shipperx: (Scully - What a doof)
From TheWeek.com

8 biting responses to Erick Erickson's biological critique of 'breadwinner moms'

On Wednesday, the Pew Social & Demographic Trends Project released a study quantifying the rise of what Pew calls the "breadwinner moms." The headline statistic was that in 40 percent of U.S. households with children, the mother is now the primary or sole earner.  (The Week rounded up this and lots of other fascinating numbers from the study.)


That evening, the study was a topic of discussion on Lou Dobbs' Fox Business News program. All four of the men on Dobbs' panel — Dobbs, Juan Williams, Doug Schoen, and Erick Erickson — were horrified by the study and the social and economic changes it describes, but Erickson, a conservative commentator, drew special attention for his take on the Pew study:

I'm so used to liberals telling conservatives that they're anti-science. {...} When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, it's not competing, it's a complementary role. We've lost the ability to have complementary relationships... and it's tearing us apart. [Erickson, FOX Business News]


This comment drew considerable backlash, so Erickson took to Twitter to reiterate his point:

Twitter: Erick Erickson@EWErickson:
Sorry folks, this is just hard truth. Husbands and wives should play complimentary roles w/ dad as breadwinner.


[Me: But perhaps women should teach grammar (unless he actually meant that a female's role is to ego stroke males... which he may have.)]

In case his argument still wasn't clear enough, Erickson then wrote a long column at his site, RedState {...} [stating]:

Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements {...} In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It's the female who tames the male beast. One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.{...} Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens. Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine in the liberal fantasy world. Except in the real world it does not work out that way. [RedState]


Here are eight biting critiques of Erickson's science-citing theory on work and gender:

1) "Oh. My. God," says Derek Thompson at The Atlantic. "Let's treat Erickson's Ron Burgundy moment with some data." The rise in single mothers is troubling, Thompson says, but Erickson's point about married mothers outearning their husbands isn't. {...} adds Thompson, "far from 'tearing us apart,' it's widely acknowledged that dual-earner households allow families to live more comfortably."

Women might be complementary in Erickson's worldview, but they're primary when it comes to economic growth. The increase in female labor force participation in the last half century has added nearly 2 percentage points per year to GDP growth in the U.S., according to one study. The nice thing about the rise of working women is that no matter how retrograde your opinion of them, they're still making all of us richer. [Atlantic]


2) Twitter: Sr. WH Official @SrWHOfficial
I suspect Erick Erickson's science may not have been peer reviewed.


3)Amanda Marcotte at Slate.
"Erickson must have this nifty scientific 'fact' by studying the animals in the well-known academic text The Berenstain Bears, which clearly shows Papa Bear going out and earning the money while Mama Bear stays at home and cooks the food for the cubs.

Actual animal behavior is much more nuanced, and in many cases egalitarian: Mother and father foxes both go out to forage food for their young, for example, and other primates besides humans mostly shun the male-dominated monogamy that Erickson prefers, living in groups with plenty of "kinky partner swapping."


4) As long as we're looking to nature for our gender roles...

"There are also species where males castrate themselves before sex to avoid being eaten alive by females," says Salon's Seitz-Wald. "Perhaps Erickson would like to experience that — you know, because science."

Twitter: James Poniewozik@poniewozik
PROPOSAL: panel discussion between Erick Erickson, a lioness, a black widow, and a female praying mantis


5) The bigger question from Erickson's biology lesson is, "are we really going by the roles of the animal kingdom?" says Alexandra Petri at The Washington Post.

I wish he'd told me this sooner so I wouldn't have bothered to put pants on, bathe, learn language, and take the great pains I always take not to poop in my hand and fling it at people who say this sort of thing. I would write an in-depth response to this, but I am too busy urinating on a tree to mark it as the boundary of my territory. I am relieved to know we do not hold ourselves to a higher standard. It was getting annoying to have to sit through all those office meetings and not pick fleas off anyone...Female breadwinners aren't a sign of decay in the natural world. And I for one am relieved that we no longer beat our chests and drag each other off to caves unless we're in some sort of weird MeetUp group for that express purpose.[Washington Post]


The shocking thing about Erickson's FBN appearance and blog post is how transparently he rejects the very idea of gender equality, says Salon's Seitz-Wald. "He comes off like a liberal's caricature of what conservative men think."

