XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.abortion, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.obama   
   From: iwas@theditch.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Ubiquitous  wrote:   
      
   > New York Times editorials are often worth reading--stop laughing, we're   
   > serious!--because they provide a window into the mindset of the liberal   
   > left, the ideological tendency that dominates many major cultural   
   > institutions and, for at least the next 11 months, the executive branch   
   > of the federal government.   
   >   
   > Times editorialists write for people who think alike and seek   
   > reinforcement of their prejudices. Unconstrained by any need for   
   > compromise or political sensitivity, they provide an honest distillation   
   > of left-liberalism, something you can't always get from politicians who   
   > need to appeal broadly enough to win electoral majorities or even from   
   > the leaders of other institutions that serve a more diverse audience or   
   > clientele. What you learn from reading Times editorialists is that the   
   > fundamental attitude of left-liberalism today is one of contemptuous   
   > ignorance.   
   >   
   > Thus after President Obama made a symbolic concession to religious   
   > liberty last week, the Times once again employed scare quotes to sneer   
   > at the entire idea. This time it was in the very first phrase of its   
   > Saturday editorial:   
   >   
   > 	In response to a phony crisis over "religious liberty"   
   > 	engendered by the right, President Obama seems to have   
   > 	stood his ground on an essential principle--free access   
   > 	to birth control for any woman. . . .   
   >   
   > 	Nonetheless, it was dismaying to see the president lend any   
   > 	credence to the misbegotten notion that providing access to   
   > 	contraceptives violated the freedom of any religious   
   > 	institution. Churches are given complete freedom by the   
   > 	Constitution to preach that birth control is immoral, but   
   > 	they have not been given the right to laws that would deprive   
   > 	their followers or employees of the right to disagree with   
   > 	that teaching.   
   >   
   > In truth, no one denies that individuals have "the right to disagree   
   > with that teaching," and the religious institutions that object to the   
   > mandate do not claim the authority to police their employees' private   
   > lives or opinions. Rather, they oppose the government's attempt to   
   > coerce them into facilitating the practices they preach against.   
   >   
   > The editorial continues by assuring the Times's readers that everyone   
   > who disagrees is dishonest, because the Times knows what they _really_   
   > think: "The president's solution, however, demonstrates that those still   
   > angry about the mandate aren't really concerned about religious freedom;   
   > they simply don't like birth control and want to reduce access to it."   
   > The evidence for this assertion is laughable:   
   >   
   > Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that   
   > would allow any employer to refuse to cover birth control by claiming to   
   > have a religious objection. The House speaker, John Boehner, also   
   > supports the concept. Rick Santorum said Friday that no insurance policy   
   > should cover it, apparently unaware that many doctors prescribe birth   
   > control pills for medical reasons other than contraception.   
   > The Rubio and Boehner examples, as described here, offer zero support   
   > for the Times's claim that opponents "don't like birth control" and   
   > contradict the claim that they "aren't really concerned about religious   
   > freedom." The Rubio bill would give broader recognition to religious   
   > freedom than an exemption limited to religious institutions.   
   >   
   > As for Santorum, our sense is that he has serious, and quite reasonable,   
   > doubts that birth control is good for society, But let's stipulate for   
   > the sake of argument that he doesn't "like birth control." First of all,   
   > so what? The Times editorialists may believe that birth control is   
   > valuable or beneficial, but it's weird that they get bent out of shape   
   > merely because other people don't like the stuff. Second, even if the   
   > Times accurately characterizes the former senator's views on birth   
   > control, it is both a non sequitur and, knowing Santorum, a completely   
   > preposterous assertion that he isn't "really concerned about religious   
   > freedom."   
   >   
   > This columnist likes birth control a lot. To our mind, it is one of the   
   > greatest conveniences of modern life. As we are not Catholic, we don't   
   > share the church's moral objections to abortifacient drugs or   
   > sterilization procedures. But as we are American, we care a lot about   
   > religious liberty, and about liberty more generally. Thus we view the   
   > birth-control mandate as a particular outrage and ObamaCare more   
   > generally as a monstrosity.   
   >   
   >  .Times columnist Gail Collins went off message, beginning her column on   
   > the same day as the editorial: "It's not really about birth control." We   
   > got a good laugh imagining left-liberals who look to the Times for   
   > guidance, driving themselves crazy trying to reconcile the dueling   
   > messages.   
   >   
   > But Collins is right that it's not about birth control. It's about   
   > freedom from government coercion. She wants more coercion; as she puts   
   > it sneeringly: "National standards, national coverage--all of that   
   > offends the Tea Party ethos that wants to keep the federal government   
   > out of every aspect of American life that does not involve bombing   
   > another country." But at least she has some rudimentary understanding of   
   > the other side of the debate.   
   >   
   > Not so Nicholas Kristof, who in his column yesterday treated us to this   
   > magnificently funny display of un-self-awareness:   
   >   
   > 	I may not be as theologically sophisticated as American   
   > 	bishops, but I had thought that Jesus talked more about   
   > 	helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.   
   >   
   > 	The debates about pelvic politics over the last week sometimes   
   > 	had a patronizing tone . . .   
   >   
   > Yeah, tell us about it! Physician, heal thyself. But the most revealing   
   > Kristof quote is this one: "The basic principle of American life is that   
   > we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can."   
   >   
   > This prompted an incandescently furious response from Albert Mohler,   
   > president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:   
   >   
   > 	Nicholas Kristof's statement is light years beyond the President   
   > 	in disrespect for religious liberty.   
   >   
   > 	Where would we find what Kristof describes as "the basic   
   > 	principle of American life," when he goes on to state that   
   > 	principle with language as chilling as "we try to respect   
   > 	religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can"?   
   >   
   > 	The language of accommodation is almost as old as the   
   > 	Constitution itself, but it was never framed as Kristof   
   > 	frames it--certainly not by the founders who spoke of   
   > 	"inalienable rights" granted to human beings by the Creator's   
   > 	endowment.   
   >   
   > 	Can you imagine any of the founders speaking as Kristof   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)