Gay Patriot Header Image

The Grand Opportunity Party

This piece was originally posted by my good friend Billy at the Charleston Tea Party webpage and at RedState.  It is re-posted here in full.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

*********

New US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hits the nail squarely on the head in this piece for the Washington Post. The Republicans MUST become more effective at presenting the idea of the opportunities that conservatism provides. The GOP no longer needs to be known as the Grand Old Party, but the Great Opportunity Party. Our principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and a desire to make tomorrow better than today, are what make us uniquely qualified to address our nation’s challenges in the most productive manner. We MUST become salespeople of conservative ideals.

What is the opportunity that the GOP provides? We have a belief in the power of the individual to improve their own lot in life. We understand that it is hard work and a desire to learn that allows people to invest in their future. We KNOW that America and our founding principles are what continue to make America that “shining city on a hill” that John Winthrop spoke of as he reached the shores of this great land. I believe that we are at a time for choosing, and we must do as Reagan said, ““Four years ago we raised a banner of bold colors – no pale pastels. We proclaimed a dream of an America that would be a ‘shining city on a hill’.” We’re talking about the same bold colors today – crafting a message of opportunity and then communicating that message eloquently, forcefully, and without apology.

We offer a spirit of entrepreneurship. This idea is not only confined to those that own their own business, it applies to everyone as they seek to do their job to the best of their ability. I remember a store manager early in my career said to me, “Billy, in order for us to be successful, we need to run it like we own it.” He meant to take pride in the job that I did, and if I took ownership of the job I was assigned, I would be rewarded. This lesson paid off, as a short period of time later I entered the management training program. I continued to carry that philosophy throughout my time in the grocery business, and continue it today as I have a small business of my own. Any person can be an “entrepreneur,” whether it is the men and women that keep the office clean, the folks that make the products we use everyday, or the people that take care of us when we go out to eat. Anyone that takes pride in their job, and seeks a way to improve, is an entrepreneur.

We offer a way to invest in their future. The ability of an individual to keep the fruits of their labor is essential to investment. When we speak of “investing,” we don’t mean merely putting money in a 401(k), we mean saving to buy a place that you can call home, to buy books for your children so they may learn, to afford a family vacation so that you can make memories that will last a lifetime. Investment can take on many of these forms, but it is about one fundamental idea, “I want to make tomorrow better than today.”

We know that personal responsibility is essential to success. When you play by the rules and work hard you CAN succeed, however a burdensome government can often make this more difficult. The wages that people earn should not be used to bail out irresponsible business owners and others that have made poor decisions. The ability to fail is essential to success, I have learned far more from my failures, than I learned from my successes. If that opportunity to fail was not there, I would never have learned those valuable lessons. When people make bad decisions in business, they need to be allowed to fail, so that we all may learn these lessons to ensure success in the future. It is much better to learn not to touch a hot stove by watching someone else burn themselves, than putting yourself through that pain.

We have many other reasons for why we truly are the “Great Opportunity Party,” and this is just a start. I challenge each of you to think of ways that opportunity can lead to success, and to become salespeople of these ideals. Change begins at home, and I hope many of you will join us in this fight. We must shout our message from the rooftops, and liberate everyone from the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” We can continue to ensure that America remains that “last best hope for mankind,” but it will take all of us working towards a common goal to get there.

Share

81 Comments

  1. Your description of single women, not mine.

    Then you go on to claim that single women voted overwhelmingly against Romney because of their sex lives and cost of contraceptives. That is classic “taker” talk. “Service my vaginal needs.”

    You objectified single women this way. Not me. The rest of your blather, including attacking my religious belied system, is just typical Levi inanity.

    I said that many single women enjoy sex, which is an undeniably true statement that passes absolutely no judgment on women or the act of having sex itself. Indeed, you could say the same thing of the opposite gender, or even human beings in general. If I say that men enjoy having sex, am I objectifying men? If I say that I enjoy sex, am I objectifying myself? If I say that human beings enjoy have sex, am I objectifying human beings?

