Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Research)   The Obama Administration's support of public prayer, must mean that it "... is entirely in line with its general assault on democratic rights and its ceaseless efforts to placate and encourage the most right-wing political forces in the country"   (globalresearch.ca) divider line 137
    More: Strange, White House, Obama administration, redress of grievances, Holy Spirits, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, prayers, Michigan Solicitor General, Savior Jesus Christ  
•       •       •

1527 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Sep 2013 at 9:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-22 09:11:56 AM  
I'm all for public prayer.

I am *NEVER* in favor of anyone telling anyone else when, how, or with whom to pray (the exception being of course in mass, prayer service, synagogue, etc)
 
2013-09-22 09:13:52 AM  
Uhhh... yeah.

Overreacting a bit much?
 
2013-09-22 09:14:05 AM  
This is just the initial steps in Obama's implementation Sharia Law and crown himself Sultan of America.

/ Yes I am just kidding
// I don't know the real reasons, but it's an awesome troll of the "against everything Obama is for" crowd.
 
2013-09-22 09:14:35 AM  
This is the first step to Sharia Law, we must ban public prayer!!!
 
2013-09-22 09:14:38 AM  
I thought he was 'The Most Biblically Unfriendly President Ever'?

(I actually have NO IDEA what that means.)
 
2013-09-22 09:14:53 AM  
If the government does one thing I don't like IT'S TYRANNY AND I GO NOW TO [WATER THE TREE WITH MY ASSAULT RIFLE|OCCUPY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS]!

/Note to secret service: I don't actually want to water the tree of liberty. At least not that way.
 
2013-09-22 09:22:41 AM  
Obama needs to be photographed eating a Chicago style pizza in a Brooklyn park.
 
2013-09-22 09:23:42 AM  

rubi_con_man: I'm all for public prayer.

I am *NEVER* in favor of anyone telling anyone else when, how, or with whom to pray (the exception being of course in mass, prayer service, synagogue, etc)


I am *NEVER* in favor of anyone telling anyone else to pray...
 
2013-09-22 09:27:57 AM  

rubi_con_man: I'm all for public prayer.


Citizens can pray wherever they want. Government officials cannot use government meetings as a place to practice their religion.

That said, religion is like a penis. You can have one, you can be quite fond of it, but you shouldn't whip it out in public or shove it into other people without their permission.
 
2013-09-22 09:28:02 AM  

IronOcelot: Obama needs to be photographed eating a Chicago style pizza in a Brooklyn park.


Lets cut to the chase:

lets have him photographed in a Yankees bar in a Mets hat.
 
2013-09-22 09:32:17 AM  

DirkValentine: IronOcelot: Obama needs to be photographed eating a Chicago style pizza in a Brooklyn park.

Lets cut to the chase:

lets have him photographed in a Yankees bar in a Mets hat.


Or dressed as Santa Claus walking through Philladelphia.
 
2013-09-22 09:32:55 AM  
minus one l please
 
2013-09-22 09:39:40 AM  

heavymetal: This is just the initial steps in Obama's implementation Sharia Law and crown himself Sultan of America.

/ Yes I am just kidding
// I don't know the real reasons, but it's an awesome troll of the "against everything Obama is for" crowd.


If he would get one of those comically poofy Sultan hats (a la Aladdin), I would be perfectly fine with that.
 
2013-09-22 09:39:50 AM  
It follows Obama's capitulation last year to the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion forces that oppose a provision of his health care overhaul requiring employers to provide contraceptives to their employees free of charge.

I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.
 
2013-09-22 09:44:30 AM  

DirkValentine: IronOcelot: Obama needs to be photographed eating a Chicago style pizza in a Brooklyn park.

Lets cut to the chase:

lets have him photographed in a Yankees bar in a Mets Red Sox hat.


FTFY.
 
2013-09-22 09:46:12 AM  
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
heavymetal: This is just the initial steps in Obama's implementation Sharia Law and crown himself Sultan of America.

/ Yes I am just kidding
// I don't know the real reasons, but it's an awesome troll of the "against everything Obama is for" crowd.

If he would get one of those comically poofy Sultan hats (a la Aladdin), I would be perfectly fine with that.


