As Catholic Liberals twist the idea of religious freedom and complain about Obama's principled stand on religious freedom, I call bs in the loudest voice I can muster. This policy is about the consciences of the employees of Catholic institutions engaged in public service, not in religious programs or worship. It is not about the conscience of the Catholic employers or we cede the right to any religious institution to bring dogma into public life. We already see Catholic hospitals where they have a monopoly on health care services making abortion services impossible for local residents. We suffer under the theocratic Hyde Ammendment which prevents the tax dollars of non-Catholic, pro-choice American citizens from being used for women's healthcare where the patient, not the institution, should be able to have access to legal healthcare options. I think liberals have been overly generous and tolerant of the 'feelings' of these theocratic bishops and politicians and it has to stop!
Liberal Protestant social service agencies are careful to keep public money out of their church finances and engage in these ministries as non-profit corporations precisely to respect the civil nature of caring for the poor, hungry and abused. The Religious Right has acted as if this would prevent churches from engaging in "faith-based" public service, but that has always been rhetoric to justify a theocratic intrusion of dogma into their programs and ability to suck taxpayer money into very questionable versions of anti-abortion counseling programs. Marcus Bachmann, and other pray away the gay frauds have accepted public money for this kind of crap on steroids. We see gay marriage treated as if it were an intrusion on the consciences of straight Christian Americans where the line between church and state ought to be firmly and clearly drawn.
Here is the basic issue of church and state separation. Churches and religious people are free to advocate their positions if they can do so in secular language and evidence. It is not ok to argue biblical interpretation in public policy. It is not ok to make church teachings the basis for public policy in any case. It is ok to advocate moral positions if the case can be made in secular evidence or in moral arguments that do not depend upon religious doctrine or teaching. The politics of conscience is off limits because it violates the religious freedom of those who do not agree with the dogma or church teaching.
In the issue of contraception and abortion coverage in the Affordable Healthcare Act, those who employ without having a religious component to the hiring, are engaging the professional services or free labor of American citizens and need to respect their civil rights to equal treatment under the law. If the religious institutions decide that they must avoid delivering public services to the general public because of this requirement, so be it. They are free to be parochial and to make their services subject to these limitations. They cannot use taxpayer monies for these religious ministries, and they cannot act as if they can deny the secular competition the right to provide the public service.
It is time for the Religious Right and the Catholic Church to respect separation of church and state and real freedom of religion. Acting as if they are discriminated against or their religious freedom is being infringed upon is ignorance masquerading as injury. While it is a risky thing for Obama to confront, and the commentators such as Lawrence O'Donnell and Mark Shields get it very badly wrong, we need to stand up for the religious freedom of Americans who are injured and discriminated against by these forces of Religious Culture War.
I have long regretted the abandonment of social justice and peace by the Catholic Bishops who have been willing to excommunicate any responsible Catholic politicians who respect the civil rights of gay citizens or stand up for women's right to health care and choice. Why these conservative boobs make the Culture War where they draw the lines on Catholic integrity and support greed and war without any qualm of conscience needs to be brought home to them. The Catholic tradition in America is much better than this. It is time to reclaim the tradition of respect for church and state separation and to renew the powerful moral voices who are able to speak to public policy in the frame of pluralistic civil democracy.
Comments
Why these conservative boobs make the Culture War where they draw the lines on Catholic integrity and support greed and war without any qualm of conscience needs to be brought home to them.
"We pray for President Bush and other world leaders that they will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink of war with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and enduring. We urge them to work with others to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that recognizes legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral limits on the use of military force."
http://old.usccb.org/bishops/iraq.shtml
"During the fall of 1990 and into 1991 there was substantial opposition to immediate military action by many religious denominations in the United States and the Holy See. The peace churches were totally opposed to this war as well as all others. Denominations working with just war principles believed that not all peaceful alternatives had been pursued. They determined that by January 1991 war had not become the last resort. Pope John Paul II opposed the Gulf War because it didn't conform to just war principles. He spoke against it 56 times."
http://www.mupwj.org/application.htm
I am generally fairly liberal when it comes to employment discrimination, but there has to be some balance. Exxon shouldn't be able to put in its classified ads "No Jews need apply." But if there is some good ole boy redneck accounting firm in Tulsa, where the three partners all are members of the same Southern Baptist church, why shouldn't they have the right to tell applicants "we don't want no Catholics working here?" In the long run (and gosh doesn't it seem that that run just gets longer every day?) those organizations are losing money because they're not basing their hiring on talent.
But Catholic hospitals are a different story, IMO. Yes a community may only require a single hospital, and that single hospital is Catholic and has been for 150 years. Yes they should be prohibited from denying any medical care, like an abortion. Probably the most just solution would be to seize the hospital through eminent domain and make it public.
A Catholic hospital, or school, or cemetary in metropolitan New York, Chicago, Los Angeles... if you decide to work for one of these places, you should know going in there is going to be a lot of Catholic "stuff" in the course of the job, the least of it being the health insurance not covering contraception or abortion. Don't take that job.
The only issues the Catholic bishops in America have dunned their members in Congress about have been the culture war politics of conscience bs. They have not stood up to war funding or mongering other than to issue "statements." When they threaten excommunication or refusing Communion to war mongers and greed supporters I will reconsider my opposition to their Rightwing crap. I have worked hard in my career to make a religious professionalism legitimate in the secular world of education and in social justice work. It requires getting my dogma and the theology of the Presbyterian Church out of public policy, while also allowing theological insight to inform my advocacy of peace and justice issues. I just make my case in academia and the civil community on evidence that is available to all equally and without religious authority masquerading as public authority. I am sick and tired of giving the Right a pass and confirming their error about God being absent from the public square. What God do they think we could exile? Getting religious dogma out of the public square is about appreciating God's gift of civil community as a place where the rubber hits the road and Truth has to make its own case.
