Bible Study by Consensus, a Liberal Approach to Faith

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.



  1. 1
    red_five growls and barks:

    What is it the libtards always tell us conservatives when we don’t like the content of a TV or radio program? Does “change the channel” ring any bells? For those “Catholics” who want to force the Church to change it’s beliefs because they’re “old-fashioned”, because they don’t like something that is a core belief of the Church: “change the channel”. Find another church whose beliefs you can tolerate more. The UCC might be more your speed, or the aforementioned Episcopal Church.

    And to you libtards outside the Catholic Church who are trying to ram this crap down the Church’s throat (Nicky, call your office): Fuck you and the maggot-infested glue-factory rejects you rode in on. You literally have no right to demand the Church support anything it believes is wrong. They don’t want to pay for birth control for female employees of Catholic-operated institutions? Great! They’d rather not have any homosexuals involved in their childrens’ programs? Fan-fucking-tastic! You intolerant shit-stains; would you be jumping all over the Muslims if they were the ones with this rejection of all forms of birth control? (We who have actual brains know that you wouldn’t. Muslims stone gays for being gay! crickets… Muslims stone women for getting raped! crickets…) Would you be beating Jeremiah Wright to a pulp if he were a black racist dumbass? (oh, wait, he was, and you didn’t) You’re riding a greased pole straight to Hell, and your rocket pack is throttled up to escape velocity.

    Hey, baby factories! You don’t want to pop out a(nother) kid? Keep your damn legs shut! Or demand a friggin’ rubber. If the dude refuses to wrap his pecker, politely demand he visit Mary Palm and her five little sisters instead. Abstinence works, every single time it’s tried. If it didn’t work, it wasn’t abstinence!

    Damn, but this shit pisses me off!

  2. 2
    Cannon Fodder growls and barks:

    But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

    I think he may be technically wrong here. the government has banned it in the sense that you can’t “legally” marry more than one person, but in the eyes of the church is another matter. I do believe that some Mormon’s practice polygamy in this country, just not truly a “legal” form.

  3. 3
    sleeper growls and barks:

    Dude! Where are you getting .45 ACP for 25 cents a round?

  4. 4
    dcs2244 growls and barks:

    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.

    Compromise? G_D doesn’t compromise, especially not with would-be tinhorn dictators.

  5. 5
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    red_five says:

    What is it the libtards always tell us conservatives when we don’t like the content of a TV or radio program? Does “change the channel” ring any bells?

    Actually, it’s the conservatives who tell that to the liberals. If the liberals don’t like with they are hearing, they demand that the person be removed from radio/tv/newspaper/internet. If you disagree with them, then they want you to shut up, and they call you a nazi.

  6. 6
    Igor, Imperial Booby growls and barks:

    Not only read the Good Book, but read it with the Spirit to get all the true meanings of what is in it. Something that is far, FAR beyond Nickky’s capacity, apparently…

  7. 7
    BigDogg growls and barks:

    sleeper says:

    Dude! Where are you getting .45 ACP for 25 cents a round?

    My guess is that’s low-grain target ammo. :em05:

  8. 8
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    I don’t understand — when did having a baby become a punishment? I mean, people were squatting in the mud and squeezing out babies in the stone age, and I challenge anyone to suggest that stone age barbarians were better off than our “poor” (who have TV,s Iphones, Cars, etc…).

    Seriously, what the hell is it with people hating the idea of paying for a kid? I mean, people are SUPPOSED to reproduce. Oh wait, we’re a society where gucci bags, casual sex and frat parties are more important than family.

    What’s next? Telling the Catholic Church it has to buy Coach Purses for all its female constituency?

  9. 9
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    This isn’t about condoms or about birth control pills, since anyone with a body-temperature IQ knows they can go to Planned Parenthood or the county health department and get them for free. Nope, I remember back a little while ago I heard a news story about the morning-after pill being sold from vending machines in a college someplace. I’m pretty sure that’s where this is headed. After that, abortions. But the overriding objective here is to make the population dependent upon the government. The people who are cranking out these little roaches are the so-called “lower class”. The more welfare babies they squeeze out, the more cash the government gives them, and they create the next generation of democrat voters. We’ve seen what has happened…without the structure of a family, they become feral and the middle class demands the government protect them from the savages who live within the inner city. All this, while the nascent nobility improves their position, consolidates their power, and lives within their isolated, guarded, luxurious havens.