    I said that many single women use contraceptives, which is is an undeniably true statement that passes absolutely no judgment on women or the act of using contraception. Indeed, you could say the same thing of the opposite gender, or even human beings in general. If I say that men use contraceptives, am I objectifying (ARE YOU GETTING WHERE THIS IS GOING YET?)

    I said that many single women believe contraceptives are too expensive. Can you fill in the blanks at this point?

    I think it’s as I said – you don’t really know what the word ‘objectify’ means, because none of what I said fits that definition. I could have said, “Wouldn’t you know that many single women like going to the circus, smoking cigarettes, and chasing cars down the street?”, and it makes just as much sense to say that this statement objectifies women as it does the other statement. Which is to say, absolutely none whatsoever.

    And no, that isn’t my description of single women. Describing single women is easy – single women are women that are not married. What I did was list a few common characteristics of single women, that would also apply to married women and men.

    Further, I did not go on to claim that single women voted overwhelmingly against Romney because of their sex lives and cost of contraceptives. It’s really hard to narrow down the reasoning that goes into why people cast a vote, but pollsters do capture demographic information so that we can try to infer some things. And some political issues are more relevant to certain demographics than others. Think about gay people. There is one party that supports gay marriage and one party that opposes it. Given this information, it should be fairly obvious that the gay vote is going to go disproportionately to the party that supports gay marriage. Same thing with contraception. This is an issue that involves women, and more specifically, women that are sexually active and who want to avoid pregnancy (single women is a fair enough stand-in). Now, there is one party that supports contraception coverage and is pro-choice, and there’s another party where Rush Limbaugh gets ahead by calling women sluts. Again, should we be surprised about how this demographic ends up voting when these are the options they’re presented with?

    Single women have the most at stake when it comes to contraception policies in this country, and while liberals are making their case for making contraception more widely available, conservatives are accusing women of being sluts for even caring about the issue. And in political discussions, when one side is avoiding making a counter-argument and instead offers insults, it’s usually safe to assume that they’re full of shit. And if somebody is full of shit about one thing, they’re probably going to be full of shit about other things, too.

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 3:47 pm - January 24, 2013

  2. Well, yes, Sandra Fluke was demanding that other people pay for her contraception, and she the rest of the left were screaming that those who opposed paying for her contraception wanted women to have no “access to contraception.”

    So, the position of the left is that women only have “access to contraception” when it is paid for by someone else; never mind that no Republican was talking about outlawing contraception. Nor was Mitt Romney going to outlaw tampons, as Obama supporters claimed.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 3:59 pm - January 24, 2013

  3. Why is GOProud supporting the March for Life?

    Not all members or supporters support a pro-life position…and it’s not part of the Mission Statement. A unilateral right-turn by the Board to curry favor? I thought that was the critique against the LCR and the HRC?

    Abortion must stop being the litmus-test for “orthodoxy” within the GOP.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 24, 2013 @ 4:02 pm - January 24, 2013

  4. I just don’t believe that telling pro-lifers to go piss up a rope is the key to rebuilding a Republican majority.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - January 24, 2013

  5. It is a false choice to say that not forcing employers to provide birth control is equivalent to being opposed to birth control.

    You’re right, that would be a false choice. You can support contraception and oppose ‘forcing employers to provide birth control’ and not be contradicting yourself.

    Unfortunately for you, that’s not really the issue. The specific issue is whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees, and more generally, whether or not we should allow people to ignore laws they don’t like for any reason.

    The first one, quickly. Employers don’t have the right to interfere in their employees’ healthcare. It’s none of their business if or why a woman is using contraception. Claiming that your conscience doesn’t permit you to do something is fine, but you can’t extrapolate that to include everybody under your employ.

    Secondly, and this is really the only thing that matters – people shouldn’t be allowed to ignore laws just because they feel like it. This is basic civics stuff. The rule of law depends on equal application, and if representatives pass a law and the President signs it, then that’s it. There are no exemptions, that’s not how government works.

