While the Supreme Court imbues corporations with the power of religious belief, Justice Samuel Alito points quietly toward the logical political response:
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the court’s five more conservative justices, said a federal religious-freedom law applied to for-profit corporations controlled by religious families. He added that the requirement that the companies provide contraception coverage imposed a substantial burden on the companies’ religious liberty. He said the government could provide the coverage in other ways [Adam Liptak, "Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations," New York Times, 2014.06.30].
How can the government provide the health care coverage that Hobby Lobby and ACA-trashing conservatives will gleefully deny? By doing what Rick Weiland says and going back to what the Affordable Care Act should have offered in the first place: a universal public option. Medicare eligibility for everyone.
Consider the implications of today's Supreme Court ruling for employees:
- The ACA is intended to remove some of the grit from the labor market by guaranteeing some basic protections in health insurance.
- The Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood ruling throw that grit back in the wheels, increasing the homework workers have to do to figure out whether their current or prospective employers offer health plans that meet their needs.
- An applicant going into an interview wanting to learn about the company's health insurance plan and exemptions in coverage must ask questions that, under today's rulings, are treated as fundamentally religious questions.
- Asking such questions opens the door for the employer to ask—or at least wonder about—the applicant's religious beliefs. Good heavens, she's asking whether our health plan covers contraception. Is she one of those heathens who thinks women deserve access to basic health care? We can't let her corrupt our employees!
- If holy companies can Swiss-cheese their health plans, their employees can't switch to better coverage in the ACA Marketplace, since the Marketplace only takes applicants whose employers don't offer coverage.
- Therefore, we need to elect a Congress that will revisit the ACA, open the Marketplace to all willing customers, and offer all Americans the chance to buy into a publicly funded health insurance option that offers them the same stable, reliable coverage no matter what sort of religionists they work for.
Weiland's solution is the only one that makes sense. I'll do him one better and say Medicare for all. Meanwhile Mike Rounds whistles and twiddles his thumbs.
You are correct Cory, it could not be plainer. To get this corrected and to make a difference for all working families, there can be no more obstruction and no more hate and disregard for women and children by the republican party. Vote the haters out of office and in Round's case, before he even enters it. We all saw his shenanigans dealing with women's rights in South Dakota with the abortion issue. He cannot be allowed anywhere near where national decisions are made. Universal healthcare for all!
The country took a sad turn today, it may only be a matter of time now.
Don't give up hope, Tim. This country has survived the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism and J.Edgar Hoover's crimes, just to name a few. These old men can't live forever and a new court will rise. Painful to be at the wrong end of the pendulum swing right now, though, isn't it?
Now if Rick Weiland would bring this lady with the populist message to sing off of the same sheet music, that would help as well. http://wfpl.org/post/elizabeth-warren-alison-lundergan-grimes-will-be-fighter-kentucky
We must move forward and we cannot do that with republican obstructionism, they have to go man.
With the general election on the horizon, I'm wondering how the SCOTUS decision will impact Democratic and Republican women voters.
This decision needs to be linked to the Republican Party.
#$%&+@/©®€¢!?+&!!!!!!!!!
"To get this corrected and to make a difference for all working families, there can be no more obstruction and no more hate and disregard for women and children by the republican party."
Again, for those who don't know, the above quote is an example of Neo-Marxism. And so is the basis to Rick Weiland's Medicare for all proposal. This would be irresponsible if done prior to establishing who decides when it cost too much to keep any one of us alive as medical technology advances. The federal debt cannot withstand an infinite answer to that question.
We're only one step away from giving corporations the right to vote. These legal entities seem to be accruing all of the other rights of natural persons. If they are 18 or older, why not the vote? There's a bill for ALEC to sponsor. But then again, it probably doesn't require a bill. We're talking constitutional rights here.
While you Neo-Marxists blame Republicans and corporations, Bill Clinton and Congressional Democrats are also responsible for the position taken by the Supreme Court:
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the lead Republican sponsor of the religious-freedom law when it passed the Senate in a 97-3 vote, said Monday's decision affirmed Congress' decision to pass the law in the first place.
