I think I talked about this before but it keeps coming back to me. I find it amazing how we have this disconnect between right and left regarding ends and means.
This latest kerfuffle from Obama about birth control requirements is as classic as it gets. First they defined that every employer (including religious institutions) would need to provide birth control to all employees. Why? Well, because it is all about human rights and ‘women’s health’. Once they realized the huge backlash from the Catholic Church (who employs a very large number of people) their main response was that the Church and all Catholics were being hypocrites because the majority of Catholic women use birth control! Seriously, it doesn’t get more clueless than that.
Now they finally decided to cave in and changed their policy to an even more comical version: Religious institutions don’t need to pay for birth control… but their health insurance provider does!
This only shows you how powerful this ideological harness really is. Obama and his buddies really do believe they are dodging a political disaster by doing this! They still don’t understand that the point here is that religious institutions don’t want to provide birth control. That is their principle. The problem is not who pays the bill or if Catholic women follow their advice or not! The problem is whether the government can force the Church to do something that they simply don’t agree with.
Yes, Catholic women will still have access to birth control. It is not the goal of the church (or even within their power) to outlaw it. They just want to be free to do what they think is right. You want birth control? Go get it for yourself.
—x—
This really goes all the way down to the very core argument about the power of government. The left believes that the government should use all the tools (euphemism for force) to accomplish certain goals. The right believes that we should focus on setting a very strict, well defined set of rights and rules for government so people can accomplish whatever they want (i.e., the pursuit of happiness).
That is why conservatives love the US constitution and liberals not so much. You cannot have economic or social freedom if you are not willing to accept the fact that end results are not always exactly what *you* think is right.
I think it’s about time for America to put him out of business.
I agree. Hopefully Romney can survive the Republican party first
“That is why conservatives love the US constitution and liberals not so much.”
To be fair, conservatives liked it better when the Constitution was a cover for Slavery and Segregation (evil “liberals” used force to end those shames). They don’t like it (and laws in general) that much when it limits the “tools” they are to use to achieve their own goals.The difference does not concern means, it concerns ends, it always have.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
Julio,
Maybe you haven’t heard of it but there was a little war about this issue. Oh and by the way, Republicans were on the right side of it.
Regarding the link, I have no idea how that has to do with anything I said. That was a discussion on how to deal with foreign enemies. Dealing with that kind of threat is and always was the number 1 job of any government. The fact that all of that was discussed (and upheld by Obama btw) shows how seriously conservatives take the constitution.
“Maybe you haven’t heard of it but there was a little war about this issue.”
Yes, and the slave owners claimed (and probably were right) that the Constituition gave them the right of secession. It took the use of force to free the slaves.
“Oh and by the way, Republicans were on the right side of it.”
Before they opted for “state’s rights”. It shows you that the Republican party had better days.
“Hopefully Romney can survive the Republican party first.”
McCain, for instance, couldn’t survive two republicans named Sarah and George.
“That was a discussion on how to deal with foreign enemies.”
“’There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,’ Gonzales said.”
If “conservatives” cared about the Constitution, they wouldn’t have helped drown our country in debt. If they cared about the Constitution, they would not try to impose a non-Christian as command-in-chief of a “nation under God”.
“Hopefully Romney can survive the Republican party first.”
Don’t be such a crying baby! We, the people, are taking our party back, we are taking our country back.
http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogspot.com/2012/02/extend-santorum-sweep.html
“commander-in-chief”, I mean.
Do you really think the church wouldn’t outlaw birth control pills if they could?
They probably would. The point is that they simply can’t do anything like that. That is why we have the church/state separation.
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/08/mitt_romney_abortion_ann_keenan Who is the real Rommey? Why have the Judas “conservatives” hidden this story and told us Rommey oppose abortion? No matter who wins this year, a pro-death politician will have prevailed. This year, I stay home.
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” (Galatians 6:7-8) The same goes for nations.