    While they enjoy the immunity provided by their power and position, it remains upon the middle class to pay for keeping the savages at bay. No one wants to face the problem, since there are no good solutions. The left asks, “would you let the children starve?” or “Someone’s going to have to pay for the children if they aren’t provided birth control.”

    If I say, “Fuck them. Let them starve before they have a chance to breed a new generation,” I’m seen as some vicious, nazi bastard. But this isn’t avoiding that rather dreadful end…it’s simply kicking the can down the road for a generation or two. Eventually, the resources are going to run out. When that happens, what will it look like? Zombie apocalypse?

    No one even wants to contemplate the alternatives. Sure, the best course of action is to get people away from being dependent upon the government, but that would not fit in with the plans of Those Who Would Be Royalty.

  10. 10
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    While, indeed, the Bible tells us to help the poor, in every case it is voluntary. The apostle Paul also said, “if a man does not want to work, neither let him eat.” Which very plainly means get off your ass and do for yourself if you can. No where in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament, nor the New Testament, nor in the words of Jesus, nor of the apostles was anyone forced to support the poor, whether those poor were deserving of help or not.
    And, while we’re on the subject, where is the much vaunted wall of separation of church and state on this subject?
    Also, one more time, slowly for brain damaged liberals (redundant) neither the Catholic Church nor the Republican Party want to outlaw contraception in this country. The Church does not want to pay for it, as it goes against their doctrine. Anyone who works for a Catholic entity, whether that person is of the Catholic faith or not, can purchase and use any form of contraception they wish to use. A box of condoms is not all that expensive. Nor is the pill or a diaphragm and contraceptive jelly terribly expensive. If you want it, buy the damn stuff yourself. But, there is no Constitutional Right to require anyone else to buy your contraception for you. :em08:

  11. 11
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    The three biggest lies: 1) the check is in the mail, 2) I’ll respect you in the morning, 3) I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. To this lest we can add a fourth: the Edit button is on the way. :em05:
    Continuing in the vein above: where is there a Constitutional or Biblical requirement that forces us to be the enablers of sluts, man-sluts, whores, man-whores, and bastardy?
    (Yer Majesty, that was a rhetorical question.)

  12. 12
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    Yeah, Ogrrre, it’s from the “good and plenty” clause in the constitution. It includes a woman’s right to free contraception on demand.

    To mildly change the subject, kudos to this kid for his courage:

    We need about another hundred million or so like him.

  13. 13
    LC Spare Parts growls and barks:

    This edict is nothing more than the Demoncrat Party telling the people who don’t vote for them who God really is

  14. 14
    dasbow growls and barks:

    OK, so I’m no Biblical scholar, but wasn’t there something in there about being fruitful and multiplying? Apparently God didn’t want us to use contraceptives, after all.

  15. 15

    Those damn twenty bucks a month! Keeping America’s poor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!

    I though their Boy-God gave them this $20 back in the payroll tax cut scam?

    There is actually a MUCH better argument against this silliness that I laid out last week.

    The HHS mandate and the administration’s “Heads I win, Tails you lose” transparent sham of a compromise doesn’t just violate the First Amendment. It also violates the Ninth. And the fact that I could use the left’s favorite “athiest” to make the point was icing on the cake:

    “The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”

    I enjoy the situation where you don’t even have to beat the dummie with their own arm for them not to “get it”.

  16. 16

    Oh wait, the CHURCH made it an issue, and is still bellyaching about it even now that they DON’T have to pay or provide.

    And yet by being required to provide a plan which still MUST provide something that they firmly believe to be a sin, the government still suborns their right of conscience by making them a participant in the use of those contraceptives.

    As for the “they don’t have to pay for it”, are you really so ignorant as to be unaware as to how product pricing works? While the contraceptives will be a zero line item, if included at ALL in the itemized billing for the plans, it will be part of the pricing nevertheless.

  17. 17

    The irony is that the same people who refuse to see that there is a legitimate Freedom of Religion and Right of Conscience issue here are the same ones who will see nothing wrong and be in favor of dictating to parents what the state will allow the parents’ children to ingest.

    Keep you government out of my uterus and put it im my kid’s lunch box where it belongs, you hatey hater haters!

  18. 18
    LC HJ Caveman82952 growls and barks:

    Those damn twenty bucks a month! Keeping America’s poor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!

