Posts Tagged ‘Contraception’

Newt Gingrich Demolishes David Gregory on Meet the Press

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Beat the Press

On Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC, David Gregory jumped directly into his interview with former Speaker Newt Gingrich and began by asking him about the  controversy involving radio talkshow host Rush Limbaugh and his use of the terms “prostitute” and “slut” to describe Sandra Fluke, the 30yo law-school student at Georgetown University who is also an activist for radical feminist views, and who supports the Obama administration’s mandate that religious institutions be compelled to cover contraception, contrary to their religious views.  He couched his question in terms of whether the episode had done damage, but he left open where the damage may have occurred.   Gingrich did not fall for the trap Gregory laid, and it should serve as an example on how to handle the press.

It is typical of the mainstream media to demand that one conservative answer for another conservative’s statements and troubles, but they also like to create a narrative that suits their own ideological ends.  Gregory attempted this same tactic with Gingrich, but as is made plain in this video, Gingrich doesn’t fall into the trap.  He presses through Gregory’s attempt, and states his own case, and in answering the question by restating the premise, he demolishes Gregory.  Here’s the video:

As you can see from this video, Newt Gingrich knows full well how to contend with the false narratives advanced by the media. I think that as is often the case, Gingrich succeeded in making Gregory look foolish for pressing the line of questioning.  If the Republicans are going to win in 2012, this is the way they will need to do it, and frankly, I see none more capable on the Republican side at the moment than Newt Gingrich.  In this exchange, it’s clear that Gregory was sent packing with his lame attempt to drag Gingrich into the controversy, or at least to use the opportunity to advance the leftist talking point.

I was also interested to hear the substance of the way Gingrich answered it, because he stuck to his own agenda in pointing out that Barack Obama is carrying on a war against the Catholic Church, and indeed all religious institutions.  In fact, many of the things he said are in close accord with the positions I’ve taken over the last several days on the contraception controversy, particularly with respect to the war on the Church.  He also mentioned Cardinal George, and that means Gingrich is doing his homework.  He’s studying the available information, and that he’s arriving at conclusions that are fundamentally in accord with conservative values is important, because it suggests that his growth as a candidate has been genuinely positive. Can Gingrich come back?  If this interview is any indication, it seems likely.

 

Limbaugh Surrenders

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

The pressure must have been much worse than we knew.  The left must have been working overtime to make hay out of this one with sponsors.  Unfortunately, it has worked, and it worked because so many whiners were unable to stand in and fight.  Worse, it now seems that his detractors will know they can bully Limbaugh as they please, because their Gestapo tactics have worked. Rush Limbaugh has issued an apology to Sandra Fluke via his website.

In a brief statement posted there, Limbaugh said:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

I believe Rush will live to regret this statement.  Since he first made his remarks on Wednesday, and doubled-down on Thursday, millions of people have reached out in various ways to say “We’ve got your back, Rush.”  When the Gestapos descended upon Limbaugh’s sponsors, and began to pull back, many of his fans went out of their way to create a backlash against this tactic.  By issuing this statement, Limbaugh has inadvertently undercut that effort.  Many did not like his choice of words, but his remarks were in keeping with the theme of his program by illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Besides, I want to know why the term he used, “slut,” is such a problem.  I decided to do some digging, and found the following definition:

Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally pejorative and often applied to women as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning “dirty or slovenly.”[1] However some women have demonstrated saying they’re proud of being “sluts”, and have given it a positive connotation.[2][3]

I consider sexual promiscuity or loose sexuality by either sex to be awful.  That’s my view, and I’m entitled to it.  So is Rush.  More, I am permitted to voice that view publicly, and so is Rush.  When a person goes to testify before Congress about their extensive contraceptive costs, as a plea to get others to bear them, including me, I am within my right to pass moral judgment.  Let us consider the context here, shall we?  If Ms. Fluke had gone about her life, and simply paid her own expenses, and not appeared before government to demand that somebody else pay those costs, neither Mr. Limbaugh nor I nor anybody else would know the first thing about Ms. Fluke or have any reason at all to make judgments about her.

