Who knew the pill could cause such a ruckus? I’d be a little shocked at where we are in this debate, if it weren’t so typical. For those of you that have been living under a rock for the past several days, Barry has decided to pick a fight with the Catholic Church. Specifically, he thinks compelling Catholic employers, such as Catholic hospitals, to pay for contraceptives for their employees is in keeping with his promise to be the awesomest president EVER. This wouldn’t be a problem, other than for the fact that the Catholic Church considers the use of contraceptives a sin, and therefore, is disgruntled by the feds forcing Catholics to pay for such items. Commence public outrage.
Disclaimer: I am not a Catholic. I don’t have any problem with people using contraceptives, and I don’t think an abortion is the best way to make sure Debbie can fit into her prom dress (too far?). But I did watch part of a documentary on PBS about the constitution once, and I’m pretty sure the government can’t force you to do something that violates your religion. Well, that’s assuming your religion doesn’t consist of smoking pot in your mom’s basement, but I digress. In fact, “freedom of religion” is right up front, in the first amendment. It’s even more important than being able to use your gun against that neighbor who never cleans up after his dog (you know the guy).
So why is this even an issue? Why are my Youtubes all clogged up with sob stories from some law school student about how embarrassing it was to get to the counter and find out she actually had to pay for those pills? Oh, that’s right. The issue consists of sex, free stuff, and “crazy religious folk (who must be white. and old. and men.).” In other words, it’s right in a liberal’s sweet spot.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. ‘I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?’
This statement was made yesterday, after a congressional hearing on contraceptives (must have been a slow day in Congress). Ms. Maloney’s statement is convenient because it highlights the spin that the left is offering to disguise the aforementioned tomfoolery. “This isn’t about religious liberty, it’s about a woman’s right to keep her uterus as dusty as possible, for as long as possible. And this can only happen with Catholic-provided contraceptives.” FYI: That’s a quote I made up while driving in my automobile. Thus, you can attribute its hilarity to me.
As you’ve figured out by now, this isn’t about contraception. It isn’t about women’s rights. It isn’t even about feminism, or sexism, or some other “ism.” It’s about the federal government compelling a religion to do something that is against its religion. And no, it doesn’t matter that 98% of female Catholics use contraceptives. All that means is 98% of female Catholics feel like ignoring the teachings of their church.
Barry’s effort to force Catholic employers to provide birth control to their employees is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. And it’s not even close. I’ll be interested to see who folds on this. Does the Catholic Church have the courage of its convictions? Or will our president create another constitutional crisis? In other words, pass the popcorn.
I’ve written about the Ground Zero mosque before. I’ve given my opinion on it before. I see no need for it and I’ve heard no justification for it. It’s not a constitutional issue…it’s a zoning issue. It’s not about whether it can be built; but should it be built. Well, the Imam behind the mosque gave an interview to CNN yesterday, and provided some interesting insight into the building of the mosque (this from the live blog),
Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he ‘never would have done this – not have done something that would create more divisiveness.’
The only way you wouldn’t have known this would stir controversy is if you were mentally ill; and maybe you are. But now you know that your monument to tolerance will do nothing more than make a lot of people angry. So, you’ll move it, right?
However, he said he is convinced he shouldn’t move the center now because ‘our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.’
By that, he said, he means that if the controversy forces a move, ‘it means the radicals … will shape the discourse on both sides.’
Of course he won’t move it. And the reason is national security? National security because the radicals will get mad if it’s moved? Newsflash: the radicals were mad on 9/11, when there was no mosque at Ground Zero, and there were lots of practicing muslims in New York. Oh yeah, about that,
O’Brien asked about [the Imam’s] interview with CBS’s ’60 Minutes,’ shortly after the 9/11 attacks, in which he said the United States’ policies ‘were an accessory to the crime.’
O’Brien asked twice, but Rauf deflected the question.
‘The work we have to do now is not about pointing fingers,’ he said, as part of his response.
Apparently he still thinks we were at fault for 9/11. So there’s that.