6) For anyone not familiar with Erickson's work, says Steve Benen at MSBNC, this is a good time to reiterate that "he's not kidding. This isn't satire or a parody."

"Right about now, some of you might be wondering whether Erickson has a professional and/or academic background in biology, zoology, or anthropology that encourages him to speak with such authority about the nuances of gender roles in "animal species." As it turns out, Erickson has no scientific background in any of these fields — he just likes to make stuff up because it makes him feel better. After all, perhaps if he just throws around unsubstantiated claims about "science," those who have "their panties in a wad" will cower in the face of his dubious intellect.


7) Let's not be too hard on Erickson, says Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic. {...} Erickson is right that the children of two-parent households tend to fare better financially than the kids of single moms. But when he takes off on how nature dictates that men should be the breadwinner, well...:

"My wife has earned more than I have for most of the 18 years we've been married. And I have to tell you — it's pretty awesome. At various points in our lives, her job has been our source of health benefits, child care, and even football tickets. [New Republic]


8) Many of the big stars at the Fox News family are, of course, married women, and some of them undoubtedly outearn their husbands:

Greta Von Sustern re the Fox Business News segment:
"Have these men lost their minds? (and are these my collegues??! Maybe I need to have a chat with them. Next, will they have a segment to discuss eliminating women's right to vote?


Don't forget that one of Fox News' top talents is married working mother Megyn Kelly, says Dan Riehl at Riehl World News.

"clearly, motherhood agrees with her, as much as does her high-powered career. So folks like Erickson may enjoy what one might call a more traditional marriage, i.e., male dominated — hey, that's their business. But to suggest it all has something to do with science? Well, maybe if you got your science diploma in sixth grade.

Erick is conflating a cultural argument with a biological one. That's a mistake and a surefire way to lose both arguments. I'd like to think the world and gender roles are just a wee bit more complex than Erick's comments would suggest. [Riehl World News]
shipperx: (Aeryn - woman in a hostile world)
Honestly, why is it so damn difficult for Romney to say "I support equal pay for equal work"?

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce, and the Tea Party don't?  Or maybe because he still lives in 1962?  

For six months his campaign has evaded the simple question of whether he supports the  Fair Pay Act.  Instead of supporting equal pay for the same work, he said this:

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?"  And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.



Binders full of women.

That was his pitch to the 'lady voters.'  He once looked at some binders with women in them. 




Just one problem.  David S. Bernstein explains:
What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.


So Mitt Romney didn't look for women. He didn't ask.  He didn't do anything. 

The women came to him. They told him that he needed to hire more women.

And you know what he did?

None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women. 

And...

A UMass-Boston study found that the percentage positions held by women actually declined during the Romney administration.

Then again this is also the guy claiming that he had a good jobs record in Massachusetts (it was 47th in the nation in job creation... back when the economy was good) .

And while we're at it, there was also this exchange:

ROMNEY: I’d just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not.


I see what you did there Romney. 

See, Romney supported the Blundt Amendment (cosponsored by Ryan).  

 That's what the Blundt amendment did!    It gives employers have the right to decide whether their employees have access to contraceptives covered in their insurance.

Now one might say that Romney is bald-faced lying or one may be generous and say that he's splitting hairs (the question was on insurance not legality, but he doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't want to) to make his position sound more moderate than it is, because it is true that his position doesn't make it illegal to buy contraceptives.  It just allows your boss to decide whether or not it's covered by your health insurance. 

The same health insurance that covers Viagra.  Bosses don't get to decide about that, but they do get to decide whether your lady bits are covered... regardless of whether it's for contraception, your endometriosis, or ovarian cysts.  (Sometimes they aren't so sure how the female reproduction system works

'Cause your employer says so, that's why.  