Unfortunately, Ms. Fluke did appear before a committee of Congress to demand that religious institutions be coerced to provide coverage for contraceptives.  That is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is which term properly applies to the behavior her testimony of demand describes and implies.  Limbaugh offered “prostitute” and “slut.”  What terms will Limbaugh’s critics offer?

Unfortunately, what this apology by Limbaugh will beget is a series of intensified attacks and scrutiny aimed at forcing him off the air.  By yielding to all of this, I think Limbaugh will have inadvertently given the left more power over him than they deserve.  Georgetown University is a Jesuit college, and yet their leadership chastises Rush Limbaugh?  Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry but I don’t see much point in any of this if the administration of religious institution is unwilling to publicly pass judgments about students.  What Limbaugh has shown these leftist ne’er-do-wells is that they can get to him.

They’re celebrating this at the White House, because now they believe they have Rush silenced via what he himself might term a “testicle lock-box.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inviting Government Into the Bedroom

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Does the Government Belong Here?

When you invite the world into your bedroom, don’t expect the world to withhold comments.  When you invite government to fund healthcare, there will be no holding back the ultimate encroachment into personal privacy.  There’s no ambiguity here.  When Sandra Fluke testified before Congress, she invited this, but more importantly, when leftists shoved government healthcare down our throats, beginning in the 1960s, and culminating finally in “Obamacare,” the whole question of privacy was suppressed with a finality that most people simply won’t like:  The government is involved in your healthcare.  By definition, it is no longer private information.  You cannot bring government into the matter of contraception without inviting it ultimately into your doctor’s office, your bathroom, and your bedroom.

People who are defending Fluke are ignoring the simple fact that when you make your sexuality and things related to it a matter of public record and government interest, you’re holding the door open for public judgments.  Your reproductive health, but also the health of your  kidneys is subject to governmental review.  Do not offer that you haven’t understood where this would lead.  Fluke wants others to be compelled to cover her contraception.  What did she expect would happen?  If you come to me and say “hey, pal, I need you to pay for…my kids to eat,” you can expect that I will soon ask you why you have so many children.  As long as people are going to try to redistribute their private burdens onto the public account, there should be no claim whatsoever that the demand-makers  can avoid public judgment. They’re inviting them.

What do you think is the meaning of the implementation of the various state EBT cards, so that at the grocery check-out, those living off of the rest of us can avoid any alleged stigma previously associated with food-stamps?  They want the dignity associated with the appearance of paying their own way without the necessity of actually doing so.  Such people are frauds, but their first victim is always themselves.  Before they can fool the rest of us, they must first pretend to themselves that this procedure is fine, and that there is no shame in any of it.  I won’t permit it. I’m not going to let charlatans parade around as though they are anything other than what the facts reveal.

If you’re a college student, or anybody else for that matter, and you wish to avoid pregnancy, but cannot afford your own contraceptives, there’s a simple answer, and as Foster Freiss might offer, it may involve an aspirin.  As a member of the paying public, my first response when you demand free contraception is:

Nothing is free. Why do you think I should pay for it?”

What can you answer?  What is your moral premise?  What is the basis for your claim against my wallet? There are two important principles here, and the first is that to Ms. Fluke and any like her who demand contraception funded by others, the only rational answer must be “No.”  It’s an important word, and just as it applies in this context, where I do not give my consent, Ms. Fluke and all those like her should consider adding the word to their own vocabularies, in which case contraception might no longer be such a pressing necessity.

I don’t know anything about Fluke’s sexual habits, and I don’t really care.  I simply don’t wish to pay for them, and I don’t want government compelling coverages on faith-based institutions, including the university at which she is a student.  Her sexual life became a matter of public concern when she made it one.  She is not a victim of Rush Limbaugh, or anybody else.  She’s a victim of her own desire to put a gun to the heads of people of faith who will be coerced under the auspices of Obamacare to cover her contraceptive needs.

This is the truth of this issue, and when you consider what Obamacare will actually impose, from death-panels to medical records databases, and access to your financial records, it’s clear that there will be no effective protection of privacy.  I don’t know how any rational person can believe that they can get somebody else to pay for something on their behalf, and still maintain privacy.  You have a heart condition?  The government will know.  Diabetes?  The government will know.  Herpes?  The government will know.  They will know everything about you including the weight you register when you step on the scale in your doctor’s office.

