For those freaking out at the Kathleen Parker column, a couple quick thoughts:
1.) Justice (“Just Us”) Sunday
2.) Schiavo legislation
3.) Jesus is my philosopher.
4.) Michael J. Fox must be mocked for wanting stem cell research.
5.) The never-ending fake war on Christmas (Christmas keeps kicking ass, btw, and shows no sign of ending. Funny, that).
6.) Federal Marriage Amendment and the never ending gay-bashing as wedge issue.
7.) Evangelical support for torture.
8.) The ceaseless idiocy about displays of the Ten Commandments.
9.) Pharmacists for Life deciding that they get to choose whether or not you need your prescribed medicine.
10.) School prayer arguments.
11.) Demanding that intelligent design (aka creationism) be taught.
12.) Meddling in the FDA.
13.) Abstinence only as the only sex-ed.
14.) The take-over at the Justice Department from the God Squad.
I did that in a few minutes, and without needing to think too terribly hard about it. Feel free to add your own.
There is a not unsubstantial portion of the electorate who, while completely happy in a world where everyone can worship as they want, simply are sick and tired of the holier than thou pushing their views on us. Having said that, Larison is correct that the theocon wing of the GOP does not deserve all the blame for the current mess. People like me who got us into an overseas mess share a good deal of the blame.
*** Update ***
15.) Goodness. How could I have forgotten Phil Kline, who wanted to rifle through medical records to prosecute people for abortion? Phil Kline is not a Democrat.
16.) And how about the opposition to the human papillomavirus vaccine, choosing to pretend their kids don’t have sex over the prevention of cervical cancer.
Thank you. It’s the evangelical support for torture that really boggles my mind. What are they being taught in those churches?
Don’t forget praying in front of the Ten Commandments in Alabama a few years back and the recent worship-fest in front of the Wall Street Bull statue courtesy of the 700 Club.
Idolaters, the lot of them!
School Prayer is always a crowd pleaser.
‘Suffer not the presence of the infidel’ would be my guess.
Strangely enough, the new Chief of Staff lays it out.
Business and Conservative leaders have spent the last number of years denying that these problems exist in the first place. That’s the reason they are in the situation they are in. They need to acknowledge the real issues out there, and then come up with serious plans to resolve these issues. And if they don’t resolve them, they need to go back to the drawing board and try again until they DO solve them.
Or unless progressives solve them first. Which is what probably will happen. It’s too late for them I think, to be honest. But that doesn’t change things that I think that they need to move NOW and get conservative plans out there to fix the REAL issues of the day (and no. opposing Gay Marriage is not one of them.)
Fortunately I have now invested heavily in pitchforks, tar and feathers.
Absolutely. These people are CINOs.
That "praying at the golden bull" thing was so full of delicious irony I was expecting to see Charleton Heston show up and smash it to little bits.
I just wonder who had a firm grip on that bull’s rather copious procreative nodules whilst they prayed?
The Moar You Know
@Dave: That one blew my mind. I’m an atheist, never was taken to church as a kid, had non-religious parents, but even I know that kneeling in front of a golden calf is not OK with Jesus. At all.
Don’t forget opposition to teaching evolution and informative sex ed.
But that’s the fun, John. When the Democrats fell out of power in ’02, they sat back on their heels and asked, "What are we doing wrong?" Their response wasn’t to pitch the gays out of the party because they were dead weight or to abandon environmental concerns because the environmentalists looked crazy or to screw over women’s health in a vain attempt to capture the abortion vote.
Now that the Republicans are out of power, they can’t get the long knives out fast enough. Everyone blames the guy to their left. The theo-cons lament how the neo-cons aren’t religious enough. The neo-cons question whether the corporate whoring is the wisest course for the party. And the Corp-cons announce that Jesus screwed everything up. No one wants to take a share of the blame because that means giving up a slice of the pie. If the theo-cons submit, they’ll get another lip-service Republican. If the neo-cons submit, that means they’ll miss out on the next opportunity to blow up a third world country. If the corp-cons submit, ZOMG TAXES!
Better that they all lose.
Oh, and my favorite bill of the past year: House Bill 888:
"Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith."
Would anyone like to guess which faith they cared about?
The sponsors included Mike Pence, Marilyn Musgrave, "Mean Jean" Schmidt and Paul "Obama is forming a Nazi-Communist Gestapo" Broun.
Now that Obama and the Democrats are in charge, how long will it be until the miraculous cures promised about embryonic stem cells research appear? [people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk]
Of course, under the anti-science Bush administration, Stem cell research has ground to a complete halt including the dead end pseudo science voodoo of adult stem cell research.
Stem cell breakthrough
John, OT, but I think you will enjoy this, via WV Blue:
See what happens when you get bad karma from West Virginia?
crap, that’s the second time the area I put into blockquote got "subsampled. Anyone else have that problem??
Jonah Goldberg on the Kathleen Parker column:
Ahmmm, they believe in God and his magic baby – which is absurd superstition and irrational nonsense. Duh.
The Other Steve
Rush Limbaugh for President, says Chuck Hagel.