    No kidding! I see these fucking maggots drop twice that on lottery tickets and cheetos……in one visit.

  19. 19
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    Once again, the left distorts the argument.

    If the insurance companies wanted to provide birth control, they could do it. It’s their business. Pretty much everything the government has touched, it has fucked up.

    Secondly, if Ogabe would have implemented ONE of the makes-sense provisions to Obama-care, this would not be an issue. That one: allow people to buy their OWN healthcare insurance from any provider. There’s no reason why the company should be involved in healthcare purchase. Give the employee the money it would ordinarily spend and let them buy their own. If they don’t, well, tough shit. It puts dumb people (those who buy iPhones and mocha crappucinos instead of insurance) at risk. If they die, then we’re probably just improving the breed. I’m pretty tired of paying for these assholes, anyway.

    Nope, there’s no rational intellectual argument for this. It’s all about gaining power…if conservatives object to it, then the left’s narrative is that conservatives are opposed to women’s health, which is total bullshit. Conservatives are, of course, opposed to people not having to accept the consequences of their own actions, but that is the left’s major message. Translated, it tells their followers that you’re just too fucking stupid to make your own decisions, so we’ll make them for you.

    We try to intellectualize against that sort of emotional rhetoric, and we’ll lose every time…especially when dealing with leftards, who are in general intellectual midgets, anyway.

  20. 20
    Duke Wayne growls and barks:

    “If you oppose the doctrine of the Catholic church, then you’re not a Catholic and you don’t even get a vote.”

    I think you got something here. If you had to be against rubbers and birth control pills to be a real Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any Catolics left, and the Bishops would have to find something else to do besides covering up pedophilia and talking a lot of reactionary nonsence.

  21. 21

    I think you got something here. If you had to be against rubbers and birth control pills to be a real Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any Catolics left, and the Bishops would have to find something else to do besides covering up pedophilia and talking a lot of reactionary nonsence.

    *golf claps*

    Oh very good, Commerade. You DID pay attention in your deconstructionalist dialectic at Patrice Lumumba University. It is an imperitave to cast criticisms in as simple a light as possible, so that the silly prols won’t dwell too much on the points that you deftly ignore, or simply weren’t capable of grokking in the first place.

    The Catholic Chuch is not a democracy, and while it does attempt to be the spiritual guide of its members, it could no more go against its own teachings on a behavior that it considers immoral simply because a number of its parishoners violate its teachings on the subject any more than I will start serving cake and ice cream for breakfast to my boys because it is what they would feed themselves if they had a choice.

  22. 22
    VonZorch Imperial Researcher growls and barks:

    Mark12A says:

    that is the left’s major message. Translated, it tells their followers that you’re just too fucking stupid to make your own decisions, so we’ll make them for you.

    Sadly, among those that do follow them, it’s true. :em08:

  23. 23
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Oh and 95% of Catholic women probably have premarital sex, too. Does this mean the government should force the church to hand out free condoms? The same justification will be used for Gay marriage, when it’s legalized. Eventually the government will tell the Church that it must conduct gay marriage ceremonies, or lose its legal right to officiate weddings. After all, X% of Catholics would support Gay marriage, so the church should be forced to conduct them, right?

    Don’t get me wrong — I don’t give a rats ass about gays marrying or not, as an issue. But I can see this birth control thing as a precedent for, at a later time, forcing the Church to conduct other business explicitly against its teachings.

  24. 24
    Duke Wayne growls and barks:

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

    “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.”

    “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 which are binding on others in that activity.”

  25. 25

    “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.”

    “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 which are binding on others in that activity.”

    *golf clap again*

    Very good. You learned how to cut and paste. Next on your to-do list is reading farther.

    The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press,…

    Or other unenumerated rights (damn that pesky Ninth Amendment!), like the right of conscience.

    To be fair, you imply a truckload of stupid in your very selective quotation, but I’ll have to address it later.

    Until then, maybe you’d like to tell the class why it is you believe that there is no distinction between Free Exercise claims related to activity engaged in for years prior to government involvment, and Free Exercise claims related to criminal activity?

  26. 26

    The relationship between the insurance company is with the patient, NOT the employer.

    Nonsense. If the Church did not negotiate and procure the plan that is to cover the employees, there would be no ‘relationship’ between the insurance company and the employee (and employee’s dependents).

