Tell me liberals: Are women who agree with the Catholic church and support the First Amendment brainwashed?
Or do they just hate women too? That’s your entire premise in all of your arguments … the GOP hates women. So, does Mona Charen and all of the other women who have stepped up to speak about this First Amendment issue brainwashed?
Let me make this completely clear. Nobody is trying to take your health care away from you. Nobody is suggesting we restrict your “right” to access contraception of any kind. Nobody is suggesting an employer must have the right to get between you and your doctor. (Except of course for Democrats and President Obama, who are in the process of building an infrastructure to put a big-government bureaucracy between you and your doctor as we speak … but you’re OK with that.)
We’re saying you do not have the right to make us pay for it.
Argue against this statement in the comments: True rights exist simultaneously between people, and exercising those rights can not diminish the rights of another. What is it that causes liberals to ignore that sentence?
On to Mona Charen’s column today in National Review Online.
Democrats are geniuses at muddying the waters and twisting the debate in a direction they find congenial. They’ve been at this a very long time. Recall that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we found ourselves ensnared in a discussion of so-called “censorship.” The National Endowment for the Arts, (a luxury no deeply indebted nation should indulge), had provided grants to two particularly obnoxious exhibits. One was a photograph by Andres Serrano called “Piss Christ” that depicted a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. The other was a series of homoerotic photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, featuring, to cite just one example, a man’s anus being penetrated by a bullwhip.
Liberals cried “censorship” but that was not the case at all.
No one was proposing to deny Mapplethorpe or Serrano the opportunity to sell their miserable wares to willing buyers, or to exhibit them at private galleries (which indeed happened). Certainly no one was threatening to deny employment to the artists (which happens in countries that practice censorship), or God forbid, to arrest them. The proposal was simply to refrain from offering such works taxpayer subsidies.
Liberals want to crush America as we have known it. If you’re a liberal, just admit it, you want socialism. You want everything to be “fair.” You want fast Internet broadband to be a right. You want the government to provide free health care. Free education. You want everyone to subsidize “art” – even the repulsive stuff.
You want the government to feed your kids breakfast and lunch at school, and when school is off for vacation, you want the kids to be able to go to school and still get their free lunch. You want the government to guaranty your job, your salary, your paid vacation. You want the government to ban substances and food that is not good for you.
You want the government to guaranty a comfortable place to live. You want government sponsored transportation systems that can take you to work for free. You want to define when people have made “enough” money. You want a “living wage.” You want to be able to retire and live comfortably after you turn 65. You want Social Security to cover all of your expenses once you retire.
Come on, just admit it. That’s the Democratic National Committee’s platform. Right there in that paragraph! Embrace it!
I don’t consider them brainwashed. People should be upset when our First Amendment rights are being jeopardized. So they must be upset about those Republican Senators of Indiana. The legislation ? Indiana Senate Bill 251 ? grants Indiana public schools and charter schools the right to require daily recitation of the Lord?s Prayer by students, by teachers, or by the entire class. Isn’t that ridiculous? One of the senators even said he knows it’s against the Constitution but he doesn’t care. So Steve, maybe you could write something about this, and the way Republicans in Indiana are trying to take away those children’s rights. I could help you if you want.
I don’t live in Indiana.? Do you?? That is their business.? Can non Christians can be excused from recitation?? You didn’t say.
But let’s try to stay on the topic, shall we?
I’d consider it, but simply because you took the time to inject this as a comment that has NOTHING to do with the actual post, I’m not going to bother. Go create your own blog, pay for the design and hosting, and write your own post. I could help you if you want.
So if I’m not Catholic I shouldn’t be upset about what’s happening with Catholic churches and universities? By the way, Steve posed this “Argue against this statement in the comments:?True rights exist?simultaneously?between people, and exercising those rights can not diminish the rights of another.”. So I was staying on topic. Then he went on to ask “What is it that causes liberals to ignore that sentence?”. I clearly did not ignore it. I went on to address it and give another example of how I’m not directly involved in that particular instance, but how we collectively need to have issue with our rights being jeopardized.
And I also answered his question asked in the title of his post in the first two sentences of my first comment.
That said, I think the legislation is stupid and should not pass. I also think the government should immediately withdraw themselves from the education business.
I’m sorry if I took your comments the wrong way, but just as I figured the law does not “require” anything of an individual, offering the student & parent the option not to participate. I’m still not for this legislation, but maybe it’s illustrating absurdity by being absurd since we’ve got liberals censoring a valedictorian’s speech removing all references to God on a routine basis.
I just think if the children want to say the Lord’s Prayer, why not do so before you leave for school? I think if the valedictorian were to speak about God’s influence on their personal success, I see nothing wrong with it. But if it was used as an exercise in preaching religion then I’d disagree. Quite honestly, I’m so sick of political correctness and oversensitivity. When this topic of the Catholic church, contraception, and First Amendment rights were first dividers on Jim’s show was first presented, I think my original reaction was “jeez, give me a break.”. But shortly after, I realized the importance of the discussion. I started listening to Jim in 2008, and soon learned about Chris Dodd. My husband didn’t believe anything I said, until he saw Capitalism, A Love Story. Just as he knew nothing about Solyndra, or Fast and Furious. He’ll make his own argument on both topics now, and we respect eachothers opinions. Guess my point is I do my best to keep an open mind. when someone has a difference of opinion, as long as it’s respectfully presented, I’ll consider it. And I just want to say my remark “I could help you write it” was frustration boiling over. And for that, I am sorry.
I’m with you, unless it is a parochial school, of course.? Then you know what you are buying into.? Kind of like a Jesuit Law school….
Oops, that was supposed to say “were first discussed on Jim’s show” not dividers. I’ve got Fat Finger Syndrome.
Chelly1222, I like your style. Thanks for having an open mind.
My, my, my aren’t we insulting today!? Total Rush Limbaugh fabrication about liberals. This post is as silly as the liberals? saying that all conservatives are” PBR swilling, bible thumping, sister kissing…” whatever the rest is…(The only thing is I never heard a liberal say that about the right….only another right-wing? fantasy about what liberals think.)
What, like the ones who send us emails and call us racist bigots??
“True rights exist?simultaneously?between people, and exercising those rights can not diminish the rights of another”.
Nice sentence, but who gets to define and decide?
Nobody. True rights are unalienable, or if you prefer inalienable. “The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.”
You know … all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. As an example, their is no absolute “unalienable right” to health care services since that would mean someone (a doctor/nurse) would be conscripted into providing that “right” without due compensation. That’s slavery. Therefore, exercising a true right, by definition can not diminish the rights of another.
You just defined and decided, in spite of the opening “nobody”. I am sorry, but it sounds like “revealed truth”.
Very well then. Enjoy your “rights” provided by government, your employer and your insurance carriers. I’ve been as clear as I can be … you just don’t get what I’m saying … fine enough.
Steve responded to your question.? What is your response to?that same question?
The Founding Fathers were wise enough to say that: “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Note they said “among these”, which I take to mean that they did not preclude that there could be other rights other than the three they named. I get what you are saying. You do not get what I am saying. And surely I can only enjoy the rights that the government allows me to have. Or is this a free for all?
Oh, I get exactly what you are saying. Some of the items you define as “rights” are products or services that should be paid for or provided by someone else. If that’s not the case, what other rights would you list that are not paid for or provided by someone else or a collective group?
Sammy makes a good point, and to that I will say that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the tools given to us by our founding fathers to explore and update the rights which may be “unalienable” through a defined process of amendment, not legislation or executive order or Supreme court dictate.
See?that I included all 3, seperate but equal, branches of government in those exclusions.?
What? Unalienable rights can not be handed out in an amendment to the Constitution. That’s ridiculous because that new “right” can be taken away in the same way. It does not meet the definition of unalienable. No way, no how.
I did not define any rights, because I do not presume to tell you what you should believe they are. The Founding Fathers named three that were consistent with the “enlightenment” of the time . Is that all we “get”? Is that all there was in the late 1700’s? You seem to know? what are the “absolute rights” of individuals, what is unalienable and/or meets its definition. Now I understand better.
Steve, my comment about Sammy’s point was about the process and how our rights are protected from tampering by any one branch of gov’t. Perhaps a better choice of words would have made my point more relevant.
I think unalienable rights are those that are implied (like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and don’t cost taxpayers money.? If a “right” for one costs in taxes from another, someone’s “rights” are being compromised (the taxpayer’s rights, typically).?
No, I’m not Catholic, but I am strongly against our government even suggesting that this Church — with it’s very clear doctrine — should be footing the bill for contraception for recreational sex.? If it’s a medical necessity, fine, but ‘medical necessity’ must be defined by someone who isn’t going to financially OR politically benefit from increased insurance coverage for free birth control pills.?
Does my belief that birth control isn’t an unalienable *right* make me brainwashed?? According to some, it may.
I’m not brainwashed and I have inalienable rights, if you please.
Steve says nobody decides/defines what unalienable rights are, winnie thinks she knows what they are (and defines at least one which is not) and Lynn has inalienable rights, period. So is it a free for all?
Ahhh, snark from Sammy.? What a shock.? Someone musta peed in his cheerios today.
Steve, this is precious! You have defined liberalism and the liberals all came out. Super. And, they all wanted to restate the obvious. Inalienable rights, what’s so difficult about that? I know it’s a very complex concept. It does not need redefining. We already were given the Bill of Rights.
Liberals always want to re-frame the topic for their benefit. Why can’t they accept our founding documents the way they were written without adjustment?
To the point of the post: why is being one thing (Catholic or First Amendment) mutually exclusive of the other? They aren’t!
It is liberals who believe that they have free speech and they can speak for you. And, they are right, err, correct, always. Don’t believe it? They will write a law and force you to believe the way they do.
Liberals believe all rights come from government, and can be doled out and taken away on a whim, while conservatives believe that all rights come from God, and are innate, immutable, and cannot be withdrawn.
Dims made it clear for the conservative side where all rights come from. Sounds like dogma to me, but then…..
So be it.? My “dogma” is that all people have innate rights that should not be parceled out by government at their “discretion”.? Or worse, “waived” if you are a “friend” of the government.
Well, I’m going with Dims and taking the God-given rights…can I get an “Amen!”???
You can have all the democrat-given rights (ahem…welfare programs) you want, sammy, because eventually there won’t be any money left to pay for them and then they’ll be gonzo.? And I’ll still have my God-given rights.?
Oh, and if, by your rules, it has to be an either/or situation (as in they’re God-given OR government-given), remember, you’re on the side that thinks “dogma” so you don’t get to switch sides and hijack my God-given rights after the government cuts yours off.? So, yeah…while your opinion has nothing to do with me, good luck with it, anyway. Only time will tell if it ‘pays off’ in the end.