I think President Barack Obama has shown what he thinks of the United States Constitution with his fight with the Catholic Church. It does not matter what you think about abortion or birth control for this issue. This is about the First Amendment, and do we still have religious freedom if the government thinks their agenda is more important?
Obama polled and found the vast majority of Catholics in the U.S. do not follow the teachings on birth control, so he thought he could push his agenda without a price for limiting religious liberty. It does not matter if the members are following the church teachings, it is still the right of churches to set their own doctrine. Clearly they should not be forced to provide or pay for something that they feel is immoral. This would include paying for birth control for anyone including people they employ in any of their operations.
The solution Obama proposed is ridiculous. He states he will just make the insurance company provide it for free. Insurance companies will just pass that cost on to the church. His argument that it will save the insurance company money is faulty. First off all, if insurance companies believed that, they would already provide it for free. Also, I have never heard of a person with a job, who had a baby because they did not want to pay for birth control. Even if Obama is right, the church should still have the freedom to get quotes for insurance without that coverage and choose what they want to do.
Obama and the Democrats, like Tammy Baldwin, that are supporting this assault on freedom are now making it clear they do not respect the constitution or our rights. It is our patriotic duty to defend our rights by voting every one of them out of office.
The issue is far more important with a president since they appoint people to the Supreme Court. Many pro-choice people have been so concerned about abortion that they have fought to get people on the court that are willing to ignore what the constitution says. Progressives that hate the constitution stoke fears about abortion to get support to appoint justices who will help them achieve their agenda despite what the constitution says. Do you really want to trade all the guarantees the constitution gives, for abortion on demand?
You may not care about this issue, but if government can take your rights away, what rights will they take next? We will be at the mercy of the majority to decide what freedom we can have. With people like Supreme court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who told people in Egypt to not look to our constitution, and two Obama appointees on the Supreme Court, the constitution is hanging by a thread right now. As Ronald Reagan said:
“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” ~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967
That it is, but what I find more interesting is that it's still practiced by many of the non-diehard faithful in this day of age, which is in stark contrast to the majority of practicing Catholics that have given up or abandoned many of their tenants in assimilating with current popular culture sentiments.
If I wanted to listen to a raving lunatic, I would listen to Gilbert Goddfried. Lyle, My favorite shows are almost all BBC based. I do feel that there is still some individuals from England that rant the ideologies, but their news about us is always kinda funny, and mostly accurate.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216,0,3392996.story
My favorite one right now is Mongrels. Its a highly witted silly puppet show. Not for everyone. But, I have watched Coupling, Greenwing, Black Books, and others like QI.
There are a lot of things wrong in the world, but this is brilliant!
Where are you going with this?
Are you a 'Red Dwarf' fan by chance? I also quite enjoy Leo McKern's 'Rumpole' and Patrick McGoohan's 'The Prisoner.'
What I have found is the "Fox News Crowd" loves to have a "Readers Digest Version" of opinions, all with one slant; making it easy to repeat in talking point style and to regurgitate it over morning coffee, the beer after work at the local tavern, or the fundraiser cocktail party. Listening to the local opinion entertainment is enlightening just to understand what the uncomplicated will be talking about during the days to come. Someone like Noelle Lorraine understands the entertainment game and will most likely wind up somewhere on some talk radio station. What is sad is that she believes her own schtick and will continue as the "Pied Piper" of misinformation. Bryant, who appears to be a very angry man, is that guy who Belling lets onto his broadcast, only to be Belling's setup man. Bryant, who is a bright guy, is one of those who self limits his information resources. He too rejects anything that may violate his preconceived notion of truth and reality. Finally, the local village idiots, who spew vitriolic hate just for the fun of it. They have nothing to add to the discourse and are like exclamation marks randomly thrown in willy nilly. I miss the days of the true intellectual conservatives who are well educated and capable of arguing their perspective civilly.
With all due respect, I think that you're grossly misjudging Ms. Lorraine. If I'm not mistaken, you have often claimed and defended the notion that we are sometimes formed into the resultant product of the environment in which we've had to grow in. In fact, I seem to recall you using such rational when we were discussing the Chicago Housing Authority some time ago. Ms Lorraine has developed a "snarky," in quoting you, offensive style and retributive defensive style because ever since she started engaging in politics, she's had to almost exclusively bear the full force of uncivil discourse from the overly flamboyant members of the opposing end of the political spectrum. It also doesn't help that when met by a civil intellectual from the opposite side, such as yourself, she's immediately assessed upon first impression as being "uncomplicated," which quite frankly doesn't bode all that well as far as the whole intellectual elitist label goes, does it? Remember, just because she's on the right doesn't mean that she doesn't have or feel emotion, as after all, we're all still human beings. Ms. Lorraine just so happens to be a very emotional member of the right and a far more complex and passionate person than you give her credit for.
Your assessment and brush off of Ms. Lorraine doesn't conform very well with the practice of the theoretical leftist ideology, and if you are being honest with yourself here, then I think that you realize this to be the case.
I understand and empathize with your position here, but are you saying that she's lost all credibility in your eyes merely because of the groups that she happens to be affiliated with? Would you have neglected to engage with Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. just because of the groups that he was affiliated with? Or is it the content of the groups involved as opposed to mere membership that has you reacting as you are to the situation? I'm just trying to understand why these groups are an issue for you as I thought you encouraged collectivism.
BTW - Thanks for the kind words, they're very much appreciated. You should already know that I hold you in the utmost respect and consider you a friend, and yes, you indeed help me to become a better thinker as well. I look forward to meeting in person someday if the opportunity ever presents itself.
Just as a point of reference: A few days ago you replied to a comment of mine that I was uninformed. That same statement could mean you were calling me an uneducated, stupid, simpleton. If we had not had a history of disagreement with mutual respect, I may have replied with my own snarky comment fanning the flame wars further.
Red Dwarf and Rumpole are also favorites, but I must put in a word for Cadfael as well!