    Pre-“compromise”, this means that the Church had to go out and procure a plan for employees that covered these “free” contraceptives, thus compelling their participation in providing something that their teachings expressly forbid.

    Post-“compromise”, this means that no matter what plan the Church procures for its employees, it will automatically contain the “free” comtraceptives, (assuming they would be able to afford the cost of a plan that provides such “free” stuff to their employees to begin with) thus still compelling their participation by the simple act of doing what they always have: providing a benefit for their employees. Only a control-freaky proggie would look at that this mandate and not see that this is like your neighbor being invited to dinner at the home of a jewish friend, and you thinking that YOU have the right to demand that the host serve bacon, ham, sausage, and pork chops for the dinner.

    What is really funny about those “right of conscience” Christians is that in most Catholic and Protestant hospitals, they regularly perform vasectomies on men. The last I looked, that is about as much of a birth control as you can get.

    No, what is REALLY funny is this notion that there is an “hypocrisy” exception to the exercise of conscience and the freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First and Ninth Amendments. I must have missed class the day we talked about those. And they must have given away the magic keywords for the search, because I just can’t seem to find these rulings on WESTLAW.[To say nothing of the fact that this is being called “preventative care” when pregnancy is not a disease, or the imperative to impose this “preventative care” but not other forms of “preventative care” which could actually prevent disease.]

    Unless of course, people who knew much more about such things than you do long ago realized that if such an exception existed, there would be no end to judicial scrutiny and interference as part of determining the “purity” and sincerity of various religious practices….oh, I’m sorry, your strawman seems to be blazing quite nicely. Marshmellow?

    Actually, the government isn’t telling the CHURCH any such thing — as long as they are operating as a CHURCH. But when a church is operating as a secular business? THAT is a different story. The church has a choice — if they don’t like secular rules, stay out of secular business.

    You have this ass-backwards, which is about as shocking as the sun rising in the East in the morning.

    The Church doesn’t have the chartities, the hospitals, and the univeristies because the Church leadership woke up one morning and decided “We need to encroach on the secular world and compete with them in providing these services!”

    The Church got involved in all of these because it they were following the example and the commands of Jesus, who was very clear about individuals and the body of believers engaging in charitable acts. He lead by example in healing the sick. And he didn’t just educate the apostles, he educated all who followed in the faith. These are not secular activites, they are acts of faith, and it was government which decided to impose its mandates on them, NOT the other way around. That is why it is a Constitutional violation, and not some harmless imposition of government.

  27. 27
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Even if they were secular activities (a concession I do not make — see Blackiswhite’s post)… it doesn’t matter. Why should a company NOT have the right to dictate what benefits it wishes to provide to employees? If a company wants to provide a company car, for example, it may do so (many do, including my fiance’s father’s company). If it does not wish to do so, it is under no obligation to. It may choose a basic car, or a fancy car, or if for some reason the company has a guiding principle that says “we hate cruise control” it may order cars without cruise control to provide to employees. Freedom of choice. If the employees don’t like it, they may eschew the company car, and purchase their own vehicle to their desired specifications, on their own dime. Should the government then mandate that all company cars must have cruise control?

    So if a company (or Church) wishes to purchase insurance coverage for employees that contains (X) coverages and declines (Z) coverages, that is its own business. The issue is exacerbated with the Church, because you also introduce freedom of religion into the mix, but even if we were to take that out, we’d still have the problem of government telling a private organization what extras it may give employees. If employees don’t like it, they may eschew the coverage and purchase their own, or they may leave the Church’s employ and seek a job elsewhere. Or, if they are smart, they will just buy their own damn contraceptives.

  28. 28
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    And Deej, you ought to know better — we here at the Rott can, have and will continue to slam Republicans who behave this way too.

  29. 29

    “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 which are binding on others in that activity.”

    Ok, I’ve read the decision 3 times, and I don’t see where Scalia said this. Do you have a pinpoint citation?


    That said, what makes you think that these qualify as “commercial” activites?

  30. 30

    This is all grand standing.

    Yes, it is, which is why the shrieking harpies from Klanned Parenthood haven’t been roundly condemned everytime they utter such lies as “contraceptives are preventative care”.

    It’s much more in vogue to nod in agreement than it is to say “Pregnancy isn’t a disease. I guess all that college didn’t do much for your cognitive ablilities, did it?”

  31. 31

    Better yet, is the “grand standing” about the potential that this “right” could be denied.