It’s a good point. If Rush has all the answers, why doesn’t he run for office?
It’s an unholy alliance, and a really bad idea. I’m agnostic on religion, and religious. I don’t have any problems with them, or it, and I take anyone who claims religious faith absolutely at their word. Further than that, I excuse myself and leave the table.
It’s just a bad idea, establishing a state religion. It never, ever works, but religious keep trying it. Over and over and OVER…
Really. You could tear your hair out. I’ve given up. Let them duke it out in court. Not that a RULING will end it….
The Other Steve
Maybe she was talking about the Rapture Index?
The Other Steve
Wow, that was quick.
God damn the evangelical political newbie blogger inflamed by "abortion", who didn’t read the AOL “or one month for free” fine print.
And of the 4 people in that Pajamas Media ad for “a discussion about the future of conservatism” only one is rational and civil enough to be likeable – but Huckabee did make the comment recently about the NYSE being attacked by some form of economic-terrorism.
Michael, many people who are not rightwing fundies believe in God. A subset of THOSE believe in Jesus.
If you’re going to ask for tolerance for your sexual preferences, could I ask for a little for my philosophical ones?
The Moar You Know
@Michael D.: Like you, I’m an atheist.
You’re not being helpful.
Try addressing Doughy Pantload’s question with some consideration instead of chucking it into the "it’s all superstitious bullshit" trashcan. You can, indeed, point out that the GOP has embraced non-Christian "oogedy-boogedyism", done so repeatedly, done so to its detriment, by providing examples – all without telling people that their core beliefs are full of shit.
You’ll be amazed at the inroads you can make on the harmful aspects of people’s belief systems if you make the minimal effort to not mock them.
What Svensker said. We’re not going to get anywhere alienating 90% of the population.
Creationism. The time and energy that has has been expended for the non-settling of the "science v religion" argument in public schools could have been expended on teaching someone something.
It will never be settled. By it’s very nature it will never be settled, because the conflict is grounded in faith. That means we have to fight for all eternity, and we can’t get anything done in science class.
Well, it works in places where the average person either doesn’t take religion all that seriously, or where the wall between church and the actual running of government is solid. For instance, Norway has a state religion, but is also one of the more religiously tolerant nations in existence, and there’s almost no interference by the state church in the day-to-day.
In other words, it won’t work here any time soon.
Oxycontin and the Dominican Republic
Well now, how refreshing: a SANE debate about the role of religion in public life, and from two conservative pundits.
Obama is already well on the way to saving the nation.
@The Other Steve: Those were adult stem cells from the patient’s bone marrow.
@The Other Steve:
I wanted a cure using embryonic stem cells.
That is a adult stem cell cure which I linked to in my post.
Of course, you read the New York Times. So you get be forgiven for not knowing about the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells.
9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were God’s payback for the sinful ways of the residents of NY and NO.
The Moar You Know
@The Other Steve:
Because Alex, Neil and Geddy are working on a new album, that’s why! There’s no time!
The serious answer is far more disturbing, of course. Rush Limbaugh is going to be paid almost half a billion dollars over the next ten years to spray his filth over the airwaves. Think about that. Half a billion dollars.
I’d like to know who is providing that money, that would tell us a lot about who is actually running the country.
Obama will make about 3.2 million over the next eight years. Chump change by comparison.
Rush doesn’t run for office because he knows he has more power now.
8.) Intelligent Design Creationism.
I had no idea. Thank you.
I don’t want to shut it down. I don’t even want to shut the religious debate "on the public square" down. I think people who are deeply religious cannot NOT talk about it. It’s central to them. To insist they not reference it is to silence them, and I don’t want any part of that. I think politicians can talk about it, I just don’t want them to write it into code or curriculum.
The Moar You Know
@Paul L.: You have no friends.
Isn’t there a black stripper you should be raping right now?
Juan del Llano
Without reading all the comments above to see if anyone else has caught these, I’ll just say you gotta read this:
That refers to a satirical musical about Mormons. :-)
The times, they HAVE changed. Married white Xians are the freaking minority now.
I am so lucky to have lived this long and seen this. Thank you, Jesus, and I mean every word.
That ignores that Bush halted federal funding for stem cell research, not the actual pursuit of such research. This prompted states like California and private institutions like Harvard to fund their own stem cell research. That was good in a way, because Bush instituted a budget freeze for the NIH beginning last year.
That means researchers have been losing grants and the development of new scientists has been stymied. Nevermind the fact that non-NIH affiliated scientists (those that research every important topic unrelated to human health) have seen their lifeline (the NSF) evaporate, thanks to Bush’s prescience and all that super-dooper-effective bioterror funding!
Lastly, you might have conveniently overlooked that the Republican Party platform included a total ban of all stem cell research this year.
If anybody’s proposing to reanimate Christopher Reeve, I don’t know about it. And I want to know about it, because one of my Guiding Life Principles is to never ever try to raise the dead. It never works out the way you think it will.
Sometimes dead is bettah.
Only if his call screeners can decide who gets to vote.
(First blockquote bold, second not??)
