XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.abortion, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.obama   
   From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com   
      
   On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:46:46 -0800, Juris Diction    
   wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)