I have full respect for the great Catholics who have worked in the same realm and who have understood that theocracy and religious establishment is not the card to play in a free society. If you look at Europe, it is strange that traditionally Catholic countries are far ahead of us on pluralism and respect for religious freedom. They may have a history of struggle against the oppression of the curia that makes them more aware of what it takes to put these theocrats on the sidelines.
And, this is even more about the Southern Baptists and their Southern version of the American Century where Liberal Religion is seen as heretical against their smug theocractic pride. Their 'family values' crap makes me gag. Then there is the matter of understanding how biblican authority is supposed to work against the reactionaries who violate the tradition in ignorance and hubris. I will not allow religious war to run amok. Same with Mormons. When they come out of subculture and want to bear power responsibly in a civil democracy, they have to give up victim status.
I have posted critically of my atheist friends because I want religion to be respected for what it is and not just tossed for the behavior of theocrats. At the same time, I want religion to be practiced with civil respect and integrity for religious freedom including atheists. Religion is not the same as faith. The Bible does not treat dogmatism kindly. Jesus did not reject anyone for lack of religion, only for limiting God's possibilities.
My work as a college chaplain was all about respecting intellectual and moral integrity, and the reason I was effective in my work is that I relied on the authority of competence and integrity and not on some badge of ordination or pushing dogma. Liberals have given away far too much to the religionists for fear of offending them. I have the theological knowledge to call their bluff and bs for what it is. It does not win me friends, but it is my calling.
This story is twisted. The gov is not forcing anything, they will not pay for or subsidize any service that doesn't meet standards of care. They will not pay for female circumsicion either, a muslim healthcare issue. Some states have disallowed christian science health practices when children are involved. Prayer does not make insulin, and diabetics will die, and have died when prayer was the treatment of choice,[even though they did pray harder, kids still died].
Of course those complaining about being discriminated against are doing the discriminating. Citizens have to be part of a civil democracy and that often means accepting a civil morality and public policy decisions that are not consistent with their church or personal moral code. I pay taxes and would love to have them not go to wars I find immoral. Fat chance of that! Why we cannot spend our general fund on legal medical options is no different. I am discriminated against by their dogma. We have accepted incivility to avoid a conflict and it costs us more than it is worth. Theocratic traditions need to learn how to be American, not to impose themselves in violation of religious freedom for others.
Let us remember that the lack of an American established religion happened in the course of all the theocrats objecting to anyone else's theology being established. There were few advocates of a society without an established religion, just no way Presbyterians could live with Methodists or Baptists being in charge. Considering how similar the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were in doctrine, it is amazing that there was never an American Protestant Church where they agreed to blend in order to be the Established Church. What is great is that once they tried pluralism, they found freedom of religion and separation of church and state great for the churches and the state.
However, the critique of Liberal America after the Civil War from the Southern Martyr Myth was that God had been abandoned for secularism and 'modernism.' The theocratic politics of the Religious Right come from that perspective and from the sectarian identification of their moral superiority by being more godly than those who embrace civil democracy as a secular gift of God. When you are out of power, you have to be more pure than those who are in power. For Blacks, this was true sociologically and historically, and their churches were refuges of soulful integrity for demeaned people. The losers in the Civil War had a more ambiguous problem. They did need a refuge from the triumphalism of the North, but they also were defending an immoral sociology. As they have risen and now bear power as citizens, they need to purge themselves of that racism and of the presumption of moral superiority by religion and 'family values.' Reality does not confirm their myths.
I think it was mistake, politically, to push this issue at this time. It all becomes moot when Obamacare is fully operational. Employees of religious businesses will no longer be tied to company-offered plans. A further selling point for Obamacre. Those additional plans will be required to offer equitale benefits. At least, that's how I understand Obamacare. Tell me if I'm wrong.
The issue arose because of the implementation of "Obamacare," not as a separate issue. It is the request for an exemption that makes it an issue, and Obama generously gave them a year to work out their end of the deal. Instead, we get this shitstorm of twisted offense where religious freedom and conscience goes Alice in Wonderland. Liberal Protestant churches have engaged in social ministries by drawing a clear line between church budgets and their non-profit missions. The latter do not engage in religious services or require any religious component to be part of the services. They do very good social work and obey the civil laws. Of course, they are rarely in conflict about abortion, but having to learn not to discriminate against gay and lesbian employees has been another case.
The point is, they recognize the obligations of working in secular civil arenas and keeping religion out of it. The Religious Right and Conservative Catholics do not. They act as if it is a moral outrage to respect the civil rights of people employed to provide social services and medicine in their non-religious programs. We can all see that caring for the sick and feeding the hungry arise from Christian conscience. That is not the issue. Mission in the world has to be conducted according to the rules of civil society or it is more intrusion of religion into the lives of others under false pretense.
If they want to insist that their mission is religious, no taxpayer money can be used. Their employees are part of the church and not subject to civil employment standards because they have to be religious advocates and not just people doing non-religious work. They cannot replace public institutions, but can only supplement what is available. I think few will want to do this because it is so parochial and exclusive; but I can also see why parochial education and being surrounded by religion can appeal to their churchmembers. That makes it private, not public. We are talking about public institutions sponsored by religious institutions. They have to obey public rules and stop the whining.
I think it was mistake, politically, to push this issue at this time.