I agree it’s central to them. I don’t want it to stop being central to them. I honor and respect that. I don’t want them to stop talking about it, even in public.
What I want is for them to stop insisting that it be central to all of us. And it seems they live in a binary state world where either it becomes the organizing principle for all social conduct or it is taken away from them entirely.
Dennis - SGMM
While it’s nice to see some conservatives holding aloft one thread or another from the GOP’s Tapestry of FAIL, I’d bet that those criticisms will in no way deter Congressional Republicans from being complete obstructionist assholes over the next few years. They are unreflective and unremorseful about the part that they played in assisting Bush to drive this country into the ditch. The last thing they want is for the Democrats to get the credit for turning the country around so they will do everything that they can to make sure it doesn’t happen. Are Republicans cynical enough to prolong the nation’s suffering for political gain? You betcha’!
Exactly. Among some Republicans too.
While mom definitely has a soft spot in her heart for Jesus and the Good Book, she doesn’t much care for the flavor being pushed by our Patriot Pastors. Guess like me she’s an evildoer too.
Comrade Ed Drone
Unfortunately, I can’t post the tune to this one, but it’s my take on the whole arm-band Xtian thing:
What Would Jesus Do?
Words written in red that our Savior said in the Bible,
The ones that I find, to change my poor mind, they’re not liable.
I couldn’t discover any words about lovers, it was all about the rich and the poor;
So your message of fear falls onto deaf ears – what is it that you’re fighting for?
What would Jesus do? If he met you?
Would he look at the hateful things you have said?
What would Jesus do? Again, I ask you.
It’s too late to change when you’re dead.
The greatest command, as I understand, said Jesus,
Is to give God your love, put no other above – it pleases.
And the next on the list that you seem to have missed – love your neighbor as much as yourself,
And there’s nothing in there about being unfair, so put that stuff back on the shelf.
Now, I don’t mean to nag, but this stuff is a drag, and you know it.
And when we are called to account for it all, don’t blow it.
People are people, ‘neath minaret or steeple, who they love is between them and God,
So put down that stone, leave your neighbor alone, and hope Jesus spares you the rod.
Copyright © 2007 Bob Clayton & Ed Drone
Re: God. You do realize you’re talking about an invisible big bearded man who wants to cut off part of my penis as told by a hallucinating jew stuck in a desert for decades by way of a burning bush.
I was mocking John "tabloid lies" Edwards.
How about a link to this or did you even read the Republican Party platform?
A couple of years ago I listened to Christian radio for a couple of hours and that was exactly the attitude of the host/on air talent/reporters took. Literally they characterized some one who did not whole heartedly support something or other they were pushing (but was not opposing, they simply didn’t involve themselves in what ever it was being discussed) as anti-religious.
Amazing – If you don’t walk in lock step with them they view it as no differant then actively undermining their position, regardless of whether that is the case or not.
Sorry, no. My sexual orientation is not a preference. Trust me. In high school, I would have preferred to be straight. Your religion, on the other hand, is.
Where did my comment go?
You know, Michael, I’ve always thought that people who were abusive to you for your posts that they didn’t like were rude assholes. Now, I’ve changed my mind.
@The Moar You Know:
I’ve never believed this statistic.
I do believe that 90% of Americans feel pressured to state publicly that they believe in god, however.
Just like over 90% of gay kids feel the need to tell people they are straight.
Lols. This from a man that demands stem cell therapies RIGHT NOW THIS INSTANT if research is legalized.
This is all part and parcel with the Rethuglican mindset that is dead certain we’ll see Sci-Fi Network style Manimals rampaging across the planet inside two weeks if scientists have their way.
While they finish up a decades worth of research in the time it takes for ink on the research grant to dry, can they maybe give me my flying car and my laser ray? Cause, seriously, wtf Mr. Scientist dude? I wanted that all yesterday.
@Svensker: You know what? You’re right. I won’t apologize for my views on religion, but I do apologize for airing them here and mocking you.
I mean that sincerely. It was not appropriate.
We agree. I try to stay out of it. They won’t LET ME.
Paul L. seriously, if you think thats how science works you are a complete rube. Cures and advances from embryonic stem cell research are decades down the road. Add an extra decade thanks to the Bush administration not allowing new stem cell lines to be created. (This is vital for the basic research to proceed).
I wanted to know how long I have to wait for the promised embryonic stem cell therapies to appear in the enlightened golden age of Obama.
However new adult stem cell cures are coming out every day now. And your side lumps them with embryonic stem cell research under the general category of stem cell research.
I’m not sure if this is separate from 14) so I’ll call it 14a):
14a) The Justice Dept. civil rights division ignoring everything except "religious freedom" cases.
Grand Moff Texan
Paul L.’s strawman is wearing a Superman™ costume. What do you expect?
Grand Moff Texan
Which is why you’re sitting at the kiddie table, yes.