    And if you were going to start handing out exemptions, the Catholics are hardly deserving! They spent the last part of the 20th century arguing that dying of AIDS was better than living with condoms, and you think this attitude is deserving of an exemption? You think that a group of men that don’t permit women to attain leadership roles in their organization should be given special permission to influence the decisions that a woman makes about her body with her doctor? “Well, I’d like to prescribe you something that will help you, but your boss says I can’t!” Especially when some huge percentage of Catholic women use contraception! Nothing about this can be construed as an exercise of religious freedom – it’s a group of people trying to force their preferences on subordinates who are inherently at a disadvantage.

    Why don’t you just let a bunch of anti-vaccination people administer Health and Human Services?

    If you can’t afford birth control, either wear a condom, don’t have sex, or deal with the consequences without forcing taxpayers to deal with them. There is no common sense any more…

    Ah yeah, this is one of those ‘common sense’ solutions you conservatives are always going on about, where you ignore your opponent’s arguments, don’t offer any of your own, and simply suggest that everyone should behave perfectly. Well, wouldn’t that be great?

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    The cycle has to stop somewhere, and you can make it happen by encouraging people to use contraception. Yes, people should be responsible, but you also have to take into account that people aren’t going to be responsible, and that there is a social cost to their irresponsibility. Now, the choice is whether or not you want those social costs to swell and swell until they’re overwhelming, or you make access to contraception even easier. Yes, contraception is already widely available and relatively inexpensive. That shouldn’t matter – if you want people to use something, there are always ways to make it more available and less expensive.

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 4:58 pm - January 24, 2013

  6. Time for a 10 pound sledge hammer and a steel wedge.

    Hey, aren’t you pro-choice, too?

    It never ceases to amaze how dead-headed desperate dumba$$es are.

    I know that “prohibiting” abortion is impossible in the same way prohibiting drugs, homosexuality, dreaming, thumb sucking and crotch scratching is impossible.

    If a woman has a prohibited abortion does society in general care to stone her, hang her, imprison her, drown her or what? How about the abortionist? Maybe the abortionist has 32 children under five and keeps stray animals and knits blankets for orphans.

    So, I accept abortion on the terms that it be a medical decision arrived at with all care to make it necessary and a rare procedure.

    And thelittlefascist insists on dragging me into his mindless, amoral, ethically bankrupt “pro-choice” club.

    Let this be a lesson to all. If you can be shown to agree in some slight way with a Progressive ideologue, you have to take the full doxology all the way through to its very worst characteristics. Next thing coming my way is that I support partial birth abortion as a party game.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 5:06 pm - January 24, 2013

  7. [1.] The specific issue is whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees, and more generally, [2.] whether or not we should allow people to ignore laws they don’t like for any reason.

    [1.] Employers are not required to buy top-shelf medical insurance that covers eyes, teeth, hearing, plastic surgery, etc. That would logically translate into the issue of “whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees” as those issues are unquestionably “healthcare decisions” being made by the employer under thelittlefascist’s rubric.

    [2.] “for any reason” is not the issue. The First Amendment is the issue. Can an employer deny contraception coverage as a matter of religious conscience?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 5:21 pm - January 24, 2013

  8. The cycle has to stop somewhere, and you can make it happen by encouraging people to use contraception.

    The Social Darwinist is all hot for eugenics. Feed the little girls contraceptives and help rid the cities of problems before they get born.

    Contraceptives do not begin to control STD’s and they are far from being medically benign.

    Thelittlefascist needs an enemy to mask his overflowing and gushing tolerance for irresponsible hedonistic sexual gratification.

    Let’s ask why most middle school, high school and college age women are NOT pregnant. Are they all good little consumers of contraception? How about STD’s. Do most middle school, high school and college men and women have STD’s? No? Why, pray tell?

    Suppose Hobby Lobby were court ordered to pay every employee the equivalent of having contraceptive coverage as part of the health plan. The employee could use the money to buy the coverage or not. Nearly 100% of the male employees would not, because pregnancy is not one of their problems. Ooops! Sex discrimination. But then, again, why should a male pay an extra premium cost for coverage he does not need?

