GOP Presidential Debate

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom, I will answer by PM since as Gerald states, religion is a private matter.

[cariad]

I just had a long chat with Dad. I asked him if the first amendment includes freedom from religion. His answer, in his always taciturn way, was 'yes'.

He received his law degree in 1968 and practiced for 12 years before becoming a 'job-creator' which he continues to be to this day.

Tell me, Peter, when did you receive your law degree?

[cariad]

The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.

You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.

OK, let's read directly to see what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is doing BOTH, i.e., protecting the free exercise of religion ("freedom OF religion") and prohibiting any government sponsored "establishment" of religion ("freedom FROM religion").

So you are both only half right.

 

Willis, I am not sure how this translates to me being only half right when I said in the discussion of contraception and CKD "freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion". I was saying exactly what you are saying. Peter came onto this discussion to say the opposite. He is wrong. Of course freedom of religion MUST include freedom to not have someone else's beliefs forced upon you via the government.

Of course, when churches are given tax-free status and then they turn around and donate to a cause such as the support of Prop 8 in California, this should be a direct violation of the First Amendment. Political contributions are NOT tax-deductible and should never, ever be tax-free. That is religion interfering with our government.

Anyhow, Willis, no matter if you disagree with me or state that I am only half right - I will always be a sucker for you and your calm, reasonable statements. Thanks for offering the opinion!  

[Hemodoc]

The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.

You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.

OK, let's read directly to see what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is doing BOTH, i.e., protecting the free exercise of religion ("freedom OF religion") and prohibiting any government sponsored "establishment" of religion ("freedom FROM religion").

So you are both only half right.

 

Willis, I am not sure how this translates to me being only half right when I said in the discussion of contraception and CKD "freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion". I was saying exactly what you are saying. Peter came onto this discussion to say the opposite. He is wrong. Of course freedom of religion MUST include freedom to not have someone else's beliefs forced upon you via the government.

Of course, when churches are given tax-free status and then they turn around and donate to a cause such as the support of Prop 8 in California, this should be a direct violation of the First Amendment. Political contributions are NOT tax-deductible and should never, ever be tax-free. That is religion interfering with our government.

Anyhow, Willis, no matter if you disagree with me or state that I am only half right - I will always be a sucker for you and your calm, reasonable statements. Thanks for offering the opinion!

Dear Cariad,

If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.

Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.

[Willis]

The whole idea of freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion has to do with the government's role. It has nothing to do with the owners of this website or Cariad or HemoDoc or me. Hell, like some on here I can pound away fruitlessly post after post stirring the pot with religious (or irreligious!) fervor and the government has no right to stop me. Yet the moderators can kick me out of here on a whim and I have no recourse. This is their site and they can do with it what they want.

Now this shows the fine line of government interference. Most would agree that this site has the right to allow people to say whatever they want or to stop people from talking about anything they (the owners) don't want them to talk about. That is a true right. The only obligation the government has in this case might be protecting people from actual physical violence or public financial fraud. But even that can be dangerous since it is the government itself that defines its own boundaries of behavior.

If a government decrees that the owners of web forums (or churches or corporations) must allow all speech or tolerate all religious/irreligious points of view then those people no longer really own their organizations. They become mere slaves of the State. Even if an organization publishes the most racist or abhorrent of material and the discussion forums are not fit for civilized people, and the government subsequently intervenes ONLY because they do not like the content then that is the sort of government interference the 1st Amendment was trying to preclude.

Likewise, when a government does the opposite and decrees which specific content or actions are permissible and institutes punitive measures against those religious organizations (or web sites, etc) who do not follow the guidelines then that's an even more egregious example of government interference. The current situation involving Christian organizations who do not want to pay for things that violate their religious tenets (such as abortion or contraceptives) are clearly within their rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to be free from government interference in their religion. It doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree. If the right to make such decisions is taken away from any organization then that organization has simply become another tentacle on the octopus called "government."