"As the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened," Mr. Hatch said in a statement. "That's why RFRA passed Congress overwhelmingly more than 20 years ago."
The bill passed the House on a voice vote and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-ruling-ignites-debate-over-religious-freedom-law-1404155510
Forgive my ignorance, but ... does federal law require businesses to offer health insurance to employees? Was that part of Obamacare or was that earlier or is it not a requirement? Does federal or any law require businesses to offer any benefits other than wages/salary?
Korwhoreporations have no need to vote. They already have purchased the congressweasels of their choice and pretty much can buy whatever elections their little hearts desire. Made possible buy an activist,right wing nut job majority, bought and paid for, suckpreme kourt. Sibby's neo-marxists comments notwithstanding.
http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/06/30/stolen-property/
Some pundits argue that this decision will hurt Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, since it seems to revive the war on women's health and places the religious right on top of (pun intended) women. Statistically, the argument goes, the vast majority of single women under the age of 35 vote democratic. The hope is that this decision and the Republican endorsement of it could get young women interested in the midterms and bring out their vote.
My question is, where are SD women at? Are they mostly Republicans and do they vote Republican, or are they interested in the issues and vote for the candidates that appear to have their reproductive rights in mind? Perhaps this decision might assist SD's democratic candidates finally shift the balance of power in this state, although our restrictive abortion legislation didn't seem to motivate our female voters?
so Steve is a corporation a person?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_benefit
Jessie,read the part about the US. Benefits were first offered in lieu of wages and then later they became an add on to workers instead of big pay raises. Some companies offered them to keep their employees. Companies used to compete to keep their workers. Now they compete to keep their workers poor.
Thanks for the link, mike.
Bear,
The issues you raise are the ones I have been concentrating on today, the politics of it all.
Could this realistically be the issues that swings Republican women voters or they will remain with their captors and continue to suffer the affects of Stockholm Syndrome?
Additionally, today has been field day for Democratic fund raising, I wonder how they raised?
After John Boehner's decided to sue President Obama, the Democrats raised over $2 million in 48 hours.
Lanny-(Off topic) if you are out there I just criticized the Obama Admin. for citing an Israeli court as justification for killing Americans abroad(at themudflats.net).
What's next, blood transfusions because a business doesn't believe in them, this could eventually involve all kinds of other life saving methods. Hopefully Hobby Lobby's insurance doesn't pay for Viagra and other medications of that type, along with penile implants, vasectomies, etc. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
The comedy here is at an all time high, nothing but war on women, so if you can't control your actions and use a condom-its a war on women. So for a few brain dead women that can't control their hormones its everyone else's fault. When I was in college, you could birth control pills for free, that was 2 years ago in Brookings. I say this is more a war on idiocy, cmon folks smartin up. It seems our fearless fraudulent president has caused loss of critical thinking by a few die hard left wing fanatics.
No Joan, of course in the good ole boy republican network, Viagra is on the list of things we keep and so are vasectomies along with the implants. In republican view, just sitting at the same table with men is plenty.
Like Juanita Jean says above,christianity sure gets a lot of bang for its buck,even though it doesn't pay any bucks.
http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/06/30/texas-our-texas-lets-get-drunk-and-nakkid/
Here you go,Chris. Wingnut family values on display at Texas Boys State where leaders are made and women are objectified. Have a good laugh,sport.
Jessie, for groups in 2014 that are 50 and under, there are no requirements. In 2015, for that will change to groups 100 and under. Large employers are required to provide insurance and all have to be in compliance with the ACA rules to have such things as maternity and mental health coverage.
Thanks for the clarification, Jerry. If the 50+ business does not want to provide insurance, though, they have to pay a tax penalty instead, correct? That's how Obamacare got the SCOTUS ruling in its favor in the previous case, being ruled as a tax, wasn't it?
Here you go ladies, here is what the republican spokespeople actually say about you. They disrespect you and marginalize you, why would you vote for them? Come on over to the blues where you will be respected for who you are. Take a look at who was elected to represent the blues for governor, now take a look at the other side. Pretty clear.