    I really am not posing this Hobby Lobby scenario with any thought of it being a serious conundrum. That is the level thelittlefascist’s alleged mind works at. The point is all this contraceptive crap is just social Darwinist posturing and pouting.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 5:45 pm - January 24, 2013

  9. The cycle has to stop somewhere, and you can make it happen by encouraging people to use contraception.

    I guess that’s way easier than, you know, trying to teach people values or self-respect; so they might behave like something other then sex-crazed animals. I mean, only crazy religious people think self-restraint is a practical means of protecting oneself against disease and unwanted pregnancy.

    And, as Heliotrope said, contraceptives won’t protect against STD’s, but who cares. It’s not like chlamydia, hepatitis, or HIV are serious health problems.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - January 24, 2013

  10. The first one, quickly. Employers don’t have the right to interfere in their employees’ healthcare. It’s none of their business if or why a woman is using contraception. Claiming that your conscience doesn’t permit you to do something is fine, but you can’t extrapolate that to include everybody under your employ.

    Yes you can.

    Because it’s their choice whether or not they want to work for you.

    You want your abortions paid for? Find an employer that does it, or go into business for yourself.

    Your lies simply don’t work on informed people, Levi. If you weren’t so ignorant, you might be aware of actual facts instead of just repeating lies.

    Secondly, and this is really the only thing that matters – people shouldn’t be allowed to ignore laws just because they feel like it. This is basic civics stuff. The rule of law depends on equal application, and if representatives pass a law and the President signs it, then that’s it. There are no exemptions, that’s not how government works.

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 6:17 pm - January 24, 2013

  11. It never ceases to amaze how dead-headed desperate dumba$$es are.

    I know that “prohibiting” abortion is impossible in the same way prohibiting drugs, homosexuality, dreaming, thumb sucking and crotch scratching is impossible.

    If a woman has a prohibited abortion does society in general care to stone her, hang her, imprison her, drown her or what? How about the abortionist? Maybe the abortionist has 32 children under five and keeps stray animals and knits blankets for orphans.

    So, I accept abortion on the terms that it be a medical decision arrived at with all care to make it necessary and a rare procedure.

    None of this deviates from my position in any significant way….

    And thelittlefascist insists on dragging me into his mindless, amoral, ethically bankrupt “pro-choice” club.

    … but it’s too difficult to say that you agree with me, and so you have to pretend like we’re miles apart. I don’t see it. You either believe abortion should be illegal, or you believe abortion should be legal. Either, or. There are commonly agreed upon terms to describe these positions, pro-life and pro-choice. So what, have you invented a third category for you and you alone?

    Let this be a lesson to all. If you can be shown to agree in some slight way with a Progressive ideologue, you have to take the full doxology all the way through to its very worst characteristics. Next thing coming my way is that I support partial birth abortion as a party game.

    You didn’t agree with me ‘in some slight way,’ you agree with me almost completely. You’ve got some complaints about partial birth abortions, which I’ve addressed repeatedly by reminding you that this is a tiny fraction of the overall percentage of abortions, that the vast majority of them are medically necessary, and that Republican-lead efforts to restrict abortion access (closing clinics, requiring multiple visits, waiting periods, etc.) result in delaying abortions – which obviously means there are going to be more of the partial-birth variety.

    I don’t like partial-birth abortions any more than you do, but this is the exact same issue with the abortion problem in general; you can’t just apply a one-size-fits-all solution for all women in every situation. The method was invented for medical reasons, and it’s used almost exclusively for medical reasons. I would completely agree that a woman with means who gets pregnant and waits around until she’s 6 months pregnant before having an abortion is a deplorable human being. With so many people, it’s bound to happen every once in awhile. But a handful of cases per year does not warrant banning the procedure outright for the many women who require the procedure for medical reasons.

    But yeah, whatever – pretend like I’m being the asshole. You’ve cast me as amoral, and amoral I must remain, even when you find yourself in agreement with me, so you might as well let all that pro-lifer propaganda fill in the rest. Sure, I might give you some reasons for why I think abortion should be legal, but you know the truth – I’m just into having unattached sex with strangers and dragging my conquests into the partial-birth abortion clinics, right? You reluctantly accept abortion as a lesser of two evils, but I just think abortions are awesome and fun, right?