It is a real head scratcher, politically speaking, to push this during an election year. However, DRC hit this one out of the park. The long game on this issue will ultimately not benefit any of the usual foils lined up against Obama, but short term it sure gives the GOP some much needed ammo.
Right. The mandate is already accomplished. Why make it an election issue? Obamacare has been laid out there for over 2 years now for everybody to see. Why the furor now?
One compromise would be to offer the church a rebate for contraception coverage. Refer their employees to Planned Parenthood, and allow the charge from health savings accounts, to which the church has contrubuted matching funds.
As far as it being an election bungle, 97% of catholic women want birth control, catholic men weren't going to vote for Obama anyhow. So get the women's vote, and since there are more women, and more women vote than men both in real numbers, and percentage of voting block, it could be a win.
Lawrence O'Donnell got a big time education from a lawyer, David Boies, who explained the employer law to him. Had we gone with Single Payer, employer-based health care would be history and there would be no issue. Employers are obligated to respect the law regarding employee rights, and that includes all religious institutions where religion is not the specific nature of the services provided. O'Donnell made a great argument against employer health care in favor of public health care. It was very refreshing, but I am surprised that this point has been misunderstood so seriously for so long.
Politically, the polling among Catholics is against the bishops. Not just women want contraception, and a lot of my Catholic friends are really pissed about the bishops for their culture war politics and lack of any social justice witness. I think Obama will come out ahead on this issue even though it has been demagogued seriously by conservatives.
Nonetheless, I want the principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state to be elevated above the theocratic nonsense from the culture war politics of conscience. We are seeing the worm turning on gay marriage, but it has taken decades longer than it ought to have because religious dogma has been legislated where it is totally improper to do so. Again, a lot of my atheist friends react against this bad expression of religion with the idea that there is no way to mix religion and politics. Wrong. If your religion does not address the morality of bearing power, it is nothing more than that private spirituality of ethereal irrelevance that deserves being dismissed as irrelevant.
Render unto Caesar has always been a loaded response to a loaded question. The point has been that Caesar's secular authority, properly exercised, deserves respect in the realm of civil governance. It was the pretense of Caesar as Divine that crossed the line. Holding civil authority responsible for justice and for respect for human liberty and dignity is appropriate. The religious community also has the obligation to call down idolatry and the elevation of false gods, such as our economic religion of Wall St. for not being secular and civil. Same for Mars and the worship of war. The state cannot usurp the function of "the church" just because there is no established religion as partner. The stewardship of nature is also a matter of religious concern, and the idea that we can rape and pillage the earth is sacrelige.
I thank those who have responded to this post and wish to encourage a more sophisticated discourse on the Left about religion and politics so we can take the politics of conscience apart on solid ground. It is not about keeping religion out of politics. It is how it is engaged that matters, and if we follow the principle of the separation of church and state, it is about keeping the state secular and out of usurping the business of the church as well as preventing theocratic religion from usurping the role of the state.
97% of catholic women want birth control
C'mon, now. I was listening to Randi Rhodes' substitute today, and she had a guest that said 98% of Catholic women use some sort of birth control. No one knows these numbers. Probably a majority of Catholic women of child-bearing age that are at least second generation Americans want birth control. Newly arrived immigrants and first generation (and there are a lot), probably not. Catholic women over 70, probably not (they want it illegal.)
And birth control isn't that big a deal with Catholics.
They truly believe that if they vote for a Democrat they are performing an abortion. Nothing else matters.
Boehner is on the floor threatening legislation if women's rights are not stamped out, in accordance with the bishops.
The legislation could then be loaded with all the stuff the people want and have been denied by the party of no.
We'll rescind women's rights in exchange for tax increase on millionaires, and infrastructure bill, and labor bill with card check, and allow importation of birth control by mail order from Mexico and Canada.
I hear your argument. However, this leads me to question whether you are protecting the Catholic hospital's moral principles. If this is the case, do you know if during the hiring phase, do they dismiss applicants who use contraceptives, have been sterilized via vasectomy, or taking it further, are divorced?
I hear your argument. However, this leads me to question whether you are protecting the Catholic hospital's moral principles. If this is the case, do you know if during the hiring phase, do they dismiss applicants who use contraceptives, have been sterilized via vasectomy, or taking it further, are divorced?
Using the divider's terminology ( i.e. "Religious Businesses" instead of "Businesses owned/operated by Religious Organizations") plays into the confusion/distraction they hoped for when they launched the topic into prominence (all of the sudden).
When anybody (religious organization or otherwise) chooses to become an employer they must play by the same rules everyone else does or it creates unfair competition.
If personal spiritual feelings (which are capable of evolving daily) are allowed to overrule statutes, then all any organization would need to do to wreak complete havoc - would be to buy one share of stock of every company listed on every exchange and then invoke "ownership's right to override everyone else's choice".
First thing will probably be to require all employees to tithe to the owner's religious institution (via automatic payroll deduction).
The Church of the Most Heinous, Tyrannical, and Insensitive (which now has to operate under a variety of different names and pretend to be in disagreemnt with one another) could then begin operating more openly and reveal the true origin of those odd-colored stains on their sacred undergarments, robes and hats.
have no problem with birth control or abortions I do however think that those services should be paid for out of your own pocket. No employer or government money should be used to fund your Viagra, condoms, morning after pill or any other form of birth control or sexual enhancement product.
Now if an abortion is needed the save the women’s life than it should be covered under their insurance. this however should not be forced on an organization that has a fundamental baseline against it. Forcing a church to pay for abortions would be like forcing unions to hire scabs.
