WatchThe Catholic Church says new federal regulations requiring employers to provide no-cost prescription birth control as part of their health insurance plans infringe on their religious liberty.
"If we comply, as the law requires, we will be helping our students do things that we teach them, in our classes and in our sacraments, are sinful — sometimes gravely so," Catholic University President John Garvey wrote in The Washington Post. "It seems to us that a proper respect for religious liberty would warrant an exemption for our university and other institutions like it."
OK, I can buy that. But then allowing church owned real estates to be tax free violates my religious freedom as a non-god-fearing atheist. Two hundred years of back taxes please.
The article also mentions:
Indeed, studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. use artificial birth control.
This is linked to an article that says:
Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.
There you have it; Catholic girls are sluts. As the Catholic Church knows, if you want to use birth control, then you are having sex for reasons other than procreating, and that makes you a slut. Well, by that logic, 98% of Catholic women are sluts.
By the way, should I file this under Religion or Politics? I'm never sure about stuff like this. Actually, maybe this goes under Health Insurance. Ah, when in doubt, Politics.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Cloud says
There is no need to be insulting to sluts. They are great.
Follow
Befriend (28)
182 threads
4,604 comments
Premium
Comment taken outside by michaelsch. View
Follow
Befriend (13)
61 threads
2,705 comments
Premium
By that logic, the Department of Defense should be eliminated as to not offend Quakers and Mennonites, since violence is abhorrent their religious beliefs.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Cloud says
Cloud, you're missing the point. The point is that the Catholics who are acting "all holier than thou" and claiming that they are offended by birth control being covered by health insurance are being hypocrites. They are offended by birth control because "it promotes premarital sex", but they all had pre-martial sex when they were young. This is true of every generation.
In fact, this is true of all religious groups. When the Christian fundamentalists in "America's heartland" talk about family values, they tend to overlook that every girl in Girls Gone Wild has a southern or mid-west accent.
It's like when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "There are no homosexuals in Iran", he was full of shit too. Human nature, including sexuality, does not respect political borders.
So either get off your "moral high horse" and stop calling other people immoral, or accept that you are just as perverted as everyone else. The most perverted people are always the ones proclaiming chastity. That's why all those Republicans blocking gay rights ended up with gay sex scandals.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and we all live in glass houses.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thunderlips11 says
Damn, it's against mine, too. Good point.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says
You had me believing this until you said "post"-pubescent and "girls".
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Cloud says
You do realize that the most left-wing president this country has ever had, John F. Kennedy, was also the only Catholic president in history. Furthermore, the vast majority of Catholics vote Democrat. So much for this article being "left-wing propaganda".
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Dan8267 says
And if to confirm what I'm driving at, well, just read Saudi Arabia: Women Driving Will Have Sex, Report Says. Where do religious leaders get the time to make up all these ridiculous ideas? I guess it helps not having to work for a living.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
Dan8267 says
?? on the basis of what? If that were true then how did Scott Brown win? In Mass we have a higher percentage of Catholics but only a minority are registered democrats. Most are independents. Now democrats have plurality and republicans are clear minority...However, if a issue does not sell with independents the democrats can lose...
There actually were studies that showed that people that were prochoice were actually more likely to be elected by people that are prolife....until abortion was brought up.
Also is that on a local level policy is more specific and there is no democrat or republican way of being a dog catcher/selectman etc. It's apolitical on that level.Dan8267 says
Well he was kinda sorta telling the truth but for other reasons. Some of the objections to homosexuality isn't so much the acts but the definition. In the western world it is pretty much accepted that people can be born gay. In the middle east it isn't exactly that cut and dry. Acts can still happen but to define someone as gay is still a work in progress. Ayatollah Khomeni (bad spelling..the one back in '79) wrote in the 60's that if one cannot change the mind then the options is to change the body. Way back when gays were considered to be a man trapped in a womens body or vice versa.
the islamic republic of iran actually subsidizes sex changes for people as a way to kinda "cure" this. Infact it is the sex change capital of the planet. HBO had a movie about this a few years back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Like_Others
I wouldn't say that JFK was the most leftwing president..that would be FDR..JFK cut taxes! Nixon was also to the left (2nd term mostly or what was left of it).
