The War On Women Meets The War On Science

march 1st, 2012

Well, this certainly is a convergence of two lunatic disciplines; practiced denial of science meets institutional misogyny. I suspect a sprinkling of Dominionism was added for flavor.

Igor Volsky writes:

"Just moments after Senators defeated the so-called Blunt Amendment, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) accused Sebelius of lying about the administration’s rule requiring employers to provide birth control coverage in their health insurance plans and falsely insisted that religious organizations would be required to provide “abortifacient” drugs." EMPHASIS MINE

Sebelius: There also is no abortifacient drug that is part of the FDA approved contraception. What the rule for preventive care…

Murphy: Ma’m that is not true…Is the morning after pill or something like that an abortifacient drug?

Sebelius : It is a contraceptive drug, not an abortifacient… It does not interfere with a pregnancy. If the morning pill were taken, and a female were pregnant, the pregnancy is not interrupted. That’s the definition of abortifation.

Murphy: Ma’m that is your interpretation, and I appreciate that’s your interpretation.

Sebelius: That’s what the scientists and doctors…

Murphy: We’re not talking about scientists! Ma’m we’re not talking about scientists here, we’re talking about religious belief. Ma’m, I’m asking you about a religious belief. In a religious belief, that is a violation of a religious belief.

This man is an idiot. Worse, he's a very dangerous idiot. Science isn't a political or theological opinion.

One more time... were talking about organizations that seek to participate in secular society, for commercial benefit, underwritten in dozens of ways by the U.S. taxpayer. They don't like it? Close. Period. I say that as a Christian.

A Note To The GOP Regarding The Contraceptive Mandate

Feb 8th, 2012

A majority of the Catholic Americans the GOP's social engineers purport to be defending from the "Obamacare" driven birth control mandate support its implementation. Sorry, GOP.

The GOP War On The Separation Clause

Feb 8th, 2012
by F. Grey Parker

I regard myself as a Christian. I believe in the Gospels. I generally keep it to myself and out of my writing because I have the right to do so. In America, no one may tell me what, how, when or where to worship.

I am protected from litmus tests or societal demands to prove my faith by the Constitution. That's what the separation clause provides for.

What I am not guaranteed is special status to impose my religion when I participate in public markets. I am also (supposed to be) Constitutionally disallowed access to taxpayer monies while simultaneously demanding the right to implement policies driven by a theological agenda in those markets.

Period.

Contrary to popular GOP propaganda, there is no war on religion in the United States. That is absurd. What we do have currently is a coordinated effort to attack the bedrock principle of separation. Nothing illustrates this more than the current brouhaha over the Obama Administration's new birth control guidelines.

Newt Watch - Full On Fascism

Dec 18th, 2011

Even before Newt Gingrich's remarks regarding the judiciary during the most recent GOP debate (we live-blogged it HERE), he had already provoked criticism over his distorted notions of the separation of powers. Notably, former George W. Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey called them, "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle."

As has always been the case with Newt, when faced with any intelligent criticism, he doubles down. In a conference call with the press yesterday, he vowed that, as President, he would simply ignore any Supreme Court ruling with which he disagrees.

Russel Berman notes:

"Gingrich’s position represents, in effect, a direct challenge to the interpretation of Marbury v. Madison, the seminal 1803 Supreme Court decision that established the principle of judicial review and cemented the high court as the ultimate arbiter of whether congressional or executive acts are constitutional."

This is classic Gingrich; throw bombs and grin as they go off around our political landscape. We should be used to it.

However, his appearance on today's Face The Nation program was worse than merely reasserting an anti-Constitutional position. When asked about the "practical" dilemmas inherent in his proposal that congressional subpoenas be issued to judges whenever he disagrees with them, he said, "sure," he'd have judges arrested and forcibly compelled to explain themselves... politically.

What Separation?

Sept 26th, 2011

James Madison once famously said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

The following video is real. This is not a parody. This is an event in a public school. But remember, the hand-wringing over indoctrination and establishment attempts by Dominionists are just something we progressives are making up. Right?

Via Dred Pirate Rob:

Public School Proselytizes to Children by OnKneesforJesus

Worth 1,000 Words

Sept 13th, 2011

Quote Of The Day

Sept 13th, 2011

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
-- James Madison