On the right guy, they can look pretty natty.

cdn.history.com
 
2013-09-22 09:46:32 AM  

Ricardo Klement: I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.


I`m reasonably sure it was in relation to prescription contraceptives.  You know, the kind that are for the most part just assumed to be part of any prescription coverage in the rest of the civilized world.  Don`t you find it somewhat troubling that employers are allowed to make value judgments on the morality of treatments offered by insurance companies to their employees?

Personally, I think the only ones that should be involved in that decision are doctors and patients.

/Let alone that it's quite common for oral contraceptives to be used as hormonal treatment for a sizable portion of women because oral contraceptives work by adjusting hormone levels artificially
 
2013-09-22 09:46:39 AM  
One, this really has little to do with Obama. And two, the Supreme Court will almost certainly uphold the lower court ruling banning this practice, if they bother to hear it at all.
 
2013-09-22 09:46:40 AM  
Obama: Consistently governing objectively to the right of Richard Nixon since he was sworn in.
 
2013-09-22 09:47:26 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: heavymetal: This is just the initial steps in Obama's implementation Sharia Law and crown himself Sultan of America.

/ Yes I am just kidding
// I don't know the real reasons, but it's an awesome troll of the "against everything Obama is for" crowd.

If he would get one of those comically poofy Sultan hats (a la Aladdin), I would be perfectly fine with that.


I want him to wear a giant garlic hat...like this:

iseeahappyface.com
 
2013-09-22 09:49:43 AM  

Ricardo Klement: It follows Obama's capitulation last year to the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion forces that oppose a provision of his health care overhaul requiring employers to provide contraceptives to their employees free of charge.

I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.


Not so much a right as it is a sound insurance practice.  The medical cost of an unwanted pregnancy far exceeds that of contraception.
 
2013-09-22 09:52:43 AM  
They are wrong, this is still part of the commie lefty-liberal plot to expell the God from America.

By the Obama administration being for prayer at government functions the GOP will automatically be against it and will push to have the practice of prayer in government removed.
 
2013-09-22 09:56:01 AM  

eraser8: DirkValentine: IronOcelot: Obama needs to be photographed eating a Chicago style pizza in a Brooklyn park.

Lets cut to the chase:

lets have him photographed in a Yankees bar in a Mets Red Sox hat.

FTFY.


Hunting gay, muslim abortion doctors with an assault rifle on a fracking site.

/Liberal agenda would be handed to us tied in a bow!
 
2013-09-22 09:56:43 AM  
Obama does have a piss poor record standing up religious organizations and it's sad to acknowledge that the reason is almost certainly out of political expediency. It's a sad statement on the fact that even many in the middle and on the left still allow their religion to irrationally influence their political views.
 
2013-09-22 10:04:48 AM  

Zagloba: If the government does one thing I don't like IT'S TYRANNY AND I GO NOW TO [WATER THE TREE WITH MY ASSAULT RIFLE|OCCUPY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS]!

/Note to secret service: I don't actually want to water the tree of liberty. At least not that way.


So you're saying you're not a patriot?
 
2013-09-22 10:04:51 AM  

eraser8: lets have him photographed in a Yankees bar in a Red Sox hat.

FTFY.


What a pleasure to see that shoe on the other foot for a change. Many years ago I took my nephew camping in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. A Stamford, CT boy, he always wore his Yankees cap. We were in a hardware store in North Conway when the owner came out, pointed at Dave's cap and said "We don't like your kind around here. Get out." In a trembling voice Dave asked if he should get another cap and I said "Couldn't hurt."

The reason I bring up this anecdote is because words cannot express the depth of my indifference to the specific issue under discussion. Yes, I understand the source of the indignation, but really; the complainants complained and the town acted to address their complaints. The chaplains of four other religions delivered the prayer over the next few months. The fact that the article leaves vague the frequency of this participation --were they all lined up at a single meeting? do they alternate with the Christian prayer on a monthly basis? -- suggests that there's no real basis for outrage and that the town acted reasonably and responsively.to address the concerns of the Jews, the local Baha'i and Wiccan communities, and the no doubt overwhelmingly Christian population of the town. The atheists may have been left out--give them a moment of silence in the prayer rotation.