No, it is requiring employers to obey the laws pertinent to employing citizens. I like the idea of universal public healthcare so employers are out of this picture, but they would still have to pay minimum wages, deal with work hours and safe work places. Access to legal healthcare is not some special right or burden on the employer. Why you want to screw around with other people's choices or needs from a purported 'libertarian' perspective amazes me. But, it does not surprise me to find libertarians confused about how civil life works.
No, it is requiring employers to obey the laws pertinent to employing citizens. I like the idea of universal public healthcare so employers are out of this picture, but they would still have to pay minimum wages, deal with work hours and safe work places. Access to legal healthcare is not some special right or burden on the employer. Why you want to screw around with other people's choices or needs from a purported 'libertarian' perspective amazes me. But, it does not surprise me to find libertarians confused about how civil life works.
Yes I believe in equal rights for all...
I am not screwing around with other peoples choices or needs I just want them to pay for their own problems or choices.
as far as civil life works I am well versed in civil life. i understand that there are some things that we as a society have to help provide for everyone but they are very limited. roads, bridges, police, fire, sewer, and a few others. they do not however include welfare, housing, abortions, viagra, or any other welfare based operation. I have no problem with civil life as long as I do not have to work two jobs in order to support people that are unwilling to support themselves.
If the hospital accepts public money, it should accept public rules.
In nations where catholic hospitals still offer free medical care without government money, governments shouldn't dictate which procedures they have to freely provide.
At one time in human history, the only hospitals were catholic hospitals. They were free.
The church still provides free clinics in many areas of the world...without government aid. I myself supported a medical doctor/priest in Africa for many years. We had 3 clinics...none of which charged a penny. Outside of those, the closest medical care was 100 miles. If an abortion was required to save the life of a mother, he'd perform it.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
,
if the company you are working for pays your premiums for you than they are paying for the services and should have the right to say no we will not pay for these items. they are not saying you can't have those items they are just saying that you have to cover the cost yourself.
if the company you are working for pays your premiums for you than they are paying for the services and should have the right to say no we will not pay for these items. they are not saying you can't have those items they are just saying that you have to cover the cost yourself.
The company you are working for doesn't pay anything for you. Everything that the company supposedly "pays for you" such as health care premiums is extracted from the money YOU produce. Just like the money you get in your paycheck it's what YOU have already produced.
Sorry jones, your approach has been rejected by civil society and Obama has the way to allow the churches not to have to be the payer. If we had the same civilized approach taken by people who understand democracy and are not burdened with libertarian selfishness, it would not be an issue. We need to address people who cannot find jobs but who need healthcare, but the point at issue is that the religious freedom of those who work in civil society is about the person. Religious employers do not have the right to impose their conscience on their employees. It is a matter of civility, religious freedom and separation of church and state.
As I have pointed out several times, all the nonsense from the Right about some 'war on religion' or some discrimination against Christians is inverted logic and wrong. The way churches have engaged in doing social work is to keep their religious institution budgets separate from their non-profit corporate status for those social missions. I have worked as a clergyperson in secular academic and social situtations, and I have a lot of experience about how to avoid bringing my religion into my service in both roles. Even as a campus minister working on a state supported campus, I knew how to engage in service to the university community without waving my ordination or collar around other than to do specific religious programs under the rules of those institutions. As a teacher, I had to make my intellectual case on intellectual grounds, not because the Bible said anything or my church believed anything. It worked great, and I was respected for competence, the real authority that matters.
This subject has been very confused thanks to the Religious Right and their screwed up "faith based initiatives" under the theocratic Right's absurd idea that God can be banished from the public square. Religious brands can be because our secular civil community is open to all equally. We are not a Christian country and never have been in the established religion sense. We were once a country where the dominant demographics were Mainline Protestant or WASP. We have made a lot of progress since then, and the '50s saw "Catholic, Protestant and Jew" as equally American. As we have gained more Asian and Middle Eastern American citizens, the list of ecumenical equals has expanded. I think this is great. I also believe it includes atheists and secular humanists, so nobody has to be dogmatized by anyone.
if the company you are working for pays your premiums for you than they are paying for the services and should have the right to say no we will not pay for these items. they are not saying you can't have those items they are just saying that you have to cover the cost yourself.
The company you are working for doesn't pay anything for you. Everything that the company supposedly "pays for you" such as health care premiums is extracted from the money YOU produce. Just like the money you get in your paycheck it's what YOU have already produced
that is true it is money that you produced for the company's gain not yours. so when you say the insurance company will provide it for free they will fold that cos into the premiuns they charge everyone so the company is still paying for it if they want to or not.
Sorry jones, your approach has been rejected by civil society and Obama has the way to allow the churches not to have to be the payer. If we had the same civilized approach taken by people who understand democracy and are not burdened with libertarian selfishness, it would not be an issue. We need to address people who cannot find jobs but who need healthcare, but the point at issue is that the religious freedom of those who work in civil society is about the person. Religious employers do not have the right to impose their conscience on their employees. It is a matter of civility, religious freedom and separation of church and state.
As I have pointed out several times, all the nonsense from the Right about some 'war on religion' or some discrimination against Christians is inverted logic and wrong. The way churches have engaged in doing social work is to keep their religious institution budgets separate from their non-profit corporate status for those social missions. I have worked as a clergyperson in secular academic and social situtations, and I have a lot of experience about how to avoid bringing my religion into my service in both roles. Even as a campus minister working on a state supported campus, I knew how to engage in service to the university community without waving my ordination or collar around other than to do specific religious programs under the rules of those institutions. As a teacher, I had to make my intellectual case on intellectual grounds, not because the Bible said anything or my church believed anything. It worked great, and I was respected for competence, the real authority that matters.