As part of a historical basis usually countries that became monarchies didn't get along well with catholism (not counting spain or portugal) because of a divided loyalty (book of matthew 6:24 one cannot serve two masters).
Follow
Befriend (13)
106 threads
3,863 comments
Church is taking it too far. I'm sure they know suicide bombings are a religious doctrine too for some, doesn't mean it should be legal.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
mdovell says
On the basis of growing up in Catholic communities in the 1980s and 1990s. Basically, Catholics had been voting Democrat since JFK. However, I will admit that I haven't keep up with the church goers' politics. Doing a little bit of research right now, it seems that Catholics are leaving the Dems and joining the Repubs in recent years.
I don't know about pre-Kennedy voting statistics, but that doesn't really matter since the two major parities largely switched roles in the 1960s.
As for why Catholics at least used to vote largely Democratic between the 1960s to the 2000s... Well, although the Vatican is pro-life, Catholics are largely split on the issue. But the church also is anti-death penalty and pro-charity/pro-socialism, so it's hard to find Republicans with what Catholics call "family values". To the Catholic Church, everybody is your brother, so family values means feeding and clothing the poor. Not very Republican.
Maybe that's changing. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are going to church. So maybe the ones left are more conservative and that's why they are voting Republican.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
mdovell says
So, cutting taxes is the one and only thing that distinguishes left from right? Perhaps. But what if you cut taxes overall, but raise them on the richest 1%?
In any case, I think we can agree that both FDR and JFK are way more left than Obama, Clinton, Carter, or Johnson. JFK founded the Peace Core which is socialism for foreigners! He also greatly supported the civil rights movement while it was being attacked from the right. And the right, so much hated Kennedy because he was so popular. The right still hates Kennedy because they can't make Regan out to be on equal ground to him, although they have certainly tried.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
Stances that a religion would take are not always on a specific side. Being conservative and liberal can also have differences if it is on social issues or government spending.
There are religious conservatives that socially probably don't want same sex marriage but have no problem with socialized health care.
The religious right has been around for quite some time. I think it is past its prime and frankly should butt out. However, it appears that there is a bit of a religious left starting (Rick Warren)..
Then again some can agree to disagree but work with others on different issues. I believe there was a case in Missouri where a prolife lawyer, clinic manager and a politician created a policy of providing drug rehabilitation for pregnant women.
I'm not claiming that cutting taxes i the only difference between the left and right. JFK was the first significant tax cutter. As a percentage of budget it was actually higher than Reagans.
The starting of the Peace corp was odd because JFK took it out of his own budget (EOP). So when it was time for the 2nd year JFK pretty much said if it isn't paid for that people would get laid off and relations would sour.
Kennedy didn't exactly support the civil rights movement as much of the base of democrats was conservative (dixiecrats). The civil rights movement and vietnam shifted stances and where parties were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
"Robert Kennedy, speaking for the president, urged the Freedom Riders to "get off the buses and leave the matter to peaceful settlement in the courts."
"Over a hundred thousand, predominantly African Americans, gathered in Washington for the civil rights March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963. Kennedy feared the March would have a negative effect on the prospects for the civil rights bills in Congress, and declined an invitation to speak. He turned over some of the details of the government's involvement to the Dept. of Justice, which channelled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the six sponsors of the March, including the N.A.A.C.P. and Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). To ensure a peaceful demonstration, the organizers and the president personally edited speeches which were inflammatory and agreed the March would be held on a Wednesday and would be over at 4:00 pm. Thousands of troops were placed on standby. Kennedy watched King's speech on TV and was very impressed. The March was considered a "triumph of managed protest", and not one arrest relating to the demonstration occurred. Afterwards, the March leaders accepted an invitation to the White House to meet with Kennedy and photos were taken. Kennedy felt the March was a victory for him as well and bolstered the chances for his civil rights bill"
Having a march on a wensday and having it end at 4pm...and editing it so it doesn't tick people off doesn't really sound like support to me. Granted when anyone is in office there's a difference between what the person believes, what the person's area believes and what the national party says.