"My religion trumps your "right" to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
— @EWErickson
This is the joke called religious liberty that you will be hearing a lot about real soon. Look to the clown car of Bobby Jindal and this asshat Erickson to be the megaphones of that big lie.
Wiki has already been amended to include today's decision. The religious freedom restoration act was intended primarily to protect Native American's religious activities if I read Wiki correctly.And it was found to be unconstitutional.
No, there are no penalties for this year for those 50 plus employers regarding that.
I believe that the so called "tax" was regarding the individual mandate for those that could afford insurance but choose not to purchase it to let the rest of us pay for their sickness or accidents.
mike from iowa, what will happen now is that Sharia Law will become mainstream for some employers. Or what about this one? The Rastafari movement or Rasta is a new religious movement that arose in the 1930s in Jamaica, which at the time was a country with a predominantly Christian culture where 98% of the people were the black descendants of slaves.[3][4] Its adherents worship Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia (ruled 1930–1974), as God incarnate, the Second Advent, or the reincarnation of Jesus.
The list goes on. Or you can form your own and declare your religion to be entitled to all protection rights as the one in Jamaica. The Westboro Church did that and look at the millions it has taken in with its hate, pretty profitable. This decision today, really shows that a law degree does not make you very intelligent, it can just make you an ideologue with no sense of right or wrong.
My calendar must be wrong. It says 2014 but it seems more like 1420.
File this under sheer and stunning hypocrisy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
Saw John's cited article some months ago. It is more stunning in today's context. It is time not to be nice and restrained.
I was a bit surprised that the SCOTUS came up with the ruling they did. Seems that it opens the door for some pretty odd religious exclusions down the line.
This could turn out OK in the end, however. I like the option of Medicare for all, or at least of everyone having the option of going through the marketplace. Why is health insurance tied to the workplace anyway? Life insurance isn't, car insurance isn't, home owners insurance isn't and maybe it's time that health insurance became individually purchased like the others.
The numbers of Shameless "Christians" continues to increase. I hate the bastardization of Jesus Christ's life and message.
Roger, this ruling may be all the more reason for Rick to yield the floor to the women with whom he shares the top of the South Dakota ticket. We need every woman in South Dakota to look at the way that Republicans and the judges they appoint want to treat women as second-class citizens.
Joan, according to this Huffington Post report, Hobby Lobby will cover vasectomies and Viagra.
R, your talk of letting corporations vote is scary, because it sounds as absurd as saying corporations can hold religious beliefs... yet here we are.
Ban corporate personhood. There must be a way to achieve that goal, or strike the legal medium that allows corporations to exist, to hire and fire, to make and fulfill contracts, to be held accountable in courts of law, yet not go down this crazy path of treating them as persons. Is it really that hard for the law to recognize two classes of legal actors: real persons, to whom the Constitution applies in full force, and corporations, who can sue and be sued for crimes and contract violations but enjoy a much more limited scope of rights?
"I hate the bastardization of Jesus Christ's life and message."
Well Deb, then get out of your so-called Christian organization that is using cultural Neo-Marxism to spread hate toward men, whites, and Christians. All in an effort to set up a one-world system that will end up oppressing us all by setting up the anti-Christ.
Just to add a link to support Jerry's answer to Jessie's question:
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate.php
------quoting------
The ObamaCare employer mandate / employer penalty, originally set to begin in 2014, will be delayed until 2015 / 2016. The ObamaCare "employer mandate" is a requirement that all businesses with over 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees provide health insurance for their full-time employees, or pay a per month "Employer Shared Responsibility Payment" on their federal tax return.
Employer mandate update: Small businesses with 50-99 full-time equivalent employees (FTE) will need to start insuring workers by 2016. Those with a 100 or more will need to start providing health benefits to at least 70% of thier FTE by 2015 and 95% by 2016. Health care tax credits have been retroactively available to small businesses with 25 or less full-time equivalent employees since 2010.
