Fox "friend," Gretchen Carlson, is an uber Christian warrior princess who is constantly outraged about how the forces of evil, secular darkness are trying to make life miserable for Christians. Gretch is in a constant state of righteous Christian indignation about the outrageous atheistic forces of "political correctness" that are trying to take Christ out of Christmas, crosses out of cemeteries, bible verses off of army gun sights, and prayer out of places where the Supreme Court says it shouldn't be. Yet, the former Miss America and decorated Christian soldier seems to have a problem with Sikhs whom she suggests are oversensitive about their religion. Oh, the irony! Oh, the hypocrisy!
Last December, in one of far too many Fox & Friends vignettes about the supposed attack on Christmas by those who seek not to offend those of other faiths, the asses on the curvy couch reported that a California school had "banned" poinsettias because they might offend non Christians. It turned out that the good Fox & Friends were telling sweet little lies. There was no ban. However, the school administrator said that they wanted to be respectful of all communities as the area had a diverse population. As an example, she cited the presence of a large Sikh community. Gretch, playing to the church of the perpetually outraged Christians, doubled down on the outrage by engaging in some tried and true scapegoating. Gretch claimed that the school's egregious offense to the spirit of Christmas was because of sensitivity towards Sikhs. With a look of total disdain, she shouted this: "One of the other rationales that the school administrator mentioned that the first Sikh temple in the west is located in their city so they didn't want to offend those people. The administrator mentioned the Sikh's as an example of why teachers should be sensitive about their decorations. "
Flash forward to January and Gretch is still annoyed about Sikhs. Last week (January 26th) she appeared on Bill O'Reilly's "Culture Warriors" segment. The topic was a lawsuit that was filed against Jay Leno over a comedy monologue satirizing Mitt Romney's wealth, in which he showed a photo of the Sikh Golden Temple, in Amritsar, as an example of the kind of home owned by Romney. The Indian American who filed the suit states that Leno's routine exposes Sikh's to ridicule in implying that the holiest place in The Sikh religion is owned by a non-Sikh. O'Reilly described the lawsuit as "dopey." In an ROFLMAO moment of gut busting irony he asked "are some people taking their religion, in America, too seriously...do some overdue it?" (Uh, kinda like the Fox News bogus "War on Christmas?) Margaret Hoover talked about "frivolous lawsuits."
After O'Reilly remarked that some folks go crazy if you tell a joke about their religion, Carlson admitted that she "defends Christianity" (Ya think!) but "that it's a fine line." She then launched into some possible Sikh bashing with her accusation that the Sikh litigant was doing this "to get attention" because "it's not a very well known religion across America." She added that more people "will hear about" the religion as a result of the publicity surrounding the suit. O'Reilly opined that folks need to lighten up. After Hoover spoke of how the suit is contrary to the principals of the Sikh religion which is tolerant, Gretch commented that when Fox & Friends "talked about a story that involved the Sikh religion, we get a ton of e-mail from people who are very passionate about that." Bill said that it's akin to the Muslims who don't want their religion insulted and that "we should be careful."
The Sikh "passion" that Gretch referenced was because they were "vilified and mocked" as "those people" who were helping to ruin Gretch's Christmas. Now she accuses a Sikh of filing a frivolous lawsuit because he "wants to get attention." When any persecuted Christian files a lawsuit, it's just fine and dandy; but if somebody from one of those religious "fringe" groups complains (and in the case of the California school, they didn't) fagetaboutit. Life would be so much better for Gretch without "those people."
I think he forgot that sex is not just for a man’s pleasure, which to me shows that he truly does believe women are machines…. There to have sex with a man for his pleasure and there to suffer the consequences of having an unexpected child when their math is off. As for the efficiency of the pill… It’s about 99.9% when taken correctly, which is higher than any other type of contraception including the “count and pray” method (as I like to call it). And if you take into consideration not only the 7-10 day fertility period, which I true by the way, a human sperm can live inside a woman for up to 3 days… Which increases the fertility period to up to 2 weeks! And on a 28 day cycle that’s half! It’s unbelievable that having unexpected children is thought to be more approved by God than planned ones. Did I mention most of the side effects are actually beneficial to women? And the blood clots are generally only found in smokers and women over 35…
I agree. Sex aint just for procreation and pleasure ain’t just for men. Women are far more physiologically sophisticated then men and we actually have an organ designed by nature just for the fun of it. If women didn’t got something out of sex other than nine months of pregnancy, painful delivery, months of breast-feeding and years of child rearing our species would have died off long ago. Or they would have rendered all men eunuchs. The fertilization window is a moveable feast as well so the rhythm method doesn’t always work. To be fair neither do physical or hormonal birth control. The way I see it; the more there are of us the less there is for us.