The Kennedy's don't have nearly the same power as what they had before. I would argue that Clinton was the best post ww 2 democrat. Yes he had his zipper down but that's between him and his wife.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
mdovell says
Yeah, like I'm going to trust anything on politics from Wikipedia. Have I not bashed that site enough?
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
Well it has links to citations which is pretty much how other papers have been written. If there is no citation on it then there's nothing backing it up.
In reading academic books/papers they often use references. I just finished reading this one.
www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handbook-Handbooks-Political-Science/dp/0199269289
Some might assume it is good because it says "Oxford" on it but in reality they had to cite nearly everything. Some paragraphs get to the point where they have five citations...
The quotation I referenced that it came from this book
http://www.amazon.com/President-Kennedy-Profile-Richard-Reeves/dp/0671892894
I know some bash wikipedia because you can edit anything but it does use actual citations from real books.
And as you can read from the description he's not some nutjob/conspiracy theorist
"Richard Reeves is the author of presidential bestsellers, including President Nixon and President Kennedy, acclaimed as the best nonfiction book of the year by Time magazine. A syndicated columnist and winner of the American Political Science Association's Carey McWilliams Award, he lives in New York and Los Angeles."
If there were no citations, no books referenced (I prefer them to magazines) then I could see your point but it is hard to refute an article with 244 citations!
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
123 comments
Jewish girls ARE sluts. Trust me on this one. Same as Catholic girls.
And thank god for it!
Cloud, the stereotypical liberal response to this sort of comment is not to jump and defend jewish girls but not catholic girls. I don't know where you got that idea from.
The liberal response is to embrace slut-ness in women. After all, isn't it a sexist double-standard that says that a woman is a slut if she sleeps with a lot of guys and a guy is a player if he sleeps with a lot of girls?
Go sluts! Have FUN with your body - wear protection any time you're not 100% sure. And have an early-term (day after esp!) abortion if you have an accident and aren't capable of raising a kid yet.
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
123 comments
Dan, you slut, stop calling people sluts!
Follow
Befriend
53 threads
658 comments
Comment taken outside by EastCoastBubbleBoy. View
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
123 comments
I, too, cannot believe that patrick allows this to continue. Could it be that he is also a slut? Perhaps he is even a Catholic Slut? I think he mentioned once that he was a CS major in college - maybe there's a meaning there that we missed.
Maybe I'm making some aspects of this post up, too. Or ... maybe not?
Follow
Befriend
9 threads
123 comments
I think Cloud raises some good points about how America is going down* because of atheist slut lovers. We should all give this topic serious consideration.
* pun intended
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq says
Rare perhaps, but not unheard of.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
Due to the pejorative nature of the word "slut" I general refrain from its use, but that said when I was single I always enjoyed an opportunity to date a jewish girl.
While I have never dated an Arab girl I suspect there is a reason that the Arab men force them to walk around completely covered.
Catholic, jewish, arab... whatever... it does not matter women in general are far more promiscuous than men like to think. There is a reason why men have billions of sperm rather than just the one needed to impregnate. They need to be able to compete with all that other sperm that might be in there.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
You may want to read the comment policy.
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=639304
Please feel free to use the "take it outside" or "ignore" features on posts/users you find too offensive.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
Well, test your theory. Craft an argument then start a thread. Your whining would hold more weight if you could name examples where Patrick has deleted threads offensive to non-christians.
It has been my experience that Patrick has deleted very little, and then only when they were direct insults/threats to other posters.
Follow
Befriend
2 comments
I agree Cloud. I don't know why Dan feels the need to bash women, catholic or not. I am not catholic, but I have many friends who are and many of them disagree with the Pope's stance not only on birth control, but on other issues such as gay marriage. The catholic congregation is a diverse group that doesn't just do as the Pope commands. Furthermore, having sex is nothing to be ashamed of and using birth control is a responsible practice whether you are male or female. I hope Patrick does delete this string as soon as possible.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
And... did you take a look at Patrick's comment policy, then take appropriate action?
Cloud says
This does not make any sense to me perhaps you want to rephrase it. How could I be "in on" a slur that I don't understand i.e. need to have explained to me.