------end quote------
You can get more straight poop on the employer mandate from https://www.healthcare.gov/what-do-large-business-owners-need-to-know/
Jerry, Alito and Roberts may have opened the door for all sorts of Sharia-flavored madness. Check out this Daily Beast article, which says Hobby Lobby may just have done long-term damage to conservatives and religious liberty. Nutshell: Alito has taken the doctrine of not inquiring into religious beliefs too far, allowing Hobby Lobby to adopt its own set of facts. "This doctrine cannot hold," writes Daily Beast's Jay Michaelson, "especially now that third parties can be affected by someone’s religious preferences—unlike earlier cases, which were usually about religious dissent that harmed no one. The result will have to be a limitation of the doctrine itself"... meaning the courts will have to start inquiring into religious beliefs.
Best intel available is betting that if QE 2 of Great Britain is in favor of women's rights,she will not be conferring knighthood on Thomas Roberts Scalito-Kennedy anytime soon.
"This decision today, really shows that a law degree does not make you very intelligent, it can just make you an ideologue with no sense of right or wrong."
And that comes from one who advocates for sex outside of marriage, and then kill the babies because sex is just for fun. What is even more sad, is that this is called "healthcare" by those who want to covet their neighbors money to pay for such lifestyle.
And that comes from one who advocates for extraconstitutional interdiction, and then kill the babies because the DEA is just for fun. What is even more sad, is that this is called "war on drugs" by those who want to covet their neighbors' money to pay for such lifestyle.
Well they are just making this ONE "narrow" decision for some truly "Christian" folks. It will not endorse or promote any of those "other" bizarre religions that are completely illogical. Did you folks miss the point that these are some "deeply held, sincere, above reproach, life saving and giving, no questions asked CHRISTIAN (you know, Jesus and GOD)" beliefs?
what other "bizarre" religions that are illogical? Names?
“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged,” he said. “The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”
Larry, I listened to testimony by such a girl and she said the abortion was the second rape, but worse.
Again, you folks act like your immoral lifestyles have been banned. Not true. You just have to pay for it yourselves.
Speaking for myself,Sibby-you know where you can stick your morals. Cast the first stone, sport.
Rich women have full reproductive freedom while women at middle and lower income levels experience chilling effects on their rights. South Dakota's repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care is not only mean-spirited, it's discriminatory anti-choice extremism.
Jerry,everybody knows the one true Messiah is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have never heard a single person deny its existence,unlike some other fraudulent,fictitious gods.
"Sibby-you know where you can stick your morals."
Their not mine, but come from God. And unlike abortions, I am not pushing for death penalties. I am just saying they should pay for them themselves.
What this debate is really about is you people wanted others to accept your worldview. Making Christians pay for it takes that to new heights.
Progressives aren't mourning the population growth of American Indians, African-Americans, Asians, and Latinos who are producing offspring at higher rates than European-Americans are. To the contrary: evolution relies on diversity.
and like I posted above,christians get a lot of bang for their bucks,except they don't provide bucks.
Larry-you forgot wingnuts extremism is effective in a one party state.
Thomas Roberts Scalito-Kennedy wasn't selected to be justices for their intelligence,they were selected because of and only because of their adherence to wingnut litmus tests for the judiciary. They are pro-korporate,anti-worker's rights,anti women's rights,pro-kristian,pro-wealthy ideologues.
This ruling will not stay about contraceptive devices that the employer "believes" causes abortions. It opens Pandoras box. There are employers out there right now thinking that they can now impose their beliefs about blood transfusions on their employees. Others who would deny even more.
Cory says it is time to "Ban corporate personhood. There must be a way to achieve that goal . . . ." The way to achieve that goal is to amend the federal dictionary act, 1 U.S.C. section 1. Perhaps Rick Weiland could add that goal to his political platform.
As I read the Hobby Lobby ruling, Alito treated Hobby Lobby as a "person" for the purposes of the two religious statutes adopted by Congress, not for the purpose of the First Amendment. Hobby Lobby qualified as a "person" because the dictionary act includes corporations within the definition of "person" when referencing the applicability of federal statutes that use the perm "person." A simple amendment to the dictionary act could change that status.