What do you think has been the meaning of the “war on obesity,” the “war on bad eating habits,” the “war on smoking” or the “war on salt?”  Wait until this system begets a “war on sexuality” or some such thing.  It’s only a matter of time, because in the hands of politicians, it will be unavoidable.  There will be no privacy.  You will face inevitable judgments if you rely upon government directly or indirectly to meet or mandate the fulfillment of your needs.  Sandra Fluke complains that she’s going broke paying for contraception, and that may be the case, but life is full of choices, and it’s time for her to grow up and make them, or sustain the judgments heaped upon her for demanding others carry the burdens those choices impose.

 

Sandra Fluke’s Irrational Demand

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Limbaugh to Fluke: Have Some Aspirin

Sandra Fluke is a law student at Georgetown University.  Fluke believes it is the duty of insurers to pay for her contraception.  Of course, what she really means is that she’s another disgusting little socialist who wants others to carry her burdens.   She says she testified in order to shine light on the plight of women who aren’t getting contraceptive coverage through the university.  I have a problem with the mandates under Obamacare, and the one that will require religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage through health-care insurance policies they provide to employees is at the center of this issue.  On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh commented on Fluke’s testimony, asking what kind of woman demands payment for her to have sex.

While Rush was making a play on words, it’s still the fact that at the root of this, there is an undeniable truth.  First, let’s hear from Rush Limbaugh on Thursday:

Yes, Rush is his usual, combative self, but let’s examine the thought behind the sentiment: Rush is saying that Ms. Fluke ought to pay for her own contraception, because otherwise, what she is doing is to make her sex life, and the sex lives of her fellow students a matter for public review.  You can’t demand the public subsidize your “reproductive health” and not expect some sort of public denunciations or judgments.  You simply can’t.  The complaint that Fluke expresses is that this isn’t fair, because male students don’t face a similar burden.  Don’t they?  If they don’t, whose fault is that?  I do not understand the illogical claim of some, and Fluke is one of them, that they simultaneously don’t want government in their bedrooms, but do want them to fully furnish it for them.  I don’t want to hear about the relatively small number of women who actually need contraceptive pills for some therapeutic purpose, because just like in the abortion argument, and the questions regarding exceptions for rape and incest, the exception must not be the aim of the rule.

The answer here is clear:  Keep your contraception private, and it will remain private.  Contraception for that purpose is not healthcare.  It’s contraception.  I don’t care about Fluke’s sexual habits or those of other Georgetown students, but when you sign up to attend a religiously-founded institution, you shouldn’t expect coverage that conflicts with that institution’s firmly-held beliefs.  Instead, Fluke is demanding that Obamacare be enforced on Catholic universities.  I come back to the warning  of Cardinal George, of which I wrote yesterday:  If I were the Catholic church, and this law isn’t overturned, I would shut down every hospital, school, and university under that umbrella and take a bulldozer to them, or I would continue as before and refuse to pay the fines.  Either way, I would not surrender or wilt before the government on this issue.

In short, if it were up to me, Fluke would be looking for a new venue to finish her studies.  The moment people believe that they possess a right to impose costs on others, or force them to suspend their adherence to their own beliefs, a line has been crossed.  Fluke has no right to an education, and no right to contraception at the expense of others, either in cash, or in terms of quashing their beliefs.  This is one more reason why the law known as Obamacare must be overturned.  Limbaugh offered to buy her all the aspirin she needs, but I think we should let nature run its course.  She has no right to expect nature to be suspended on her behalf, and yet that is the actual aim of her testimony.  In the end, what Fluke demands is a government gun aimed at religious institutions to compel them to provide the coverage she wants.  That’s socialism, and in the end, this is really the heart of the matter.