Anyway, what I disagreed with is this, emphasis mine:
Cloud says
See, I was just disagreeing with your slur that Pnet has a liberal slur bias. Just as you were disagreeing with the "catholic girls are all sluts" slur.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
Getting back to topic I don't think that the mandate is illegal from a first amendment perspective. Government actions/inactions do not have to be approved by any religious order. I highly doubt that this would be taken up by any court in the country as it would open the doors up to so many other things.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Eho says
Wow, that's low, Cloud. Creating an account on Dec. 5 and immediately using it to post a response agreeing with yourself. That's not only low, but quite frankly not very creative.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Matt.BayArea says
I can't help it. I have terrets.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
leoj707 says
Certainly, if it's actually meant as an attack on someone. However, I thought it was quite clear to anyone with an IQ over 80 that I was talking in jest. Perhaps it would help if I read my posts out load using Bill Maher's voice. Ah, who am I kidding. Idiots like Cloud will still get fake outrage boners from me.
What is it about me that drives the nutbags crazy?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Cloud says
1. I haven't made Christians into hate objects. Although I have certainly called them out on their stupidity.
2. I do criticize Muslims when they do stupid things like in this post on Muslim medical students refusing to learn about evolution because of stupid superstitions. Funny, Patrick didn't ban that posting like you said he would.
3. If I haven't busted on the Jews, it's because they haven't done anything ludicrous lately. However, I certainly reserve the right to do so. The thing is, the people who do the stupidest things are almost always the people in power. And the Jews haven't been in power for a long time.
4. I can't be "left wing" because as BobbyS proved I'm actually so right wing that I'm a Nazi who believes in Eugenics. I know, that came to a surprise to me as well, but you can't argue with BobbyS's razor-sharp logic. Anyway, as Nazis are clearly "right wing", I can't be a leftie.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Anyway, I should apologize because out of all the minorities -- blacks, Jews, atheists, communists, migrant workers, Latinos, Native Americans, homosexual men -- clearly the Christians have had it the worst in American history.
If only we could get a Christian president, maybe progress could be made in this country.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Dan8267 says
I am inclined to believe that the outrage is not fake, and of course the outrage boner is equally real.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
This is a straw-man. Science is not a means to say that gods do not exist. There is just no scientific evidence that gods do exist. It is a means to say that there is an almost zero level probability that any of the gods posited by any religion -- christian included -- exist.
If you have any scientific evidence of the existence of a god
I invite you to post it here.
Cloud says
Oh, god not this again...
OK, here is the short answer...
1. Many whom you believe were/are believers were/are probably actually atheists or deists at best, not believers in any type of personal god -- christian or otherwise.
2. Of course they were, for the majority of history humans were living in a world that was overwhelmingly religious and did not yet have many scientific explanations to replace religious ones. These early scientists did pave the way for modern scientists who, with current scientific knowledge, are overwhelmingly atheist.
Scientists will change there views as additional evidence comes to light. Religious people tend to hold on to views that are contrary to new evidence.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
A deist is also not a christian, jew, muslim, hindu, etc. When I say "gods" (plural) I am not talking of any particular sect either.
Cloud says
Wow, you have been able to include two logical fallacies in one sentence: appeal to the majority, and appeal to authority.
Your statement is not a "proof" of the existence of gods. As requested in my previous post if you have any scientific proof please post it.
Cloud says
Yes, some atheists would do just that, but many would not. Many atheists understand what I stated before:
leoj707 says
Many brilliant men/women in history held all sorts of beliefs, not associated with religion, that we consider silly today. In spite of that we still recognize their genius and contributions to our current body of knowledge. Religious people in history had a different knowledge base and therefor are held to a different standard.
Also, the religious/spiritual experience that people get from prayer, mediation, snake handling, etc. is a very real part of the human condition. Even with our modern knowledge there are very bright people today that look to this experience as "proof" that gods exist.
Cloud says
Uhh... by definition atheists can't believe that they are a god. Mormons however believe that one day they will become a god of their very own planet. Maybe you were thinking of them.
Cloud says
Aww... look who the internet tough guy is. Tough talk on the internet is nothing short of adorable. If you were to escalate that to actual personal threats you would get to see Patrick delete a comment.
