Posted on 05/03/2007 8:46:24 AM PDT by CharlesS
IBTZ?
..newbie, why don't you lurk for a while before you give in to the urge to post your anti-religion stuff...
..that's what I'm thinking...
Lies followed by leftist bigotry. How nice.
I bit, and gave you a hit. Your blog is pathetic. I know eight years olds who could do better in a technical sense. Your content is lame and ignorant. And, you don’t even know how to spell, much less use spell-check.
I give it a minus two on a scale of one to ten.
They spewed the same crap about abortion, assuring us it would NEVER be used as a "contraceptive gone bad" measure. They lie.
How about some statistics?
The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%.
AMERICAN RAPE STATISTICS
This bill is only for 4.7% of the population? How many of them do you think go to a Catholic hospital? You REALLY expect someone to buy that idea? And you want to ignore the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) in order to unConstitutionally hog tie a group that you dislike. Remember that when you deny others their Constitutional rights, yours are next.
American Facists: The Christian Right and The War on America Chris Hedges...
I am trying to read this but it’s so full of BS...
Here’s a Sample Review...
The Christian Right, like these early fascist movements, does not openly call for dictatorship, nor does it use
physical violence to suppress opposition. In short, the movement is not yet revolutionary. But the ideological architecture of a Christian fascism is being cemented in place. The movement has roused its followers to a fever pitch of despair and fury. All it will take, Hedges writes, is one more national crisis on the order of September 11 for the Christian Right to make a concerted drive to destroy American democracy. The movement awaits a crisis. At that moment they will reveal themselves for what they truly are — the American heirs to fascism. Hedges issues a potent, impassioned warning. We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal, democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant.”
It’s fearmongering at it’s finest.
Freedom? A rape victim certainly has the freedom to pursue the use of the “day after” pill outside of any government regulation that would require hospitals to “have the pill on-hand”. This is typical of issues....a view that because the Catholic Church voices an objection, then it is an extreme right wing religious wacked out position. On that I disagree, as I certainly believe the larger issue is the eroding of freedom in this country by being required by the government to act in a certain way “for the better good”.
Indeed. If the Catholic hospital, for ethical reasons, does not wish to dispense the pill, there are plenty of other places such medication can be legally obtained without forcing people to violate their own conscience.
Explain, please, why I should increase the hit count to your personal web blog when you’re the author of the piece and can post your article in its entirety here on FR.
No fair trying to get hits to your blog!!!
Calm down now! You might get a little dizzy running in so many circles.
Hmmm, I'm pondering whether you might need to meet the following inhabitant of my abode...
Whatcha think?
Well, do ya feel lucky? Do ya?
Oh, those mean and evil Christian extremists! Next they will want women wearing burkas!
Never mind the consistent church position that life begins at conception. Never mind that this pill in an abortafacient - the embryo, although conceived, is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall, and/or everything, lining and all, is expelled. Never mind that, logically, this is no different than an abortion, except that it is immediate and is accomplished with drugs rather that instruments.
The author claims the church goes too far, but completely fails to recognize that there is no other logical position for it to take. The author indicates he is an agnostic. I quite agree – some of the root meanings of that work fit him nicely:
”a”-the nullification of the rest of the word, and “gnostic”- one meaning is to “know”, as in: “to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of”.
So then, the author confesses he is missing practical understanding. I agree.
Charles, Charles, Charles. Some of the other posters have a very good point - bumping the hitcount and all... Are you sure there shouldn’t be an “A” and an “S” before that last initial? Because I’m not.
I believe it goes ... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” ...and my point is, that because the Catholic Church backs a position it is not necessarily related to “the religious right” but possibly to other concerns such as the continual loss of freedom.
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with many books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That it seems to me is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimmly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations”. (Albert Einstein 1929)
I disagree and I agree. I disagree with the stance on the hospital bill. The hospitals you mention should not be forced to offer the pill in question. They are Catholic hospitals and the pill is obviously against thier religious views.
But I do agree that the religious right does more harm than good to the conservative cause. I do NOT, as many posters on here have suggested, object to the religious right expressing thier views, in private or public. What I object to is the religious right (and the non-religious left) attempting to force thier views on others.
I object to the secular left trying to (and pretty much succeeding in) removing even the mention of religion in the public square (except islam of course). And I also object to the religious right trying to legislate religion into the public (govt) schools.
yep, ibtz
All Chuckie has been doing since he joined a few days ago is pimp his own blog. Isn’t that against FR rules? If not it should be.
IBTZ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.