First of all allow me to congratulate the Catholic church on its successful integration into American politics. Almost fifty years ago, anti Catholic bigots loudly complained that, if John F Kennedy was elected president, he would take his orders from the Pope and not from the constitution. Today, conservative bigots are loudly complaining because President Obama is taking his cues from the constitution and not from the Pope in Rome. Oh how the worm has turned

Note to all the Catholics out there. If you want conservatives to like you, don't run a viable candidate for president. Sorry Santorum, you don't count.

The conservative bigots doing most of the howling are trying to spin the issue of prescription birth control as matter of religious freedom. This argument is false on its face. The relevant part of the first Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." In other words, "You are free to believe whatever silly thing you want. You can worship Christ or you can worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it makes no difference to us."

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a principle of religious supremacy that says, "Hey, your funky, anti-empirical, non-democratic belief system trumps our secular laws." There are a lot of people out there who would like to believe that such a clause exists. Alas for them, it is very much a Santa Clause, a faerie tale invented by people who are trying to sell things to suckers. Any attempt to say, "I don't have to obey the law because my religion says so," should be greeted with scorn by any rational person. If an Aztec priest emigrated to the U.S. we would not allow him to sacrifice people and rip their hearts out in order to make the sun come up, no matter how much he protested that his religion requires it.

The constitution has always placed limits on what people can do in the name of religion. Mitt Romney's grandfather left the U.S. because the law said he couldn't have four wives, his Mormon religion notwithstanding. Rastafarians cannot toke up in the name of Ja, because cannabis is illegal, and no one in the U.S. can be forced to wear a burqua by an imam. (Wearing one because you want to is fine; you just can't be forced.)

For the Catholic church and their media sock-puppets to claim that they should have special pleading on the subject of health insurance is preposterous. Presumably, if their employees are devout Catholics, it won't matter if birth control is offered or not, because they won't be using it. (Never mind that the vast majority of Catholic women use birth control; a fact which, by itself, reveals the church's contention of principle to be spurious.)

What the fictional construct that is the Catholic church is not allowed to do is to decide for actual living, breathing people what government-mandated services they will or will not be allowed to receive. If the U.S. government mandates that anti-psychotic medications be covered by health insurance, the Catholic church cannot demand to be excluded from that requirement because it is their firm religious belief that mental diseases are caused by demonic possession. If they attempted to make such a claim, they would be excoriated by the press and the public. (It is beyond hope that the right wing politisphere would criticize them for anything.)

Indeed, the only reason that the conservative howlers' claims have gotten any traction at all, is because this particular policy impinges on women's rights, which they traditionally oppose. Women's reproductive rights, in particular, have long been a point of contention in the right's war on women because it is an area where paternalistic cultural moors provide a lever by which to oppress women via their biology. In the partenalistic bigot's mind, women who engage in the "wrong kind" of sex are immoral sluts and those who engage in the "right kind" of sex are pregnant.

That, not religious freedom, is the crux of the argument about mandated birth control coverage. It has nothing to do with people being able to worship as they choose, and everything to do with trying to control those damned sluts.

I AM FED UP WITH THIS…

I want all the POLITICIANS to get their DAMN hands and heads out of our/my UTERUS!!!!

Some religions have strict rules about reproduction and that is fine with me, but DON’T force YOUR religious views/beliefs on those citizens that are not of your same faith!!

I mean really-isn’t this the land of the free?

Amendment I of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights states…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

AND Amendment IX further states

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”–

Yet that is exactly what many (not all) politicians are trying to do.

Come on Washington D.C., it is time for you to get out from between the American Women’s legs and back to work!

---Copied from my WordPress Blog - STARGAZERS ARKANSAS SOUNDS

Question regarding 7 states included in lawsuit regarding mandatory insurance for free contraception and unconstitutional infringment of their religion:

Are there any religions anywhere in the U.S, recognized as religions to benefit from US Tax codes, that state anything in their dogmas, policies, and practices for membership, regarding support and advocacy for contraception and choice for whichever practices it believes are God/Deity sanctioned for all of their worshippers/members?

Are there any such religious bodies in any of the 7 states or Virginia, recognized by those states and the U.S. Tax Code? (Religious bodies meaning any practiced by any nationality in our multi-lingual/multi-ethnic citizens--not just the few religions we commonly hear about in the news)

If then there are any (even one), I would hope that it/they would stand up and claim that such laws and lawsuits infringe on their constitutional rights never to have governments pass laws against their free exercise of their religion. All the way to Supreme Court.

Does anybody really believe that these "personhood" bills have been defeated? I'm just guessing here, but I bet that these bills are just stepping out of the spotlight for a little while and will be quietly returning, maybe with another name, maybe with more circumspect language, maybe attached to some unrelated legislation like a highway bill and definitely when the moonbats don't think anybody is looking. But I'm guessing that this garbage will be back and sooner rather than later. Defeat does not stop these people; it only makes them blame the "liberal media," step back, regroup and get ready to have another go at whatever it was that enraged everybody in the first place.

I am a little confused about Santorum saying doing one for the team. Santorum I thought you were suppose to represent the People, who voted you in, not follow some dark agenda for a Republican Party team. The people in your State area is suppose to be your team and your suppose to do the overall good for all people and your State. Not just for a select few who would prosper and leave everyone else wanting. Sounds like you are hiding something and you are not saying what it is. But to the likes of this stuff going on, I can see that it would affect and damage the very thing our Democracy is suppose to be by some wrongful dark agenda.

Tee hee hee-look at 'em acting like this is the good old USA. We can send them off on phony crusades to bring "democracy" to foriegn lands while we call America a republic. We can holler about religion and make them forget how it was the church that persecuted the pilgrams so much that they packed up and came here. We can yell drill baby drill while also yelling kill baby kill those Iranians and then blame Obama for high gas prices.

Ain't we slick?

The belief that Marco Rubio will attract Latino voters is largely due to Republicans' inability to tell Latinos apart.

As a Cuban American, Rubio belongs to one of the smallest groups of Latino Americans.

The majority of Latino Americans are of Mexican origin, followed by Central Americans and South Americans. Their experiences and identities are very different from those of Cuban expatriots. They do recognize in Obama a fellow immigrant's son who has been stigmatized by some due to his ethnic roots and his skin color.