This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Has Obama Waged A War On Religion?

Has Obama Waged A War On Religion? - Comments

wrongwatch's Avatar Comment 1 by wrongwatch

there is no free lunch and religion should be on that menu. Religion should be licensed and regulated like any old boy's club. Then we will see how long it lasts.

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:48:05 UTC | #907020

boogerjames's Avatar Comment 2 by boogerjames

They only have to "fund" things like contraceptives to the extent that there employees purchase them. If I require you to pay for all my doctor bills and I never go to the doctor, you've essentially paid for nothing. Same principle here. If their particular religion did a good job of convincing people not to use contraceptives, they wouldn't be having this problem. However, they know it doesn't. They get all upset because they can't force people to follow their rules.

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:12:53 UTC | #907049

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 3 by potteryshard

A financial war with religion is very much needed, but this tenative attempt to even enforce existing law doesn't amount to even an opening skirmish. Note that this war is not an attempt to dictate belief or worship, simply a drive to require religion to be self-supporting.

Religion thrives on the covert subsidization and official blind eyes towards its foundations that preach doctrine while taking "educational" deductions, to owned businesses which are only loosely overseen by taxing agencies. Religion is of course itself a business free of taxation and which produces only alleged benefit to its members, not the the community at large which is forced indirectly subsidize it in the name of our lady of perpetual collections and self-glorification.

This is why I've always felt that non-believers are wasting their time criticizing religious philosophy. (especially since all relgious philosophy amounts to: Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is!) We are not going to get anywhere attacking the advertising; we need to concentrate on attacking the business model.

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:30:46 UTC | #907051

critica's Avatar Comment 4 by critica

Christ, once again. My rights to discriminate against others are being discriminated against. Boo bloody hoo. Grow up.

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:45:00 UTC | #907056

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 5 by susanlatimer

.Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' new Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, believes the First Amendment is clear: The government cannot make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith.

I'm no expert on U.S. Constitutional law but surely, this can't be a valid interpretation? What if your faith means sacrificing babies? What if your deeply held beliefs mean urinating in public fountains every day at lunch time?

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:57:51 UTC | #907060

some asshole's Avatar Comment 6 by some asshole

Well... Isn't this interesting? These religious organizations don't mind sucking in the taxpayer dollar in the form of federal subsidies that many people (myself included) consider wrong and unconstitutional, but they scream bloody murder over this.

If someone covered by an applicable health care plan is religious and opposed to contraception,

THEY. DON'T. HAVE. TO. USE. CONTRACEPTION.

Isn't that simple? Where is the "government coercion"?

Am I missing something?

As far as idiots like Gingrich and Santorum crapping themselves over a "secular" America, well, where those sewer-dwellers and Jefferson diverge, I think I'll side with the latter.

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:38:07 UTC | #907105

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 7 by potteryshard

THEY. DON'T. HAVE. TO. USE. CONTRACEPTION.

I'm not sure that's clear enough. Religious nutters can only hear themselves...

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:59:06 UTC | #907111

I Deny's Avatar Comment 8 by I Deny

To be honest, I'm fed up with the federal government even being involved. Most of our federal laws exist simply because of our over-dependence on them to take care of us.

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:31:01 UTC | #907451

PrivatizeEducaton's Avatar Comment 9 by PrivatizeEducaton

Ron Paul said this in the speech in New Hampshire yesterday. "some people want their freedom to practice their religion one way...some might not want to practice it at all. but freedom, if you understand it, you should all fight for freedom, because you want to exert your freedom the way you want."

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:42:15 UTC | #907565

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 10 by potteryshard

To be honest, I'm fed up with the federal government even being involved. Most of our federal laws exist simply because of our over-dependence on them to take care of us.

While I'm no admirer of the feds, I can't agree with this sentiment. It is far too easy for a smaller localized population to pass restrictive laws. North Carolina outlaws atheists from holding office. Apparently Iowa would like to outlaw anyone who isn't a blue-eyed WASP involved with farming. I think given a chance, Texas would outlaw anyone not driving a gas-guzzling pickup.

Without federal supervision, one have to move from state-to-state to pick which sets of freedoms to practice.

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:28:04 UTC | #907651

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 11 by aroundtown

Has Obama Waged A War On Religion?

What a crock. If anyone has waged a war it's the Republicans who view any government not controlled by them as being illegitimate. They hamstrung Obama from day-one and blocked any measures they could and then piss and moan saying nothing gets done. The bottom line is they serve the rich and pander to religious factions to achieve their goals. Seeing as religious people a vulnerable to being mislead in the first place they serve a very important function to the Republicans who can use them under the guise that they are sensitive to their religious views. The result is bolstered numbers in elections and once they achieve office it is business as usual. I personally feel it is unfortunate that Obama states a belief in God and that has been the position of every President I can think of. I believe George Carlin put it best when he stated the following - God bless you and God bless America is like a verbal tick that all Presidents have to utilize because they will appear un-American if they don't offer the accolade. The only reason that Republicans are nervous about a reduction in religion is they will lose a very important voting block and it is hard to run on a platform of greed. As far as these Bishops go I don't put any credence in these high mucky muck religious nuts who are nothing but people in fancy robes assuming a position of power over the masses. I am not going to be mislead by the Republipukes and I hope others will see through their smoke screen also. My two cents from this EVO unit.

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:28:48 UTC | #908622

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 12 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - spam

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:10:04 UTC | #909461

smitemeifudare's Avatar Comment 13 by smitemeifudare

I would personaly favor cutting the balls of all the fools who are making a big noise about contraception, stop em breeding, lose the stupid gene from society within a few generations.(The tongues would be a bonus). The republicans are more concerned with gaining power than with godliness and decency, just look at the infighting on their own side throughout this campaign. they use religion as a cynical tool to bend the will of the uneducated masses who follow the invisible sky fairy.Sadly, America has far to many who grew up without an honest education,so they get voted in.

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:56:52 UTC | #910617

I Deny's Avatar Comment 14 by I Deny

Comment 10 by potteryshard :

To be honest, I'm fed up with the federal government even being involved. Most of our federal laws exist simply because of our over-dependence on them to take care of us.

While I'm no admirer of the feds, I can't agree with this sentiment. It is far too easy for a smaller localized population to pass restrictive laws. North Carolina outlaws atheists from holding office. Apparently Iowa would like to outlaw anyone who isn't a blue-eyed WASP involved with farming. I think given a chance, Texas would outlaw anyone not driving a gas-guzzling pickup.

Without federal supervision, one have to move from state-to-state to pick which sets of freedoms to practice.

I'm happy that we agree ultimately. The unconstitutional laws that you mention are indeed illegal because the constitution applies to state and local laws as well. It's an outrage that they are not being enforced as the law calls for. I read in the Texas state 'law' that it doesn't matter which religious belief the governor will hold, as long as she/he holds religious values. Blatantly against our constitution >.<

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:05:11 UTC | #911285