And because some in Washington had a hissy-fit that it was covered and wrote up legislation to give the boss the right to make that decision for you.  Because it's any of your boss' damn business...  
shipperx: (Aeryn - woman in a hostile world)
Honestly, why is it so damn difficult for Romney to say "I support equal pay for equal work"?

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce, and the Tea Party don't?  Or maybe because he still lives in 1962?  

For six months his campaign has evaded the simple question of whether he supports the  Fair Pay Act.  Instead of supporting equal pay for the same work, he said this:

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?"  And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.



Binders full of women.

That was his pitch to the 'lady voters.'  He once looked at some binders with women in them. 




Just one problem.  David S. Bernstein explains:
What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.


So Mitt Romney didn't look for women. He didn't ask.  He didn't do anything. 

The women came to him. They told him that he needed to hire more women.

And you know what he did?

None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women. 

And...

A UMass-Boston study found that the percentage positions held by women actually declined during the Romney administration.

Then again this is also the guy claiming that he had a good jobs record in Massachusetts (it was 47th in the nation in job creation... back when the economy was good) .

And while we're at it, there was also this exchange:

ROMNEY: I’d just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not.


I see what you did there Romney. 

See, Romney supported the Blundt Amendment (cosponsored by Ryan).  

 That's what the Blundt amendment did!    It gives employers have the right to decide whether their employees have access to contraceptives covered in their insurance.

Now one might say that Romney is bald-faced lying or one may be generous and say that he's splitting hairs (the question was on insurance not legality, but he doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't want to) to make his position sound more moderate than it is, because it is true that his position doesn't make it illegal to buy contraceptives.  It just allows your boss to decide whether or not it's covered by your health insurance. 

The same health insurance that covers Viagra.  Bosses don't get to decide about that, but they do get to decide whether your lady bits are covered... regardless of whether it's for contraception, your endometriosis, or ovarian cysts.  (Sometimes they aren't so sure how the female reproduction system works

'Cause your employer says so, that's why.  

And because some in Washington had a hissy-fit that it was covered and wrote up legislation to give the boss the right to make that decision for you.  Because it's any of your boss' damn business...  
shipperx: (TB-Lafayette-ARKM?)
I've got to stop making these posts, because, quite frankly, there's just wayyyyy too much fodder for them.

Anyway, after yesterday's post about Missouri Senate candidate Akin's severe ignorance about reproduction and biology (with a huge helping of misogyny) another sitting U.S. Representative (this one from Iowa) chose to chime in defending Akin while adding his own severe stupidity:

Rep. Steve King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a girl getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.


This would be the same congressman who came up with THIS jaw-dropper a few weeks ago:

"What I've said is that we need to respect humans more than we do animals. Whenever we start elevating animals up to, to above that of humans, we've crossed a moral line. For example, if there's a sexual predator out there who has impregnated a young girl, say a 13 year old girl, and it happens in America more times than you and I like to think, that sexual predator can pick that girl off the playground at the middle school and haul her across the state line and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set, and that's not against the law in the United States of America..."

BTW - that's all against the law.
shipperx: (TB-Lafayette-ARKM?)
I've got to stop making these posts, because, quite frankly, there's just wayyyyy too much fodder for them.

Anyway, after yesterday's post about Missouri Senate candidate Akin's severe ignorance about reproduction and biology (with a huge helping of misogyny) another sitting U.S. Representative (this one from Iowa) chose to chime in defending Akin while adding his own severe stupidity:

Rep. Steve King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a girl getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.


This would be the same congressman who came up with THIS jaw-dropper a few weeks ago:

"What I've said is that we need to respect humans more than we do animals. Whenever we start elevating animals up to, to above that of humans, we've crossed a moral line. For example, if there's a sexual predator out there who has impregnated a young girl, say a 13 year old girl, and it happens in America more times than you and I like to think, that sexual predator can pick that girl off the playground at the middle school and haul her across the state line and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set, and that's not against the law in the United States of America..."