My issue with the mosque has always been a very practical one: why build it there? The Imam was actually asked that question during his interview:
Asked why he wanted to build the center on the planned spot, Rauf noted he’s already run a mosque about 10 blocks from ground zero for many years.
When asked about the feelings of families of 9/11 victims – such as those who might claim that their relative’s remains have yet to be found at the site, Rauf said: ‘This is not that spot. This is not ground zero proper. No one’s body is in that location.’
‘I’m very sensitive to those feelings,’ he said. ‘As an imam – as any religious person does – we have to minister to the pain and hurt … in our communities. This is part of our intention.’
He said he intends to put a 9/11 memorial in the center.
“No one’s body is in that location” and “I’m very sensitive to those feelings.” About as sensitive as a kick to the groin…of a man. The Imam’s answer says two things. First, it doesn’t actually answer the question, other than to vaguely reference serving the community (that doesn’t want it). The second thing the answer says: screw you and your feelings America.
The fact is, the reason for building the mosque in its current location is becoming increasingly clear; and increasingly dark. If I’m wrong about his motives, then why does the Imam continue to either provide non-answers or simply lie about what the mosque is and why it’s being built in that specific location?
He concludes the interview by calling the Cordoba House a “multifaith center.” Sweet! Does that mean, in addition to a mosque, there will also be a Christian Church and a Jewish Temple available for use by the community? I’m not holding my breath.
And of course, while all of this is going on, we have the pastor in Florida who wants to burn some Qurans. Everyone is up in arms about it. Why? Doesn’t he have a constitutional right to do it? Isn’t that all that matters? The liberal left says “but it’s not about whether he can do it, but whether he should he do it.” O.k, but shouldn’t we be attempting to understand why the pastor wants to burn Qurans and try to help him, instead of simply attacking him? The left says no; he’s only doing it to be devisive. In a surprising turn of events, the left is right. It isn’t about whether the church can do it, but should it? The obvious answer is no. We already know that the only conceivable reason why the pastor would want to burn Qurans is to be divisive.
See, if anyone viewed both of the aforementioned events honestly, they would realize that both are identical. In both cases, we have people using religion to do nothing more than stick their finger in America’s collective eye. The only reason for either the mosque being built at Ground Zero or the church burning Qurans is divisiveness. Of course, while everyone finds the Quran burning to be assinine, the liberal left actually finds the mosque building to be a great thing; a monument to tolerance. Don’t worry though…the contradiction will be lost on them.
Remember this come November: A vote for any democrat running for a seat in the House of Representatives is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain speaker of the house. Why is that a problem? Example:
‘There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,’ she said. ‘How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.’
Looking into who’s making this a political issue? How could this not be a political issue? You have a group of muslims trying to build a mosque down the street from Ground Zero, when the majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, don’t want it. Hey Nancy, instead of calling for an investigation into how the opposition is being funded, why don’t you try calling for an investigation into the group that is funding the building of a 13 story “community center” on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the world.
I’m sorry, but the mosque isn’t about religious freedom or consitutional rights; it’s about common sense. And yes, I know that the left in this country lacks common sense, which is why they think the building of a mosque near Ground Zero should be celebrated, but investigating those that oppose it? Well I oppose it, so you can feel free to investigate me. I’m not being funded by anyone, but I’m more than happy to give five dollars to someone else to oppose it. Idiot.
Bigger picture: The Speaker of the House is calling for an investigation by the government into American citizens who oppose the building of a mosque. This should frighten you even more than the fact that she is second in line for the presidency.
Yes, I know there haven’t been many posts lately. I’ve been busy. And until someone wants to pay me for this blog, then my job security will need to be priority number 1. No mom, no one has complained.
With all of that being said, can anyone explain to me why we need a mosque near Ground Zero? I know I’ve asked before, but with the recent acceleration of the issue, I’m asking again. And no, I’m not questioning whether one can be built there, obviously it can be. But why should it be built there? What’s the point? Is this really the best place to prove that we, as Americans, are tolerant of everyone?