I would also add--and someone already pointed out this hypocrisy--that any religious organization (or private college or corporation for that matter) who accepts money from the government directly through grants or favored loans or indirectly through tax exemptions or free land or whatever have willingly given up their independence. The government now has a dog in the hunt and they are going to demand a say in how things are run--and rightfully so! There are mighty few churches or private religious colleges that do not feed on the government teat! The government has repeatedly and surreptitiously violated the First Amendment for more than a hundred years by slowly instituting such "favors" to the point that to reject such aid puts an organization at financial and competitive risk. Now having wrested power from places where the government never belonged (I will insert the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments here too), we are all virtually slaves of the government.

In my own personal life I have to admit that I'm tethered to the government now so tightly that the vaporous "they" have control over my life or death. Want more EPO? Sorry, the guidelines say Hgb between 9-10.5 and even if I could afford it they won't allow it. Going outside the system or sticking up for yourself in other assertive ways can get you branded as "non-compliant" and they have ALL the power to end my life if I don't submit. Without Medicare paying for my dialysis and without insurance I'd already be dead. So yes, I'm a hypocrite. It wasn't always so and private and religious organizations once provided the "general welfare" that has now been subordinated by the government. It's like the "Borg" of Star Trek fame--"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated." I don't think THAT is what our Founders foresaw when they drafted the language of the original Bill of Rights.

 

[Gerald Lively]

The proposition here was not about government interference in this forum or that religion; it was about the separation of government and state.  There has been much posting that amounts to sidelining this point. 

HemoDoc has an opinion but that does not make him correct, he is only using his rights under that same First Amendment that this forum permits.  Further, no reasonable person would make the claim that we all must have religion.  It is a well established legal principle that one has a right to have no religion, or, freedom from religion.  I don’t have to listen to someone preach and I can ask them to be more polite about preaching.  It is the same as second hand smoking, I don’t want to breathe in your habit. 

Of further interest is the avoidance of the key issues of the day. 

[cariad]

Dear Cariad,

If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.

Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.

Willis already went over this, but I'll reiterate some of what he said: I do not own the forum but if I did, I could absolutely stop you from talking about religion. Now, I like the freedom of this forum so I don't really care that this is allowed, but I have the freedom, which I exercise all the time, to ignore your posts the minute the bible quotes come out. However, when accessing government services - my city's public schools for example - we have full right to freedom from religion. In fact, a friend of mine who works as a teacher for the state told me that if I really wanted to aggressively seek remedy to a problem I've been having with my son, I could go straight to the superintendent with a complaint about the school observing Valentine's Day. She was not suggesting I do this, she just said that I could use it as ammunition if I so desired, because this is celebrating 'St. Valentine' and thus has a religious aspect. Personally, I think that's going too far and is not something I wish to bring up as I try to resolve this issue.

No, I do not need to discuss this further with my father. I trust him and his legal experience and his intellect much more than I trust your take on this.

Willis, I disagree that the government protecting women's access to healthcare is a violation of the first amendment. They are ensuring that someone else does not impose their religious beliefs on women and try to interfere with their access from A THIRD PARTY. These women are paying for this. But this was all argued out in the other thread. Karen made excellent points and its all there for you to read if you choose.

The founders would be lost in our current society and clearly they understood that society was going to change beyond what they could envision and so the document needed to be flexible enough to change with the times. I think it's safe to say that they did not expect Americans in the next millennium to be using the exact same laws and exact same interpretation of those laws over two hundred years later. The founders were all white males. They were also falliable - they owned slaves for heavens sake. It creeps me out when interpreting the Constitution begins to take on the air of interpreting the Bible. There is a difference, even to an atheist such as myself, between asking What Would Jesus Do (he is, after all, supposed to be divine and all-knowing) and what would Thomas Jefferson do. Who cares what Jefferson would do!

The Bill of Rights gives the right to a trial by a jury of our peers - they recognised in their own limited way that there are certain things that you need context and experience to evaluate. Anyone who knows what its like to carry a baby for 8 months or longer and then give birth, go ahead and raise your hand. You are the people that know what a disgusting statement it is that Santorum cavalierly suggests that we take pregnancy via rape as a 'gift' from a god that I do not even believe exists. This is where the government needs to step in and ensure my access to my basic right to control my own body.