    When did it become a “right” and not a privilege?

  32. 32

    This reeks of shitty thought, planning, and implementation. Another example of piss poor leadership.

    I disagree. This was carefully thought out and executed. President Downgrade and his fellow travellers WANT this fight, and they chose this time to pick it.

  33. 33
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @ #:
    My Machiavellian side agree’s BisW. I just don’t like giving them credit for the manipulative effort.

  34. 34
    redc1c4 growls and barks:

    although i am someone who gave up being Catholic for Lent back when Carter (spit) was president, i side 100% with the churches on this, for the many good and sundry reasons listed above.

    plain and simple, this is a violation of the First Amendment, and anyone who can’t or won’t see that is a mortal enemy of that Amendment, and thus the Constitution, and, by extension, me.

    i was following a friend on FB the other day at the Governor Walker website when some frothing at the mouth libtard told another poster that “…come the war, your kind will be strung up…” (or words to that effect)

    i see signs of the same sort of fanaticism here, in the stridently illogical defense of the indefensible, and i too want to know where i can get some of that 25 cent a round 45 ammo.

    after all, it’s a damn site cheaper than other forms of birth control, and the usual suspects can’t complain, since they support late term abortions anyway…

    so what if we string it out for longer than nine months? the principal is the same, by their “logic”.

  35. 35
    redc1c4 growls and barks:

    and i’ve w*rked at Catholic hospitals, in and around the OR, and i’ve never seen a vasectomy scheduled.

    even getting a tubal ligation approved, secondary to a Cesarian on a high risk pregnancy, was hard to get, and required mucho paperw*rk. and no, just having a metric buttload of kids already wasn’t a good enough reason. there had to be significant danger to the mother’s life if she every got pregnant again. approvals were rare.

    as for a tubal ligation as a stand alone procedure? so NOT happening.

    but nice try making up a reality to support your delusions. :em01:

  36. 36
    Alan K. Henderson growls and barks:

    but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.

    Who’s calling for banning contraceptives?

    Jesus was consistently against theft. Is it not theft to force a business to sell something it doesn’t want to sell?

    My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health

    The Guttmacher Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood, named after a former president of Planned Parenthood. They’re no more nonpartisan than the DNC, RNC, or Vladimir Putin.

  37. 37
    Lady H growls and barks:

    Thank you for this fantastic post, Sire.

  38. 38
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    This just continues to get better and better, as the Ogabe propaganda machine, with its most leg-tingly propagandist, Pissy Crissy Mathews, claiming Rick Santorum would not object to states banning contraception. The left is fabricating bald-faced LIES and no one is calling them out on it. I go back to my previous theory: People who support Obama are either (1) too stupid to understand what he is saying; (2) without the necessary powers of discernment to understand he is lying to them; or (3) standing in line to get more goodies without having to work for them.

    It’s my sincere hope that a lot of people…high wage earners, irreplaceable experience, and near retirement age…simply opt out of the workforce if that lying Marxist asshole gets re-elected.

  39. 39
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    25 cent a round 45 ammo

    Cheaper than Dirt

    Is it me or does ammo seem to be coming down in price?

    Anyhoo if a man or woman wants birth control then they can have it. But I’M NOT GOING TO PAY FOR IT NOR SHOULD ANYBODY ELSE BE FORCED TO FOR ANY REASON.

    Liberals love to warp the meaning of the constitution to fit their narrative like the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers never had the intention of erecting a wall between faith and government. What they intended was to prevent the government from imposing a particular religion on the people and to prevent the government from interfering with churches.

    The Founders deeply believed that faith (not religion) was just as important to freedom as much as the rule of law and this drives libtards insane. If FF didn’t believe in faith then why did they require the oath of office be recited while holding the Holy Bible?

  40. 40
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    This is CLASSIC liberal misdirection. Use Birth Control as a wedge issue to get the REAL goal…PAID ABORTIONS.
    You get women afraid they will lose BC access, they overwhelmingly (and near sightedly) support the change, which has buried in it, access to PAID FREE ABORTIONS. Do not be fooled that is the real prize here.

  41. 41

    Hense, the metaphorical “wall”. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

    Stuff and nonsense.

    Either you’ve swallowed some proggie “think”tank’s line hook line and sucker, or you know that history is against you on this, and you’re hoping that the rest of us won’t do the research.