This subject has been very confused thanks to the Religious Right and their screwed up "faith based initiatives" under the theocratic Right's absurd idea that God can be banished from the public square. Religious brands can be because our secular civil community is open to all equally. We are not a Christian country and never have been in the established religion sense. We were once a country where the dominant demographics were Mainline Protestant or WASP. We have made a lot of progress since then, and the '50s saw "Catholic, Protestant and Jew" as equally American. As we have gained more Asian and Middle Eastern American citizens, the list of ecumenical equals has expanded. I think this is great. I also believe it includes atheists and secular humanists, so nobody has to be dogmatized by anyone.
not sure what you think my approach is or has been rejected by civil society or that i am a libertarian or that libertarians are selfish. I believe the opposite to be true libertarians and conservatives give big positions of their income to charities not for recognition like democrats but because it is the right thing to do. they do not want the government to force them to do some thing they do on their own any way, socialism and communism is being rejected all over Europe right now because it does not work. Europe is broke and if the u.s. runs down this same road it will be in worse shape than it is now. we need to get back to the principles that made this country great.
on a side note now we know the obama administration does not care about the constitution. the first amendment states the government will make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free excercise there of by forcing churchs to pay for birth control you are prohibiting the free exercisng their religion.
the left has had a war on religion for years, forcing cities and states to take crosses and nativity scenes down all over the country because it offends some jerk wade. they even went after the marine corps base in cali because you can see the cross from the highway.
Jones wrote Europe is broke and if the u.s. runs down this same road it will be in worse shape than it is now. we need to get back to the principles that made this country great
poly replies: Europe is broke because the banksters robbed it dry. Ireland, by bailing its banks, owes financiers several times its total economic output. Wealthy, "socialist" Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is the envy of many "non-socialist" nations. It kept its banksters at bay.
Even the U.S. still produces about $40,000 for every many, woman and baby in the country. $160,000 for each family of four. Of course, with our rising poverty rates, you'd never know it..
"The money supply at any given time is finite. For one to have more, another has to have less". Friedman, "Money Mischief".
The debate in Washington seems to be just how much less the destitute should receive...., so billion dollar bonuses can become two-billion dollar bonuses..
Churches have no business dictating personal birth control matters. The only Christian mandate given by Christ regarding health care is the command to tend the sick. There were no strings attached.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Europe is not broke. Conflating the countries that followed US policy directives in conjunction with US fraud consultations within the banking sector of the failing countries, conflating them with the healthy northern countries that pay for everything and don't run deficits is wrong. Sweden is growing at about 5% a year, had a surplus when US fraudsters got caught, and initiated Keynesian stimulus and never had a recession. No contraction, virtually no increase in unemployment. Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Monaco, [Norway is not in Euro], Luxemburg, and Lichtenstein are fine. The lesson learned is don't do business with Americans, they lie, cheat, and steal.
DouglasLee wrote: The lesson learned is don't do business with Americans, they lie, cheat, and steal.
poly replies: And American money is worthless. Good only for buying U.S. debt. U.S. dollars spent in China to buy goods find their way to the Chinese Central bank...where they are converted into the domestic currency. The only use China has for most of the converted dollars is to buy U.S. debt....which finances U.S. wars..
The U.S. demise is forcing China to find new trading partners...and increase domestic consumption of its own products with higher wages..
China, along with other nations are devising new rules for international trade with other nations...backing their own currencies with gold for international trade. As this takes root, the U.S. dollar will become an extinct piece of paper internationally.
The primary focus in Chinese think tanks is how to best deal with the rapid decline of the U.S. in a way that serves China. Mark Leonard,. Exec. Dir. European Council on Foreign Relations. , "What Does China Think". It's an interesting read.
China, along with Russia, Brazil and nations making up the new S.E. Asia Trade Agreement (which excludes dollars) seems to be doing that. Dealing with the rapid decline of the U.S. is bringing about a new trade order....a new way of settling international exchanges....minus the United States dollar.
That cheap trinket at Walmart will start carrying a Neiman Marcus price tag. down the line.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
jones, you are a theocratic bully. The Left has gotten fed up with your ilk, but the idea that unbranding America as Christian is a war on religion is part of your ignorance about religious freedom and mutual respect. I have worked to make religion hospitable and to regain the respect of decent people after a bunch of ignorant fools and thugs have tried to make the politics of conscience appear to be about morality. The nastiness of the theocrats to ordinary people is an embarassment to Christ and to the work of a lot of very decent and fair minded religious people. Stop the whining and grow up.
Actually jones is just another monkey hear monkey do parrot for the party of regressive dumbfocks.
jones, you are a theocratic bully. The Left has gotten fed up with your ilk, but the idea that unbranding America as Christian is a war on religion is part of your ignorance about religious freedom and mutual respect. I have worked to make religion hospitable and to regain the respect of decent people after a bunch of ignorant fools and thugs have tried to make the politics of conscience appear to be about morality. The nastiness of the theocrats to ordinary people is an embarassment to Christ and to the work of a lot of very decent and fair minded religious people. Stop the whining and grow up.
How am I being a bully? All I want is for the federal government to stay within the constraints of the constitution. I want the people on the left to be more tolerant, they preach tolerance right. I want people to stop whining there is a nativity scene on the capital grounds or I can see a cross on route 7 that has to come down. why do we have to take down the cross just cause some people are offended by it. This is supposed to the land of the free, free to worship as you wish, free to success if you wish, free to do pretty much what you want as long as it is not against the law of the city/ state. I am not saying this is a Christian nation. I am saying this is a free nation and you should be able to worship as you wish with out the federal government telling you what you have to provide or not provide. This also includes the right to put up what every religious icon you want on your property.