 

Alert: Charlie Rose Identifies Rick Santorum…

Sunday, February 19th, 2012

Dreaded "Social Conservative"

Perhaps I should warn you that the content maybe disturbing to some readers, and maybe Charlie Rose should stick to asking honest questions.  In this interview of Rick Santorum on CBS, Rose tries to get Santorum to answer for remarks by Foster Friess on contraception and “an aspirin between the knees,”  in another interview with Andrea Mitchell who was offended and left speechless by the remark.  Santorum said he wasn’t about to comment on every controversial remark of every supporter of his who says something about which others may become offended.  It’s true to say that Santorum isn’t Friess, and Friess isn’t Santorum, so it’s hard to understand what point Rose was trying to make other than to smear Santorum by association.

That’s a favored tactic of lefties, but as Santorum correctly point out, it’s not something they’re willing to entertain even slightly when it comes to the things said by associates of people on the left, such as Barack Obama’s long affiliation with the black liberation theology spewed consistently for decades in Reverend Wright’s church.  That, of course, is beyond the pale, but more, it is interesting to hear Rose dismiss it as old news.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1012874&w=425&h=350&fv=si%3D254%26amp%3B%26amp%3BcontentValue%3D50120113%26amp%3BshareUrl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fvideo%2Fwatch%2F%3Fid%3D7399106n]

It may be old news, but not on your network, pal.  More, it is as if Rose wants to seriously contend that since he’s not practicing a double standard, apparently because we’re to believe that…CBS has improved its journalistic standards?  Please.  Charlie Rose is a left-wing hack who got busted by Santorum who continued to insist that this is a trumped-up bit of nonsense, and that the media is trying to make hay of it for the sake of their own political agenda.  He’s right, and it’s completely unfair, and just as the media is willing to ignore Obama’s record, they’re equally willing to ignore their own inconsistent standards.

Of all the things that Rose said, the most shocking was: “You have been identified as a social conservative…”

OH NO!!!  Identified by whom, Charlie?  Identified?  Oh goodness, has the FBI been notified?  A social conservative?  What is the world coming to now?  Social conservativesWho’s ever heard of such an outrageous thing? Somebody CALL DRUDGE NOW!  Get that little warning light going!

NEWSFLASH: Santorum identified as a social conservative!

It’s clear to me that Charlie Rose doesn’t know anything about social conservatives.  It’s further obvious that Santorum caught Rose with his pants down on that one, or well you know, I can’t say that in the same paragraph with the dreaded “social conservative.”

All this from the same people who seem to have no discomfort with Shariah…

The left is insane, and the proof is in the fact that they don’t even notice their double-standards or logical inconsistencies.

Santorum Becomes Media Punching Bag

Saturday, February 18th, 2012

Is He Really a Neanderthal?

Of the remaining GOP candidates, I am inclined toward supporting Newt Gingrich, so I don’t really want to be told I’m in Sen. Rick Santorum’s corner, except that in this case, I am.  The media has been trying to make the Obama administration’s contraception mandate into something other than an attack on religious liberties, and by the middle of the week, they saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.  They portrayed Rick Santorum unfairly as wanting to impose his personal views on contraception on the rest of the nation, but this is a bold-faced lie.  He actually went out of his way to say that he wouldn’t  impose his values through law, but instead that it is proper to raise the issue as a matter for national discussion.  For this, we should throw him under the bus?

That Santorum has reason to believe contraceptive measures each imply risks for women is really not so controversial as the media pretends, and frankly, I’m a bit tired of the licentious view of human sexuality that says “anything goes,” without respect to the consequences that are frequently ignored until they are realized.  That Santorum is willing to speak to this issue is no crime.  There is no need for me to rattle off the litany of solid science that supports Santorum’s view, but then again, in our current culture, some of this may be news to some of you. You are free to site all the opposing science you want, but the truth is that the following are irrefutable:

  • The best and most effective way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain from sexual intercourse.  There.  I said it.
  • The best and most effective way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is still to abstain from sex.  There.  I said that too!
  • The best way for a child to avoid a life of poverty is to be born into a two-parent household in which the parents are both married and monogamous.  Yes, I said it.  Don’t like it?  Tough.  It’s true, and remains so irrespective of your personal feelings on the matter.