That would be a simple fix bearcreekbat, problem solved. Now to revisit. I read this at Daily Kos and thought it was also profound. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/01/1310840/-The-Hobby-Lobby-Decision-My-Thoughts-and-Reaction
BCB, are owners of corporations persons? How about taxpayers who subsidize healthcare premiums?
Why not just admit there are less rights for everyone in America today and there will be even less tomorrow. All we are doing today in regard to this issue is argue over who should gain rights by making others lose rights. Right back to that coveting thing again.
Neo fascists GOP Establishment pushing all of this
Jerry, thanks for the link to a post that recognizes several important points about the decision.
Sibby I will agree that after Hobby Lobby, the home workers anti-union decision, and the buffer zone decision, women in America have lost considerable rights. I would also agree that as Christians pursue their agenda of making everyone else think and act like they do, all other religions and religious people in America are losing the right to freedom of, and freedom from, religion.
As for your question about whether the people who own corporations are "persons," of course they are. And under the Hobby Lobby ruling there seems to be no rational justification for insulating them from liability for future corporate acts.
President Bill Clinton made two appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States, both during his first term.
On March 19, 1993, Associate Justice Byron White announced his retirement (and assumption of senior status), effective at the end of the Supreme Court's 1992-1993 term.[1] President Clinton announced Ruth Bader Ginsburg as White's replacement on June 15, 1993, and she was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 3, 1993.[2]
On April 6, 1994, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun announced his retirement (and assumption of senior status), which ultimately took effect August 3, 1994.[3] President Clinton announced Stephen Breyer as Blackmun's replacement on May 13, 1994, with the United States Senate confirming Breyer on July 29, 1994.[4]
wiki
"Christians pursue their agenda of making everyone else think and act like they do"
Only the apostate ones, and you will find those on the political left as well as the political right. But those of you who have been indoctrinated with the cultural Neo-Marxist worldview are not capable of learning and understanding that. You only can see hatred toward all Christians, and therefore feel compelled to use the force of government to make then all think and act like you do. Such is the case with Obamacare.
"no rational justification for insulating them from liability for future corporate acts"
I would even entertain the idea of banning corporations all together, but the Neo-Fascist will not let that happen. I view corporatism as a form of socialism. Even though I disagree with corporations, I will still defend the owners rights to sell and buy from whom ever they want or don't want.
Did you know that their are no free speech rights for those who work in large corporations? They can fire you for what you write in papers or on blogs. Perhaps that is why there are so many anonymous bloggers.
Sibby, when you say "Only the apostate" Christians press their agenda, that sounds like an internal contradiction. If someone is an apostate, doesn't that mean they are no longer a Christian?
And your repeated use of the term "neo-Marxist worldview" seems odd. Since the term neo-Marxism merely means taking into consideration new social and political developments that arose after the death of Marx, neo-Marxism started on March 15, 1883, the day after Karl Marx passed away. Yet you consistently refer to neo-Marxism as if you have discovered some recent modern way of thinking. Indeed, this use of the term neo could also be applied to anyone who was or became a Christian after the death of Jesus, yet you don't called today's Christians neo-Christians.
And what evidence do you have that your so called neo-Marxists hate Christians? Although Marx wrote that religion was the opiate of the masses, it appears that he was concerned about the masses rather than hating any one who had succumbed to religious indoctrination. He recognized that powerful capitalists used religion to retain power over labor by keeping labor ignorant and selling myths of a better life in the next world. Modern progressives, including Marxists, can see the same thing happening today. They do not hate those who have been blinded by the Capitalist religious light, rather they seek to open their eyes so they can enjoy a decent and happy life and be appropriately rewarded for their labor.
Sibby asks, "Did you know that their are no free speech rights for those who work in large corporations?"
Yes, that is right. Free speech is a Constitutional limitation on the power of the government, and corporations technically are not the government, although after Citizens United they can buy politicians.
BCB, yes there are those who say they are Christian, but they are apostate. Jesus warned about the false church, which are those who fall outside the Bible's teaching.
The Neo-Marxism I am referring to applies the materialism of Karl Marx to the culture. This was first developed by Gramsci, and then put into action by the German Frankfurt School. They believed the Christianized West stood in the way of their ability to implement Marxism. They were chased out of Germany in the 1930s by Hitler, and John Dewey invited to the Columbia School. That was how he became an indoctrination tool in our government schools, which has successfully deconstructed Christianity to the point where you see Christophobia as exhibited on this web site.