>> Abortion services constitute only 3% of PP services. They do provide 1/4 of abortion services in the US.
>> 62% of PP’s services are NOT contraceptive or abortion related http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
>> I’d wager that some of those abortions are provided to women whose NFP failed. They would be among the forty-six percent of women who have abortions who had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
“…insists on this “unwanted children” mentality because it cannot make money off people who have responsible attitudes concerning children"
Once again, your logic is completely faulty. Using NFP is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for laying claim to having a responsible attitude towards children on any level. There is no statistical nor valid philosophical / logical backup for that claim.
And…a conservative Roman Catholic apologist has the GALL to talk about who has a responsible attitude towards children? That would be funny if it wasn’t so sickening.
Again I ask you: who are YOU to say who has and has not a responsible attitude towards children and childbearing? Who are YOU to judge the quality of the marriages and family relationships of millions upon millions of people?
I write here not as an official representative of Newshounds but as a wife and mother.
I have been married for 25 years and we have used artificial contraception throughout our marriage. Contrary to your self-righteous portrayal of pill (and other bc) users, we, a pair of “sinful” artificial birth control users, have a wonderful, loving, and strong marriage.
You wrote, “This knowledge …has the added advantage of helping a couple to attain pregnancy knowing when pregnancy occurs and this contrasts with the ignorance of the BC method’s mindset.” Your arrogance is astonishing. It so happens we conceived our planned and deeply loved children in the full knowledge of EXACTLY when they were conceived, and in each instance it was a deeply spiritual experience because we had made a conscious decision to conceive. I could just as easily make the argument that the method you consider morally and spiritually superior is nothing more than two animals rutting because its the natural thing to do. Using NFP is not a necessary nor sufficient condition of a deeply emotionally, spiritually and sexually fulfilling relationship. Using birth control has never worked “contrary to a love that solidifies the two even in hard times” for us, and believe me, we have gone through hard times. On the other hand, I know a number of people whose marriages have fallen apart under the strain of having a number unplanned children thanks to “natural” birth control.
Your argument that a couple who uses NFP is more likely to be truly loving is not in any way open to verification – statistically or philosophically. It’s nothing more than smug self-righteous bullshit on your part. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a wild, unprovable and insulting claim. Who are you to pass judgement about the quality of millions of other peoples’ marriages??!!
Your God means nothing to them. Nor does mine. God is personal.
They will do what they WILL,and it’s incombent on us as a society to lessen the impact. That’s why I believe that contraceptives are key. Abstinence based education is a sham. It’s been proven time and again in strict religious settings to NOT WORK.
Secondly,get all pissy if you want to. It’s YOUR religious convictions that are causing YOU the problem. And even then,they are diametrically oppposed to Jesus’s and the bible’s teachings of judgment. So stick it in your hookah and smoke it.
It was Paul who said to ‘offer no offense’,and to show god’s love and teachings through living a pure life. Not by prosletyzing like a harridan Pharissee on the street corner,beating one’s breast and reading from the prayer scroll on their wrist. I’d suggest you take the trappings off sir,or find your own soul forfeit when The lord Christ doesn’t know YOU.
And it is wholely about your own personal opinions. You claim scientific evidence….what evidence? That some man kissing another is lewd? Or a woman kissing another is lewd? If that is the case,why don’t you hypocrites move for the removal of all kissing in public areas? Maybe you can catch up with the jihadists you propose to hate in that regard.
It’s your opinion that two people kissing on the street is ‘lewd’. Well I’m sure two men kissing is. But I bet you’re fine with two women doing it. It’s hot,right? Don’t lie. 90% of people who piss and moan about one side,hypocritically and secretly love the obverse.
I point you sir,to the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
That means gay men,gay women. Religious persons. Non-religious persons. All of us. We are all equal in the sight of the law. There is no religious test for that. NONE.