And what are the motives of the muslims building the mosque? Peace and understanding? B.S. You could have the same peace and understanding if you built it somewhere else. And no, your right to practice your religion is not being inhibited in any way by making you build the mosque elsewhere. Moreover, if your real motivation was truly a thing of butterflies and kittens and pretty rainbows and dew-drops, why give it a name that basically means muslim conquest? I’m not sure that forcing a mosque down the throat of a majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, that don’t want it speaks of tolerance.
And what does this have to do with our esteemed president, you ask? Well, on Friday, he said this:
In his speech on Friday, Mr Obama said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.
‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
As one could expect, that went over like a ton of bricks. If the Republicans win back the House (and possibly Senate) this fall, a thank-you letter should be sent to the president.
House minority leader John Boehner’s response,
‘The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding….’
Say what you want about Boehner (I tend to like him), but he’s absolutely right (except that I don’t think they have the “right” to do it). If the muslims attempting to get this thing built want to show how much they love everybody, then they should share their love elsewhere. The people don’t want it, period; and with good reason. Lest we forget that it was muslims who brought the twin-towers down, in the name of their religion. I don’t care if they were “radicalized.” They weren’t Christians, or Catholics, or Quakers.
Simply put, there’s no justifiable reason for the mosque to go there. In fact, the mere fact that the builders want to put it there reveals their own insensitivity. Of course, I’m not dumb enough to think those building the mosque are doing so with good intentions.
Question: what would happen if, after a small group of Christian Americans set off a bomb in the middle of Mecca because they wanted to start another Crusade, another group of moderate Christians wanted to build a church near the site of the bombing to send a message of peace and love? Well, it’s actually a trick question because non-muslims aren’t allowed in Mecca. That fact notwithstanding, even if the moderate Christians were granted the opportunity to build the church, I would give it about a week before some “radicalized” muslims bombed it into oblivion. And how would the American left respond? Likely how many responded to 9/11: it’s our fault and we should work to understand their grievances. We’re destroying ourselves, and our esteemed president is leading the way.
Please note: if you are easily offended by discussions about right and wrong and religion and the like, then don’t read this. I’m not attempting to offend with this post, but I’m also not looking to not offend. With that being said, on with the show.
To begin, Anne Rice has announced she’s “quitting” Christianity. While she calls it “Christianity,” she’s actually quitting Catholicism (the two share one important thing in common and some slightly less important differences). Her failure to know the difference isn’t the reason for this post though (although it is somewhat enlightening). It’s because Rice is full of it, and she attempts to blame conservative Christians for her bloated feeling.
Let’s get one thing straight: Anne Rice left Christianity because Christianity doesn’t agree with her social perspectives. See, unlike myself (who was a Christian before I was a political conservative), Rice was a liberal before becoming a “Christian.” This has caused her to go through some inner turmoil, and her politics apparently won. She still “loves God,” but only when doing so doesn’t offend her idea of “right.”
What’s unfortunate about the article is that it attempts to give credence to not only Rice’s personal issues, but also the so-called “disillusionment” allegedly felt by so many Christians. I, in fact, hear some derivation of the following almost every day: “Christians are so cold” or “so insensitive” or “so holier than thou” or “so judgmental.” I don’t actually mind being called insensitive because I’m probably not listening to you anyway. But these allegations being thrown at Christians generally are maddening because they have no basis in fact.
What Rice (and many liberal Christians) ultimately realized is that Christianity/Catholicism isn’t compatible with the “socially acceptable” stuff like abortion, homosexuality, or adultery. Why? Because all three pretty clearly fall into the “sins” category in the Bible. Important caveat though (which so many, like Rice, don’t seem to get to because they’re so busy screaming about judging and not being accepting and stuff): identifying these three things (and others) as “sins” doesn’t automatically “damn” anyone to hell. Why? Because we’re all sinners, and only God knows where we’re going. That being said, Christianity is not about simply accepting people’s diverse life styles, and that, no doubt, is what gave Rice heart burn.