Others took it to Hollywood. Herbert Marcuse helped mainstream it via the 60s counter culture movement. Here is some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
For a direct tie to the issue of birth control, you will find this view on Marcuse by a Catholic:
Families that adhere to the clinically proven facts of Natural Family Planning are treated as if they are some sort of religious nuts. Militant secularists in the corridors of power (Legislative and Fourth Estate) have even thrown out their favorite term “sexually repressed.” Now this term is so widely repeated in our popular culture, perhaps we should examine where it came from. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) of the infamous Marxist “Frankfurt School” came up with the term. Marcuse left pre-World War II Germany and taught at Columbia. Marcuse believed in free love and surmised that the more narcissistic society was with regard to sexual relations, the better the world would become. Before his death, he claimed his prized student was 1960s militant radical Angela Davis. Marcuse was way out in left field in his day and yet the militant secularists in our pop culture have made him seem as mainstream as Dr. Phil. When societies turn away from religion they embrace the crazies like Marcuse; sadly something has to fill the vacuum and it is usually the ideas which come from the half baked among us that do so. - See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/02/19/the-mocking-of-conservative-religious-women-by-militant-secularists-will-soon-backfire/#more-36164
http://m.kmuw.org/?utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F6Wc7tjpnmv#mobile/36791
How quickly Sibson forgets, he stated at 14:23 that "I will still defend the owners right to sell and buy from whom ever they want or don't want". A few short months ago Sen. Phil Jensen introduced SB128 to legalize discrimination and was roundly chastised by both South Dakotans and the country.
It is difficult to comprehend that a self-professed Christian would advocate legal discrimination.
Sibby, I appreciate your explanation and link to Marcuse. My review of these materials suggests that your statement that "They believed the Christianized West stood in the way of their ability to implement Marxism" is not at all accurate. Gramsci, the Frankfort School and Marcuse evaluated much more than the Christian religion looking for an explanation of why the predicted Marx revolution did not occur in western societies during the 20th century. They tried to understand how culture affected the anticipated dialectic.
I did notice that there are anti-semitic websites promoting conspiracy theories the the purported Frankfort scholars. See e.g.
http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/satants-secret-agents-the-frankfurt-school-and-their-evil-agenda/
The ideas put forth at this website seem awfully close to some of the statements I have seen in your comments. Is this what you believe to be the Neo-Marxist school of thought that you think exists in America today?
Bear,
You're visiting with Sib? I didn't know you knew parseltongue....
again with the christians in quotes, the true christians, the apostate christians. can't have it both ways, people.
2/2 #HobbyLobby Strict scrutiny cases tend to favor plaintiffs, but weak defense by HHS didn't help what should have come out in its favor
1/2 #HobbyLobby As I go through the case I find it seems HHS did a very poor job defending the law. Which is sad. ...
--Nicole Augenti, Esq.
BCB, I do not belief in a "Jewish" conspiracy theory. Yes, they have been infiltrated as have other groups, but they by themselves are not the cause of these items (from your link):
1. The creation of racism offences and hate speech laws.
2. Continual change to create confusion (e,g., in school curricula).
3. Masturbation propaganda in schools, combined with the homosexualization of children and their corruption by exposing them to child porn in the classroom.
4. The systematic undermining of parental and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy national identity and foment future race wars.
6. The systematic promotion of excessive drinking and recreational drugs.
7. The systematic promotion of sexual deviance in society.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crime.
9. Dependency on state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media. (Six Jewish companies now control 96 percent of the world’s media. LD).
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
12. All all-out attack on Christianity and the emptying of churches.
BCB, from your link:
"Coincidentally, most of the 12 aims and objectives mentioned above were set out prominently in the pages of that alleged “forgery”, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Jewish philosophers of the Frankfurt School, it seems, had been heavily influenced by the Protocols."
I totally disagree with that conclusion. The Protocols originated with the French Templars, not the Jews.
