Doocy: With Birth Control Rules, "Is [Obama] Provoking An Unnecessary War With America's Religious Leaders?"
January 25, 2012 7:43 am ET
From the January 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
WHO CARES if it starts a 'war with America's Religious Leaders'? This is not a Theocracy! (yet)
So many "wars". It's hard to keep track of them all.
Precisely,
So far, the northeast and mid Atlantic region has had an unseasonably warm winter. We had an early freak storm system in October that caused massive damage and power outages, and then this past weekend we had our first regular snowfall. That snow was well under way of being melted by the start of the work week.
Back on topic though:
This type of "Cavuto?" attack is getting out of hand over at Fox. Will every day bring a new phony ginned up war with somebody over something to keep Fox viewers in a constant state of fear and outrage?
Last year about this time, it was the same and then on February 1, we had our second ever recorded blizzard, 13 months following our first ever recorded blizzard. Our first 90 degree day last year was just three weeks following our second ever recorded blizzard and then we had a hell on earth of a summer with 100+ temps for over 70 days.
Ha, a blizzard! I told you global warming was a hoax!
Mentally, my 7-year old niece asks more compelling questions than Boxy.
As a frame of reference, it appears that I celebrate the same holidays as boxtop...however, I dont give a rats a$$ how many times they are 'mentioned'. And I gladly accept Happy Holidays as a friendly greeting. If I want to hear the word 'Easter' or hear more about Easter...I simply go to church.
Mentioned less by who? Your pastor? Fox news? Patrick Stewart?
Who are you going to blame for not hearing the prescribed number of casual references to a Holiday you celebrate?
What is the recommended number of Easter references that would be acceptable on an annual basis?
Would you prefer a higher frequency of negative instances of references to Easter, or a lower frequency of positive references, if given a choice?
This is just madness boxtop, seriously...there are real issues to be concerned about. I think Fox news and the right wing media like having their loyal followers get outraged over fake and trivial garbage like how many times you hear a certain holiday mentioned. Then they turn that into hate and suspicion of anyone who doesn't get as offended by the lack of mandated saturation of your belief system.
If you aren't hearing the holidays you want mentioned enough, blame yourself! No one is taking away your right to celebrate them.
Oh, and the word is gullible. Instead of playing on the internet, you should be doing your homework.
Keep plugging away. You'll get better.
I also don't give a damn if anyone else in the world likes them, or whether local radio stations play them as much as I'd like to hear them. It's my personal taste. Nobody else's preferences make me question myself or lean towards their preferences in order to feel more accepted or validated.
This is exactly the way it should be with all religious matters. It's for you. If you really need other people to validate your holidays, you're going to church for all the wrong reasons.
"The Logical Song"? "Give A Little Bit?" Obviously communist anthems.
sarcasm
What is the difference in implementing Sharia law and allowing the Catholic Church to impose its own laws on national health care issues?
The "difference"?
One has Madrassas, the other has Madrassas with crosses.
I would not want the U.S. government to outlaw religion. However, I would like to see an amendment that states anyone who cites their religious beliefs as justification for public policy should be barred from public office. I would also like to see all church income that doesn't go straight into charitable organizations taxed like any other business. Taxing their income alone would shut down a lot of the creeps, like Marion "Pat" Robertson, who are in it for the money.
Fox News Channel, the dopiate of the masses.
Opposed to some kind of necessary one? Define please.
I agree, epkklk851, and as I understand the rules, if you work directly for a church, you are in fact exempt.
That being said, I think it is patently un-American for the Catholic church, or any other religion, to dictate the rules that non-believers must live by.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a moderately liberal Protestant.
>^o.-^<
No, I don't think so. What America's 'religious' leaders are forgetting in their largely emotional response is that freedom means the ability to say either yes or no to something. Birth control is freely available, and must remain so. For those who object, they are free not to purchase and/or use any. However, if a religious leader thinks something is so heinous that it should be against the law, they need to be reminded that we don't live in a theocracy.
Let's take a suitably silly example and talk alcohol. Muslims don't drink alcohol. It's against their religion. Neither do Mormons. So does this mean that alcohol should be illegal for the rest of America as well? Obviously not. Alcohol is available for those who wish to enjoy it (and abuse it), and for those who think it is wrong, my advice is don't buy or drink any.
This is the problem with freedom in America. Those of the Faux Con/Republican persuasion believe that they can indeed legislate morality. Can't be done, but they won't stop trying. Freedom means the freedom to make a moral decision for yourself, and live with the consequences of that decision. Freedom does not mean 'you are free to be exactly like me or get out of the country'.
The primary definition of having sociopathic personality disorder is an inability to consider thoughts, feelings, and consequences of actions on others. People with this mindset naturally are attracted to "modern conservatism", as greed, lack of compassion, selfishness, and bigotry are traits today's "cons" seem to celebrate.
So tell me, is everyone who works for a Catholic organization Catholic? No. So why should the Catholic church be able to dictate to their non-Catholic employees whether they can have birth control or not as part of their health care plan? Oh and by the way studies have show that something like 95% of all Catholics use birth control. So why shouldn't everyone have contraception coverage as part of their health plan? I'm sure all three of those talking heads have it.
About six years ago, one of our daughters worked for a large Catholic university on the east coast after she got her Masters, and they would not cover her birth control as part of their quite good health care plan.
Ironically, she worked for a PHD and with two other degreed folks in the office of alcohol and drug counseling - tons of money thrown at what thousands of 18 to 21-year-olds can't be stopped from doing but not a penny for a few inexpensive prescriptions.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the difference between me throwing out an old television and someone breaking into my house and stealing a television. Until a fetus is legally protected, it can only be viewed as property as far as the law is concerned.
Oh, yeah??
Well, I'll see your Tennessee moron and raise you an Oklahoma idiot state senator, one Ralph Shortey, who has introduced a bill to ban the use of human fetuses in food.
He says his internet research revealed to him that this is a problem.
[url=]http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/okla-senator-wants-ban-on-human-fetuses-in-food[/url]
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/okla-senator-wants-ban-on-human-fetuses-in-food
and yet as is the case many times with the internet, i left more disgusted by what it was actually about than i had even anticipated initially.