Or something like that because, oy VEY, is that hacktastic, asinine ape, Nick Kristof, ever bereft of a Clue™!
Perhaps we should provide him with one. We have one taped right here to this nice tool that we like to refer to as the Imperial ClueBat™.
I MAY not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops,
Actually, we very much doubt that your relative sophistication in any area would impress anybody much, but we digress.
but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.
You might want to pick up an actual Bible one day and, what’s the word we’re looking for here?, oh yes: READ it. Helping the poor is certainly a worthy pursuit. After all, “there but for the Grace of G-d” and all that, but we very much doubt, mainly based on having actually read the document that you reach for in a pathetic and highly ineffectual call to authority, that G-d the Almighty placed His only son on Earth to suffer persecution, torture and death just so He could drive the point home that we need to “help the poor.” But we’re sure that you are going to need that tired leftist shibboleth later on to bolster the retarded parody of an argument that you’re going to make.
Dear L-rd are we ever tired of leftists using the Bible as an argument when it’s quite self-evident that they’ve never even opened it to the first page.
Oh, as an aside: Yes, helping the poor is a Good Thing™ if you’re a Christian, but we like to place an emphasis on the word “help.” Keeping the poor as a dependent underclass of helpless saps is not “helping.”
And what’s this about bishops “banning contraceptives?” Did we fall asleep and wake up in an America where bishops are part of the Legislature? We mean, we were constantly told by mental under-achievers like Kristof that the Horrid BushHitler Regime would bring about something very much like that, but didn’t he leave office three years ago?
Once more for the Dimwit Gallery: Refusing to fund something isn’t “banning” it.
The debates about pelvic politics over the last week sometimes had a patronizing tone, as if birth control amounted to a chivalrous handout to women of dubious morals.
It’s only a “handout” if somebody else is paying for it, but, apart from noting that you’re still not making any sense at all, do go on.
On the contrary, few areas have more impact on more people than birth control — and few are more central to efforts to chip away at poverty.
Because those damn poor people breed, so why don’t we just kill them all off already.
We don’t know about our own level of theological sophistication, but we’re pretty sure that Jesus didn’t ever suggest anything like that.
My well-heeled readers will be furrowing their brows at this point. Birth control is cheap, you’re thinking, and far less expensive than a baby (or an abortion). But for many Americans living on the edge, it’s a borderline luxury.
Newsflash: Keeping your knees together and your pants on is absolutely, positively free! And the pill is about the same price as two packs of cigarettes a month if you live in New York.
A 2009 study looked at sexually active American women of modest means, ages 18 to 34, whose economic circumstances had deteriorated. Three-quarters said that they could not afford a baby then.
Don’t have one then. It’s quite easy to avoid and it doesn’t cost a dime.
Yet 30 percent had put off a gynecological or family-planning visit to save money.
If the pleasure of sex without having to unduly worry about being “punished with a baby” isn’t worth 5 gallons of ObamaGas a month to you, then you not having any at all probably isn’t all that much of a sacrifice to begin with.
More horrifying, of those using the pill, one-quarter said that they economized by not taking it every day. (My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health.)
Quit using hyperbole, Nicky-boy. You’re not very good at it. It only makes you look even more silly.
One-third of women in another survey said they would switch birth control methods if not for the cost. Nearly half of those women were relying on condoms, and others on nothing more than withdrawal.
The cost of birth control is one reason poor women are more than three times as likely to end up pregnant unintentionally as middle-class women.
Those damn twenty bucks a month! Keeping America’s poor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!
In short, birth control is not a frill that can be lightly dropped to avoid offending bishops. Coverage for contraception should be a pillar of our public health policy — and, it seems to me, of any faith-based effort to be our brother’s keeper, or our sister’s.
“Keeping” my brothers and sisters does not, to the best of our knowledge, include assuming responsibility for the cost of having them enjoy their promiscuity safely. At least not in any Christian denomination that we’re aware of. Well, maybe the Episcopalians, but they hardly qualify as Christian in the first place, seeing as how they treat the Bible as an interesting thesis open to discussion.
To understand the centrality of birth control, consider that every dollar that the United States government spends on family planning reduces Medicaid expenditures by $3.74,
We’re sure that funny smell in the room has nothing to do with you pulling yet another meaningless number out of your ample arse. Not that it matters, really, because we can show that 25 cents spent on a .45 ACP FMJ bullet will reduce lifetime government expenditures on any individual by a pretty astronomical amount, yet we’re not running around advocating that we should just shoot the poor in the back of their heads.
according to Guttmacher. Likewise, the National Business Group on Health estimated that it costs employers at least an extra 15 percent if they don’t cover contraception in their health plans.
How so? Because of maternity leaves? Who made that a mandate? We’re pretty sure it wasn’t Jesus.
And of course birth control isn’t just a women’s issue: men can use contraceptives too, and unwanted pregnancies affect not only mothers but also fathers.
Primarily by making them realize that actions have consequences which, as far as we’re concerned, is a lesson they should have learned long before they reached the age where they could reproduce. But our unionized publik skools are more interested in teaching them how to fist each other, which makes parenting sort of difficult.
This is the backdrop for the uproar over President Obama’s requirement that Catholic universities and hospitals include birth control in their health insurance plans. On Friday, the White House backed off a bit — forging a compromise so that unwilling religious employers would not pay for contraception, while women would still get the coverage — but many administration critics weren’t mollified.
What the Ogabe Junta proposed was that all insurance companies henceforth had to provide indiscriminate fuck protection for “free” so the ones paying for the policies wouldn’t be “paying” for it and, hey presto, nobody is forced to fund contraception against their Constitutionally protected freedom of religion! Yep, the Ogabe Junta just waved their magic wand and decreed that henceforth contraception and abortion would cost nothing, which might be a tough sell to the industry and doctors providing it, and we use the term “doctor” very loosely here, since it seems to us that chopping up a human being with an intrauterine blender conflicts a bit with the Hippocratic Oath, particularly the “do no harm” bit.
And since we’re already being unreasonable, we will go out on a limb here and suggest that the ones making pills, rubbers and shoving Cuisinarts up the cootches of women might still insist on being paid, which means that the insurance provider will have to shell out some shekels which, again, means that they’ll have to pass on that cost to somebody. Somebody like, say, the ones paying for the insurance policies.
Some “compromise” that is!
Look, there’s a genuine conflict here. Many religious believers were sincerely offended that Catholic institutions would have to provide coverage for health interventions that the church hierarchy opposed. That counts in my book: it’s best to avoid forcing people to do things that breach their ethical standards.
No. It’s not “best.” It’s paramount. And if you don’t believe us, try forcing us to do something that violates our core values. A word of advice, though: You won’t like the result.
Then again, it’s not clear how many people actually are offended. A national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans.
Hooray! It’s settled then! We can see the headline now:
“Word of G-d Voted Down by 52-48, Bible No Longer Relevant!” Fine, but you’d no longer be a Christian. The Episcopalians are looking for converts, though, so you might try there. What’s next? “Poll Shows that 53% of Christians See Nothing Wrong with Coveting their Neighbor’s Wife, 10th Commandment Struck Down by Majority Vote.”
We’re beginning to see what you mean by your early admission of lack of theological sophistication, Nicky-dear, because it’s obvious that you wouldn’t recognize faith if it jumped up and started chewing on your nipple rings.
You’re really taking this whole “science by consensus” Glowbull Wormening a bit too far there.
You might have a point in arguing that the Bible doesn’t specifically mention Trojans or the pill, but if that’s your point you need to take it up with your church or leave it altogether. That’s why His Imperial Majesty had to stop considering himself a Methodist and leave that church when they came up with the brilliant idea of divesting themselves of investments in Israel because they thought they were being too mean to the darling Paleoswinians. You see, we had actually read all the way to Genesis 12:3, so we knew at that moment that even suggesting punishing G-d’s chosen people was wrong, and we concluded that a church that hadn’t even made it through the first book of the Bible wasn’t one we could belong to.
But that’s not the point. The point IS that faith isn’t decided by majority vote. The Bible isn’t a “helpful list of suggestions”.
So, does America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?
It’s quite simple, really: If you oppose the doctrine of the Catholic church, then you’re not a Catholic and you don’t even get a vote. You may self-identify as a Catholic as much as you want, but you aren’t one, any more than His Majesty could call himself a “Methodist” once he realized that he didn’t agree with the leadership of the Methodist church. This is not a value judgment. You can disagree with the Catholic church’s rulings on contraception all day long and it doesn’t make you a Bad Person™, it just makes you Not A Catholic™. The doctrine of your chosen church (remember: You don’t HAVE to stay in it if you don’t agree with it) is no more optional than it’s optional for a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ was G-d’s only begotten son.
I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?
“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.
That makes sense.
It does only if you were right to begin with which, as seems to be usual for you, is never the case. The Christian Science church never prohibited medical care, they just don’t believe in it. Therefore allowing their members to use it isn’t a contradiction.
After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith?
We do if we want to treat the Constitution’s First Amendment as more than toilet paper, which it is pretty evident that you do not.
What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?
What if indeed? Would it keep Jehovah’s Witnesses from getting blood transfusions anyway? Would it keep Muslims and Orthodox Jews from going to mixed sex clinics? No it wouldn’t. It would just keep them from demanding that their chosen churches fund their violations of the faith that they profess to hold. Freedom of religion. Do you UNDERSTAND it, motherfucker?
The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.
No. The basic principle of American life as outlined in the Constitution is that we DO respect religious beliefs. We don’t “try” to. That’s what a lot of religious people from Europe escaped from: The governments not “trying” hard enough. Freedom of religion is like freedom of speech: There are no degrees of it. Either you have it, or you don’t.
But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.
That’s an interesting point, actually. But let’s first point out that there is a huge difference between prohibiting you from engaging in behavior that you want to engage in and forcing you to engage in behavior that you don’t. Prohibiting muslims from stoning gays is not the same as forcing Christians to do so.
Yes, we do modify freedom of religion to the extent that you’re not allowed to do something, no matter how much it goes against your faith, that will hurt others. That is THE core concept of the Constitution: You have a right to do whatever you want to do as long as you do no harm to the rights of others. His Imperial Majesty has a Constitutional right to carry around an arsenal that would make a Marine blanch, but he does not have the right to use it to kill anybody he doesn’t like. You do have a right to speak freely, but you do not have a right to libel and slander people.
And that’s where the issue of polygamy gets interesting because, quite honestly, as long as said polygamy is done with the happy consent of every party involved, we have a hard time trying to see where that harms anybody. Yes, we’re against it personally, but we just can’t see where the government gets the Constitutional authority to ban it outright unless it involves coercion or the intrusion upon the rights of others.
But we digress. The thing is that prohibiting people from doing what they faith says is OK is NOT the same as forcing them to do something that their faith clearly states is NOT OK.
In this case, we should make a good-faith effort to avoid offending Catholic bishops who passionately oppose birth control.
In other words: Lie.
Thanks. We knew that already.
I’m glad that Obama sought a compromise. But let’s remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.
Still trying to get laid, Nicky? With your looks and advanced age, we can’t say that we blame you for getting desperate. But it’s not an argument.
For one thing, pregnancy is not a “health issue.” Pregnancy is not a disease.
For another, unprotected sex is a choice. Nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to hump ugly.
Unless we’re talking about you, personally, trying to finally experience an orgasm before you die of old age, but that’s hardly an issue requiring federal intervention. You have a right hand that will do the trick.