Part of what Santorum suggests is that our culture promotes a sort of narcissistic mindset that ignores all of these facts, and that various forms of contraception, never mind abortion, give too many people a false sense of security that all too frequently leads to one or more of the negative alternatives to the truisms listed above.  You may not like it.  You may not want to be told that, and it is understandable that you wouldn’t necessarily want Rick Santorum imposing his views on this through law, but since he’s specifically said he has no such intentions, and since his voting record in Congress supports that claim, the only reason to hold this against Rick Santorum is that some would rather not hear it.

Why?  It’s simple, isn’t it?  People hate to be told they are wrong, or that they are making bad choices, particularly when they are in the midst of making them, and especially when they have made the same bad choices repeatedly.  In listening to Karl Rove running his mouth on Friday night’s Hannity show on Fox News, he said that social conservatives shouldn’t “appear to be judgmental.”  What?  I suppose that’s the preferred position when you’ve divorced your wife and had Dana Perino handling the press on the occasion, but part of the problem in this country is that all too frequently, we’re not judgmental enough.  We didn’t arrive at a situation where sixty percent of births are to unwed mothers because we were too judgmental.  We didn’t arrive in a situation in which we now honor with lowered flags those who died at their own hands because we are too harsh in our judgments.  We don’t have an all-encompassing welfare state because we were too harsh in our pronouncements about the idle poor, or the causes of their condition.  Our prisons aren’t packed to overcrowding with repeat-offenders because we punished first-time offenders too harshly.

This country isn’t suffering from an surplus of judgment.  While some may part company from me on this point, I actually find it refreshing that a candidate is willing to speak to the moral decay of our country.  I heard the Tea Party Patriots’ Mark Meckler being interviewed by Mark Levin on Friday, and he said that we have a distinct advantage over our founders in that they created the framework upon which our efforts to restore our country can rely.  While I understand his meaning, I couldn’t help but think that if I had to choose the framework of law embodied in our Constitution, or the moral character of our people circa 1790, I would choose the latter because they were able to construct and abide by the former.  I see little evidence for hope that the inverse postulate is true, and that by some magic, people who have neglected their constitution will suddenly re-adopt it and thereby be improved in all measures.  It was the character of the nation and her people that created the US Constitution, and not the reverse.

While the media goes on to tell us why Rick Santorum is too judgmental, I think it’s time we consider what it is that the “bully pulpit” of the presidency is intended to be, and while it certainly isn’t the proper platform from which to ceaselessly castigate the American people for our various moral failings, it is the proper venue in which to gently chide people to return to the better angels of our nature.  Thus far, what I’ve heard from Rick Santorum on these issues doesn’t resemble the former nearly so much as the latter, and I am quite satisfied that he knows the proper boundaries.  Of course, the Romney crowd in establishment media is helping to drive this theme against Santorum, so it’s really not surprising to see theses criticisms rising in volume, but I think it’s fair to point out that much of this criticism is undue.  In a culture in which casual sex has been normalized, out-of-wedlock-births comprises a clear majority, and the welfare state raises more children than do parents, it may be time that we begin to discuss these issues, not as a matter of legislative priority, but as a matter of judgment.  That Rick Santorum seems willing to do so against the tide speaks well of him even if the media won’t.

Sarah Palin “On the Record” on Obama’s Contraception Controversy

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Governor Palin appeared on Fox News on Tuesday evening with Greta Van Susteren to discuss the case of Obama’s contraception policy that has infuriated Catholics, and indeed, Christians of nearly every denomination, and rightly so.  She took great pains to point out that this is about an unconstitutional breach of the right of free exercise of religion as guaranteed under our First Amendment.  None who value their constitutionally guaranteed liberties should shrink from this fight.  It’s a direct assault on the right of conscience, and without this, there’s little point to our Constitution at all. If Obamacare is an attack on one’s sovereignty over one’s body and one’s wallet, then this policy of Obama’s is a direct assault on the conscience.

Flash: Obama to Push Fake Accommodation to Religious Institutions

Friday, February 10th, 2012

Jake Tapper, ABCNews

In a move that is clearly aimed at lessening the political damage to his administration, but will factually do almost nothing to address the issue, ABCNews is reporting that Barack Obama or some spokesman will reportedly make a statement Friday on an alleged concession to or accommodation of religious organizations on the contraception coverage  mandate.  The proposed “solution” would mere shift the responsibility under the edict to  insurers.  All of this is an attempt to satisfy his leftist base, while making it appear that he’s substantially changing his position where the rest of us are concerned.  Shifting the object of the edict from religious institutions to their insurance providers is not really making a factual change in the results, but it changes the way it will operate, giving the President political cover.

Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be fooled: Obama still intends to shove this down the throats of people of faith, and the fact that they’re going to put the onus on insurers does nothing to alleviate the concerns.  It simply means that religious organizations will have no choice except to insure people on policies that will have federally-mandated coverage requirements, because what the administration will now do is bully insurers instead of religious entities.  That’s not a concession, and it’s not an accommodation, and while it may offer a technical out for Obama to claim he hadn’t been oppressing the religious freedoms of Americans, it merely means that he will oppress their religious free exercise indirectly.

The insurance mandate will remain.  All that will change is who will be compelled to enforce it.  At that point, what you must admit is that Obama is accommodating anything, but merely shifting the means by which his goal will be obtained.  This is the typical leftist approach: When caught with your hand in the cookie jar, quickly withdraw it, while merely reaching with the other hand into the same jar, hoping you will not notice.  Expect the media to portray this as “Obama caves,” but that’s a lie.   He isn’t caving.  He isn’t changing his objective.  He still intends to force Catholics, and other Christians to comply with the goal of seeing to it that all contraceptive measures are available to all women through health-care insurance.

Don’t fall for it.  It’s a political show, but the net effect is meaningless. He isn’t surrendering the idea of coercing people of faith, but merely trying to convince them that his coercion is aimed at insurers.  You can watch Jake Tapper’s report on ABCNews here:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1012280&w=425&h=350&fv=]

This isn’t even accommodation. Let’s be honest with ourselves and admit that Obama is still going to shove this down the throats of faith-based organizations, and there is no way around it. This may fool some people into believing that Obama has made an accommodation, but at the end of the day, this still results in a government edict on how money from people of faith will be spent.  So he shifted responsibility to the insurers, but this changes nothing about the results. Nothing.  Don’t let up.  This isn’t Obama surrendering on the issue, but instead  merely trying to re-frame the issue to his advantage.  It’s still a dictatorial action, no matter how we slice it.

 

Media Revealed: Clueless About Religion

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Imposing His Morality

Watching some of the coverage of Barack Obama’s edict issued to Catholic organizations, it’s become painfully clear to me that many so-called “journalists” don’t have the first clue why this is upsetting.  They simply don’t understand it.  In their thinking, this isn’t a religious issue at all.  In their view, matters of conscience begin and end at the steps of the church, demonstrating that they not only believe in a separation of church and state, but church and life.  What they admitted in their shocked confusion over the back-lash is what I have always known, and you have likely suspected too:  To these people, religion is a belief system that is practiced behind the closed doors of a church, and the very notion that your beliefs extend to the rest of your life is foreign to them.  While many in the media claim to be members of various churches, one clearly gets the sense that many are not all too serious about it, and this issue has revealed them as insincere.

After all, if you’re a committed and observant Catholic, you hold with the teachings of the Church that contraception (never mind abortion) contradicts God’s will.  These people in media understand this about Catholics, but they are astonished when Catholics and others react badly against a governmental edict that requires them to support contraception through compulsory add-ons to insurance plans, or through tax dollars.  For them, the issue is your private faith, to which they will agree you are entitled, versus your adherence to it in all facets of your life.  In effect, what they suppose is that while you may rightly hold your own beliefs, that when you exit the church you must set aside your beliefs in all the rest of your daily life.  In essence, they believe in a separation of your religious beliefs from practical life.

This is a telling revelation, and it correlates well with this class of bloody hypocrites, who may profess this religious belief or that, but seldom adhere to it in their own lives.  To them, religion is about private professions of a belief in a crowd of like-minded people, assembled at best within the walls of a church, hidden from society and closed in from all the world.  They cannot conceive of the notion that you might adhere to a given church, accept all its teachings, and extend their practice into your daily lives.  You oppose abortion on the basis of religion?  Fine, they will say, but if you’re a doctor, that doesn’t relieve you of the duty to perform one if a patient demands it.  They demand doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmacists, and everyone else to abandon their faith once they exit their homes or churches.