BTW - that's all against the law.
shipperx: (GOT: Bitchslap)
So, Missouri's Republican Senate candidate:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”


So many levels of wrong in that statement. So many.  But what I really want to know is...

What in the hell is a 'legitimate' rape, asshole? 



ETA: BTW - This asshole is already in the House of Representatives where he's written EIGHT  Personhood (life begins as insemination)  bills that attempted to redefine what lawfully constitutes rape along with co-writer... PAUL RYAN.

Read more... )

ETAII:  The asshat responds:

GOP congressman Todd Akin says he won't end his campaign as Missouri's Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. "I don't know that I'm the only person in public office who has suffered from foot-in-mouth disease," said Akin, who appeared on Mike Huckabee's radio show.  (...) Akin also told Huckabee he meant to say "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape."

'Cause, it might be one of those consensual rapes. [/snark]
shipperx: (GOT: Bitchslap)
So, Missouri's Republican Senate candidate:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”


So many levels of wrong in that statement. So many.  But what I really want to know is...

What in the hell is a 'legitimate' rape, asshole? 



ETA: BTW - This asshole is already in the House of Representatives where he's written EIGHT  Personhood (life begins as insemination)  bills that attempted to redefine what lawfully constitutes rape along with co-writer... PAUL RYAN.

Read more... )

ETAII:  The asshat responds:

GOP congressman Todd Akin says he won't end his campaign as Missouri's Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. "I don't know that I'm the only person in public office who has suffered from foot-in-mouth disease," said Akin, who appeared on Mike Huckabee's radio show.  (...) Akin also told Huckabee he meant to say "forcible rape" instead of "legitimate rape."

'Cause, it might be one of those consensual rapes. [/snark]
shipperx: (Aeryn - woman in a hostile world)

A couple of things.


 This has already been covered a few places under Lawmaker Compares Pregnant Women to Livestock  If you've missed it, see this article

Suggesting that if a cow or pig can give birth to a dead baby, then a woman should too was not enough for Rep. England. He then delivered an anecdote to the chamber in which a young man who was apparently opposed to legislation outlawing chicken fighting but who tjat said he would give up cockfighting if the legislature simply took away women’s right to an abortion.

There's video of some of this!

See:

The Georgia legislature is currently debating a bill that would ban abortions after twenty weeks. The written legislation,  applies not only to viable fetuses but also to ones that are already dead. This means that women would have to carry around their dead babies until their bodies chose to expel them naturally, putting their health at an incredibly high risk – both physically and mentally...

Why does Representative England think this is acceptable? (Cockfighting chickens.  Who can make this shit up?)  After all,
Rep England said, "Life gives us many experiences...I've had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive. Delivering pigs, dead or alive. It breaks our hearts," 

Oh!  Guess that makes it okay then! (BTW, who the hell is your vet?!  I can't imagine a vet not inducing labor when they KNOW that the fetus is dead.  This happens to be dangerous for cows too!) 

*head desk*

In other WTF. Rape?  Incest?  Pshaw! Perhaps it's just a 'misunderstanding':

The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion.

Just before the Idaho's Senate passed the bill, opponents of the bill pointed out that it makes no exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies.

Winder, a Republican from Boise, responded to those concerns by raising the question of whether women understand if they have been raped.

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will  ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape.”



Rape? Incest? Marriage? How is a poor girl to know the difference?!
shipperx: (Aeryn - woman in a hostile world)

A couple of things.


 This has already been covered a few places under Lawmaker Compares Pregnant Women to Livestock  If you've missed it, see this article

Suggesting that if a cow or pig can give birth to a dead baby, then a woman should too was not enough for Rep. England. He then delivered an anecdote to the chamber in which a young man who was apparently opposed to legislation outlawing chicken fighting but who tjat said he would give up cockfighting if the legislature simply took away women’s right to an abortion.