[Hemodoc]

I would also add--and someone already pointed out this hypocrisy--that any religious organization (or private college or corporation for that matter) who accepts money from the government directly through grants or favored loans or indirectly through tax exemptions or free land or whatever have willingly given up their independence. The government now has a dog in the hunt and they are going to demand a say in how things are run--and rightfully so! There are mighty few churches or private religious colleges that do not feed on the government teat! The government has repeatedly and surreptitiously violated the First Amendment for more than a hundred years by slowly instituting such "favors" to the point that to reject such aid puts an organization at financial and competitive risk. Now having wrested power from places where the government never belonged (I will insert the 9th and 10th Amendment arguments here too), we are all virtually slaves of the government.

Actually that was me in a prior thread. The church of today is not separated from the world as Abraham was who took no money from the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah when he rescued them and Lot, for the Lord's sake. Lot sought earthly power through the politics of Sodom to bring about change. The churches of America today are seeking the same thing through GOP politics and it will end as badly for them as it did for Lot. Taking money from the Feds is not what God calls us to do through these so called faith based Federal grants.

John sums it up well in the NT:

III John 1:7     Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.

Unfortunately, the churches of today no little of the power of God and instead seek the power of GOP politics to bring about preservation of their liberty. They are wrong to seek power from anyone but God alone.

As far as freedom FROM religion, if that was an individual right, I would not be able today in this anti-Christian atmosphere publicly state these Bible verses. This is the law in many nations around the world today of freedom FROM religion. We are not to that point YET in the US, but it is coming Gerald. You will get your way soon.  In many nations, I would have been arrested for what I have in this comment alone. Thank the Lord for Freedom OF religion.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Cariad,

If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.

Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.

Willis already went over this, but I'll reiterate some of what he said: I do not own the forum but if I did, I could absolutely stop you from talking about religion. Now, I like the freedom of this forum so I don't really care that this is allowed, but I have the freedom, which I exercise all the time, to ignore your posts the minute the bible quotes come out. However, when accessing government services - my city's public schools for example - we have full right to freedom from religion. In fact, a friend of mine who works as a teacher for the state told me that if I really wanted to aggressively seek remedy to a problem I've been having with my son, I could go straight to the superintendent with a complaint about the school observing Valentine's Day. She was not suggesting I do this, she just said that I could use it as ammunition if I so desired, because this is celebrating 'St. Valentine' and thus has a religious aspect. Personally, I think that's going too far and is not something I wish to bring up as I try to resolve this issue.

No, I do not need to discuss this further with my father. I trust him and his legal experience and his intellect much more than I trust your take on this.

Willis, I disagree that the government protecting women's access to healthcare is a violation of the first amendment. They are ensuring that someone else does not impose their religious beliefs on women and try to interfere with their access from A THIRD PARTY. These women are paying for this. But this was all argued out in the other thread. Karen made excellent points and its all there for you to read if you choose.

The founders would be lost in our current society and clearly they understood that society was going to change beyond what they could envision and so the document needed to be flexible enough to change with the times. I think it's safe to say that they did not expect Americans in the next millennium to be using the exact same laws and exact same interpretation of those laws over two hundred years later. The founders were all white males. They were also falliable - they owned slaves for heavens sake. It creeps me out when interpreting the Constitution begins to take on the air of interpreting the Bible. There is a difference, even to an atheist such as myself, between asking What Would Jesus Do (he is, after all, supposed to be divine and all-knowing) and what would Thomas Jefferson do. Who cares what Jefferson would do!

The Bill of Rights gives the right to a trial by a jury of our peers - they recognised in their own limited way that there are certain things that you need context and experience to evaluate. Anyone who knows what its like to carry a baby for 8 months or longer and then give birth, go ahead and raise your hand. You are the people that know what a disgusting statement it is that Santorum cavalierly suggests that we take pregnancy via rape as a 'gift' from a god that I do not even believe exists. This is where the government needs to step in and ensure my access to my basic right to control my own body.

Dear Cariad, I am not sure if you know it or not, but more than one of the owners of IHD is a Christian and is often offended by the divisive anti-Christian remarks on threads such as this. You are simply ignorant that they are tolerating you here today. You might want to consider your statements in light of those facts.

I see no one has noticed Title 10 contraception coverage. Here, take a look:

The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/

The entire contraception issue is a manufactured crises by Obama to gain the uterus vote. It looks like his ploy has worked.

[cariad]

Dear Cariad,

If you had "freedom FROM religion," you would be able to exclude me from quoting the Bible on the IHD forum in public. Gerald has spouted that at me more than once. Since we have instead freedom OF religion, that is perfectly legal today even with the new interpretation of the establishment clause since 1962. You may wish to check with your dad on that issue more closely. No, you don't have freedom FROM religion guaranteed anywhere.

Now, you do have freedom OF religion which means you can walk away from it and be an atheist, agnostic, Wiccan or what ever religion or lack of religion you wish. That is freedom OF religion. You have the freedom to pick and choose or not choose. That is all covered under freedom OF religion. I believe you and your father are conflating the two.

Willis already went over this, but I'll reiterate some of what he said: I do not own the forum but if I did, I could absolutely stop you from talking about religion. Now, I like the freedom of this forum so I don't really care that this is allowed, but I have the freedom, which I exercise all the time, to ignore your posts the minute the bible quotes come out. However, when accessing government services - my city's public schools for example - we have full right to freedom from religion. In fact, a friend of mine who works as a teacher for the state told me that if I really wanted to aggressively seek remedy to a problem I've been having with my son, I could go straight to the superintendent with a complaint about the school observing Valentine's Day. She was not suggesting I do this, she just said that I could use it as ammunition if I so desired, because this is celebrating 'St. Valentine' and thus has a religious aspect. Personally, I think that's going too far and is not something I wish to bring up as I try to resolve this issue.

No, I do not need to discuss this further with my father. I trust him and his legal experience and his intellect much more than I trust your take on this.

Willis, I disagree that the government protecting women's access to healthcare is a violation of the first amendment. They are ensuring that someone else does not impose their religious beliefs on women and try to interfere with their access from A THIRD PARTY. These women are paying for this. But this was all argued out in the other thread. Karen made excellent points and its all there for you to read if you choose.

The founders would be lost in our current society and clearly they understood that society was going to change beyond what they could envision and so the document needed to be flexible enough to change with the times. I think it's safe to say that they did not expect Americans in the next millennium to be using the exact same laws and exact same interpretation of those laws over two hundred years later. The founders were all white males. They were also falliable - they owned slaves for heavens sake. It creeps me out when interpreting the Constitution begins to take on the air of interpreting the Bible. There is a difference, even to an atheist such as myself, between asking What Would Jesus Do (he is, after all, supposed to be divine and all-knowing) and what would Thomas Jefferson do. Who cares what Jefferson would do!

The Bill of Rights gives the right to a trial by a jury of our peers - they recognised in their own limited way that there are certain things that you need context and experience to evaluate. Anyone who knows what its like to carry a baby for 8 months or longer and then give birth, go ahead and raise your hand. You are the people that know what a disgusting statement it is that Santorum cavalierly suggests that we take pregnancy via rape as a 'gift' from a god that I do not even believe exists. This is where the government needs to step in and ensure my access to my basic right to control my own body.

Dear Cariad, I am not sure if you know it or not, but more than one of the owners of IHD is a Christian and is often offended by the divisive anti-Christian remarks on threads such as this. You are simply ignorant that they are tolerating you here today. You might want to consider your statements in light of those facts.

Huh? 

[Hemodoc]

Yes, true, many of the owners/moderators on IHD are personally offended by the nature of many of the anti-Christian comments as they have told me in person by PM on more than one occasion. Yet they tolerate your right to your own opinions according to the first amendment. Imagine that.

[cariad]

Yes, true, many of the owners/moderators on IHD are personally offended by the nature of many of the anti-Christian comments as they have told me in person by PM on more than one occasion. Yet they tolerate your right to your own opinions according to the first amendment. Imagine that.