Jones wrote Europe is broke and if the u.s. runs down this same road it will be in worse shape than it is now. we need to get back to the principles that made this country great
poly replies: Europe is broke because the banksters robbed it dry. Ireland, by bailing its banks, owes financiers several times its total economic output. Wealthy, "socialist" Norway has a sovereign wealth fund that is the envy of many "non-socialist" nations. It kept its banksters at bay.
Even the U.S. still produces about $40,000 for every many, woman and baby in the country. $160,000 for each family of four. Of course, with our rising poverty rates, you'd never know it..
"The money supply at any given time is finite. For one to have more, another has to have less". Friedman, "Money Mischief".
The debate in Washington seems to be just how much less the destitute should receive...., so billion dollar bonuses can become two-billion dollar bonuses..
Churches have no business dictating personal birth control matters. The only Christian mandate given by Christ regarding health care is the command to tend the sick. There were no strings attached.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
The Federal government through the bank bail out debacle, bailed out the European banks. The U.S. taxpayer has already agreed to a currency swap that would keep the euro from collapsing under the socialist policies. Plus the federal government is currently trying to figure out how to help Greece cause when Greece is gone the rest of Europe will fall which will pull us down too. The several trillions of dollars that the FEDs have given them will not stop this it is more good money after bad.
yes the money supply is finite, but it is not the governments job to make sure you keep what you earn. that is your responsibility and no one else’s you are the one to fight for more money and to keep what you make no one else is going to hand it to you.
so now you are saying that sex is a sickness, and we all have to provide your condemns? That might help raise the intelligence of the nation if the left would stop breeding but it goes against the whole freedom thing. Maybe instead of forcing the church or the federal government to provide your birth control maybe you could man up and buy it yourself.
jones, you are a theocratic bully. The Left has gotten fed up with your ilk, but the idea that unbranding America as Christian is a war on religion is part of your ignorance about religious freedom and mutual respect. I have worked to make religion hospitable and to regain the respect of decent people after a bunch of ignorant fools and thugs have tried to make the politics of conscience appear to be about morality. The nastiness of the theocrats to ordinary people is an embarassment to Christ and to the work of a lot of very decent and fair minded religious people. Stop the whining and grow up.
How am I being a bully? All I want is for the federal government to stay within the constraints of the constitution. I want the people on the left to be more tolerant, they preach tolerance right. I want people to stop whining there is a nativity scene on the capital grounds or I can see a cross on route 7 that has to come down. why do we have to take down the cross just cause some people are offended by it. This is supposed to the land of the free, free to worship as you wish, free to success if you wish, free to do pretty much what you want as long as it is not against the law of the city/ state. I am not saying this is a Christian nation. I am saying this is a free nation and you should be able to worship as you wish with out the federal government telling you what you have to provide or not provide. This also includes the right to put up what every religious icon you want on your property.
So you would be all right with satan worshipers erecting a large crucifix upside down in their front yard along with a statue of Jesus hanging from a tree? There would be no demonstrations outside the satan worshipers house? You would be ok with a muslim mosque on every street corner in your city? There would be no demonstrations? How about requiring to read from the koran in every public grade school?
I don't think that very many people are offended by a nativity scene but they are offended by the many who are offended if you don't praise it's being there.
[/quot
do a Google search on fight to remove cross there will be pages of results that come up. Including people wanting the marines to take a cross down that is part of a memorial to the fallen marines
jones, you are a theocratic bully. The Left has gotten fed up with your ilk, but the idea that unbranding America as Christian is a war on religion is part of your ignorance about religious freedom and mutual respect. I have worked to make religion hospitable and to regain the respect of decent people after a bunch of ignorant fools and thugs have tried to make the politics of conscience appear to be about morality. The nastiness of the theocrats to ordinary people is an embarassment to Christ and to the work of a lot of very decent and fair minded religious people. Stop the whining and grow up.
How am I being a bully? All I want is for the federal government to stay within the constraints of the constitution. I want the people on the left to be more tolerant, they preach tolerance right. I want people to stop whining there is a nativity scene on the capital grounds or I can see a cross on route 7 that has to come down. why do we have to take down the cross just cause some people are offended by it. This is supposed to the land of the free, free to worship as you wish, free to success if you wish, free to do pretty much what you want as long as it is not against the law of the city/ state. I am not saying this is a Christian nation. I am saying this is a free nation and you should be able to worship as you wish with out the federal government telling you what you have to provide or not provide. This also includes the right to put up what every religious icon you want on your property.
So you would be all right with satan worshipers erecting a large crucifix upside down in their front yard along with a statue of Jesus hanging from a tree? There would be no demonstrations outside the satan worshipers house? You would be ok with a muslim mosque on every street corner in your city? There would be no demonstrations? How about requiring to read from the koran in every public grade school?
I don't think that very many people are offended by a nativity scene but they are offended by the many who are offended if you don't praise it's being there.
no i would not care if they put up a satan worship symbol I would not like it but I would not protest it either. there probably would be demenstration out if front of the house just like occupy because they are not getting enough free stuff. if the mosque went through the proper channels with building permits and such no I would not care just cause they are there does not mean I have to use them. there is a mcdonalds on every corner and I do not eat there either. if they were reading the koran if i did not agree with the policy I can pull my kid out of school. it is called being free... some thing the left hates freedom, free thinking, free will, they preach all of this stuff as long as it agrees with them.
do not agree with the housing accociations either it is my house i will do what I want to it. They have the right to complain to themselves their complants should not include trying to force some one to take down their property.