The fact that the liberal atheist Muslim Obama regime looked at the situation and came down in favor of the Christians suggests that this is really a tempest in a teapot.  Pick your battles. This ain't one of 'em. And stop whining.
 
2013-09-22 10:04:55 AM  
I don't have a problem with public organizations opening their meetings with prayers unless they are only allowing certain denominations or religions. Any representative of a local religious group should be allowed to contribute, since taxpayers come in all kinds.
 
2013-09-22 10:05:35 AM  
The Centre for Research on Globalization?

Get a load of the "Most Popular" articles.

This is the site Alex Jones visits to jerk off.
 
2013-09-22 10:06:07 AM  

IronOcelot: Obama needs to be photographed eating a Chicago style pizza in a Brooklyn park.


You are a cruel, cruel man to insist anyone eat Chicago style casserole anywhere.
 
2013-09-22 10:06:33 AM  
One nation
Under God
Robbing each other blind
Until there's noting life to steal.
 
2013-09-22 10:07:24 AM  
When can we have a real democrat president?
 
2013-09-22 10:07:51 AM  

Mercutio74: Ricardo Klement: I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.

I`m reasonably sure it was in relation to prescription contraceptives.  You know, the kind that are for the most part just assumed to be part of any prescription coverage in the rest of the civilized world.  Don`t you find it somewhat troubling that employers are allowed to make value judgments on the morality of treatments offered by insurance companies to their employees?

Personally, I think the only ones that should be involved in that decision are doctors and patients.

/Let alone that it's quite common for oral contraceptives to be used as hormonal treatment for a sizable portion of women because oral contraceptives work by adjusting hormone levels artificially


Well, yes, I said as much. But the phrasing wasn't that employers couldn't prevent health insurance from giving their subscribers condoms. The assertion implied the employers had a duty to ensure free condoms were part of the benefits. It's a subtle but important distinction and there's a world of difference between the two.
 
2013-09-22 10:08:07 AM  
FTFA: The suit, filed by Susan Golloway and Linda Stephens, a Jew and an atheist respectively, seeks to end the prayers on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion.

Why can't they go back to the more interreligious observances? Why the prohibition on community speech in public forums?
 
2013-09-22 10:09:33 AM  
Headline is misleading (shocker).  It's not about people simply praying in public.  It's about opening town-hall meetings, a government function, with prayer.  This quite obviously should not be allowed.
 
2013-09-22 10:10:29 AM  

whatsupchuck: Ricardo Klement: It follows Obama's capitulation last year to the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion forces that oppose a provision of his health care overhaul requiring employers to provide contraceptives to their employees free of charge.

I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.

Not so much a right as it is a sound insurance practice.  The medical cost of an unwanted pregnancy far exceeds that of contraception.


Insurance companies are not generally all that excited about prevention. It's a tragedy of the commons sort of thing where they hope you change/lose your job and move onto someone else's insurance before they have to pay for something. Collectively, it would be worth their covering gym memberships and diet programs, but individually they don't want to pay for something that has a good chance of only benefiting a different insurance company.
 
2013-09-22 10:11:19 AM  

eraser8: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: heavymetal: This is just the initial steps in Obama's implementation Sharia Law and crown himself Sultan of America.

/ Yes I am just kidding
// I don't know the real reasons, but it's an awesome troll of the "against everything Obama is for" crowd.

If he would get one of those comically poofy Sultan hats (a la Aladdin), I would be perfectly fine with that.

I want him to wear a giant garlic hat...like this:

[iseeahappyface.com image 400x298]


And people thought the SciFi Dune miniseries had bad hats...
 
2013-09-22 10:12:20 AM  
Wasn't Jesus against public prayer?  If that's the case, conservatives probably have their best case for Obama being a muslim.  Of course, if they had any logical consistency they'd have to then denounce every televangelist.


///yeah I know, "if"
 
2013-09-22 10:12:32 AM  

mispelled username: When can we have a real democrat president?


About the same time as when we get a real Republican president.
 
