Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Archive for the ‘Hypocrites’ Category

Polygamists charged

Polygamy charges have finally been laid against Mormon fundamentalists from Bountiful. And if you read the article you’ll see that these misogynist will be making the exact same arguments that socons elsewhere: that religion trumps everything. One example would be the contraception mandate cases in the US.

And yet these socons’ hypocrisy is revealed by the fact that they do not support polygamists. If they truly, truly, truly thought religion should trump everything else, they be supporting polygamists. The fact that they don’t shows that their “concerns” about religion is really just a pretext.

Additionally, that slippery slope actually isn’t. The polygamists explicitly argued that marriage equality meant they had to be allowed to marry multiple people. However, the court upheld the law against polygamy. It rejected the very argument bigots make against marriage.

As for myself, I think we give too many privileges to religion already. It ought to be illegal to oppress women, and that women’s rights ought to overrule religion every time. And therefore my opposition to polygamy follows, whether you’re a Mormon fundamentalist, radical Islamist, or any other theomisogynist.

At least someone’s bringing the hammer down for public health

A hospital in Indiana has fired eight employees because they refused flu shots (via). Good. It’s about time someone grew a spine and stood up to religious extremists who put the health and lives of the public at risk. And can we start doing this in BC, now? Update: My apologies, I didn’t read the date carefully enough. This is from a year ago. But still, the principle behind it still holds.

And to those who want religious exemptions from doing the job the voluntarily signed up for, be careful what you wish for. (Indeed, I think that it is pretty likely that the same people who support the people in Indiana would object to this second group, even though both are using the same justifications for not doing what is necessary for their job).

Jeannieology of a not–Poe

I’ve seen any number of ridiculous objections to the birth control mandate in the US, but this one has got to be one of the loopiest. I found it at Sadly No!, and I swear that it is not a Poe. It’s by someone named Jeannie DeAngelis, and is titled “Is Obama purposely altering America’s religious complexion?”. Considering that Ms. DeAngelis’ writing has also been found at websites like The American Stinker pretty much sums up all you need to know about her. And since I haven’t done a fisking in so long, DeAngelis’ screed provides the perfect target.

Just like a benevolent government that has worked hard to help provide naïve young girls with parent-free abortions,[…]

All women and girls have reproductive rights. Parents don’t own their kids, and they shouldn’t suffer because they happened to be born to fetus fetishist parents. Abortion (and contraception, although DeAngelis didn’t mention it in this context) are legal.

[I]t stands to reason that ‘patriarchal’ Christianity would be next in line to be undermined.[…]

If patriarchal religion is being undermined I’m all for it.

When it comes to challenging authority, the President seems to be particularly obsessed with using birth control and abortion as a weapon.

“Birth control and abortion as a weapon?” You have until the count of ten before I pump your guts full of pills!;)

[…]Barry seems excessively concerned about ensuring that everyone, regardless of age, credo or upbringing, can obtain free condoms, morning-after pills, sterilization, and abortion-on-demand.

Actually, economic and other barriers ensure that most women don’t have abortion or contraception on demand. Additionally, the Hyde Amendment and other laws ensure that federal tax dollars and none of your money™ are not being used to fund (most) abortions (cite).

The only religious group Obama respects and is careful not offend, whether religiously or parentally, is Muslims.

Bush emphasized on a number of occasions that he was fighting Islamic terrorists and extremists and not the vast majority of Muslims who are neither.

The Muslim faith has drawn a line in the sand and the President, who feels very comfortable defying every other authority from the Vatican to the parents of 14-year-old girls[…]

The Pope runs his own country. And again, children shouldn’t suffer because they had the misfortune to be born to parents who abuse them by denying them legal health care.

[A]cquiesces, without question, to the tenets of the Koran.

This conspiracy theory that Obama is a secret Muslim has been debunked a million times.

Barack Obama knows full well that “Muslims believe that health insurance is ‘haraam,’ or forbidden, because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling.” Thus, without question the Obama administration has decided that, unlike other faiths, “This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in [Obamacare].” Obama respects the Muslim stance on gambling, and presto! Muslims are exempt from health insurance, and more specifically the birth control, sterilization, and abortion mandates that accompany it.

Actually, as Snopes and FactCheck make clear, while some Muslim groups object to life insurance, most Muslims have no problem with health insurance or other insurance required by law. Considering that no Muslim groups objects to Social Security, which Christian groups granted exemptions under the appropriate laws do, it is unlikely that any Muslim would be granted an exemption. As Snopes puts it, “[N]o Muslim group has ever qualified for an exemption under the guidelines which define which religious groups would be exempt from the health care law.”

And furthermore, there is no abortion mandate.

DeAngelis then goes on to quote some Catholic dogma about human reproduction and sexuality. The appropriate response to this is, of course, to point out that if one is concerned about abortions (like DeAngelis herself mentioned as recently as last month) and wants to reduce the number of abortions, improved access to contraception is the number one way to do it. That, along with better sex education, is how places like the Czech Republic (cite), Georgia (cite), and elsewhere (cite) have reduced their abortion rates.