So I’d suggest,if you wish to live in a theocratic society,then state so. Don’t beat around the bush and try to hem and haw your way into it. If you want to live in a ‘Christian Coutry’ I’d suggest you move to one.
And you can take issue all you want. I simply don’t care. Your ire stands not between my God and me,and the convictions He places on my heart.
And closing oneâs mouth in the face of evil is not Americanâ¦ itâs cowardice!
Define this ‘evil’ for me,please. What are you claiming is evil?
And removing their choice,because of your religious convictions,or mine for that matter,is not going to happen. Free will is what it is. People make bad decisions and they’ll keep making them. A safety net in cases of those bad decisions is a good thing. Love is an ephemeral concept when talking hard data. And the data shows that we screw too much and get in trouble too much and a lot of times a contraceptive will help alleviate later problems instead of producing children no one wants. And children,I might add who will suffer for those same ‘sins of the father’ that got them here in the first place. Surely you can agree,as a compassionate and religious minded person that this is a far better way than millions of suffering children that no one,including religious sources,can or want to take care of.
If it’s free will,then it’s FREE WILL. The will to not have a child in the case of having sex is the choice here. Anything that blocks that removes free will.
As far as the homosexuality thing,you can’t dump this down to ‘they have no fruit’. Being fruitful doesn’t change being alive,and existing. And in fact,many homosexuals do have children. They do daily,whether they sleep with a person of the opposite sex for the privilige,or they do in vitro,or sperm donation. It’s been that way forever. In ancient Rome,in Ancient Greece. IN middle eastern countries. A homosexual man may have a woman to bear him an heir. Women in a sultan’s Hareem may take pleasure from each other. That’s simple,historical fact.
And it’s not going to change things now. It’s the same except for the new,technological interventions.
The problem here,is you aren’t accepting the overall picture that humanity is,that the animal kingdom is,that the world is. I believe that God made this world,and all things in it. But I realize He made them his way. With a great host of differences,even within the same specie. Anytime you have mental developement in a species you see this.
I mean,think of it this way,in terms of religious thought,ok? If you have a species of flatworm floating out there,and it is in fact asexual,and impregnates itself….is it not a chronic masterbator? Or is it a hermaphrodite?
The cases are not the same certainly,but the thoughts on them should be consistent from a religious point of view. To not have these equally listed with disgust,is hypocritical thinking. If such a case were to be based on your premise that fruitfulness is what counts,pirests of many different religions should be spat upon on the street as they produce nothing.
See waht I’m saying? This is about your prejudices. Saying that homosexuals are being ‘lewd’ in the streets is a lie. It’s only relavent in your mind,not in thr mind of the rest of the world. Heck,not even in the mind of most Christians. Everyone has a different OPINION of this,but it certainly doesn’t bare out as a fact.
Me,personally? Homosexuals kissing in the street doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I live in a country where people have a choice to live their lives as they see fit,as long as it hurts no other person physically.
Exactly what ‘lewd’ acts by homosexuals are you talking about? A gay couple kissing on the street? This is lewd to you?
In what way,if I might ask? People kiss in the street all the time. Ugly people,fat people,retarded people,religious people…..
Are we to outlaw kissing now?
That really makes no sense sir. I might could see your point if it was rampant sex openly in the street,or if gay people were stopping at every intersection to shake their penises at others or something. But that’s not happening anywhere in any number to be any sort of problem.
So what exactly are homosexuals doing in public that offends you so much?
Do I mind that it’s actually a pagan holiday coopted to put a Christian slant on it? Not really. I mean,certain dates mean different things for different folks and I got no problem with that. Heck,if the Pagans want to celebrate their holiday at the same time,good for them! I wish them well in their efforts. They should make some commercials during the holiday season and do a toy sales push.
I was raised a Christian. I believe in Christ. I do also believe in freedom of choice. I believe that if others are doing something else,then I leave them be. That’s the AMERICAN in me talking. Cause there’s plenty of room in this country for both of us to live and get along. Just like my bible taught me to offer no offense,I’ll stick with that instead of pissing and moaing about how I"m being mistreated when I’m being treated EXACTLY the same way as every other religion in the country. That’s called fair.
Contraceptives do not impregnate people. WANGS do!
For goodness sakes,such up in arms about something that has been going on since long before Jesus ever walked the Earth. We’ve had contraceptives for that long at the very least.