2013-09-22 10:13:20 AM  

Ricardo Klement: mispelled username: When can we have a real democrat president?

About the same time as when we get a real Republican president.


We have one of those right now.
 
2013-09-22 10:19:05 AM  

heavymetal: This is just the initial steps in Obama's implementation Sharia Law and crown himself Sultan of America.

/ Yes I am just kidding
// I don't know the real reasons, but it's an awesome troll of the "against everything Obama is for" crowd.


What about Sultan of Swing? We'd be in dire straits then.
 
2013-09-22 10:23:43 AM  
So, other sources are reporting on this, but we get some sucky blog?

FTOA:
Throughout its history, and dating back to the first session of the Continental Congress in 1774, the UnitedStates Congress has appointed Chaplains to open each legislative day with a prayer. When the First Congress met in 1789, among its first orders of business was to select Chaplains for the House of Representatives and Senate. Today,  both the House and  Senate Rules  require that each legislative day begin with a prayer from the House or Senate Chaplain or from a guest.

...

In  Marsh v.Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), this Court held that a state legislature's practice of employing a chaplain to deliver prayers at the beginning of its legislative sessions does not violate the Establishment Clause. ... In light of that history, the Court concluded that a practice of legislative prayer that is not exploited to proselytize, to disparage any religion, or to advance any one faith or belief does not violate the Establishment  Clause. The Court admonished  that, in such circumstances, courts should not parse or evaluate the content of prayer, a warning the Court has reiterated in later cases.


Damn that Obama; standing up for the law of the land. Second Circuit CoA looked at the prayers and said, "These are Christian prayers," and that was something it wasn't allowed to do.
 
2013-09-22 10:26:09 AM  

clambam: eraser8: lets have him photographed in a Yankees bar in a Red Sox hat.

FTFY.

What a pleasure to see that shoe on the other foot for a change. Many years ago I took my nephew camping in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. A Stamford, CT boy, he always wore his Yankees cap. We were in a hardware store in North Conway when the owner came out, pointed at Dave's cap and said "We don't like your kind around here. Get out." In a trembling voice Dave asked if he should get another cap and I said "Couldn't hurt."


As someone who spends time in New Hampshire every year (Squam Lake), this makes me sad.  I can't say I've ever walked around with a Yankees cap, but I've always found people up there to be extremely friendly.
 
2013-09-22 10:26:15 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ricardo Klement: mispelled username: When can we have a real democrat president?

About the same time as when we get a real Republican president.

We have one of those right now.


I think that's part of the continuous outrage from the right over Obama...

It really chaps their asses that a black Democrat is the best Republican president we've had in decades... Hell, you'd probably have to go back to Eisenhower to find an equally adept and effective Republican.
 
2013-09-22 10:31:15 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Mercutio74: Ricardo Klement: I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.

I`m reasonably sure it was in relation to prescription contraceptives.  You know, the kind that are for the most part just assumed to be part of any prescription coverage in the rest of the civilized world.  Don`t you find it somewhat troubling that employers are allowed to make value judgments on the morality of treatments offered by insurance companies to their employees?

Personally, I think the only ones that should be involved in that decision are doctors and patients.

/Let alone that it's quite common for oral contraceptives to be used as hormonal treatment for a sizable portion of women because oral contraceptives work by adjusting hormone levels artificially

Well, yes, I said as much. But the phrasing wasn't that employers couldn't prevent health insurance from giving their subscribers condoms. The assertion implied the employers had a duty to ensure free condoms were part of the benefits. It's a subtle but important distinction and there's a world of difference between the two.


Saying there is an employer duty to ensure free condoms is not the same as your earlier characterization about saying there is a fundamental right to free condoms, and both of those are strawmanishly inaccurate.

You are all over the road on this one and being very lazy with word choice.
 
2013-09-22 10:35:21 AM  

Smackledorfer: Ricardo Klement: Mercutio74: Ricardo Klement: I can understand not allowing employers to avoid providing certain kinds of coverage. That's a decision that even the Church by its own doctrine shouldn't be making for its followers. But to assert that there's some kind of fundamental right to free condoms defies rational explanation.