Like I said do a google search they are out there. I have to go do some thing union memebers and liberals do not know how to do its called work.
jones, had the Christians appreciated religious freedom and the separation of church and state, they would not be putting up these big BRAND symbols about their dogmatic insistence that America is a Christian Country and making everybody else quake in the shadows of their moralistic and pious crap. It offends me as a Christian as well as as an American. The same people would go apeshit about anything Islamic, even a mosque without a big public image.
And speaking of work, do you think Romney has any idea what it means? Your ugly insults and canned memes get you the responses you deserve. The contempt toward labor by "management" is well-documented and baseless. You do help us appreciate how ignorant you are.
There is not separation of church and state, the first amendment states that the federal government can not have an official religion or prohibit you from practicing your religion as you see fit. Why did it take the left 220 plus years to start to complain about crosses at memorial sites that are on public ground? Did the founders run around destroying any religious icons on public lands? I believe when you get sworn into public office you still do so on a bible and say so help me god at the end.
Work will set you free is what your quote in German means it was used by the Nazi’s some thing the left should now a lot about their policies are almost identical.
Manager or worker you still have work to do.
jones, had the Christians appreciated religious freedom and the separation of church and state, they would not be putting up these big BRAND symbols about their dogmatic insistence that America is a Christian Country and making everybody else quake in the shadows of their moralistic and pious crap. It offends me as a Christian as well as as an American. The same people would go apeshit about anything Islamic, even a mosque without a big public image.
And speaking of work, do you think Romney has any idea what it means? Your ugly insults and canned memes get you the responses you deserve. The contempt toward labor by "management" is well-documented and baseless. You do help us appreciate how ignorant you are.
I am not preaching morals to anyone, I am saying as a free country we should be allowed to live without being forced to do certain things at the end of the government gun because a small portion of the popluation does not like it.
have you ever run a company I can tell you it is work. so yes romney would know what work is.
your contempt for business owners shows me how dependent you are on government control. you need them to provide everything to you because you are no longer capiblie of providing for yourself. here is how i got to this decision. the union told you how much you were going to get paid, it did not matter if you were better than the other guy or not you got the same pay. the union told you how much you were going to save for your retirement. you are asking the government to force everyone onto their provided health care system that way you do not need to make a choice you just show up and do what you are told. there are more but i have some stuff to take care of.
Your pious rhetoric belies your claims to understand much of anything. I never said that owning a business was not "work," but I do distinguish between creating something of value and being an equity financeer. I appreciate real investment in real businesses, and I have real respect for those who run businesses and take care of their employees while also adding real value to the community. But, I have also seen a lot of arrogant aholes who screw everyone they can in the false belief that 'competition' and getiing the most for the least is the moral way to go. Greed into Gold.
Romney never earned an honest dollar at Bain. I am with David Korten on the difference between the Real Economy and Phantom Wealth. I spent two years working with students and faculty at Stanford Business School on the issues of corporate responsibility, saw the best get left out in the cold by Reagan's Supply Side bs, and understood what a pile of narcissistic crap it has been. I also saw MBA's trained to treat labor as overhead cost while they saw their machinery as productive assets. They took far better care of the latter and never understood why management succeeds when it represents the value creation at the bottom rather than presuming the authority of the boss.
Freedom includes respecting others instead of sticking your crap in their faces. Were American Christians able to understand the counsel of St. Paul, they would always avoid being an offense to others instead of good neighbors. I am offended by these "public Christians" who act as if being very religious in public was the same as being a Christian. Branding America as Christian is an offense to every other person of faith as well as to secular Americans, and it is also an offense to me as a Christian. Separation of Church and State makes religious freedom possible for all, and showing some respect for our neighbors is all I am asking. The politics of conscience is religious warfare, the worst war possible, and it is all about self-righteous insecurity. If your God can be banished from the public square, get a real God.
I would love a truly ecumenical sharing of our religious traditions so we could sing Christmas Carols without making a lot of Jews want to get out of town. I would like to have Muslims feel welcome to observe their rites without a bunch of ninnies going apeshit about Sharia Law and terrorism. What a crock!
In my long study of American history and culture, I have come to some conclusions about what has gone wrong and why our "exceptionalism" and sense of "manifest destiny" has turned rancid on us. I think our reduction of life to "economic man" is the loss of our soul, not that economics is evil or commerce must be tawdry and sin drenched. Not at all. But, it has to be more than making money or running a business as if that were good in itself. The state is not tyrannical for defending the interests of the society and requiring commerce to serve society and humanity (and the earth) instead of doing damage to any or all of them.
I am a democrat because I believe we can govern ourselves, and because I believe the alternative is having others who are not qualified rule over us. I am not qualified to rule over others, and that leads me to conclude that you are not either. What this means about "our money" is that we participate together in a democratic economy which must include all and meet the needs of all or none. Neglecting people and destroying the earth will bite us on the butt, so we need to be about the care and healing of the world and each other in our shared prosperity and security.
Your pious rhetoric belies your claims to understand much of anything. I never said that owning a business was not "work," but I do distinguish between creating something of value and being an equity financeer. I appreciate real investment in real businesses, and I have real respect for those who run businesses and take care of their employees while also adding real value to the community. But, I have also seen a lot of arrogant aholes who screw everyone they can in the false belief that 'competition' and getiing the most for the least is the moral way to go. Greed into Gold.
Romney never earned an honest dollar at Bain. I am with David Korten on the difference between the Real Economy and Phantom Wealth. I spent two years working with students and faculty at Stanford Business School on the issues of corporate responsibility, saw the best get left out in the cold by Reagan's Supply Side bs, and understood what a pile of narcissistic crap it has been. I also saw MBA's trained to treat labor as overhead cost while they saw their machinery as productive assets. They took far better care of the latter and never understood why management succeeds when it represents the value creation at the bottom rather than presuming the authority of the boss.