    “Jefferson’s” “wall of separation” is a perfect example of this, as the people who scream loudest about it often don’t know that:

    1. The phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, because Jefferson was in Paris having a mancrush on the French Revolution at the time the Constitution was drafted;

    2. Some actually know it was in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, but still fail to grok that the letter had to do with the favor that states often [Constitutionally] showed to one particular sect of Christianity, to the detriment of others;

    3. Have never read Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address, especially the last paragraph where he is clearly calling on his fellow citizens to pray for him;

    4. Have no idea where he spent his Sundays in Washington D.C. during his presidency; and

    5. What his plans were for the University of Virginia regarding spiritual instruction for the students who attended there.

    This is also not to mention the acts “offensive” to the modern misinterpretation of this “wall” by other prominent founders, such as Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Converntion as its President) calling for days of thanksgiving and prayer during his tenure as President, others serving in Congress and voting for funding of missionaries to the indian nations with the stated purpose of bringing them to Christendom, and others.

  42. 42

    This just continues to get better and better, as the Ogabe propaganda machine, with its most leg-tingly propagandist, Pissy Crissy Mathews, claiming Rick Santorum would not object to states banning contraception.

    What makes this a monumentally stupid lie, is that it presumes that he is completely unaware of the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut.

  43. 43
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    The imagery today in Issa’s hearing was of a bunch of tired old men trying to make decisions on a woman’s vagina.

    Somebody has to since many ‘women’ nowadays treat their vaginas like phone booths, trying to see how many frat boys they can cram in at one time.

    Just the poisoned fruits of the “free love” movement taking their toll. Nice legacy for the left isn’t it?

  44. 44
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Oh Deej, thou art the master of misdirection.

    Number one, being in the “minority” of an issue doesn’t make me incorrect. Number two, most companies offer healthcare plans for important employees because they want to attract talent and make money — not because they are forced to. Now, sure, a burger-flipper or toilet bowl scrubber might not get that benefit — but then again, most people have the option to do something that pays more money with some education, talent and/or hard work. It doesn’t always have to be college — it can be vocational school, or even self-taught through books and practical experience (most good mechanics I know learn this way, a lot of web developers, too).

    So, Deej I don’t believe allowing companies and private organizations to tailor their benefit plans to their needs, beliefs and desires will result in a government mandate and/or popular uprising.

    In fact, I believe if you give the free market a REAL chance, not through crony capitalism or mixed economies, you will see a dramatic reduction of cost and a dramatic increase in availability to most Americans.

    Yet still, it doesn’t matter. This is not a proper government function to begin with. I don’t know how many times and how many different ways I have to explain it, but the government is not supposed to take care of you. It’s not supposed to be a safety net, make sure your belly is full or you are eating healthy. It’s not supposed to regulate your smoking habits or provide health care for you. It is supposed to only provide guarantees for natural rights, and do those things which CANNOT be done without national and/or community consensus.

    An example of the latter would be the Road system. While private companies should be able to (and often times can) build private toll roads, the road system requires community and national cooperation, because otherwise private property rights would be violated. Although today this often results in eminent domain abuse, which is something I’m pretty pissed about. However even these items must be subject to specific use tax. I.e. a gas tax. One which is not (as it is today) raided for funds for other things. And if/when a private market alternative can be found, which does not violate private property rights, it can be used instead.

    Another example is national defense. It requires national and community cooperation in order to field a large enough and effective enough military force to protect the borders from those who would rape, kill, pillage, etc… Since all who live in the country benefit from its use, it can be subject to a more general tax.

    Healthcare fails this test, because it does NOT require national cooperation. An individual doctor may purchase equipment, an education, and open an office to practice his craft. An individual company may open a hospital and staff it with doctors, nurses and the like. In fact, the only element that requires cooperation on a large scale is laws regarding paramedics and ambulances. One must make way for them, and that is both expected and desirable. So some tax money may be used to fund first-responders and/or the system put in place to allow them to do their job. In other words, you getting to the Hospital in a reasonable amount of time cannot be precluded by other people clogging the intersections with their property, or at the very least, it must be mitigated.

    A similar argument is possible for Police functions and Fire Fighting functions. If you own a piece of property and your neighbor’s property is on fire — the Fire Fighter is protecting YOUR property rights from damage instigated by the neighbor’s property. Once again a tax may be instituted for this, or as some communities do, you can simply pay a fee for fire protection. But it is both expected and desirable.