Sigh. I had a hell of a time convincing my very good friend Sarai Krupnick of Long Island, NY (guess her religious affiliation and cultural background – just guess!) that just because I was raised Catholic, I wasn’t a berserk fundie evangelist Christian who would completely embarrass her if she took me to Shabbos dinner at the Hillel center. Or at least, I wasn’t going to embarrass her until after she and some of our other mutual friends played "have fun with the shiksa" and told me that if I didn’t keep chugging the glasses of Manischewitz they were pouring for me, it would be rude (and possibly anti-semitic). I didn’t try to convert anybody, granted, but I may have started singing "Hey, Big Spender," which was embarrassing, at least for me (Sarai thought it was a hoot). I didn’t know how to hold my liquor then, but hey – practice makes perfect.
But her excuse for not knowing that Christianity in America isn’t some sort of monolithic bug-crazy bunch of JC Penny-clad evangelic Pentacostalism which might turn Alabama into Jonestown II at any time, for any reason was that her primary exposure to American Gentiles was from watching Jerry Falwell on Meet the Press and Cardinal O’Connor in NYC politics. You, however, were born in Canada and live in Atlanta. How it could possibly have escaped you that not every deist is a bad guy whose philosophy you are entitled to correct is a mystery to me.
Thank you, Michael.
How about the Orwellian manipulation of language to make things they don’t like go away? Like the whole birth control = abortion thing from those nutty pharmacists and the new HHS rule Bush is trying to ram through right now? Another example of this (though not really from the religious wing, particularly): upon discovering that the number of Americans suffering from hunger had increased something like 40% since 2000, what did they do? Did they try to increase food aid, or work to alleviate poverty? No. They wrote the word "hunger" out of the USDA report. Now "hunger" is replaced by "very low food security." Really.
That’s exactly it. I used to work with a girl who was a very, very devout Christian. It was a major part of who she was, and she derived a lot of joy from her faith. She wasn’t interested in converting people (and I wasn’t interested in converting her) and she didn’t judge me or feel threatened by me. If ALL religious folk could be like that, the world would be a much more peaceful place.
Unfortunately, there are way too many people in this world who think that disagreement with one’s beliefs is equivalent to an attack.
You didn’t miss much, if my dating experiences in high school were any indication.
Grand Moff Texan
Fuck. How ’bout the whole "abortion = murder" thing.
Drooling, superstitious freaks, they can’t even tell a blastocyst from a baby.
That One - Cain
Maybe they have doubts? Most of my conservative Christian friends are exactly like how you describe. Religion is not something you broadcast, like some kind of team jersey. It’s supposedly a very private thing.
Which is why I get annoyed with born again evangelical christians. One guy, who I had not talked to in a very long time and wasn’t particularly religious in college but was a good person, the very first thing he told me about re-affirming his faith in Jesus Christ. Supposedly it’s some kind of mantra you’re supposed to say. But it’s somewhat rude in my opinion as it’s a statement that I’m confused on how to react to since I don’t share that faith. It’s damn awkward and you really feel like running the other direction.
Not all abortions are perform on blastocysts.
Abortions are legal and can occur at any time until the woman gives birth.
And if your statement is true, why does you side get so outraged at Pro-lifers protesting with pictures of aborted fetuses or giving free sonograms to woman considering getting an abortion at a pregnancy crisis center?
@Grand Moff Texan:
That constantly amazes me. They love that rhetoric, just love it, but they don’t seem to get the legal problems with it. For instance, in the Katie Couric interview, Sarah Palin said:
but that’s the whole question here, especially if you ramp up the rhetoric and really try to argue that abortion=murder. Should abortion providers get a lethal injection for serial murder? Should women who survive ectopic pregnancies have to hire a lawyer and argue self-defense to a jury? Should every miscarriage be treated as a potential crime scene? Should every girl in the septic ward be handcuffed to her bed?
On a more primitive level, if a woman is impregnated by a rapist and gets a D&C, which do we as a society think is a better use of our law enforcement resources: should cops be trying to catch the abortionist or the rapist first?
C’mon Mike. Be civil. We refrain from telling Newfie jokes, after all.
Let go and let God.
@Michael D.: OK, then I’ll put it this way.
We religious believers have our reasons for believing what we do. Therefore, according to the dictionary definitions of the four words above, your assessment of our belief is inaccurate.
I have heard atheists tell me that they find it impossible to believe something that can’t be proven to them to exist. Especially since I agree that the existence of a deity can’t be proven — or, at the very least, such proof can’t simply be conjured out of thin air, on demand — I have a thorough appreciation for this sort of concise, elegant expression of disbelief.
But then, I personally do not give a flying fuck at a rolling donught what other people do or do not believe. You, on the other hand, evidently do. In other words, non-belief isn’t enough for you. So what’s the real issue, then? You’ve made the leap from the Parker-Goldberg argument regarding the Christian Right’s influence on the GOP to dissing all of Christianity. Why do you bother making this leap?
EDIT: Since I typed and posted this, you posted an equally concise and elegant apology to Svensker. This would appear to be a debate for another time, then, and I apologize for appearing, under the circumstances, to pile on.
The Moar You Know
Ask the British and South Koreans, who are doing the embryonic stem cell work we refused to fund. Ask the Spanish, who did the adult stem cell bronchial transplant that we can’t and couldn’t do, because we refused to fund even the basic research.