Barack Obama, who’s obsessed with everyone else’s sex life[…]

“[O]bsessed with everyone else’s sex life?” I thought this article was written by Jeannie DeAngelis, and not Yagotta B. Kidding.

The question arises as to why a President so focused on controlling so many Americans’ reproductive habits and overriding religion[…]

98% of sexually active Catholic women use contraception. A Majority of Catholics support no–cost contraception (cite). The only religion being overridden is that of the professional virgins almost no one listens to anyway. In addition, as David Frum (a Republican) pointed out, those who oppose the birth control mandate on the grounds of “freedom of religion” are incoherent, much less the fact that several states have required churches to follow similar rules several years already.

[…]Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Barack Obama have joined forces, blocked the exits, and are distributing free condoms at the contraceptive circus.

Contraceptive circus? Really?

Meanwhile, Islam is exempt.

See just above. DeAngelis mentioned this in the part of the paragraph that I skipped over. She sure does know how to rant, doesn’t she?

The President is urging and actively assisting in lowering birth rates in a Christian community whose tenets reject contraception and abortion and stands by while, according to Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life population projections, “Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades.”[…]

Ooooh, alert alert, it’s the scary foreign people! That aside, if you read such demographic reports, you’ll find out that the fertility rate in the Muslim world is plummetting. The reason for the continued increase is, of course, population momentum: When you have a large cohort of people of prime reproductive age, the population will almost certainly go up even with a low birth rate.

DeAngelis continues ranting the same stuff for her last paragraph, reiterating her previous wingnut word salad about Muslim exemptions and pretty much nothing that hasn’t been debunked above.

Update: This post used to have a picture, but I removed it on the grounds that it added no value to this post.

This still doesn’t justify opposition

Many opponents of marriage equality often justify their opposition on religious grounds. The essence of all this is basically the belief that gay sex (or homosexuality), is a sin. In actuality, such a belief does not actually provide justification for being against marriage equality. This is the case even if we put their premises in the best possible light.

To show why, the first thing I’ll do is grant, just for the sake of argument, that gay sex is a sin. But the sinfulness of gay sex does not provide justification opposition to marriage equality. If gay sex was their only problem, then they would have to have no problem with a sexless same–sex marriage. After all, if both parties in a sexless same–sex marriage remained celibate, there would be no gay sex and therefore no sin. Since there’s no sin, no justification for opposition remains.

Analogous reasoning can be used for homosexuality. If we grant for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a sin, then they would have to have no problem with a same–sex marriage between straight people. In such a same–sex marriage, there’d bo no homosexuality, and therefore no sin.

But of course, it’s obvious that wingnuts’ opposition to same–sex marriage isn’t really about any deeply–held beliefs, or any real concern for the sanctity of marriage, but rather due to animosity towards LGBT people. And besides, coherence from fundies and wingnuts is as likely as snow falling on Tarawa.

So much for family values

The so–called “family values” of GOP presidential candidates are getting worse over time. This chart from Salon is instructive.

Nothing more to say, really.

Fundie, Xtian, and misogynist wife–beater

This article (trigger warning: domestic violence) from the Daily Mail speaks for itself about why fundamentalism is bad and harmful to women.

Online emetic

The Texas Republican Party has released its 2010 platform, and folks, it’s bad for your health. But don’t worry, I’ll serve as a buffer to protect you. Some lowlights:

  • A call to reinstate the sodomy laws that were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas;
  • A call to make it a felony to perform a same sex–marriage;
    • All this while “limiting the expansion of government power”;
  • A call for LGBT people to be denied custody or visitation of a minor, coming close to saying that LGBT people can’t see their own (biological) children;
    • Taking kids from their parents; that’s GOP family values for you!
  • A call to eliminate no fault divorce and promote covenant marriage;
    • covenant marriage is basically a “the man can do no wrong” wife–beaters’ protection act;
  • They go on and on about the sanctity of life and their opposition to abortion, but as the next items show, they don’t really believe it
  • A call for outlawing the morning–after pill, allowing refusal clauses at pharmacies, and for parents to deny their children the sex education they have a right to;
    • Sex education and contraception are the best ways to reduce the abortion rate, and by being in favour of allowing others to deny sex education and contraception to others, the Texas GOP shows their claimed support for the “sanctity of life” is a complete lie; if they truly believed that abortion was murder, they’d realize that violating parental rights and making someone do their job couldn’t possibly be fucking worse than killing someone;
  • Teaching both sides of evolution, intelligent design, and global warming;
    • Shorter Texas GOP: we believe that we are not just entitled to our own opinions, but also our own facts!
  • They go on and on about protecting children, but are against ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
    • Hey Texas GOP! Why are you against children’s rights?
  • They claim to “deplore all discrimination”;
    • Interesting juxtaposition given their view on LGBT rights;

The whole thing goes on and on with (mostly) more wingnuttery stuff like the above.

One final thing has to be said. Just because wingnuts have their own political party in Texas, does not mean that any particular person from there is a wingnut. We don’t use Michelle Bachman to paint all people from Minnesota with the same brush; the same applies to Texas.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: