XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.abortion, alt.politics.usa
XPost: alt.politics.obama
From: iwas@theditch.com
In article <06tnj758hde9852daigiuho5imrlcg9vb1@4ax.com>,
emoneyjoe wrote:
> 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.
> >>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