They will be making money hand over fist creating new hearts and rebuilding spinal columns, and making people’s lives better.
We will not be making that money, and we will be begging for whatever scraps of that technology they deign to license to us.
Thanks to you and yours for sending us down the path to becoming a third-world nation.
I don’t, but they have about the same effect as PETA protesters waving pictures of butchered pigs in your face. Or about the same effect as me waving a picture of a dead Iraqi toddler would have on you.
Pro-life is the gateway drug to all the socialcon silliness that plagues the GOP. Yet most of the conservatives I know don’t want to make abortion illegal. They function under the belief that it’ll never happen. All the while true socialcon believers are the ones getting elected and pushing the socialcon agenda. This is how we’ve gotten Republican school boards pushing intelligent design, state legislatures trying to outlaw abortion, faith based initiatives. This is how we got Palin and Jindal to be the future of the Party. Hell, we even see our foreign policy regarding the Middle East played as if it’s a religious role playing game–good against evil. There are other reasons why I quit voting Republican. But the corrosive pro-life obsession is the main reason.
Sonograms: We don’t object to women getting sonograms. We object to : A) Laws that force women to have a sonogram before any abortion (an unnecessary medical procedure that presumes that women are too stupid to know what’s in there) B) Crisis pregnancy centers that disseminate lies and misinformation (that abortion causes depression at higher rates than giving birth; that women who have abortions won’t be able to have children later on, etc. etc.).
Pictures of fetuses: I can’t speak for the whole movement here, but for myself: I’m pretty indifferent to them (I don’t object to them nearly as much as I do to A and B above). But I think they rely on a politics of disgust (or morality of disgsut), which is not a reasonable basis on which to make moral or political decisions. I would be pretty disgusted if I went in for a hysterectomy and someone was their holding up a jar with a diseased uterus in it, but that doesn’t mean it’s immoral for me to have the hysterectomy.
Adult stem cells are a stop-gap measure right now, although they are a promising line of inquiry. But from a developmental biology standpoint they will never replace embryonic stem cells when trying to understand how cells differentiate, because adult stem cells necessarily derive from differentiated cells. This means little to most folks but quite a lot to a developmental biologist.
Also, so if one person in favor of embryonic stem cell research gets it wrong we all believe X? Lol.
Falwell: God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve…The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.
Robertson: I totally concur.
What aspects of the Christian Right amount to oogedy-boogedyism? I take oogedy-boogedy to be a perjorative reference to absurd superstition and irrational nonsense. So where has the GOP embraced to its detriment oogedy-boogedyism?
What I said on Larisson:
"Furthermore, the idea that demons exist and are behind the problems of the world damn well deserve the label “ooga-booga”. They are sacriligious perversions of Christianity that appeal to the basest and most ignorant part of our superstitious brain. The “Spiritual Warfare” movement where, fake-Christians battle “sin” by praying in groups to expel demons is as “ooga-booga” as the work of any Voodoo priest .. and about as Christian too."
For example, when Palin’s African priest drove that witch out of town for causing traffic accidents, he didn’t just do something stupid or oppress an innocent woman – He indulged and defended the bad-driving habits that caused all the wrecks. He told the citizens, who are obviously driving way too recklessly on bad roads, that they didn’t need to change their behavior at all. And people are still dying on those roads.
That is NOT Christian.
The Moar You Know
That’s not true. There are only 14 states in the union that allow for elective third-term abortions; the rest do not allow abortion except in those cases of medical necessity protected by Roe (all have an exception to protect the life of the mother). Incidentally, less than 2% of all abortions in the US occur in the third trimester.
And yet, to abortion opponents, that looks like the low-hanging fruit.
Ack, Sysadmin of Evil
What gets me going is that anti-choicers seem to believe that abortion didn’t exist before Roe v Wade, and would cease to exist if it were outlawed again.
I had a friend in high school (yes, before Roe v Wade) who almost died attempting to perform an abortion on herself rather than visit a back-door butcher.
Choicers didn’t invent the bloody hanger out of whole cloth.
No, just the vast majority of it. Who else besides them has enough votes to put a Republican president in power?
@Ack, Sysadmin of Evil:
Ack, one thing I’ve noticed about my college students – a lot of them don’t immediately know why a symbol of the pro-choice movement is a hanger inside a circle with a slash through it. They simply don’t know anyone (that they know of – certainly their aunts or grannies might have) who’s had to even consider doing such a thing. And while of course that’s a good thing, it means that a lot of them don’t realize just how dangerous to women it would be to outlaw abortion. They were born in the late 80s, their mothers were born mostly in the late 50s-late 60s, so most of them were in their early teens at the time of Roe.
From the reaction of pro-choicers and NARAL to the partial-birth abortion ban, I would guess that medical necessity under Roe includes "health of the mother".
"Health of the mother" includes mental health and if the woman can get a psychiatrist to say the having the baby will make her depressed, she can have the abortion.
Having read Amanda Marcotte, I am guessing there are some women that stupid/delusional.
Paul, you are conflating two different phenomena. Yes, it’s true, before Roe many women found hospital boards or doctors who were flexible enough to allow psychological reasons for abortion. But this was virtually always for a first-trimester (sometimes second-trimester) abortion. Women who abort in their third trimesters don’t just wake up one day at 7 months along and say, "oh, you know what? I guess I don’t actually want to have a baby." In general, they are women with wanted pregnancies who are faced with devastating health crises that force them to make decisions I wouldn’t wish on anyone, and they mourn deeply for their loss. I would be surprised, frankly, if there was even one documented case of a third-trimester abortion being granted on the grounds of mental health concerns.
p.s. I love how the sentiment underlying this argument is "Those tricky women! They’ll just do anything they can to get those late-term abortions they love so much!" I think that really says it all about the respect the anti-choice people have for women’s motives, morality, and intelligence.
As would I. From everything I’ve read, just about all third-trimester pregnancies are due to things like finding out that the baby has some terrible condition that is incompatible with life. An acquaintance of my sister’s had one in her third trimester due to the fact that the baby’s skeleton had not developed properly. It had no skull, and would have absolutely died during birth. Maybe there are some people out there who would feel comfortable telling a woman that she has to go through two months of hell, carrying a child who she knows will never draw breath, all while enduring congratulations from well-meaning strangers. I could never do that to another woman — I can only too well imagine the hell of being forced to carry what is essentially a dead child.
Maybe that is because any records about such abortion are kept from the public disclosure by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
Ashcroft addresses abortion records request
It’s odd, but all the things mentioned have bothered me, sometimes a lot. But I can see the rationale behind objections to abortion and ESCR. I don’t agree, but I can understand it.
But the thing that finally drove me over the edge was finding out that park rangers weren’t being allowed to discuss the age of the Grand Canyon because of the young earthers. That totally infuriated me. It may sound silly but that was when I realized that something had to be done if government policy was to encourage those anti-science nutbags. To me that was just the end.
Imagine little kids going to the Grand Canyon and being told it was formed by the "flood." It just leaves me shaking my head at the sheer stupidity.
@Paul L.: Way to go Paul. You’ve underscored why it’s a bad thing the social cons control the GOP. And why it’s a good thing the GOP is out of power. Keep going after that low hanging fruit. Enough of a majority are beginning to get it.
Maybe that is because any records about such abortion are kept from the public disclosure by the medical privacy laws that apply to all patients in the U.S.
Fixed that for ya.
And your response just demonstrates what I said @88 – you are so deeply distrustful of women’s morals, motives, and intelligence that you are willing to believe that they carry a pregnancy for 30 weeks and then just decide on a lark to have a late-term abortion? I don’t know what world you’re living in, but it’s clearly not reality.
Anyway, I’m giving up, because you’re not even addressing the substantive points I’m making. You’re clearly not worth arguing with, which obviously most regulars figured out awhile ago. My bad.
But redemption is possible for just about everybody John. And you have.
I don’t blame the theocons or the neocons. I blame the people who run the party — Bush, Rove, etc. — for giving these nuts so much power.
We’ve got plenty of nuts in our party too. We just don’t let them make policy.
ha you libs are scared. Palin will win in 2012, then what are you going to say? It won’t be another muslim turned Christian like Jindal who you are probably hoping for.
I do think that Bush (favorite philosopher is Jesus) had such devoted support from the religious right because he was "one of them".
Palin of course is the great example. Somebody commented on the radio that the democratic party wouldn’t have nominated a VP with a pregnant unwed daughter 20 years ago.
Palin is part of the tribe. Her ignorance about pretty much everything is irrelevant. She is one of them. Byron York saw starbursts. Bill Kristol drooled. Scheunemann abandoned McCain over her.
They did this to themselves.
How about the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives?
My understanding is that even though it was supposed to be non-denominational in its goals, in practice it’s actually more or less a conduit to funnel taxpayer monies to right-wing Christianist organizations.
Palin will win in 2012, then what are you going to say? It won’t be another muslim turned Christian like Jindal who you are probably hoping for.
Obviously you’re not familiar with the Wasilla madrassa Sarah Palin attended as a child.
Ah, yes. The Ashcroft subpoena of abortion records. Thanks, Paul L. for reminding us of that old-time classic:
15) Utter neglect of principle and legal constraints in pursuing the intimidation of women seeking abortions.
Svensker says "Michael, many people who are not rightwing fundies believe in God. A subset of THOSE believe in Jesus.
If you’re going to ask for tolerance for your sexual preferences, could I ask for a little for my philosophical ones?"
However, it is a necessary duty of any rational mind to question any belief (system) held in the absence of evidence. Most religions fall into that category. Someones sexual preference does not; thus your statement does not follow.
Certainly, no one group was responsible for this particular loss by the Republicans. However, the real point is that the Republicans cherished and adored Ms. Palin while at the same timeignoring (in fact creating spin that criticism of Ms. Palin itself was both misogyny and religious persecution) that this person was attractive primarily because of her fundamentalism.
As we learned with GWB, merely claiming to be a member of this fundamentalist club, gave him instant credibility and created the climate where questioning his decisions became nearly synonymous with questioning God.
However, in the spirit of adding to the list, can everyone say "faith-based" programs.
That the principaled Republicans, as the protectors of the Framers original great idea that is set forth in the Constitution, got behind this subsidization of religions is the height of irony.
Kafka could not have written anything as uncanny as the narrative for the last 8 years of ignorance hugging in the name of God.
And to answer Jonah Goldberg (that defender of fundamentalist who are fascists), I have no quibble with anyone’s faith and what they want to believe. However, decisions made by our government cannot be made based on such beliefs nor can the process of governing be a proxy for religious moralizing and proselytizing.
Actually, Voudoun (to spell it correctly) uses a lot of Christian imagery, to the point where some groups under that umbrella use the names of the saints that are paralleled to the lwa exclusively. Then there are the edge cases, such as the folks who I’m sure exist as customers of the botanica that opened up in the Hispanic part of town who are very devout Roman Catholics and have no problem utilizing the resources provided by a priest/ess trained in an Afrodiasporan tradition for stuff they could never discuss with their pastor. So frankly, I think Voudoun is more Christian than the spiritual warfare bozos. It gives people the space to believe in a wider range of reality than the fundamentalists will ever understand.
(But I should note that it’s properly called Santeria nowadays because of folks who liked to pick on it as nothing more than superstitious ooga-booga nonsense.)
Not to mention the respect that the anti-choice people have for the professionalism and judgment of the woman’s doctors, as late-term abortions DO tend to be performed in conjunction with the primary care physician or Ob-Gyn.
If you’re going to ask for tolerance for your sexual preferences, could I ask for a little for my philosophical ones?
I’m sorry, I guess I missed it when "the gays" agitated for constitutional amendments to prevent Christians from enjoying the same rights as other citizens, when they beat Christians to death for sport, when they picketed your funerals. Because it would be really fucking crass to equate some dude calling names on a blog with the kind of shit Christians have and continue to do to gays otherwise.
And just a heads up: judging people based on voluntary associations they choose to make is not even in the same ballpark as the kind of prejudice you are equating it with.
To continue, while I’m sure there are plenty of decent people who are religious, fuck anyone who wants to make respecting other’s basic fucking humanity dependent on kissing ass.
Believe what you will, but leave the human rights of others out of it, douchebag.
Grumpy Code Monkey
As long as it takes to develop those therapies, which come after the research. You might see results in a few years; you might not see results for decades. You’ll definitely never see results if you don’t do the research at all.
What the conservative party needs is competence. So the question becomes, does fundy religious beliefs render a leader incapable of making competent decisions that result in a modicum of progress? Or, is every decision clouded by godly inspired over-self confidence. I think people attracted to religious fundamentalism seek to order their lives in a way that that avoids self understanding and causes over-confidence and self-deceit. You simply can’t have successful leaders that lack the emotional flexibility to adapt and change and make progress. No wonder they don’t believe in evolution
With all due respect–and I do respect the rights of those who are religious–belief in god is by definition irrational. You don’t reason your way to a belief that can only rest on faith, and cannot be demonstrated in any way.
Are you calling me a douchebag because I believe in God?
Hmm, seems we have a little guilt-by-association problem here.
Yes, to all who pointed out that gayness is not a "preference". What I was trying to say was that broad-brush insulting of another’s identity, beliefs, or being, is not very appealing, in general.
As a Quaker, I’m taught to believe that there is something of the divine in every human being, and that therefore every human being is deserving of respect — basically the Quaker version of the Golden Rule. That doesn’t seem so bad, does it? Sure, lots of "religious" people down through the ages have forgotten the Golden Rule, or perverted it. That doesn’t make all religion or, for that matter, "God", bad. Anymore than the fact that Stalin and Mao were atheists makes all atheists bad. We’re all human, and all grappling with how to explain our situation and this very big universe we live in — some of us, both religious people and atheists — make very crappy decisions.
So, yes, I ask for tolerance for the choices I make that don’t affect you. You’re welcome to think my beliefs are silly (just as I am free to think the same about your beliefs). But I don’t think that calling each other "douchebag" is conducive to anything except anger and mind-closing.
And demanding obsequience in return for recognizing the basic humanity of others is condusive to something other than anger?
You’re not a douchebag because you are religious, you’re a douchebag for bringing up a completely unrelated issue and equating sexual orientation with religious belief. It’s insulting and offensive to whine about what a poor widdle victim you are because someone called you names on the internet and that’s just as bad as having the government invalidate your marriage or having rednecks who’ve heard a lifetime of sermons dehumanizing gays beat them.
That One - Cain
You’re a Quaker? Quakers are *awesome*. I remember stories about how slaves were protected by the Quakers. Truly, they know something about human act of love. Rock on.
That One - Cain
The point she was trying to make was to respect one another. Now fuck off.
I was going to say that their oatmeal kicks ass, but you’re probably thoroughly sick of hearing that.
Oh, you mean Ashcroft’s another panty-sniffer, like Phill Kline?
My mother was a Quaker. Went to Friends.
I have to call bullshit.
