Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:25 AM
Wed Nov 25
57 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Email
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/23/09
11/23/09
When you become head cheese, just create a constitution that says religion can't influence policy. And put it in your constitution that when a policymaker allows religion to influence policy, he is to be F-I-R-E-D.
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I was pretty into being Catholic for a long time because I loved that part of the faith was service. I went to a Catholic university and did service work all through college (I also sang in the liturgical choir) and due to my Catholic faith, I joined Americorps after I graduated.
I realized one day, though, that you can believe in serving others and social justice without the icky parts of the Church clinging to you. You can be pro-social justice and also pro-women's rights. You can be a moral person without the institution telling you that your body isn't really yours.
11/23/09
I don't really know who's technically correct, but this whole affair begs the question: when the government is responsible for more health spending, it will be responsible for budgeting. Maybe that will require hard choices. Maybe in order to pay for one thing that will save or better a large group of people, a minority of others might be shorted for treatment funds. Or maybe in order to save a diminishing margin of people for one disease you would need to spend money on an expensive screening process that could be used more efficiently to save a larger group of people for something else. Health care is utilitarian in that respect.
Under a private system, squawking over rationing won't due any good because you're nobody's boss. Public officials are (in thoery) our minions, though. The Democrats' jumpy reaction to the reports this week makes me worry that in the future lawmakers will quixotically pursue 100% treatment under the threat of interest groups. If we have to make Medicare cuts and reduce fee-for-service and the like in order for this thing to work on a cost basis, we're in deep shit.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
What they don't seem to get is that *nobody* is really pro-abortion, but they're pro-abortion *RIGHTS*, which is a much different thing indeed. This story from the Boston Globe should be mandatory reading for anybody who wants to place a vote on curbing abortion rights.
[www.boston.com]
11/23/09
Exactly. The Catholic church is great at the holier-than-thou stuff, but all they ever end up doing is shooting themselves in the foot. They have a lot of nerve whining about abortion funding, while their church is having to fight off lawsuit after lawsuit because their celibate male priests can't keep their hands of young boys.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
All the while the issues holding up healthcare all relate to women.
Separate of what now?
I have a feeling that if we lifted the tax exempt status from all religious institutions in this country we might very well be able to pay for this damn bill from the revenue.
11/23/09
Obviously, He would demand proof of citizenship, co-pay, and proof of insurance (or entire bill paid in cash) at time of all miracle workings.
11/23/09
Start denying communion to your average Catholic church-goer who supports abortion and I guarantee you'll be seeing even less people in church each Sunday.
Good luck with that. Jesus loves you but hates gays and ladies who abort their fetuses!
stacyinbean
11/20/09
11/20/09
Unless we can tax your ass and treat you like another fucking focus group, PAC, lobbying group, etc. (we should--they've made it clear who they support clear, come hell, highwater, or warmongering, social-service cutting Republicans), GO AWAY.
For the record, I don't give a shit what the church thinks about issues that put them in line with the very liberal, either. Their organization is based on an unprovable, malleable story and is a distraction from rational policymaking. I don't care if their ARE priests or nuns who are consistently "pro-life" and against choice AND the death penalty, I don't fucking religious doctrine swaying policy, period.
This stuff makes me livid. How is there even an entryway for their influence? I don't care if anti-choice Democrats and Republicans agree with them, how are they not sent reeling away from the table of discussion? Aren't there some rules they're breaking here, couldn't the legislators that oppose this amendment tell them (and anyone benefiting from their funding or talking points) where to shove it?
11/20/09
11/20/09
Guess what, people who believe in religion: YOU DON'T GET A SAY IN MY LEGISLATION. And all you people (yes, on Jezebel) who identify yourselves with any of the religions who are trying to sway this bill yet try to claim that you are against it, maybe now's the time to reconsider your alignment, no?
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/21/09
I know what's important to me. I can negotiate morality and the concepts of empathy, personal accountability, and human dignity without another f*cking Gospel that ends with "wailing and gnashing of teeth," another story that seems even more meaningless and irrelevant the third, fourth, fiftieth time I hear it (my respect for some of the priests at my family parish notwithstanding).
The Church opposes policies that would help women and children in desperately poor countries (and here, of course, where we seem both on the cusp of sensible progress and, and then, marching backwards with our eyes wide open) where childbirth is a matter of life or death and family size--in addition to corruption, policies of richer nations, environmental stress, etc.---IS relevant to collective suffering. I think that's fucking criminal--wielding an unknowable God, and the concept of an afterlife, over human progress.
The Church's moral legitimacy as an institution is undermined by the bishops' abuse of power...settling in court, then shuffling abusive priests from parish to parish so they could molest more children. That's unspeakable for a secular, "worldly," predictably flawed seat of power....but from an institution that purportedly calls faithful and non-believers alike to a less violent, more generous, more enlightened version of humanity? An institution that demands special respect because it exists as a beacon and a respite from an immoral world?
The most distasteful thing is that this isn't solely about religious doctrine. I'm guessing half the people who identify as "Christian" in this country and root for dicks like Stupak couldn't give you three Commandments or describe one Gospel that isn't typically trotted out in popular culture. It seems we as a "Christian" nation are Christian to the extent that it allows voters--and worse, policymakers--to be morally or intellectually unaccountable when convenient. It provides a legitimate excuse where others--loyalty to a corporate interest, indefensible busybody chauvinism, whatever--would fall flat, or be more easily unearthed.
I wish I could put the story of Mike Huckabee, Wayne DuMond, and his victims on billboards...that typifies the grotesque, unapologetic arrogance and complacency that religion provides.
Is it a source, or just one mask for assholery that might emerge in another form in the absence of organized religion? I don't know. And I don't care.
I feel so helpless, and so angry. I am am sputtering with rage. Why, why can't the Democrats tell them what we've said here? Doctrine should NOT be a primary source informing policy!! And if this asshole says it isn't, how else can he defend it? Why the FUCK aren't people tearing down his stupid arguments? My tax dollars paid for a three trillion dollar war that sure as fuck offends my conscience, and it will for the next couple of decades while this generation keeps footing the bill. I pay for initiatives spearheaded by religious charities (if not churches themselves).
So what is Stupak's excuse? What other defense is there? You don't like abortion? Don't get one! We already have the Hyde Amendment! If it's no more invasive, why do we need something new?
How can anyone oppose family planning and sex ed unless you support fattening the budgets for social services, TANF, Medicaid, HeadStart, or anything else that children poor to parents who can't afford them, never wanted them, don't know how to care for them, CAN'T care for them because they're on drugs?
What's the matter, what the fuck is wrong with the media that they aren't eviscerating these pieces of shit for weak reasoning or bald-faced lies?!!
#tips