Sibby, name one public school that has taught masturbation and shown child porn in the classroom.
I'm starting to think you have a dire need for attention with your fringe talking.
I went to a catholic school and was shocked with some of the things the students got away with (such as having sex in the church during lunch break when no one was around). So before you bash public schools, take a look at the mess of Christianity we have now in this country - especially Catholicism. Dioceses that hide their crimes - can't blame public education or neo Marxism on that. Those are just evil human beings. Start practicing your own preaching and blame human beings themselves.
Jenny, I found masturbation in the teacher's guide for 3rd grade health class in the Mitchell School System. Planned Parenthood promotes "outer sex", which includes masturbation, as a means to reduce teen pregnancy. I was also involved with the legislative efforts in Pierre that sprung out of the Sioux Falls sex education controversy a few years back. And yes, the problem also exists in so-called Christian schools.
Is masturbation a sin according to the bible?
Masturbation might be mentioned in a so-called school guide that it is normal exploratory behavior for most children but that doesn't mean teachers are educating students all about it.
We would be hearing all these stories in the local media and the legislature if that was true.
I hope sexual abuse is taught in health classes today since it is rampant
Jenny, it falls under the broad category of sexual immorality. It also would fall under the third tare.
You didn't answer my question. WHERE in the BIBLE is masturbation mentioned?
"WHERE in the BIBLE is masturbation mentioned?"
Is not the same question as:
"Is masturbation a sin according to the bible?"
I answered the first question you posed. The second question, masturbation is not specifically discussed in the Bible. The Bible does not spell things out clearly. It is confusing to those unbelievers who have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see.
I just asked my nine year old daughter if her teacher taught them about any of their private body parts this year in her health class. She looked at me funny and said "no, why?" My daughter then went on to say that we were taught about our lungs and heart in science class.
Don't spread lies and accusations, Sibby. Oh, is studying the heart and lungs immoral also?
if you want to be a better Christian, Sibby, try focusing more on the poor, disabled and elderly. Go visit a lonely person in the nursing home. Go buy a homeless person dinner, or buy a poor family some new clothes. Don't obsess on homosexuality and masturbation. It's there and always will be, just like alcoholism, drug addiction and child abuse. Advocate for stricter DWI laws or child abuse laws. Believe me, people will start respecting you a lot more than your straight preaching from the bible. It actually reminds me of Asperger's Syndrome. With an Aspie, a person has a one track mind on one thing and constantly obsesses and talks about it, driving people away.
I'm not saying you have Asperger's Syndrome, Sibby. So forgive me, if you thought I did.
the catholic catechism calls it touching oneself in an impure manner.
May I point out, Jenny, that equating homosexuality to drug addiction or child abuse in the context of an evil that will always be with us is very offensive to those who are homosexual or have a loved one or family member who is?
Now if you had used the case of bigotry and intolerance as always being with us, then I could agree.
A few years ago there was someone who participated in a forum who was obsessed with the word "progressive." Every time he disagreed with anyone, or anyone disagreed with him, he would pull his "progressive" card/term.
One day he sent me a nasty e-mail. I blocked him from ever being able to send me an e-mail.
On another forum, a participant (A) who was obsessed with something else harassed another participant (B) to the point of causing problems with the B's employer, and causing him to fear for his children.
Be mindful of those who have might an obsession.
Jenny, the kids are told not to share the information with their parents. Instead of asking your kid, check out the teachers guides. But be prepared while confronting the school officials. They will claim that they skip over that stuff.
Jessie, I'm am very, very very pro-gay rights You misread me as Sibby is the anti-gay one. I staunchly support gay marriage.
Glad to hear that, Jenny. I apologize for pouncing on you, but your sentence structure certainly made it seem just the opposite.
While on the subject of continuing evils, one of my favorite quotes is "The yahoos will always be with us." -- Steven Jay Gould
The idea that any third grader who has just been taught about private body parts isn't going to blab about it to all and sundry is just ludicrous. Or an entire school system of teachers and administrators willing to toe that line and lie about it? Equally so. Try again, Sibby. cf. yahoo comment above