I`m reasonably sure it was in relation to prescription contraceptives.  You know, the kind that are for the most part just assumed to be part of any prescription coverage in the rest of the civilized world.  Don`t you find it somewhat troubling that employers are allowed to make value judgments on the morality of treatments offered by insurance companies to their employees?

Personally, I think the only ones that should be involved in that decision are doctors and patients.

/Let alone that it's quite common for oral contraceptives to be used as hormonal treatment for a sizable portion of women because oral contraceptives work by adjusting hormone levels artificially

Well, yes, I said as much. But the phrasing wasn't that employers couldn't prevent health insurance from giving their subscribers condoms. The assertion implied the employers had a duty to ensure free condoms were part of the benefits. It's a subtle but important distinction and there's a world of difference between the two.

Saying there is an employer duty to ensure free condoms is not the same as your earlier characterization about saying there is a fundamental right to free condoms, and both of those are strawmanishly inaccurate.

You are all over the road on this one and being very lazy with word choice.


But don't you understand? PEOPLE ARE HAVING SEX IN MANNERS HE DOES NOT APPROVE OF!!!!!!
 
2013-09-22 10:38:52 AM  

keylock71: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ricardo Klement: mispelled username: When can we have a real democrat president?

About the same time as when we get a real Republican president.

We have one of those right now.

I think that's part of the continuous outrage from the right over Obama...

It really chaps their asses that a black Democrat is the best Republican president we've had in decades... Hell, you'd probably have to go back to Eisenhower to find an equally adept and effective Republican.


Can you imagine the squeals of outrage if Barry proposed something as massive as the Interstate Freeway System?
 
2013-09-22 10:39:33 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Insurance companies are not generally all that excited about prevention. It's a tragedy of the commons sort of thing where they hope you change/lose your job and move onto someone else's insurance before they have to pay for something. Collectively, it would be worth their covering gym memberships and diet programs, but individually they don't want to pay for something that has a good chance of only benefiting a different insurance company.


Before the new Obamacare regulations, when insurance companies would pay tons of money to DOCTORS (i.e., people with medical degrees licensed to practice medicine) to review your case and find a reason to deny coverage when you were diagnosed with a catastrophic illness requiring lots of expensive treatment, this was the case.

Now that you can't be turned down or even kicked to the curb because of a previously undiagnosed pre-existing condition, it is in the insurance companies' best interest to prevent major illnesses, by providing things like cancer screenings and regular checkups.

It has almost ALWAYS been in the insurance companies' best interests to provide contraception. Any insurance company that is not providing services based on religious criteria (whether owned by ideologues, or providing services to ideologues such as religious-based institutions) would rather provide contraception to a single woman than not, since if she were to become pregnant, the company would be liable for paying for prenatal care and delivery, as well as any complications mother or newborn might encounter.

Insurance companies are just like any other company - they're in it for the money. Contraception, whether oral or other, is simply cheaper than pregnancy, even with no complications. Along those same lines, it has NOT been cost-effective to provide many kinds of pre-screening and diagnostic testing for catastrophic illnesses such as cancer, since the individual could be simply denied coverage for all kinds of flimsy reasons. Discovering a catastrophic illness through insurance mandated pre-screening actually makes it more likely, not less, that the insurance company would be required to provide coverage.
 
2013-09-22 10:45:20 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ricardo Klement: mispelled username: When can we have a real democrat president?

About the same time as when we get a real Republican president.

We have one of those right now.


Meh. He's hardly a socialist, true, but just because he's moderate or even center-right on some issues doesn't make him a Republican.
 
2013-09-22 10:46:15 AM  
Here's the friend-of-the-court brief

One of the Administration's positions is that The Supreme Court has already decided that prayer before a government meeting doesn't violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause so long as it doesn't "endorse" religion.
 
2013-09-22 10:48:06 AM  

Smackledorfer: Saying there is an employer duty to ensure free condoms is not the same as your earlier characterization about saying there is a fundamental right to free condoms, and both of those are strawmanishly inaccurate.

You are all over the road on this one and being very lazy with word choice.

"his health care overhaul requiring employers to provide contraceptives to their employees free of charge"


Seems like the article's word-choice is the one that is bad here.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report