There's video of some of this!

See:

The Georgia legislature is currently debating a bill that would ban abortions after twenty weeks. The written legislation,  applies not only to viable fetuses but also to ones that are already dead. This means that women would have to carry around their dead babies until their bodies chose to expel them naturally, putting their health at an incredibly high risk – both physically and mentally...

Why does Representative England think this is acceptable? (Cockfighting chickens.  Who can make this shit up?)  After all,
Rep England said, "Life gives us many experiences...I've had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive. Delivering pigs, dead or alive. It breaks our hearts," 

Oh!  Guess that makes it okay then! (BTW, who the hell is your vet?!  I can't imagine a vet not inducing labor when they KNOW that the fetus is dead.  This happens to be dangerous for cows too!) 

*head desk*

In other WTF. Rape?  Incest?  Pshaw! Perhaps it's just a 'misunderstanding':

The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion.

Just before the Idaho's Senate passed the bill, opponents of the bill pointed out that it makes no exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies.

Winder, a Republican from Boise, responded to those concerns by raising the question of whether women understand if they have been raped.

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will  ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape.”



Rape? Incest? Marriage? How is a poor girl to know the difference?!
shipperx: (Aeryn - woman in a hostile world)

A couple of things.


 This has already been covered a few places under Lawmaker Compares Pregnant Women to Livestock  If you've missed it, see this article

Suggesting that if a cow or pig can give birth to a dead baby, then a woman should too was not enough for Rep. England. He then delivered an anecdote to the chamber in which a young man who was apparently opposed to legislation outlawing chicken fighting but who tjat said he would give up cockfighting if the legislature simply took away women’s right to an abortion.

There's video of some of this!

See:

The Georgia legislature is currently debating a bill that would ban abortions after twenty weeks. The written legislation,  applies not only to viable fetuses but also to ones that are already dead. This means that women would have to carry around their dead babies until their bodies chose to expel them naturally, putting their health at an incredibly high risk – both physically and mentally...

Why does Representative England think this is acceptable? (Cockfighting chickens.  Who can make this shit up?)  After all,
Rep England said, "Life gives us many experiences...I've had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive. Delivering pigs, dead or alive. It breaks our hearts," 

Oh!  Guess that makes it okay then! (BTW, who the hell is your vet?!  I can't imagine a vet not inducing labor when they KNOW that the fetus is dead.  This happens to be dangerous for cows too!) 

*head desk*

In other WTF. Rape?  Incest?  Pshaw! Perhaps it's just a 'misunderstanding':

The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion.

Just before the Idaho's Senate passed the bill, opponents of the bill pointed out that it makes no exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies.

Winder, a Republican from Boise, responded to those concerns by raising the question of whether women understand if they have been raped.

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will  ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape.”



Rape? Incest? Marriage? How is a poor girl to know the difference?!
shipperx: (WTFery)
What's with the blind spot here? 

Do people just 'forget' about other religions? 

What it if said boss was a Scientologist and disallowed any psychological or psychiatric treatment? Or wouldn't cover any treatment for addiction for your son or daughter or your spouse (because they don't believe in 'addiction' either)  What if your boss was a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in vaccines... for anything!  Or, you know, any medicine whatsoever

Or a Jehovah's Witness and no blood transfusions for you!  Your next car accident could needlessly lead to death.

Seriously, have people gained such American Christian Big Church privilege that they've lost sight of the fact that there are OTHER RELIGIONS (and idiosyncracies between various denominations of Christian)? 

Or exactly why there is separation of church and state in the first place? That it actually protects people's religious rights that they are separate from the state,  that it allows you to freely worship the denomination of YOUR choice  rather than one selected for you by someone else... (LIKE YOUR BOSS!)? Or what destroying that separation could eventually entail? 