1. The Declaration of Independence is not a Christian document. Not based on Christian principles. Lying is a sin. Do your history.
2. “Schools are supposed to be about educations” Not a plaice to proselytize or force one’s religion on another.
3. Crosses are not being forced out of existence. But like swastikas, we are tired of seeing them in government locations. This is not a theocracy, and there is no State Religion, contrary to you and many other authoritarian “Christian” theocracy supporters’ wishes.
3. There hasn’t been a war fought for my freedom in any way since WWII. And don’t even tell me the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And BTW, I was in the Army (infantry so my life would be on the real front line. I left because of my conscience and a crooked president. (I can think for myself, don’t need Ronnie Reagan’s senile brain trying to dictate right and wrong to me.)
4. I can’t find a single place on government property where it has been replaced by pornography. Well, religious displays forced on me are and obscenity…
5. Sex is immoral?
6. Fundamentalist “Christianity” is an insult to the historical Jesus, who taught free will, to know right from wrong, to stand up to crooked authoritarian religion and government.
7. Exodus 20: 3. Your post-Jesus, invented by crooks “Christianity” is a false religion. Study the scholars, not Pat Robertson.
8. Exodus 20: 9.
Second. I fail to find ANY connection between Don’t ask and a ruling that the government has no right to come into your bedroom and look for contraceptives.
Third. You say the government can not create even a single job? Well the list of jobs is to long to show here but you may want to ask the electricity users in the tri state area around Nevada if the government built Hoover Dam is supplying a service. By the way I recently took a trip to the dam and it is a real marvel to behold. Oh, and by the way. You won’t believe who built the roads I drove on from New York to Nevada.
I trust you’re aware that it is NOT the government’s job to do anything that could be seen as promoting one religion above another. That is (and has been, for decades) the principle LEGAL concept under which this country has operated.
From Wikipedia’s article on Lemon v Kurtzman:
The Court’s decision in this case established the “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1.The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Any alleged “preventing public expression of Christmas” that involves a GOVERNMENT body (whether municipal, state or federal) MUST be a result of the Lemon test. IOW, if the City of Topeka wants to erect a Christmas display, to pass the Lemon test, the city MUST ensure that SECULAR elements connected with Christmas are involved. Furthermore, if the city plans to feature this display for many weeks and OTHER religious holidays or festivals take place (such as Hanukkah or Diwali or, as in fairly recent years, Eid al-Adha and Ashura*), symbols or elements of those religious festivities should also appear, especially in cities with sizable non-Christian minority religious groups. Additionally, it’s worth noting that the Eastern Orthodox Christmas doesn’t always coincide with the Western celebration (because the EO calendar is calculated differently, it typically falls a week later) so removing the display could be seen as offensive to various Eastern Orthodox denominations. Of course, most gov’t agencies when doing these displays completely ignore PAGAN traditions (not many signs wishing “Happy Yule” or “Happy Saturnalia” or “Merry Mithras Day”) and are always dismissive of their agnostic and atheist citizens.
As for schools, the major problem is that schools are supposed to be about EDUCATION. Considering the complaints from the right-wing over what a “miserable” job is being done at public schools (the ones that you would describe as “government run”), it’s completely laughable that there’s so much faux outrage about how little Johnny and Susie are being deprived of seeing Christmas decorations in the schools (conversely, foreign language classes would be a haven for “Christmas” in school to show the traditions in other countries). Since 99.999999% of all public school children are out of school for nearly a week (at least) before Christmas Day, expecting schools to literally waste hours of time on the holiday is genuinely stupid. I honestly don’t remember anything special about Christmas in school when I attended public schools X number of decades ago. There was usually chitchat about what everyone hoped to get or what everyone wanted (usually followed up in January with details about what they did get and, more importantly, what they didn’t get) but most of the teachers really didn’t have a lot of time to decorate the classes (at most, our “gift” from the teachers was a “free” day on our last day of classes before the vacation break, especially in junior high and high school—this gave the teachers an extra day to get their gradebooks caught up for the all-important semester exams).
*On a ludicrous side note, when I did a search for “Muslim holidays,” the page came back empty—saying there were NO results. When I changed the search to “Islamic holidays,” what do you suppose the first result was? That’s right—the Wiki article on “Muslim Holidays.”