    Comment by Levi — January 24, 2013 @ 6:43 pm - January 24, 2013

  12. You didn’t agree with me ‘in some slight way,’ you agree with me almost completely.

    There you go again.

    If I wrote the statutes permitting abortion, you would be first in line attacking me and disagreeing with me.

    Get over yourself. Agreeing with you is not to think at all.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 6:50 pm - January 24, 2013

  13. *sits back and watches popcorn as Levi is schooled again.*

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 24, 2013 @ 7:01 pm - January 24, 2013

  14. *sits back and watches popcorn as Levi is schooled again.*

    Unfortunately, while Heliotrope is schooling him, Levi is sitting at the back of the classroom eating paste.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2013 @ 8:28 pm - January 24, 2013

  15. [Comment deleted as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 11:23 pm - January 24, 2013

  16. If society is powerless to pressuring teens to be abstinent, then what is the point of spending billions on anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-drug campaigns? Is sexuality the only area of the teen psyche where societal pressure won’t change behavior?

    Or, is it because liberals want to have a broad pool of weak-willed teenagers to bone?

    Comment by V the K — January 25, 2013 @ 7:53 am - January 25, 2013

  17. “Would someone explain to me what is so awful about the wholesome “Ward and June” family ideal, and why it is so hated by some people?”, V the K

    Never said I was a hater of Ward and June Cleaver. Families are great but the family unit isn’t what it used to be. Two men or two women can make a strong parenting unit and raise healthy, well-rounded children. When the Republican Party can accept that it will be much more in sync with the majority of Americans. Until then every time they bring up the topic they just remind Americans how much out of touch they are.

    Comment by David — January 25, 2013 @ 8:09 am - January 25, 2013

  18. Two men or two women can make a strong parenting unit and raise healthy, well-rounded children.

    I sort of accept that. I sort of accept that a single parent can raise healthy, well-rounded children. I sort of accept that the TV “daddy” with eleven children by ten wives can raise healthy, well-rounded children.

    Why do I “sort of” accept that? Because it not the norm, it is an anomaly.

    Progressives are all over “bullying” in schools. What is the likelihood that a kid with two daddies or two mommies is going to be the object of curiosity in middle school? Oh, I know the answer, we will just have to educate the red-neck kids to be more diverse and tolerant.

    Somehow, this grand experiment of altering nature of nature never has taken hold in the history of societies. Sure, Chinese kill extra child units and Indians abort females asap and some people farm kids out to strangers. But what is the 3,000 year norm? Why is that? Nobody was ever as smart and sensitive and tolerant as us?

    I really don’t know much about the demographics in The Netherlands, but I found this interesting:

    ….the Netherlands ended up with two legal statuses for both same-sex and different-sex couples. And married same-sex couples still don’t have the same parental rights as different-sex married couples. Same-sex married couples can’t adopt children internationally, and a non-biological lesbian parent only gets “parental authority” for a child born to her female spouse, not automatic parental rights. To get full parental rights, the non-biological parent must still formally adopt the child.

    It seems that the highly tolerant and liberal country of The Netherlands has not yet “normalized” gay parenthood.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 9:30 am - January 25, 2013

  19. [1.] Employers are not required to buy top-shelf medical insurance that covers eyes, teeth, hearing, plastic surgery, etc. That would logically translate into the issue of “whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees” as those issues are unquestionably “healthcare decisions” being made by the employer under thelittlefascist’s rubric.

    Obviously, employers shouldn’t have to pay for their employees’ boob jobs. But women don’t have the option of not dealing with their reproductive organs.

    [2.] “for any reason” is not the issue. The First Amendment is the issue. Can an employer deny contraception coverage as a matter of religious conscience?