Uh, as Willis very clearly pointed out, the first amendment does not give me any right to break the rules of a privately held forum. My understanding is that both admins identify as Christian. I did my research thoroughly (this cannot be overstated) before joining this forum and only made the jump when I happened upon a post from Epoman that took pride in accepting people of all ideologies. This did not come off as merely 'tolerating' - he welcomed it and was justifiably proud of his refusal to censor posts in any but the most extreme circumstances. Nothing to do with the first amendment. Also, nothing to do with this discussion. Trying to scare me into thinking I'll be banned for expressing my opinion? Yet another tactic to try to silence people with opinions different from yours. I know this is not the first time you have implied that someone will be banned for expressing atheist/rationalist viewpoints.

If Sluff or Karol want to ban me, it is well within their rights. As Willis said, they would not even owe me an explanation (legally) although I consider Karol a friend and Sluff a friend I've never met, so I would hope that on a personal level they would feel I had some right to an explanation if they chose to ban me.

[cariad]

The entire contraception issue is a manufactured crises by Obama to gain the uterus vote.

Wow. Just wow. The uterus vote. Referring to women by one of their reproductive organs? That sets a new low for disrespect, and it's been quite the week for sexism.

This is just plain gross.

[amanda100wilson]

Cariad, I agree.  I find that statement deeply offensive.

[cariad]

Thanks for speaking out, Amanda.

[Hemodoc]

The entire contraception issue is a manufactured crises by Obama to gain the uterus vote.

Wow. Just wow. The uterus vote. Referring to women by one of their reproductive organs? That sets a new low for disrespect, and it's been quite the week for sexism.

This is just plain gross.

Yes, yes, yes. You are offended because I repeated what the liberal bloggers have been mashing away with for the last month. One more case of righteous indication because I repeated the liberal mottos. Go figure.

Reality Check: The Uteri Who Vote Edition

http://www.beachpeanuts.com/2012/02/reality-check-wednesday-the-uterus-edition.html

Occupy the Uterus?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/17/1055708/-Occupy-the-Uterus-

One uterus, one vote.

http://machinegunkeyboard.com/shao/?p=269

Nan Hayworth joins the GOP’s ‘War on the Uterus’

http://nyaltnews.com/2012/02/nan-hayworth-joins-the-gops-war-on-the-uterus/

Republican Retard Club
Georgia, birthplace of the uterus police! [1]

http://republicanretardclub.blogspot.com/2011/05/georgia.html

New song parody from South Florida Raging Grannies, inspired by Florida's crazy "uterus controversy" that has made national news headlines; annoyed, amused and activated countless more women (and men) into opposing the corporate-loving, women-bashing Republican Party of FL; and made an instant celebrity/hero out of FL State Representative (D-Orlando) Scott Randolph, who dared utter the "U-word" while speaking on the House floor about the hypocrisy of the 18 anti-Choice bills that the GOP has advanced during this 2011 legislative session.

If you want to sing "The Uterus Song at a demonstration, rally or hell, a birthday party near you, here are the sensational, stinging lyrics...

The Uterus Song
(Tune: "Bye-Bye Blackbird")
Lyrics © by Vicki Ryder

If you're a Republican, it's okay to screw everyone,
Just don't say "uterus!"
You can send our kids to war while watching your investments soar,
But don't say "uterus!"
Taking bribes used to be thought just awful;
Now fat cats pay for your campaigns, that's lawful...
You can take our rights away and torture folks, that's still okay.
Just don't say... that word.

You take funds from Planned Parenthood; you'd take all our rights if ya could,
But don't say "uterus!"
You think abortion is a sin, but what's that fetus growin' in?
Shh! Don't say uterus!
You can get away with bloody torture,
Just don't say where you were when the stork brought ya.
We're glad you're lookin' out for us, so stamp your feet and make a fuss
When you hear... that word!

Since when is it a dirty word to say the "u" word? That's absurd!
We'll say "uterus."
We'll sing it strong and sing it loud; it's a part of us that makes us proud
So we'll say "uterus."
We're not ashamed to call our parts their right names,
We're just ashamed of men who play these mind games.
So end the wars and feed the poor; do what you were elected for,
And shout out loud... that word!

Uterus and uterus, uterus and uterus, uterus, uterus!
Uterus and uterus, uterus and uterus, uterus, uterus!
Uterus and uterus and uterus,
Uterus and uterus and uterus,
Uterus and uterus, uterus and uterus, uterus, uterus!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpBO3euQQPY

[amanda100wilson]

Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.