In their view, religion is something dispensable, like deciding whether it is too warm for a sweater, or too cool for shorts on the way to a picnic.  They project their own loosely-defined, carelessly adopted choices of conscience onto every other man and woman in the culture, and expect that all others would so easily drop their beliefs at the command of a President, or any other dictatorial thug, just on his say-so.  It is much like the attitude of Romney over Romneycare in the debate with Rick Santorum: “It’s not worth getting angry about.”   This disconnect in their professed religious views from their daily lives is born of the fact that in the first instance, most of them are liars, and starting with the commandment to “not bear false witness,” they begin very early in their careers to do precisely that.

If you slant a story about a person to make his actions seem worse, or better, you’re bearing false witness.  What has modern journalism become if not a perpetual parade of people trotted out before some camera, or interviewed and quoted in print who bears false witness against somebody else?  When this becomes the touchstone of your profession, and the way to score the lead story, and the above-the-fold headline, you can bet the long-term affect will be to destroy one’s sense of what is a lie and what isn’t.  Mad?  Yes, of course we become angry!  This should offend you nearly as badly as the story in this case, because it reveals something else too:  It is reported that President Obama and some in his inner circle dismissed warnings from some others in the administration that there could be a back-lash, and that they are somewhat surprised now that the back-lash is well under way.   In short, the media is surprised, but so is the President’s inner circle, and for exactly the same reason:  Obama, despite his professions of a Christian faith and twenty years in Jeremiah Wright’s church, doesn’t take his faith all that seriously either.  Like many liberals, it was all about appearances.

This also explains something else, if you’re observant:  The same people who are shocked about this reveal why they hold such naive views about radical Islamists.  Think of it:  They don’t understand that Muslims motivated to terror by radical Imams might well actually believe every word they’ve been taught as they throw themselves into crowded streets with bombs strapped to their chests.  In short, they are willing to act on the strength of their beliefs, whether you and I agree with those beliefs being a separate matter.  In the worldview of the left, this is a confounding issue of politics gone haywire, and it is why they do not understand how the Arab Spring is rapidly undergoing a climate change of a different sort.  In the main, this is either because they don’t hold religious convictions, or at least not firmly, or because they believe that political expedience trumps all other causes.  Either way, what they fail to understand is that a Catholic doctor of Obstetrics and Gynecology may have matters of conscience or faith that prohibit the performing of abortions.

To them, matters of faith are strictly personal, and should have no bearing on one’s dealings or relations with others.  These people have no understanding of committed, observantly faithful practitioners of any religion.  They think “free exercise” is a matter of speech at most, and even then should remain in church at its most public.  Their perspective is that of a shallow faith, not made of actions tied to beliefs, but of words tied mainly to doubts or dis-beliefs. They cannot understand why one’s religious beliefs should matter at all in one’s performance in the workplace, or why they might affect the diligence with which one adheres to the vows of one’s marriage.  In their view, these things are all superficial and transient, meaning that when they seem shocked and confused over how this could possibly be seen by Catholics, or Christians in general, as a matter of the interference by the state in the free exercise of religion, most are not faking it.  They really don’t “get it,” and it’s because they have no idea that faith and religious instruction actually informs the views of many millions of Americans.  They expect you to make professions of faith, but never to act upon it.

In short, they really are clueless.  And besides, “it’s not worth getting angry about.”

 

ACLU Nut Puts Right to the Pill Ahead of Freedom of Religion

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Switching Contexts

Here we go.  I published an article earlier this morning, and here’s a piece of video that perfectly demonstrates my point.  This sort of nonsense must be stopped, and we must be the generation who stops it, or our country is finished.  It starts with defining the concept of “rights,” and this ACLU basket-case is a perfect case study in how the left discards actual liberties in the name of concocted ones.  Listen to what this twit says, and recognize, given what I posted earlier, what she is really doing here.  It’s vile and disgusting, and the ACLU is moving from merely Anti-American to criminally complicit in the overthrow of our constitution.

Feel free to surf on over to the ACLU blog on this, if you can stomach it.