Maggyie Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Please go to this article and comment. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/Jamie-Stiehm/2014/01/07/the-catholic-supreme-courts-war-on-women Some fun quotes: Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I've noticed, practicing the separation of church and state. The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one. Of course, we can't know for sure what Sotomayor was thinking, but it seems she has joined the ranks of the five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts Court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women's rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony. The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making. Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere. Big city mayors know their penchant for control all too well. Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls – even when they should have focused on their own men and boys. This was published in US News and World Report. Vomit. Please also post to facebook, twitter etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 It's a disgusting article, and it makes me wonder if (hope?) it's just clickbait. I hope people's reactions to it show her that bigoted clickbait is not the right way to make your professional career. The crazy part of it all for me is that for a self-professed feminist, Stiehm is displaying an incredible amount of internalized misogyny. She's writing off the opinion of an expert woman as nothing more than personal feelings (because that's all religion could be, after all). She's doing the one thing feminists hate most: refusing to take a woman's educated opinion seriously, trivializing it as something to do with a woman's person and not her argument, and encouraging others to do the same. It's disgusting and shameful, all in the name of clickbait. Heaven forbid a Supreme Court Justice have a professional, legally sound justification for her actions and endeavor to do her job to the best of her ability instead of blindly using her position to champion whatever cause she likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DameAgnes Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Here is a line-by-line fisking http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/01/08/fisking-stiehms-bigotry-at-us-news/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You are going to be hearing about the "War on Women" more and more for two reasons: A) Obamacare is such a disaster that the "War on Women" line is the only defense that resonates even a little and B) Hillary is running for president in 2016 and they'll try to use identity politics to get her elected like they did for Obama in '08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hillary's still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hillary's still alive? I'd be shocked if she's running for 2016. If she were, she'd still be secretary of state. Though I imagine a Hillary vs Christie 2016 battle would lead to a lot of funny Daily Show/Colbert bits... :hehe2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hillary's still alive? Would it matter to Democrats? I'd be shocked if she's running for 2016. If she were, she'd still be secretary of state. Though I imagine a Hillary vs Christie 2016 battle would lead to a lot of funny Daily Show/Colbert bits... :hehe2: Um... Hillary resigned over a year ago. Kerry is the new Secretary of State. Maybe it's time to quit getting your news from the Comedy Channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 ^^^^^ Adding an explicit Sarcastic Irony Smiley for the post above :| :| :| just in case ^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semper Catholic Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If the little sisters want to start influencing g the government they can start paying taxes like every other corporate lobbyist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If the little sisters want to start influencing g the government they can start paying taxes like every other corporate lobbyist. I totally agree. It's a real shame that people think they should just be able to go about their lives like they are free and don't have to doing exactly what the government tells them. I don't know where these broads get the nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semper Catholic Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I totally agree. It's a real shame that people think they should just be able to go about their lives like they are free and don't have to doing exactly what the government tells them. I don't know where these broads get the nerve. They personally can do whatever they want. Their influence on the Supreme Court is infringing on the rights of other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) They personally can do whatever they want. Their influence on the Supreme Court is infringing on the rights of other people. Many of those on the far left (sorry to those that don't like the "right, left labels") have a odd idea of what is and is not a right. The rights they like are more equal than others. The 'rights' to abortion and contraception for example, the far left not only argues that people must have a right to access these things, but that they also have a 'right' to force others to provide these 'rights' for them, and those that do not want to be provided with those 'rights' are forced upon them anyway. We have the right to keep and bare arms, but I do not see anyone on the left arguing that we should be forced to pay for others to buy guns, or that those that do not want guns to be force against their will to buy them. Edited January 10, 2014 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semper Catholic Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Many of those on the far left (sorry to those that don't like the "right, left labels") have a odd idea of what is and is not a right. The rights they like are more equal than others. The 'rights' to abortion and contraception for example, the far left not only argues that people must have a right to access these things, but that they also have a 'right' to force others to provide these 'rights' for them, and those that do not want to be provided with those 'rights' are forced upon them anyway. We have the right to keep and bare arms, but I do not see anyone on the left arguing that we should be forced to pay for others to buy guns, or that those that do not want guns to be force against their will to buy them. Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, religious-affiliated organizations do not have to provide contraception to their employees, but they do need to sign a form affirming their objection, which then forces the insurer or an outside health plan administrator to provide separate birth control coverage. The Justice Department responded to Sotomayor's stay by saying that this opt-out provision is sufficient enough protection for religious organizations Little sisters aren't being forced to do anything. Rather they want to prevent the individual public from receiving care they don't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Little sisters aren't being forced to do anything. Rather they want to prevent the individual public from receiving care they don't agree with. They are being forced to do something, but that doesn't really matter, because equality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Little sisters aren't being forced to do anything. Rather they want to prevent the individual public from receiving care they don't agree with. That doesn't prove anything to me, save for the fact that not only do you lack a proper understanding of what is a right, you also lack the proper understanding of the meaning of the phrase "forced against one's will", nor do seem to understand that quoting bigoted anti-Catholic, or Pro-Obama propaganda is not stating facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now