Freedom includes respecting others instead of sticking your crap in their faces. Were American Christians able to understand the counsel of St. Paul, they would always avoid being an offense to others instead of good neighbors. I am offended by these "public Christians" who act as if being very religious in public was the same as being a Christian. Branding America as Christian is an offense to every other person of faith as well as to secular Americans, and it is also an offense to me as a Christian. Separation of Church and State makes religious freedom possible for all, and showing some respect for our neighbors is all I am asking. The politics of conscience is religious warfare, the worst war possible, and it is all about self-righteous insecurity. If your God can be banished from the public square, get a real God.
I would love a truly ecumenical sharing of our religious traditions so we could sing Christmas Carols without making a lot of Jews want to get out of town. I would like to have Muslims feel welcome to observe their rites without a bunch of ninnies going apeshit about Sharia Law and terrorism. What a crock!
In my long study of American history and culture, I have come to some conclusions about what has gone wrong and why our "exceptionalism" and sense of "manifest destiny" has turned rancid on us. I think our reduction of life to "economic man" is the loss of our soul, not that economics is evil or commerce must be tawdry and sin drenched. Not at all. But, it has to be more than making money or running a business as if that were good in itself. The state is not tyrannical for defending the interests of the society and requiring commerce to serve society and humanity (and the earth) instead of doing damage to any or all of them.
I am a democrat because I believe we can govern ourselves, and because I believe the alternative is having others who are not qualified rule over us. I am not qualified to rule over others, and that leads me to conclude that you are not either. What this means about "our money" is that we participate together in a democratic economy which must include all and meet the needs of all or none. Neglecting people and destroying the earth will bite us on the butt, so we need to be about the care and healing of the world and each other in our shared prosperity and security.
By using the force of government to redistribute wealth under the guise of helping all or none, you are forcing some into economic slavery while rewarding others for doing nothing. Those are not policies that made America country great; they are policies that will cause the collapse just like Europe is currently facing today. If we continue down the path of redistribution, we will end up with a soft tyranny with an elected elite and the rest of us. Yes we need to be united to govern ourselves but all politics should start with your local area not with the federal government. A strong central government is the deathblow to freedom. They federal government is to far away and to isolated from the local issues to be able to construct a plan that is good for every one in every state. This is precisely why the founders put in the 18 enumerated powers for the federal government and left all others to the states and or the individual.
Now I am not saying that we should abandon all those in need however, I think that should be the job of charities not the federal government. If the charities cannot keep up with demand it should fall to the local municipalities if they so choose to do so.
what I am saying is that the government has not authority to confiscate the procedes of my labor in order to give it to some one that has not earned it. these procedes included but are not limited to anything I have to work to produce, ie food, money, sellable goods.
you took two different part of my post and smashed them together. however, The goernment should not be confiscating my property, or procedes of labor in order to support the people who are unwilling to support themselves.
what I am talking about is the government passing laws that benefit a small group of citizens like welfare receipents while hurting others, I am talking about the government passing laws that hurt the majority while helping the minority. freedom and opportunity should be equal or not at all.
the union quote was me pointing out that some union members who are also democrats are dependent on the government to control their lives for them, they miss the total union control after retirement and are not calling for the government to step in and provide them with health care, more retirement funds, free education, and free housing. this comes from the fact that while at the union they did not have to consider how much they were getting paid or doing a good job or not or even working at a fast pace. because no mater how good, bad, slow, or fast you were every one got paid the same amount. they are now so used to living under total control they are trying to force that level of control on everyone.
Well jones, at least I have your own words describing your twisted thinking. I have some knowledge about why some see government as always counter to their interests and freedom, but that is only for those who are discriminated against and separated from their full citizenship. Nothing about America has ever made religion the subject of persecution, although the Mormons have the best case historically for it. The reason Southern religion developed an anti-government dogma was that it was part of the losing side to keep slavery.
The North did become triumphalist, but that did not make "the cause" of the South good and moral. Nor does it justify a persistent sectarian culture once full citizenship and participation in national politics was achieved. What we liberals have had to fight against is prejudice and the unjust exclusion of citizens from equal citizenship because of Southern racism, homophobia and misogyny. Those who believe we should have cut the South away and let it drift fail to appreciate how little of the problem that would have solved.
What you really argue against is democracy and its practice. What you would leave us with is a "free" feeding ground for predators, not freedom for us.
Well jones, at least I have your own words describing your twisted thinking. I have some knowledge about why some see government as always counter to their interests and freedom, but that is only for those who are discriminated against and separated from their full citizenship. Nothing about America has ever made religion the subject of persecution, although the Mormons have the best case historically for it. The reason Southern religion developed an anti-government dogma was that it was part of the losing side to keep slavery.
The North did become triumphalist, but that did not make "the cause" of the South good and moral. Nor does it justify a persistent sectarian culture once full citizenship and participation in national politics was achieved. What we liberals have had to fight against is prejudice and the unjust exclusion of citizens from equal citizenship because of Southern racism, homophobia and misogyny. Those who believe we should have cut the South away and let it drift fail to appreciate how little of the problem that would have solved.
What you really argue against is democracy and its practice. What you would leave us with is a "free" feeding ground for predators, not freedom for us.
I am not sure where you keep getting that I want chaos or no government at all. what i want is for the government to enforce the laws that keep preditors from being preditors. I am calling for the government to stop stealing from the rich and giving to the poor that is not a function of government.