Let me see if I am getting this right though. You are advocating the threat of physical violence as a means of silencing those you find offensive?
Also, I think you underestimate the patrons of local pubs around the world. While I am sure that there are some where offense would be taken there are many where a toast to the sluttiness of catholic girls would result in glasses raised in agreement and thanks to the catholic church.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
Oh, really? How do you figure? Please highlight the text of my "tough talk" and click the quote so that I can see what you feel is "tough talk". Thanks in advance pal.
Something like this for example:
Cloud says
Speaking of the law on your side I am not sure you understand how "fighting words" work within the law. Let me help you out here buddy lest you find yourself twisting the nose of someone you disagree with and mistakenly think that the law is on your side.
"Fighting words" does not give one the right to start throwing punches the moment they are offended by the speech of another. To be considered "fighting words" they must be intended to breech the peace and incite the listener to violence.
Let me give you two examples:
1. Someone in a bar raises their glass and in a merry tone declares, "Let's all toast in thanks to the catholic church, them slutty catholic girls are a lot of fun. Life would be something less without them."
You promptly get in his face, "Hey! my wife is catholic, how dare you! I bet you would not say that about jewish girls!".
To which he responds, "Don't be so thin skinned, it is all in jest."
You reply, "THEM'S FIGHT'N WORDS!", and promptly begin to twist his nose, as your pants tighten against your outrage boner.
In this scenario you are guilty of battery, and the law is not on your side.
2. Some guy approaches you in a bar and says, "Hey fuck face, I hear that your wife is catholic. Like all catholic girls she is a slut, and has fucked every guy in this bar... twice."
You reply, "THEM'S FIGHT'N WORDS!", and promptly begin to twist his nose, as your pants tighten against your outrage boner.
In this scenario you are correct them's are fight'n words. However, you may want to proceed with caution people who intentionally try and incite others to violence usually know something that you do not. Like perhaps he want the opportunity to wrestle a man with an outrage boner.
I hope this was helpful in keep you out of any trouble.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
Is this directed toward me? If so rather than put words in my mouth please quote my posts that brought you to this conclusion.
Follow
Befriend
12 threads
495 comments
All things aside, last time I checked pregnancy wasn't a disease so I don't know why we have to mandate companies to pay for its prevention. Oh yeah, it's because it is cheaper for the health care companies to cover birth control than pay for child birth. So, we are mandating higher profits for the evil insurance companies? I didn't know the leftwing nutjobs were so far in the tank for those guys.
Check you policy - they cover vasectomies but not vasectomy reversals. Same thing with tubals.
Perhaps we should mandate sterilization if you don't have enough income to support a child. Better yet, perhaps we mandate it after you've had two (unless you are well connected enough to get a waiver). When you get married they can give you a $10k signing bonus to not have kids and get sterilized instead.
Even better, to further the profits and for the betterment of society, we use test during pregnancy to determine if the child has a disease that will burden society and force an abortion if that is the case.
Better yet, we do some DNA testing to see if the parents DNA combination will produce someone that fits in the "master race" (healthy individual that will live in a green manner and has little to no odor in their flatulence, and be an atheist of course). If they fail the test, accept some fertilized boutique embryos or allow some DNA doctoring.
How could this line of thinking possibly go wrong ;) After all, it is for the betterment of society.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
EightBall says
I did, mine does not cover vasectomy/tubals or the reversal.
EightBall says
Yes, the old slippery slope. First we insist that company health plans allow for people to have the choice of covered birth control then the next thing we know we have a forced eugenics program.
Yes... yes... I see how that could be a cause for concern.
Follow
Befriend
12 threads
495 comments
leoj707 says
You obviously were reading too much into this. If the Catholic church doesn't want to pay for birth control, so what! It isn't like they are trying to avoid paying for cancer screenings or something that is an actual disease. If you want a health plan that covers birth control, get a job elsewhere. It isn't like they have a lock on the job market. The argument that they need to pay for it is as absurd as saying this will lead to forced eugenics. Birth control is a choice - much like having as many ankle biters as you see fit to pop out.