A phantom conspiracy, with phantom evidence? I am reminded of the voter fraud accusations about ACORN. Oh, that’s right…a closer look showed there WAS NO FRAUD.
Similarly, I am highly skeptical of claims about third trimester abortions. My general reaction? You make the claim, YOU SUPPORT IT.
The point she was trying to make was to respect one another.
And the human rights of gay people have fuck all to do with what anyone says about the supernatural mumbo jumbo religious people choose to believe in. Nobody is talking about infringing on the rights of the credulous to believe in fairy tales. The very correlation she brings up demonstrates that the religious are not discriminated against, and it is extremely offensive.
Nobody has a right to demand their beliefs be treated as truth. It is extremely fucking offensive to have the simple statement "this is some crazy shit religious people believe" equated with the discrimination faced by gays.
Now fuck off.
How very respectful of you.
Now fuck off please?
Seriously, this blog proves that everyone’s an asshole about somebody else’s beliefs.
Except me of course. I love everyone.
Except those filthy Dutch.
Shorter Paul L: "ALL YOUR WOMB BELONG TO US!!!"
That’s the spirit!
I’m not a Quaker. I have full rights to think you’re full of shit according to your own philosophy.
BTW your irony detector is broken. Fix it.
Just judging by their rah-rah-ing for war and refusal to fund social programs, the baby’s the one that can be allowed to die.
Wow. That "evangelical support for torture" just floors me.
You know…you think you’ve seen the whole range of human depravity, and then, every one in a while, you discover a whole new level.
Yeah, Mike – How awful of you, for actually allowing your truth to be spoken when it’s not POPULAR. If YOU have to eat your words and apologize, then so should all of the religious folks here. ALL OF THEM.
Don’t back down, dude. Your beliefs are just as valid as theirs. For me (a recovered Catholic gay man), believing in the Magic Baby is every bit as valid as worshipping Casper the Friendly Ghost.
DEAL with it, god-shouters.
The republican leadership uses Christianity as a tool that is not for spiritual awakening. Faith based intiatives is nothing less than bribing church leaders to push the republican agenda and to keep the fires stoked for intolerence. The religious leaders believe that they have the republicans by the gonads, because of the number of people they can get to work or not on behalf of the republicans. The republican leadership believe that the religious leaders are effective con men who may or may not be able to deliver votes. The reward for delivering a large number of voters is the Faith Based Initiative. Faith based intiatives are authorized by the president to come out of his "discretionary" funds. This is how the administration gets away with bribing religious leaders. It skirts around the separation of church and state by using the president’s discretionary funds and none dare call what he is doing bribery, but it is. Religious leaders and the republicans have one thing in common; both groups "know" that it is all about teh money. Both are experts at getting people to voluntarily part with their hard earned cash.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
I just love that line. ;)
I am so suprised that the Reverend Ted Haggard and his covert practice of Crystal Methodicism, replete with the ritual booty-screwing sacrament, has failed to make it into this dsicourse.
Half of why everyone is so done with GOP religio-fascist hypocrisy in the world of American policy-making is flagrant delusional behavior just like this that gives Christianity a bad name while simultaneously ruining the America through ridiculous policies that consequently do nothing to better the state of the nation.
Nice thread, and I appreciate Michael’s apology. In some ways I feel the way he does, but I recognize that feeling as being, well, close-minded in a way. Something I’m vaguely ashamed of.
Because I’m not entirely sure that it’s a simple as saying religion is a choice. I don’t think I could choose to believe a religion (since I do personally consider it superstitious nonsense), so I can well accept that the religious can’t really choose not to believe. Not to just wake up one morning and "choose" to believe something different, anyway. It’s at the very least a long process to change one’s religion.
I can think religions believe things that aren’t true, but still have compassion and support and common ground with the ones who aren’t actively trying to hurt me.
I don’t see that as very different from my attitude toward gays. I think that a naked man looks silly, and since I don’t find homosexual sex (between men) at all arousing, I’m rather put off even by the idea. Much as I’m somewhat uncomfortable by people’s expressions of what to me is patent nonsense in religion. But as you have said, it doesn’t give me license to be an asshole about it unless I want to be treated like one.
And of course there’s plenty of difference in their circumstances. Gays aren’t in any danger of forcing an agenda on me (hallucinations of conservatives notwithstanding) while sometimes Christianists are, so it makes a lot more sense to stand up against the latter. But the point is that my personal feelings about (gays or religion) sometimes need to be deemphasized when discussing the topic in public.
I wanted a cure using embryonic stem cells.
That is a adult stem cell cure which I linked to in my post.
As many stem cell researchers have pointed out, embryonic stem cell research is critical to any understanding of how to make adult stem cells work in a cure. The researchers who did the stem cells from skin work a couple years back pointed out that their work was hindered and set back by years due to Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research. So all cases of cures from any form of stem cell are due to embryonic stem cell research, and depend on it. And do you also realise that another factor resulting from this ban is that much of the good stem cell work of all types is being done outside the USA, unlike pre-ban, for instance the case you linked to ("A team from the universities of Barcelona, Spain; Bristol, England; and Padua and Milan, Italy")? No, of course you don’t.