    You need a few things explained. ‘Religious conscience’ is effectively the same thing as ‘for any reason.’ Religion isn’t special. I can invent a religion in five seconds. There, it’s done. Now I have my own religion, and my five-second-old religion is just as important as your 2,000 year-old religion, according to the First Amendment. If you can invoke your religious conscience, then so can I. I think I’ll go with…. public nudity laws. My new religion teaches that clothes are evil, so adherents of my religion can claim an exception to all public nudity laws because of their religious conscience. I’m just applying your logic.

    Your problem is that you think the First Amendment gives you superpowers. You think it means that your religion can serve as a permission slip for a few things, including in this case, not having to comply with a law. As usual, you’re completely incorrect – the First Amendment actually means that nobody has superpowers, and that invoking your religion in an argument is about as valid as invoking an episode of the Powerpuff Girls. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, it means that everyone is accountable for themselves. The real violation of the First Amendment would be to permit religious people to force their employees to comply with their religious preferences. Here’s how freedom of religion is supposed to work – if you have a religious objection to contraception, you don’t have to use it. You can even go around telling people that contraception is evil and that they shouldn’t use it either. What it doesn’t allow you to do is leverage your position of authority to coerce your subordinates into complying with your beliefs.

    And as for the actual belief itself, let’s talk about that for a minute. Certainly, I can imagine a scenario where a government passes an immoral law. If religious people objected to that law with a sound moral argument, I might be able to get behind the idea of invoking your ‘religious conscience.’ Is opposition to birth control one such belief?

    No. Contraception is one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. Contraception saves lives, contraception prevents the spread of disease, contraception lowers poverty, contraception promotes equality, etc. Once contraception is invented, if your organization insists on calling contraception evil and spreading lies about contraception, than that organization is actively killing people. Have a gander: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids Sure as shooting them in the face, the Catholic Church killed people with its misinformation campaigns.

    Is this a belief that society is supposed to respect and make special accommodations for? I don’t think so! It’s a belief that simply doesn’t make any sense on scientific, social, ethical, or economic levels. The Vatican’s opposition to birth control is politically motivated and has more to do with replenishing the Catholics’ ranks than anything else. There’s nothing about contraception in the Bible, some guy just arbitrarily said it was against the rules. Is that all it takes?

    Imagine a Scientologist employer telling his employees that he refuses to cover mental health problems. His claim of ‘religious conscience’ is just as valid as yours, if not more so, since the belief is a critical component of the religion. Now think back to my new religion’s claim of ‘religious conscience.’ Just as equally valid. If a ten-year old invented a religion based on the Pokemon, he’d also have opportunities to claim ‘religious conscience’ for whatever he could dream up. When you don’t care about having evidence or justifying your beliefs, you can just say anything. What’s the standard? How do we know which ‘religious conscience’ exemptions are valid and which ones are bullshit?

    Fortunately, they invented the First Amendment to straighten this all out for us – they’re all bullshit! We don’t have to worry about determining which claims are worthy and which ones aren’t, because the First Amendment establishes that none of them are worthy. Now feel free – go to church, pray to god, seethe with anger that people are having sex and using contraception, but don’t think for a minute that just because you walk around calling yourself a Catholic means you’re entitled to coerce people into living their lives according to your beliefs.

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - January 25, 2013

  20. [Comment deleted as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - January 25, 2013

  21. …..because the First Amendment establishes that none of them are worthy.

    BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Citation needed.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 12:41 pm - January 25, 2013

  22. Citation? You expect Levi to use facts?

    Actually the blind squirrel found a nut (no not himself) here.

    can invent a religion in five seconds. There, it’s done. Now I have my own religion, and my five-second-old religion is just as important as your 2,000 year-old religion, according to the First Amendment.

    Q: What’s the difference between a religion and a cult?
    A: About 2000 years.

    People who have businesses have a right to set conditions for employment. (wage, schedules health benefts 401K, pension, etc.) The employee has a right to decide if they want to accept this.

    In both cases, a person’s faith motivates them. (I know our little fascist doesn’t have faith in anything except him) The first amendment protects both.