Have people become so wrapped up in the concept of "A Christian Nation" that they forgot that the founding fathers of the 18th Century grew up studying British history of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Century.  You know like when Henry VIII stole took over the monastaries taking everything in sight and them smashing what was left to pieces once he 'converted to Protestantism?  And when his daughter Mary executed untold numbers of protestants because of Catholicism?   A lot of Christians died... at the hands of other Christians  while arguing over which denomination was the 'right one!'

And, bowing to Monty Python, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!  ... or the Salem witch trials...

How would Catholics or mainstream (or fundamental!) Protestants feel if the state sanctioned and enforced a religion and it was...Oh, I don't know, for conversational purposes let's say Mormonism?  Would a very religious Southern Baptist really be comfortable with 'prophet' Joseph Smith?  After all, that is  a form of Christianity too (even if those other demoniations might consider it to be heretical).  No one said that a state mandated  "Christian Nation" would be  your  chosen denomination

That's the point! 

There's a reason why the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state.  History is littered with reasons why.  It was done so that you'd have the choice of which religion to worship, so that the state ( or. your. boss) could not force a specific religion on you.

Ahem.

Excerpt of the article the inspired this rant:

Only one Senate Republican — Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is retiring — voted against a truly horrible measure on Thursday that would have crippled the expansion of preventive health care in America. The amendment, which was attached to a highway bill, was defeated on a narrow 48-to-51 vote. But it showed once again how far from the mainstream Republicans have strayed in their relentless efforts to undermine the separation of church and state, deny women access to essential health services and tear apart President Obama’s health care reform law.

The amendment, which was enthusiastically endorsed by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, would have allowed any employer or insurance company to refuse coverage for any activity to which they claim a religious or moral objection.

That would have meant that any employer who objects to cervical-cancer vaccines could have refused to provide health insurance that covers them. The same goes for prenatal sonograms for unmarried mothers, or birth control, H.I.V. screening or mammograms...

ETA:  And now Republican Lisa Mukowski says that she 'regrets' having voted for it. A little late, don't you think?

shipperx: (WTFery)
What's with the blind spot here? 

Do people just 'forget' about other religions? 

What it if said boss was a Scientologist and disallowed any psychological or psychiatric treatment? Or wouldn't cover any treatment for addiction for your son or daughter or your spouse (because they don't believe in 'addiction' either)  What if your boss was a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in vaccines... for anything!  Or, you know, any medicine whatsoever

Or a Jehovah's Witness and no blood transfusions for you!  Your next car accident could needlessly lead to death.

Seriously, have people gained such American Christian Big Church privilege that they've lost sight of the fact that there are OTHER RELIGIONS (and idiosyncracies between various denominations of Christian)? 

Or exactly why there is separation of church and state in the first place? That it actually protects people's religious rights that they are separate from the state,  that it allows you to freely worship the denomination of YOUR choice  rather than one selected for you by someone else... (LIKE YOUR BOSS!)? Or what destroying that separation could eventually entail? 

Have people become so wrapped up in the concept of "A Christian Nation" that they forgot that the founding fathers of the 18th Century grew up studying British history of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Century.  You know like when Henry VIII stole took over the monastaries taking everything in sight and them smashing what was left to pieces once he 'converted to Protestantism?  And when his daughter Mary executed untold numbers of protestants because of Catholicism?   A lot of Christians died... at the hands of other Christians  while arguing over which denomination was the 'right one!'

And, bowing to Monty Python, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!  ... or the Salem witch trials...

How would Catholics or mainstream (or fundamental!) Protestants feel if the state sanctioned and enforced a religion and it was...Oh, I don't know, for conversational purposes let's say Mormonism?  Would a very religious Southern Baptist really be comfortable with 'prophet' Joseph Smith?  After all, that is  a form of Christianity too (even if those other demoniations might consider it to be heretical).  No one said that a state mandated  "Christian Nation" would be  your  chosen denomination

That's the point! 

There's a reason why the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state.  History is littered with reasons why.  It was done so that you'd have the choice of which religion to worship, so that the state ( or. your. boss) could not force a specific religion on you.