[Hemodoc]

For all those that believe that they have freedom FROM religion, please take that case to a lawyer and see how far you get with that idea. No such thing in America as of today anyway. Maybe you could lobby your congressman to introduce a freedom FROM religion bill. See how he responds. Simply nonsense, that is of today anyway.

You certainly have the freedom to read and choose what you wish, but that does not abridge the right to freedom OF religion in any manner.

[Hemodoc]

Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.

Nope, not the first and even if I was the first to use that term uterus vote, I didn't come up with that phrase that I am quite sure most have already heard several other places already. In any case, just one more example of false righteous indignation especially since this is a liberal motto, not GOP at all.  Anyway, go figure.

[cariad]

Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.

Nope, not the first and even if I was the first to use that term uterus vote, I didn't come up with that phrase that I am quite sure most have already heard several other places already. In any case, just one more example of false righteous indignation especially since this is a liberal motto, not GOP at all.  Anyway, go figure.

I've never heard it before. I don't agree with every blogger and could not care less what random strangers on the Internet say. It is offensive to use a body part as a stand in for women, just as it would be very offensive for me to talk about the d*** vote. I do not care whether that has been used by every blogger from coast to coast, it is wrong and I have too strong a moral centre to hide behind the 'everyone's doing it' excuse.

I love how you say you're not the first to use it, or maybe you are, or no, it's suddenly a 'liberal motto'. That's news to me.

[MooseMom]

Oh dear...the uterus vote.  Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny?  Worse still, I do not have one anymore.  Does my vote still count?  Lol 

[cariad]

For all those that believe that they have freedom FROM religion, please take that case to a lawyer and see how far you get with that idea. No such thing in America as of today anyway. Maybe you could lobby your congressman to introduce a freedom FROM religion bill. See how he responds. Simply nonsense, that is of today anyway.

You certainly have the freedom to read and choose what you wish, but that does not abridge the right to freedom OF religion in any manner.

I have freedom from religion in government institutions such as public schools, as I've already pointed out. I did take the case to a lawyer. My father. Law Review, 1966. He knows what he's talking about. 

[cariad]

Oh dear...the uterus vote.  Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny?  Worse still, I do not have one anymore.  Does my vote still count?  Lol

Of course you're not a terrible person. More like a lovely person. I have no doubt that if you used that term and I told you how much it wigs me out and shows an appalling lack of respect for women, that you would at least respect my feelings enough to stop.

[Hemodoc]

Yes, but the fact is, you are the one saying it on here.

Nope, not the first and even if I was the first to use that term uterus vote, I didn't come up with that phrase that I am quite sure most have already heard several other places already. In any case, just one more example of false righteous indignation especially since this is a liberal motto, not GOP at all.  Anyway, go figure.

I've never heard it before. I don't agree with every blogger and could not care less what random strangers on the Internet say. It is offensive to use a body part as a stand in for women, just as it would be very offensive for me to talk about the d*** vote. I do not care whether that has been used by every blogger from coast to coast, it is wrong and I have too strong a moral centre to hide behind the 'everyone's doing it' excuse.

I love how you say you're not the first to use it, or maybe you are, or no, it's suddenly a 'liberal motto'. That's news to me.

Well, I guess you better get busy blasting away at all of the liberal bloggers using these terms. Once again, I didn't come up with the term, nor did I hear it from the GOP. Shucks, I didn't realize how offended you would be with liberal bloggers only a few of whom I quoted.  Are you going to tell me you are offended by the Uterus Song as well, or since they are blasting the GOP it might be OK.  Good grief, getting in trouble for using the liberal terms blasting away on the internet. I guess you will likewise get mad at all of those folks stating the so called albeit fake "war on the uterus" as well?

[Hemodoc]

Oh dear...the uterus vote.  Am I a terrible person for thinking that is kinda funny?  Worse still, I do not have one anymore.  Does my vote still count?  Lol

Ah shucks, you have lost your vote Moosemom. Better go dig it up again to fit in. LOL.