    Well it used to.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 25, 2013 @ 1:22 pm - January 25, 2013

  23. BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Citation needed.

    Let me put it this way. What if two religions are in conflict? Who wins? How do we determine which religion is more important than the other? If you’re willing to grant the Catholics’ this exemption, than you’ve laid the logical groundwork for Muslims to get an exemption for, oh, I don’t know, let’s go with mutilating the genitals of their females. How can you justify the Catholic’s exemption while denying the Muslim’s? What standard do we use to determine when a claim of religious conscience is justifiable and when it is not?

    Fortunately, there already is a standard. It’s called the First Amendment, and it solves this problem for us by lumping all religions into the same category, labeled ‘Ignore.’ It just doesn’t matter. Your religious conscience is your religious conscience. You’re free to go round up some converts if you like, but you can’t coerce your underlings into living by your standards, which are arbitrary and inherently mysterious to anyone that isn’t sharing your brain.

    The amendment allows us to think, speak, and believe freely. It means that if you want people to live a certain way, it’s up to you to convince them. It’s called the marketplace of ideas, and it’s quite the improvement over what came before it – theocrats desperately censoring information, burning books, and killing scientists. The First Amendment blocks off those shortcuts and their modern descendants, which are admittedly less brutal (though opposing contraception is still extremely destructive) but still rely on the same, freedom-compromising tactics of fear, coercion, and disproportionate power balances.

    It is decidedly not a permission slips to ignore laws that you don’t like for whatever reason you can imagine.

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 2:01 pm - January 25, 2013

  24. The specific issue is whether or not we should allow employers to make healthcare decisions for their employees

    So, Catholic employers are forcing their employees not to use birth control?

    I don’t know what kind of robot you are, but you can’t really expect human beings to be perfect all the time

    I’m not saying they have to behave perfectly, they should just accept the consequences of their actions. It really isn’t that hard.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 25, 2013 @ 2:07 pm - January 25, 2013

  25. Note again how Levi can’t support his, shall we say unique? take on the first amendment.

    Still, It is fun to quote the wisdom of the founders.

    “The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

    “It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.”

    All from Thomas Jefferson.

    Oh and this gem.
    “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

    See? Who says that the founders couldn’t see trains planes and automobiles? It’s clear he saw Levi coming.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 25, 2013 @ 2:37 pm - January 25, 2013

  26. I’m not saying they have to behave perfectly, they should just accept the consequences of their actions. It really isn’t that hard.

    Well shit, then why don’t you raise the kids?

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 2:52 pm - January 25, 2013

  27. Let me put it this way. What if two religions are in conflict? Who wins? How do we determine which religion is more important than the other? If you’re willing to grant the Catholics’ this exemption, than you’ve laid the logical groundwork for Muslims to get an exemption for, oh, I don’t know, let’s go with mutilating the genitals of their females. How can you justify the Catholic’s exemption while denying the Muslim’s? What standard do we use to determine when a claim of religious conscience is justifiable and when it is not?

    Comment by Levi — January 25, 2013 @ 2:01 pm – January 25, 2013

    Currently, it’s based on whether or not they’re a potential Obama voting bloc.

    So sorry, Levi: your own Obamacare law, your own Obama Party, and your own Obama say that specific religious groups and beliefs are worthy and others are not.

    Which, according to your screaming and bleating, violates “equal protection” and constitutes “government sponsorship of religious beliefs”.

    [Comment edited as a violation of our Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 3:21 pm - January 25, 2013

  28. [Comment deleted due to violation of Community TOS.]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 3:29 pm - January 25, 2013

  29. Well shit, then why don’t you raise the kids?

    Because I’m not having irresponsible sex…

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 26, 2013 @ 12:45 am - January 26, 2013

  30. Because I’m not having irresponsible sex…

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 26, 2013 @ 12:45 am – January 26, 2013

    Exactly, Rattlesnake.

    Why should you be forced to pay for the mistakes and irresponsibility of others?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2013 @ 10:38 am - January 26, 2013

  31. Hosts,

    Please delete all of my comments from this thread as they are possibly not productive to discussion nor entirely gentlemanly in their nature.

    Thank you,

    Heliotrope.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2013 @ 11:21 am - January 26, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.