Ahem.

Excerpt of the article the inspired this rant:

Only one Senate Republican — Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is retiring — voted against a truly horrible measure on Thursday that would have crippled the expansion of preventive health care in America. The amendment, which was attached to a highway bill, was defeated on a narrow 48-to-51 vote. But it showed once again how far from the mainstream Republicans have strayed in their relentless efforts to undermine the separation of church and state, deny women access to essential health services and tear apart President Obama’s health care reform law.

The amendment, which was enthusiastically endorsed by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, would have allowed any employer or insurance company to refuse coverage for any activity to which they claim a religious or moral objection.

That would have meant that any employer who objects to cervical-cancer vaccines could have refused to provide health insurance that covers them. The same goes for prenatal sonograms for unmarried mothers, or birth control, H.I.V. screening or mammograms...

ETA:  And now Republican Lisa Mukowski says that she 'regrets' having voted for it. A little late, don't you think?

shipperx: (WTFery)
What's with the blind spot here? 

Do people just 'forget' about other religions? 

What it if said boss was a Scientologist and disallowed any psychological or psychiatric treatment? Or wouldn't cover any treatment for addiction for your son or daughter or your spouse (because they don't believe in 'addiction' either)  What if your boss was a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in vaccines... for anything!  Or, you know, any medicine whatsoever

Or a Jehovah's Witness and no blood transfusions for you!  Your next car accident could needlessly lead to death.

Seriously, have people gained such American Christian Big Church privilege that they've lost sight of the fact that there are OTHER RELIGIONS (and idiosyncracies between various denominations of Christian)? 

Or exactly why there is separation of church and state in the first place? That it actually protects people's religious rights that they are separate from the state,  that it allows you to freely worship the denomination of YOUR choice  rather than one selected for you by someone else... (LIKE YOUR BOSS!)? Or what destroying that separation could eventually entail? 

Have people become so wrapped up in the concept of "A Christian Nation" that they forgot that the founding fathers of the 18th Century grew up studying British history of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Century.  You know like when Henry VIII stole took over the monastaries taking everything in sight and them smashing what was left to pieces once he 'converted to Protestantism?  And when his daughter Mary executed untold numbers of protestants because of Catholicism?   A lot of Christians died... at the hands of other Christians  while arguing over which denomination was the 'right one!'

And, bowing to Monty Python, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!  ... or the Salem witch trials...

How would Catholics or mainstream (or fundamental!) Protestants feel if the state sanctioned and enforced a religion and it was...Oh, I don't know, for conversational purposes let's say Mormonism?  Would a very religious Southern Baptist really be comfortable with 'prophet' Joseph Smith?  After all, that is  a form of Christianity too (even if those other demoniations might consider it to be heretical).  No one said that a state mandated  "Christian Nation" would be  your  chosen denomination

That's the point! 

There's a reason why the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state.  History is littered with reasons why.  It was done so that you'd have the choice of which religion to worship, so that the state ( or. your. boss) could not force a specific religion on you.

Ahem.

Excerpt of the article the inspired this rant:

Only one Senate Republican — Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is retiring — voted against a truly horrible measure on Thursday that would have crippled the expansion of preventive health care in America. The amendment, which was attached to a highway bill, was defeated on a narrow 48-to-51 vote. But it showed once again how far from the mainstream Republicans have strayed in their relentless efforts to undermine the separation of church and state, deny women access to essential health services and tear apart President Obama’s health care reform law.

The amendment, which was enthusiastically endorsed by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, would have allowed any employer or insurance company to refuse coverage for any activity to which they claim a religious or moral objection.

That would have meant that any employer who objects to cervical-cancer vaccines could have refused to provide health insurance that covers them. The same goes for prenatal sonograms for unmarried mothers, or birth control, H.I.V. screening or mammograms...

ETA:  And now Republican Lisa Mukowski says that she 'regrets' having voted for it. A little late, don't you think?

January 2017

S M T W T F S
12 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 08:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios