesn’t make you anti-electricity. So, should the Amish be able to deny electricity to the non-Amish? I certainly say no there too. Likewise for Catholic employers – they should not be able to deny certain health coverages to non-Catholic employees (or even Catholics if they want it, IMO).
Doug,
This whole separation of church and state arguement is ridiculous. Who is more fearsome? A president who bypasses the people and their representives to force religious institutions to violate their beliefs? Or a Knights of Coumbus group sending a letter of protest?
Santorum is not going to hand out executive orders to make every little thing line up with his church. That’s Obama’s modus operandi - to placate the environmental extremists and “free love” voter base.
Doug 2:25PM
Apparently my trying to explain how our gov’t is run is only generating confusion.
Great speech by JFK. You might point it out to your guy Obama who has recently asked black Americans to spread the word on his behalf in their churches.
I would think this would make YOU throw up, given your great concern for seperation of church and state.
Doug 2:58PM
Contraception has never been an issue! Contraception has been made an issue by Obama and the Democrats in an effort deflect attention from their abysmal record. Unfortunately, this country is full of the gullible with limited attention spans. Trouble is they vote and the Democrats are counting on that.
Concerning health insurance. Who says one must work for a Catholic or religious employer? Who says one may not have a spouse who’s insurance covers them?
I’m saying you can have health insurance and be expected to pay for your own contraception. Good grief what next? insurance must cover OTC drugs? Tampons? Insurance must pay for ”masculine hygiene” products? One could just as easily argue these all fall under the category of “health care”.
If you want contraception, no one is stopping you from getting it. I managed very nicely for years with nothing from my Catholic employer except a paycheck.
Is the preference of the employer more important than the individual? YOU make the choice to work for that employer and thus you play by their rules. You don’t like it, seek employment elsewhere. A large percentage of Catholic women use contraception? Well my friend you just made my point. People who want it can get it, and seem well able to afford it with no help from their Catholic employers, so there’s really no issue here is there? Except for the one made by King Obama.
About the Amish. Like with Catholic employers and contraception, no one is denied electricity because of Amish religious convictions. However if I visit an Amish community or place of business, I will be expected to abide by their rules, right? They don’t have to wire their home or business to accomodate me, and I don’t have to visit their community or business. I’m free to go where I want and enjoy the benefits of electricity all I want. Same thing where the issue of contraception is concerned.
Hans Johnson, 3:19PM
Excellent post.
Lots of good questions around that – should anything be free? If so, what?
Doug, if it were me and I could give something away for free I would start with the stuff that can help them stay alive. If you are dead or dying then none of the really matters does it?
mp, keep rooting for Santorum. Thanks. Obama is ‘tanking’…. pun intended… thanks to his assinine energy agenda of INTENTIONALLY driving up the costs of fossil fuels we will soon and very soon need a C note just to tank our cars.
Hans, to Melanie: Yes, the country would have been a lot different under Gore or McCain. Gore would have doubled-down on Obama’s kowtowing to the environmental extremists. And he would have given the Taliban a pass for 9/11, just as Clinton stood down from pursuing Bin Laden.
McCain would not have been whimpering and sucking his thumb over the BP oil spill. Energy is the engine of our economy, and Obama has made blunder after blunder. He’s the Gore we never had.
Hans, I do think Gore would have gone more toward the “environmentalist” side, but would that really have made things “different” for the average American, much at all? I don’t think so.
For Obama, he’s got many people saying he’s not done enough – like “Hey man, we helped elect you and you haven’t pursued environmental causes like we thought you were going to.” With the BP oil spill, Obama got criticized for being too hard on BP, as well as too lenient. He can’t please everybody, there. All in all, I think things were handled adequately, and looking back, don’t you agree?
Re the Taliban, there too, can you really fault Obama? As for energy, I’m for the Keystone Pipeline – and if Obama is against it, then there I disagree with him. Yet for “energy” overall, what do you think the President can really do? We could increase drilling in US territory some, but that’s small potatoes as far as the global energy markets, and there too I don’t think the effect on you and me and Joe Blow would be much at all.
Hans: This whole separation of church and state arguement is ridiculous. Who is more fearsome? A president who bypasses the people and their representives to force religious institutions to violate their beliefs? Or a Knights of Coumbus group sending a letter of protest?
Well, not everybody thinks it’s ridiculous, Hans. From the Founding Fathers on down, people have wanted our elected officials working “for the people,” in effect, not per their own religious leanings.
The K of C people protesting – nothing wrong with that. On Obama, the Catholic employers, and health insurance – I’m not sure. I can see the point – “We don’t believe in this, and you want to force us to do it” And from another viewpoint – “Most Catholic women use contraception, and I’m not even Catholic, yet my employer won’t give me that option with our health insurance?”
Apparently my trying to explain how our gov’t is run is only generating confusion.
Mary, no. “How our gov’t is run” doesn’t change the fact that private citizens (be they religious or not) don’t run the country to the extent that the President does. Not nearly.
Contraception has never been an issue! Contraception has been made an issue by Obama and the Democrats in an effort deflect attention from their abysmal record. Unfortunately, this country is full of the gullible with limited attention spans. Trouble is they vote and the Democrats are counting on that.
You’re in ranting mode, there, Mary. I am not saying “we have to give contraception to everybody.” But, should employers be allowed to withhold things from people, based on the employers’ religious beliefs? Not saying “yes” or “no,” per se, here either. It’s a question of where do we draw the line.
Concerning health insurance. Who says one must work for a Catholic or religious employer? Who says one may not have a spouse who’s insurance covers them?
Nobody, of course.
I’m saying you can have health insurance and be expected to pay for your own contraception. Good grief what next? insurance must cover OTC drugs? Tampons? Insurance must pay for ”masculine hygiene” products? One could just as easily argue these all fall under the category of “health care”.
This is a valid point. It’s “where do we draw the line?”
Is the preference of the employer more important than the individual? YOU make the choice to work for that employer and thus you play by their rules. You don’t like it, seek employment elsewhere.
Most people who work work “for somebody else,” and the employer, while having quite a bit of freedom overall, still has constraints, and there have been and are legitimate questions about “what is okay.” My employer lets us vote on what to have included in our health insurance – we pay for part of it too.
A large percentage of Catholic women use contraception? Well my friend you just made my point. People who want it can get it, and seem well able to afford it with no help from their Catholic employers, so there’s really no issue here is there? Except for the one made by King Obama.
Well, most Catholics themselves think it should be part of the package, agreeing that “that religiously affiliated employers should offer health insurance that provides contraception.” It’s an individual decision whether to use it or not. It would be different if people with religious beliefs that prevented them from using it were being forced to use it, but that’s not the case.
About the Amish. Like with Catholic employers and contraception, no one is denied electricity because of Amish religious convictions. However if I visit an Amish community or place of business, I will be expected to abide by their rules, right? They don’t have to wire their home or business to accomodate me, and I don’t have to visit their community or business. I’m free to go where I want and enjoy the benefits of electricity all I want. Same thing where the issue of contraception is concerned.
Should an Amish employer be allowed to affect the personal lives and decisions of the employees? Again, in some cases, yes, of course, and for some it’s “no.”
“Lots of good questions around that – should anything be free? If so, what?”
Truthseeker: Doug, if it were me and I could give something away for free I would start with the stuff that can help them stay alive. If you are dead or dying then none of the really matters does it?
I certainly agree with that, TS.
Truthseeker: mp, keep rooting for Santorum. Thanks. Obama is ‘tanking’…. pun intended… thanks to his assinine energy agenda of INTENTIONALLY driving up the costs of fossil fuels we will soon and very soon need a C note just to tank our cars.
The price of gasoline, adjusted for inflation, is right about where it was 30 years ago.
When Bush Jr. took office, gas was $1.60 a gallon (Texas prices are what’s on the chart I’m looking at.) By his last year in office – during 2008 – they got to $4.40.
During Obama’s administration, there’s been a much smaller range, and nothing like that 175% increase that we saw under Bush Jr. Was the big price run-up somehow “Bush’s fault”? No, it was not. There’s really not all that much the President can do to affect energy prices. Likewise, it’s silly to cry about what Obama’s done or not done.
Obama knows that high gas prices are a negative for him in an election year. If he could magically “push them down,” he would. There’s talk of tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as it is….
Doug,
-Private citizens don’t run the country to the extent the president does.
Oh, you must mean like issuing unconstitutional mandates to religious groups. My bad.
-I’m hardly ranting, just pointing out the fact that contraception has never been an issue.
Should a religious employer be allowed to withhold from an employee based on the employer’s religious beliefs?
Well Doug, when you go to work for a religious employer you are subject to their rules. Don’t like it, then seek employment elsewhere. If I work for a Hindu employer, he/she has the right to specify I do not eat meat on the premises. I don’t like it, go somewhere else.
-Most Catholics themselves think it should be part of the package.
Fine, they can take that up with the Church. This is NOT an issue to be mandated by the president. No one’s personal decisions are being affected. You want to use contraception, go get it.
-The Amish. I cannot for the life of me see how Amish religious convictions would effect our lives in any way. HOwever, if I am in an Amish business, I abide by their rules.
Doug,
Remember how Obama’s buds, the “green” lobby, griped about the “oil men” in the White House? Well, no one has assured oil profits like Obama.
This is, more than ever, a global economy. Restricting Gulf oil, ANWR, and the Keystone pipeline has assured a tight market for oil, pressuring even more exports and raising domestic prices.
The supply must be overflowing for it to spark lower prices to encourage more demand. There is nothing about the last three years to encourage economic growth.
Doug, Obama and his EPA are intentionally tying to KILL the fossil fuel industry and in Obama’s words his policy will ‘necessarily cause electicity prices to skyrocket”. You can’t seriously be comparing Obama to Bush on domestic energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU
Mary: Oh, you must mean like issuing unconstitutional mandates to religious groups. My bad.
Mary, the Constititution is mainly to protect us from the gov’t from coming at us at a religious angle, or otherwise intrusive-upon-individualy-liberty angle.
Hans: Remember how Obama’s buds, the “green” lobby, griped about the “oil men” in the White House? Well, no one has assured oil profits like Obama.
Hans, so you’d think “conservatives” would be tickled pink with Obama. Back in 2000 and 2001, I figured the more regional but still massively meaningful of the “rise of the middle class” changes in China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc., would mean an overall increasing demand and price for energy. This has panned out, regardless of any Republican/Democrat stuff. I maintain it is the case today. It’s not over. While I do not have “a crystal ball,” I see nothing that says the case is any different today.
Is there risk of economic slowdown? Well sure there is. The most prominent, IMO, is the influence of a Greece-style panic, with currencies plummeting and interest rates going skyward, economies slowing down.
____
This is, more than ever, a global economy. Restricting Gulf oil, ANWR, and the Keystone pipeline has assured a tight market for oil, pressuring even more exports and raising domestic prices.
You over-estimate the influence of that on the global energy markets. You drastically overestimate that, while neglecting the fact that energy prices just about tripled under Bush Jr.
___
The supply must be overflowing for it to spark lower prices to encourage more demand. There is nothing about the last three years to encourage economic growth.
What is “overflowing”? There is no such thing, there. global production and consumption are quite in balance.
Doug, Obama and his EPA are intentionally tying to KILL the fossil fuel industry and in Obama’s words his policy will ‘necessarily cause electicity prices to skyrocket”. You can’t seriously be comparing Obama to Bush on domestic energy.
Truthseeker, agreed that Obama may be hurting the coal industry. On the “cap and trade” deal with carbon dioxide, that’s a non-starter if people actually realize what would be required to satisfy it. Well, they don’t, just as any number of “crazies” will believe almost anything negative said about a Democratic President, as I see you doing, and as any number of “crazies”will believe anything negative about a Republican President.
Yes, electric rates are going up. Invest accordingly.
As far as comparing Obama to Bush Jr., you bet I’m serious. Anybody complaining about what’s occurred during Obama’s tenure could only logically condemn Bush Jr. a significant number of times worse.
The Energy Secretary just testified they were trying to get us off oil. Not foreign oil. Oil altogether. They are so wrong-headed it’s frightening.
We can’t phase away from oil for many decades. We’re going to be up a creek without a paddle (oil).
Doug 9:57PM
I’m glad we agree on that. Now tell that to Obama.
Truthseeker, agreed that Obama may be hurting the coal industry.
His goal is to kill the fossil fuels by regulaing to cause their prices to rise. And at the same time use taxpayer money to subsidize Chevy volts to the tune of 10k a piece. Did you say may be?
The Energy Secretary just testified they were trying to get us off oil. Not foreign oil. Oil altogether. They are so wrong-headed it’s frightening.
We can’t phase away from oil for many decades. We’re going to be up a creek without a paddle (oil).
Hans, you’re right that there is no “getting off oil,” at least for a long, long time, but what do you see as so bad about making efforts in that direction? What is it about the energy policy that you don’t like?
Truthseeker: You can’t seriously be comparing Obama to Bush on domestic energy.
Well, TS, you mentioned Obama “driving up the cost of fossil fuels.” During Bush Jr’s time as President, crude oil went from $20 a barrel to $145. A 625% increase.
So here we are in Obama’s 4th year, and yeah – crude oil has been increasing in price lately. West Texas Intermediate is $108 and Brent North Sea Crude is $124. Today’s figures. It hasn’t even gotten back as high as Bush had it.
Looking in the past 25 years, Bush had oil more than 3.5 times as expensive as the highest point for the preceding Presidents. For Obama to do the same, oil would have to be at $525 per barrel.
Bush had oil more than 260% above the highest price for those Presidents. Obama hasn’t even had a 1%, there. Oil hasn’t even gotten as high as Bush had it.
Doug, Obama and his EPA are intentionally tying to KILL the fossil fuel industry and in Obama’s words his policy will ‘necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket”.
I’m not for the Cap and Trade stuff. The coal industry is not “going to die,” but people aren’t going to like substantially higher electric bills. Coal is one resource the US has a lot of, and we’re going to be burning a lot of coal for a long time. While we don’t know what all will happen with greenhouse gases in the long run, I question how much of a difference Cap and Trade in the US would make, while most of the rest of the world doesn’t change their practices. Perhaps it’s a short-sighted view, but I don’t think Cap and Trade is worth it, for us here and now.
Truthseeker: His goal is to kill the fossil fuels by regulaing to cause their prices to rise. And at the same time use taxpayer money to subsidize Chevy volts to the tune of 10k a piece. Did you say may be?
TS, he’s not trying to “kill fossil fuels.” :)
I don’t know about the subsidies… Maybe they’re worth it, maybe not. I’d say probably not – I’d rather let the market decide (even if that includes higher fossil-fuel prices due to regulation).
Electricity doesn’t just magically appear, and we don’t produce all that much from water, wind and solar. Most of it comes from burning coal and natural gas – fossil fuels themselves.
Not to say that all gov’t actions in this realm are bad. Were it not for mandated increases in fuel efficiency, it’d be a different world of vehicles we’d have.
Mary, “unconstitutional mandates to religious groups” – surprise, surprise, I’m going to agree with you, in the end.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of an employer’s “religion” impacting employees as individuals, especially if they are not of that religion themselves. The employer, often a corporation or other such entity really doesn’t have such beliefs itself – that’s why I put ‘religion’ in quotation marks, above. It’s really some or all the people who make the decisions – that’s where the beliefs come from.
Still, I do think they should be “religiously free” to do what they want, here. Don’t know if it’s truly a Constitutional issue or not – it’d be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on it. I do feel that, all other things being equal, the employer should be free to say yea or nay (and that certainly, the gov’t doesn’t need to be messin’). It’s not “equal,” now, like that, since I’m saying some employees would want such health insurance coverage.
However, I don’t see a bad enough impact on the employees that I’d be for the mandates. I often ask or make reference to the question, “Is there a good enough reason (for a thing, a law, etc.)?” And here I’d say, no, there’s not.
Doug,
As I said, you agree to work for a religious employer, you agree to abide by their rules.
It doesn’t mean you have to like or agree with them. No one is forced to work for a religious employer.
As I said, you agree to work for a religious employer, you agree to abide by their rules.
Yeah, Mary, to a point. There’s definitely the question of where the line is drawn, but as far as contraception – I agree that it’s not too onerous a burden for the individual to have to pay for their own in this case.
It doesn’t mean you have to like or agree with them. No one is forced to work for a religious employer.
True, but there are still limits on what the employer can do under the heading of ‘religious preference.’ Saying, “If you don’t like it, then quit,” only goes so far.
Doug,
Not the case. I have worked for years for a religious employer. The first thing we were told was that this was a Catholic institution and one did not have to be Catholic or agree with Catholicism to work here, but the institution would abide by the rules of the Catholic faith and as employees we would respect and abide by those rules, even if we didn’t like or agree with them.
Again, we had the option to seek employment elsewhere.
Doug,
Maybe you think lobbing a Hail Mary pass throughout the first half is a good idea, but I sure don’t. Leaning on green energy now is just foolish. Look at Solyndra and other solar panel companies going under despite Tarp money. The Chevy Volt is another waste that only 1%ers can afford.
All these things have to be a distant Plan B until they are perfected.
Mary, that doesn’t negate what I said. That Catholic employers wouldn’t necessarily go “beyond” what was considered acceptable doesn’t mean there aren’t still limits.
Maybe you think lobbing a Hail Mary pass throughout the first half is a good idea, but I sure don’t. Leaning on green energy now is just foolish. Look at Solyndra and other solar panel companies going under despite Tarp money. The Chevy Volt is another waste that only 1%ers can afford.
All these things have to be a distant Plan B until they are perfected.
Hans, I’m not saying “throw Hail Mary passes,” at all. I know full well the reality of our energy situation – even if we really ramp up “alternative energy,” I question whether that production will even keep pace with the US’s increased consumption during the same time, i.e. we’d still be burning the same amount of fossil fuels, or more, than as at present. I’ve said this numerous times.
“Solyndra” was stupid, and the gov’t has problems with the way it handles stuff like that.