Let’s see…no prayer in school, no moment of silence in school, no recognition that Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays celebrating the birth and resurrection of Christ, respectively, no Ten Commandments, etc. Apparently the Supreme Court concocted “separation between church and state” is impenetrable to all things except one: money. The holy rollers and their Jesus lovin’ ways are A-o.k. when they bring the collection plate. Hypocrisy much?
LAKELAND, Fla.—When his budget for pencils, paper, and other essential supplies was cut by a third this school year, the principal of Combee Elementary School worried children would suffer.
Then, a local church stepped in and “adopted” the school. The First Baptist Church at the Mall stocked a resource room with $5,000 worth of supplies. It now caters spaghetti dinners at evening school events, buys sneakers for poor students, and sends in math and English tutors.
Churches hosting spaghetti dinners at school events? Religious sneakers for poor students? What if those tricky church people sneak a page into the math book that reads, “Math: it only makes sense because I created it. Signed, God.”? Who’s going to protect the innocent children from God then? More importantly, where are all the libs crying about the church potentially ruining their future voting base? Oh, there they are.
In Florida, meanwhile, alliances between churches and schools are igniting debate about church-state boundaries. “I have great concerns about churches who see public schools as, well, what shall I say, church membership,” says Harry Parrott, a retired Baptist minister who runs a local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Wait a minute, you’re a Christian? You’re not one of those crazy liberals, are you? You’re just a retired pastor who thinks he’s a Constitutional Law expert. Don’t you know that the Constitution doesn’t actually mention the alleged Separation? Apparently your run of the mill libs don’t have a problem with Christian money in the public schools…just retired pastors. Wonders never cease.
All kidding aside, I think this is a good idea. Moreover, it appears that private funding of public schools is just getting started.
Public schools are making some of the boldest moves. Traditionally, private donations—including foundation grants and money raised at bake sales—have amounted to just 1% of K-12 funding nationally, according to the Education Commission of the States, a nonprofit think tank. The money generally has been spent on extras like new computers or playground upgrades.
Now, it’s for essentials. “They’re asking for simple things: books for the classroom, art supplies, paper,” says Sean McGraw, executive director of a nonprofit foundation that supports public schools in wealthy Douglas County, Colo.
Why is this a good idea? It (hopefully) starts the ball of common sense rolling. Simply put, the government shouldn’t be educating our children. They’re doing a crappy job, and our schools have become slaves to liberal philosophy and teachers’ unions. Also, I’d like my astronomically high property taxes back please. I’m hopeful that private funding of public schools continues, and eventually, cuts out public funding all together. Let’s face it: All the government knows how to do is abort children; it knows nothing about raising or educating them.
Apparently a group of evangelical leaders are in Washington D.C. meeting with Nancy Pelosi to discuss a position they share: amnesty for illegals. Some are confused about the pro-amnesty position of so-called “conservative” evangelicals, including one of my favorite bloggers Allahpundit at Hot Air. He states,
I’m fascinated by the prospect of this blowing up into a running doctrinal debate among prominent Christian conservatives, with border enforcers on one side and holier-than-thou amnesty shills on the other trying to the answer the WWJD question.
Except … are there any prominent Christian conservative pols who oppose a “path to citizenship”?
Well A.P., while I may not be prominent (yet), I am a Christian conservative who is against amnesty. There is some confusion out there about why Evangelicals would be pro-amnesty. I have two potential answers. First, the confusion can be found in the over-use of the term “Evangelical.” It has come to describe far too many Christian denominations. Second (and this answer/opinion will likely offend some) modern evangelicals are more interested in getting butts in the pews then they are delivering actual doctrine (that may offend someone). It’s no coincidence that the mega-church movement has largely marched in lock-step with the rise of modern evangelicals. Also, while evangelicals may be conservative politically, they are not necessarily conservative doctrinally.
Simply put, the Bible teaches us to follow the law of the person whom God has placed in a position of authority (with some obvious exceptions). While I really don’t like playing the “W.W.J.D.” game, I’m willing to bet a nickel on non-citizens obeying the law and having to stand in line. In any event, at the end of the day, Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association, has the same interest in the illegals that the politicians do: they constitute numbers.