    Once you are in that Hospital, however, you must foot the bill. That or whatever insurance you purchased. If you cannot pay, then yes, it sucks, but you or your family must figure out an alternate method of satisfying the Doctor, who is an individual with his own rights. He is not a slave, to work on you for free. Nor is a random taxpayer a slave, to be expected to pay for you, whom he or she has never met. Nor is the hospital owner a slave, to be expected to bear these costs without compensation. Those in your insurance group have voluntarily elected to pool money to cover you, so that is different. If the Doctor or Owner agrees to help you for free or reduced cost out of charity, that is their voluntary election. If a charity decides to help you ,that is a voluntary election.

    And this circles back to the original issue. If your employer is willing to pay for (X) benefits and not (Z) benefits, then it is your choice whether or not to work for them. And don’t buy this “compromise” hogwash. The Church would have to purchase plans that cover what the government wants, not what they wish to cover. It doesn’t matter if 99% of their employees WANT the coverage, it’s still the Church’s choice. I want my employers to buy me a Ferrari — doesn’t mean I’m going to get it. 99% of people who buy our software would probably want Ferraris too, doesn’t mean they have a right to one.

    And this isn’t about regulating a woman’s vagina or womb. They can continue to do whatever they want — on their own dime. A right to do something doesn’t mean you have a right to expect someone else to pay for you to do it.

  45. 45
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before this honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court.”

  46. 46

    Could you picture any one company just jumping in and building say, our interstate freeway system on spec? It just isn’t going to happen.

    Any one company? Probably not. But….ever heard of TOLL ROADS?

    And the government invested in the Interstate Highways with a Constitutional primary purpose, which was not to build them for the sake of putting roads where they didn’t previously exist, but as part of a DEFENSIVE infrastructure.

    As long as I live, I will never understand the midset that relies on the benevolence of government for the sake of benevolence alone.

  47. 47

    The Supreme Court, going back to Reynolds v. United States (1879) on forward have used this concept of a “wall”, because as the Court stated then that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment.” That is 132 years of law and precedent, and you, as an attorney MUST know that it is pretty much settled law.

    This isn’t something that has been pulled from someone’s ass in recent years. This has been consistently settled numerous times over the years by several different incarnations of the Court. Yet it is still being contentiously challenged.

    Of course what you neglect to mention for the class is that in Reynolds, what was at issue was an attempt to use religious ‘duty” as a defense to a criminal charge, not to resist a mandate that would require a church to participate in an activity that it has clearly and consistently stood against for centuries. And it was not “understood” and applied in the manner in which it is today.

    As for it “being pulled from someone’s ass in recent years”, your statement is half correct.
    Starting with the Everson case in the late 1940’s, when Klansman and Anti-Catholic bigot Justice Black resurrected the phrase, starting a jurisprudential spiral of decisions treating it as if it were part and parcel of the Constitution and applying it in ways that are completely inconsistent with the understanding of Jefferson and his contemporaries as displayed in their actions, official activities, and writings.

    But then, anyone who has ever been to the feverswamp on the Potomac and actually LOOKED at the buildings and the words engraved in them, or strolled through the halls of Congress and learned a thing or two about some of the people memorialized in stautues there understands that this “wall” was never meant to be a cudgel to force faith out of politics or the public square.

  48. 48
    redc1c4 growls and barks:

    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology says:

    No, they did not. They stole it from individuals in the private sector.

    One thing you leftist twatwaffles never seem to comprehend is that the government has no money of its own. All value is created by the private sector.

    so good it deserves to be said twice.

    (imho, of course %-)

  49. 49
    VonZorch Imperial Researcher growls and barks:

    redc1c4 says:

    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology says:
    No, they did not. They stole it from individuals in the private sector.
    One thing you leftist twatwaffles never seem to comprehend is that the government has no money of its own. All value is created by the private sector.

    so good it deserves to be said twice.
    (imho, of course %-)

    Make that thrice. Yes it’s a real, if archaic, word.

  50. 50

    Which of course ignores the fact that said representatives have created a career out of convincing large swaths of the electorate that goverment will save them by taking more from theirneighbor…because “at some point arbitratily choosen by government, you’ve just made enough.

  51. 51
    Radical Redneck growls and barks:

    ” title=”” rel=”nofollow”>Barney Frank’s swanky new retirement home. Complete with chandelier! :em01: