Excellent point!

Also, how about those who say they are Christian, but never attend church. Or talk about it!

Actually, there is a theological argument that says that if you put your faith in an institution and the authority of the administrative head of that institution that you are engaging in idolatry. In this view, it is the path to becoming not God centric. Not many church goers can get their head around the idea that attending church because of the positive feeling of commonality on a particular set of social mores (rude interpretation- "a feel good club for cultural bigots")- is human centric and by definition atheism.

What would make this chart more interesting to me (though I might have to squint to see the difference in numbers) is if we had the two bars comparing red and blue for each religion, but then also reflect on the left axis REAL NUMBERS rather than percentages.

This chart makes it look like there are as many Mormons and Evangelicals as there are Catholics, for instance.

Or do it in Pie charts, for each religion, have the red and blue in each pie. But then have each PIE BUBBLE reflect the REAL NUMBERS of people, so that the bubbles would be all different sizes.

I mean, we live in an age of these kinds of infographics. Just look at Pinterest. That would take, like, 5 minutes to generate. Half the Pinterest infographics are designed like that. I'm getting spoiled.

That's the same question I had...many Christians do not consider themselves to be evangelical....and my guess would be the vasy majority voted for the Dems. I am a Christian, and have joined several demoninations of Christianity over the decades, but have never considered myself to be evangelical, nor have any of the churches I have joined considered themselves to be that either.

I was wondering the same thing. I am Lutheran but not Evangelical.

@kevo: Exactly what I was wondering! As an Episcopalian who has supported President Obama since he first burst onto the national scene in 2004, I'm tired of being ignored or worse yet, lumped in with creationists who believe rape is 'God's plan.' This only seems to fit the narrative of those who don't know the difference between a snake handler speaking in tongues and the learned Jesuit.

@DAY: They would fit into the 'unaffiliated,' wouldn' they?

Just because you don't attend church, or talk about it, doesn't mean you can't believe it. I am Christian and was baptized Lutheran, but have since left my church and am looking for a new one. Doesn't mean I have to change what I believe, or say that I am not Christian.

That was my first question. Have Protestants gone away, as a group? or are they all listed under Evangelical? Looking at the original article, apparently they still exist but are not interesting to the Maddow blog.

The original article from the Pew Forum says that white non-evangelical Protestants were 16% of the electorate, which seems like a large group to omit from the Maddow chart. 54% of that group voted for Romney. Black Protestants (not broken down into evangelical/non) were 9% of the electorate and voted 95% for Obama.

I wondered the same thing immediately upon viewing the chart. Are the denominations of the National Council of Churches (NCC)--"mainline" Protestants--really that demographically or numerically insignificant these days as to not be considered a meaningful category? In effect, voters like not only myself but Bill Moyers simply aren't represented (or perhaps are misidentified?) on the chart.

they left out congregationalist, methodist, baptist, just to mention a few. here in the north they are no evangel churches....NOT to mention...was a time you had to be protestant to run. those who settled here were protestant, now we get left out and forgotten????????????????????

The link lists Protestants as going 57-42 Romney. It breaks it down into a few sub-categories though not very specific ones

John Messerly - I'm trying to comprehend what you are saying. I think you missed a word or two here and there. Can you rephrase? I don't get it. "....if you put your faith in an institution and the authority of the administrative head of that institution that you are engaging in idolatry..." isn't a complete thought. What's missing? Are you saying it's an atheistic practice to go to church to be part of the church community because it takes away from being 100% fully God-centric?

Go to the original report 54R:45O

well John, I must desagree with your conclusion (althou I agree with your premisses). All mythology is humn centric, agreed, but if you remove from the concept of atheism the separetion of mythology and reallity, you lose something.

So simply put, even ginven that all mythology is human based, atheist is someone who does not uses mythology to describe reallity. Its usefull to have that distinction IMHO

To all my republican friends who prayed for the election of Gov. Romney, God said NO...sorry

Everybody has a mythology. Myths explain the world in symbolic terms, and everyone (including atheists) think in symbols.

I think the problem most people have is that they regard "myth" as synonymous with "fable" or "fiction". That is not really the case. It is possible for a myth to be factual, or at least have a factual basis.

For example, on the night of Dec 25/26 1776, George Washington moved his troops across the Delaware River. This is an example of fact. This is an example of myth. The idealization of the event (the fictional element) is not what makes this painting myth. The myth lies in the significance given to the historical event in the stories (the body of myth) concerning the origins of the United States.

Myths may be secular and they may be fact-based (at heart). Of course, some myths are utter codswallop, but the point is they don't have to be. And even if they are, they frequently serve a purpose other than fact. Like, for instance, forging a sense of national consciousness.

There should be just a category for just Christians not affiliated with any church. I know I just consider myself Christian and do not affiliate myself really with any church, except to follow Jesus’ statements as best I can and plus have come to learn much more about Jesus just by going through this election with President Obama and Romney. To me Jesus is savior, guide, and teacher and his statements are more than what that incomplete Bible portrays as you can see in the Gospel of Thomas –
http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/Trans.htm.
Or the many other Gospels about Jesus listed at earlychristianwritings.com.

What bothers me is this chart exists at all or that it is meaningful at all in our 'political' discourse.

The people treated Zeus and Apollo the same way. Their 'faith' has merely been redirected.

And Mormons...are you kidding? That 'religion' was a con from the get go. A grab for power and significance from a self absorbed delusional con man. With just enough Bible thrown in to be beyond complete insanity. magic stones? buried in Palmera, NY...that only one man (the founder of Mormonism) could read...or even see with his personal magic stone...I mean come on now?... and then telll people "one day we will take over the entire country and put it out of its misery"...yeah yeah...that's the ticket...a white horsey prophecy right yeah...Geez, come on now. Next the GOP will run a candidate who thinks Zeus is gonna give him a lightening bolt to throw at terrorists. Get a grip.

These religions have no business even being discussed as part of our political discourse much less be involved in the election process. Yet here we are. Spirituality comes from within...in the stillness...and may be known by many names...all of which are personal.

I've seen many comments on other sites claiming that 93% of the black vote went to Obama, just because he is black. I wonder how many of the Mormon voters would look at this chart and say that they voted for Romney only because of his policies, and his religion had nothing to do with it?

I've seen those same sites and you are engaging in a fallacious argument: The sites that claim Obama won 93% of the black vote did not pretend to know why that number voted for him, but you have.....at the same time allowing Mormons to state their own reasons for voting for Romney? A little ridiculous, don't you think? If I ask black voters why they voted for Obama I doubt that any significant number of them would say it was about his race, the same as you asking Mormons why they voted for Romney, how many will say it was about his religion? The fact is that a majority of the country thought Obama was a more honest person than Romney, and that is borne from Romney's consistent lying to win power while for 4 years Obama has only been dishonest about the things he has a Constitutional duty to obfuscate, due to their sensitive or secret nature. When a person lies to get power as opposed to lying out of duty, their is a difference and people on the whole see that fact. All politicians lie, all national leaders must lie; the good ones keep the lies within bounds.

The clincher for me was that Romney claimed to pay a certain rate of taxes that was so false, he had to actually forego claiming some of his "charitable" (read, activism and cash to increase the power of his religious organization, the LDS church) deductions (he filed an extension to redo his taxes so the result would be acceptable) on his 2012 tax returns to prevent his returns from contridicting his previous lie about his tax rate.....that is the difference between a liar and a demon: a demon will manipulate and mix truth with his lies to lend credibility to the lie like Romney does. We didn't need a crook in the White House, that's why Obama won the election, regardless of how much of the 12.6% (the Black population of the US by percentage) voted for him, or why.

It wasn't Black Vote Vs. Mormon Vote or White Vote: it was right versus wrong and happily, the 'wrong' lost the election.

JohnMesserly,

... if you put your faith in an institution and the authority of the administrative head of that institution that you are engaging in idolatry ...

Agree.

Pursuit of money as wealth in excess of what you need for living has been considered to be a form of idol worship for about 6,000 years.

So, some of the Romnesiacs claim Superstorm Sandy is responsible or the Republican defeat. If a storm is an act of God, does that mean a divine vote was being cast for Obama?

Religious wise.....I believe the part of the bible that God insisted we take care of the earth God gave use. We are to be wise, and I think it would be wise to go green. I find this religious graft to be very interesting, and not at all surprising.

I agree, a lot of the most interesting data from the source link was omitted.

The shrinking "non-evangelical" (once called "Mainline Protestants") demographic leaned Romney 54-44.

The Catholic vote shows a strong ethnic division, with President Obama favored by 75% of Hispanic Catholics, but only 40% of white Catholics.

White Catholicism and Mainline Protestantism are both rapidly shrinking demographics. The Catholic church in America is undergoing a major demographic shift as white leave the church and are replaced by latino immigrants, and mainstream Christianity is rapidly eroding as it is under fire from two fronts, members leaving in favor of irreligion on one side and in favor of conservative fundamentalism on the other. This is the part of the Republican demographic problem that gets comparatively little mention, but may be the most important in the long run.

I apologize for creating a great deal of confusion about my intended meaning. I have tried to be more brief but I failed miserably in the post above (1.2)- especially my use of ambiguous referents was unpardonable. I consider myself a devout Christian and that throws people because I don't talk like one. It often seems I am either saying something that might come out of the mouth of a fundamentalist preacher, and at other times from the mouth of a devotee of Dawkins' form of belittling anyone describing themselves as spiritual.

To understand my religious context, in terms of the nexus of politics and theology I am close to latin americans who follow social justice themes in liberation theology- but I differ with the literalistic interpretations of the bible frequent even in these leftist christian points of view. Politically? I voted for Jill Stein because I live in a deep blue state, and my vote would not injure the President's chances- I would like Obama to have a viable force to the left of him so that political triangulations can bring his public position more in line with what I believe to be his personal preferences. Social-Psychological: I long ago bought into the central psychological role of what we vaguely call the spiritual in consciousness- the Joseph Campbell type analysis touched on by MeddlingMonk- but I differ with the tendency of this clinical analysis to devalue the ordering models of existence by calling them "myths"- a term whose strong pejorative senses of fantasy and untruth cannot be escaped. These psychologists have a rather crude and infantile approach- it seems to be the true wise figures are literary figures who expressed the ideas in prose and poetry. Denominationally I reject spiritual tribalism. I strongly feel greater common spiritual ground with atheists and members of other faiths who rail against the same fundamentalist tendencies to choke off access to what is good and inspiring- the forces that in the name of religious virtue profanely choke off access to the sacred. It is a tendency as ancient as humanity. Anyway- maybe that gives a bit of context. In terms of pure theology, I stand closest to the ideas of Coleridge whose more modern expression finds voice in the sort of christian existential views of Paul Tillich- the man who Martin Luther King concerned his dissertation with. It is kind of a Spinoza's God version, but not the kind of vague fading spiritual sentiments of lapsed Christians. It is amped up with existentialism and modern understanding of neuroscience, and hardly fading. I think of myself as a devout Christian who attends church every week despite my conviction that most of my fellow congregants go to church precisely for the purpose of avoiding the spiritual. My wife and I have 6 children who we are raising in the Christian tradition, but the spiritual skills and stance I wish to impart to them transcends denomination. If they retain the same spiritual center and honor that centrality within the language of atheism, buddhism, or Islam, I will be profoundly joyful.

Anyway, that is the context of my statements, so if my words seem to diverge from that general vicinity of thought, then I have probably been sloppy in expressing myself.

Ok, so about the post: At it's simplest, it is the idea that people go to church to hide from God. They want a permission slip excepting them from the demand of the spirit that we be less selfish and bigoted towards others. There are specific and quite extreme statements from spiritual leaders like Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad, and these demands freak out egos out. Many of us escape into fundamentalism in order to hide from those demands. This replacement of the source of spiritual insight that makes real demands on our egos, with a facsimile source of information that silences that voice of the spiritual - that process of the literalistic deadening of the poetic spirit in life can be described as idolatry.

If the seeker is not careful, it is easy to mistake the religious institution for that which it is there to only represent. When people put their faith in the institutions, authorities, and literalistic take on writings whose original spiritual meaning have immense power, then we take part in idolatry.

I tried to offer some defense of those in the "unaffiliated" category, because many of those folks are trying to be faithful to the spirit of the religious goods they were brought up with. They have rejected the hypocrisy of their religious institutions but are equally uncomfortable with the soul sucking self absorption of a mechanistic uncaring culture where the only thing that matters are bankable literals.

I could easily answer that poll three ways, accepting each of three categories with an asterisk that negates the statistical value of my response. I am "evangelical" because I go to the same evangelical church every Sunday, but I am not a member of that church nor because I reject the binding charter of that church on grounds of theology and social fairness. I certainly am not evangelical as the liberal left understands that term. I am in the sense that a charismatic from liberation theology would understand the term.

But this has no meaning to the coarse categories of the pollster. So maybe unaffiliated is correct in the sense I described above, though I do think it is important to join collectively in worship and observe religious practice that has the role of reconnection and re energizing of the spiritual connection. "Other faiths" might be accurate in the sense that my view of Christianity looks on most self identified Christians as practicing atheists, who are following a dead idol facsimile of original Christian faith- looking to an institution to provide them a moralistic cloak behind which they have a safe harbor to feel good about themselves and their self indulgent crimes against their fellow humans.

But then I sail into the harbor and do not hold my tongue about the mendacity. I am not incendiary, but I do not feel it is my duty to make the fellow congregants feel especially comfortable.

I don't do it because I am an insurgent. I really honestly do see deep meaning in the writings of my religion, and think there is great value to join with others in attempting to get at those deeper meanings. I suppose if there were poetry clubs where I could regularly go to discuss Whitman or Coleridge and talk about how the ideas apply to everyday life, then I would be much more satisfied, but I work in the social realities and structures that exist today.

end trails they will have too dig deep into the pile on Bull@!$%#mountian to find the end trails

Excellent point Day-3905329. Change the channel on the tv and listen to all the news and then make up your mind.

Indeed, Fox in nothing more then CULT TV,

they have a loyal following of less then a million

low information, factually challenged, birthers, baggers

and blamers. The FOX Cult led by High Priests, Pinhead, Insanity

Rover and Greta were blinded by there own Delusions of Grandeur.

Very good point. They don't seem to go out of their comfort zone. They believe what they want to believe and others are just irrelevant.

More and more, Fox viewers are on respirators, and cannot change the channel.

Fox: the network of choice in ICU's, all across America!

@Day

Fox: the network of choice in ICU's, all across America!

And here I thought euthanasia was still illegal.

There was a story about a guy who got up out of bed from a coma. The staff rushed in to find out what was happening. He said he had to get up and change the channel. His visitor had left it on Fox News.

It constantly amazes me to watch people who are basically being bent over and "done" by Faux Snooze. I go to the VA and it's on. I ask the clerk if he's aware that Fox is opposed to everything he does there, he says yes. I say "change it," he points at all the Auld Phartz there and says "they want it." I went over and changed it one time and told them that Fox and the Republicans support killing the VA and privatizing it and leaving them with a voucher, and one old idiot got up and said "they're fair and balanced!" I was at that point reminded that I never met more stupid people in one place than I did in the military (the smart ones were very cool, but they always seemed to be the minority, particularly among the lifers).

I've been saying the same thing. Everyone's talking about how the party is going to restructure itself, become more centrist. However, I don't see how when a good chunk of the base loves these conspiracy theories and the right wing ideology that's infected the party like a virus. Other than a few talking heads who seem to make sense, the fact of the matter is: I've seen more blaming of the left and those who voted for President Obama than I have of looking inward. Add to the fact that there are still a good number of Tea Party republicans in the House and I don't think you have a good recipe for metamorphosis. The "sane Republicans" will either have to cut the cancer off, thus disposing of a good portion of their base in the process, or there will be a split.

Fox News is but the tip of the iceberg in the media attacks on Obama. Remember that 80% of all media are owned by a few of the .1% in this country. And I would add that some of the remaining 20% have content consistent with agenda of Fox. The significance of this situation is that voters in many parts of the country have the confluence of their local newspaper, their television station, and their church presenting the same messages: protect the unborn, aspire to be rich, distrust the non-Christian, you are exceptional, America, the exceptional country, is under attack, etc. In 2001, Karl Rove established the faith based initiative and many preachers had their coffers filled and then filled their parishioners with the "conservative" agenda. So media and religion were meshed for these voters.

Religion, media, and message. Rove is a master of wedge politics. He finds the issues that will motivate people to vote. Most of these are "anti-" messages: anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, anti-gay rights, anti-gun control, anti-government, Each issue will motivate only a segment of the voters, but if enough issues are raised and enough segments motivated, then 2010 happens when the issues raised produced such an overwhelming segments turnouts that 550 Republicans were elected and we see, in state after state, the success of anti-abortion lawmakers attacks on women's rights (only the fetus has rights).

Obama won in spite of the media and the pulpits because he knew he had to go around them. He used e-mail, the social media, person-to-person contact, and a massive ground game. He used his personal appeal and campaigned in the swing states time and time again, If he had only relied on the national media, he would have lost.

Obama won reelection, in part, because the wedge messages had to be taken further to get the voters motivated, but how far further was miscalculated, for example, when the religious liberty argument was applied to Catholic bishops not wanting to pay for contraception, women revolted and asked why they didn't have liberty.

Karl Rove knows the power of wedge issues and, as he always has, will continue to rely on them, but now he knows what happens when the content of the issue is advanced too far.

Obama won because he implemented a brilliant campaign, but the Koch Brothers and their .1% co-horts are not done. They will be back in 2014 and, if the media is then as it is now, we may see another 2010 election. The media monopoly must be broken up. Fox News owns too many stations. Clear Channel (owned by Bain Capital) owns too many radio stations. Gannett owns too many major newspapers, etc.

The future is bright with Obama as President, but what about the elections when he is not running?

There is occasional where it can be seen that some people here make some profound comments and are note worthy. And here is a credited comment from – from TO that is listed that people can ponder over –

Add the hysterical tone and delivery of a Hitler, translate it into German and you have the Nazi Agenda, Freddie. Now ask yourself these two simple questions:

Q: What is conservatism? A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy or, in our present context, the Rich.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism? A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world. Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. This would make Romney the perfect candidate since his mendacity is now historic, wide spread and well documented. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

Humanity has struggled for thousands of years to emerge from the darkness of conservatism.

I was thinking that "there oughtta be a law" about commentary masquerading as news, but I was shocked to find out that this has already been litigated. As a result of this court case, Fox News is allowed to spew its nonsense while hiding behind the First Amendment. I should think the FCC would at least be able to promulgate a rule that requires a TV news program to differentiate between fact and opinion. It may have been that way in the olden days, because I remember "COMMENTARY" being prominently posted on the screen while opinions were being given. Maybe that's what that case was all about. But journalism died when entertainment became king.

Well, in order for him to find porn "boring"...he must watch it, right? It sounds like years of viewing has taken away the WOW effect for him! LOL!

As ol' Pat always says: do as I say, not as i do." Him and all the rest of the con artists.

It's a well-known fact that whenever a conservative religious conference is being held in a hotel, use of the porn channel goes way up, for an average of 5 minutes each. No wonder conservative religious women walk around with that frustrated look.

Calling porn boring is a very ace thing to say. However, I'm inclined to think that like the majority of far-right individuals he is actually very much into porn. He's just simply lying about it.

Social Security and Medicare are not "free", so I am beginning to wonder if the Shooter and his cohorts have ever earned a paycheck. Look at the stub Shooter, it's a portion of the check that you tear off at the perforated lines. Let me know if you need a copy to peruse, I will redact my sensational salary to prevent your wrist slashing...

Lebowsky Dude FTW

And if there is a problem with SS remove the 110k salary cap so that the Romneys of the world can contribute the same as the rest of us and ...ooooh magic, the problem disappears.

That darn math again , gets you every time.

Actually it was the "church of free stuff" that secured votes for Obama.

Now thats funny, and a reason I believe the Right Wing parrots profoundly stupid or suffer a mental defect because reality surrounds them but they can't see it.

Shooter, Assuming you work, look at your coworkers. Over half of them voted for Obama.

Your coworkers are at work because they want free stuff. Right?

Mayhaps your coworkers voted for Obama because they want to be able to continue buying some things, like birth control and affordable health care?

Stupid, nothing can be done about.

Mental defect? ObamaCare has a Mental Health provision, the Right Wing can get help facing reality.

.

@Shooter Re:#6

If you believe what you wrote, then you are ignoring the actual reality that determined the outcome of the election.

And therefore you will never be able to make a significant contribution to the debate about how to solve the problems this country faces.

A business owner who does not face the facts about why sales are lagging will never be able to improve sales.

Or only "free stuff" (or "welfare") if it's going to people that the right-wing media, pundits, and their supporters hate (minorities, single moms, students from lower-class families, etc.).

Otherwise, they're called "subsidies", "grants", "federal aid", "tax breaks", and "defense contracts". As long as the money goes to the white right people, that is.

Shooter, just keep believing that. Because I can't think of a better way to ensure the permanent irrelevance and ultimate death of the GOP.

Seriously, though, this country needs at least one functional opposition party, so I hope your party either gets it together, courtesy of any of the small and shrinking number of sane Republicans who remain, or that another party rises quickly to fill the vacuum created by all the crazy mouth-breathers who have taken over what used to be the party of Lincoln and TR, before it became a refuge for angry old white guys shaking their fists at everyone else walking past 'their' lawn.

You just can't help yourselves can you, people? Way to go. Keep the desperate zombie alive.

The stuff you refer to Shooter was NOT free it has been paid for by many, some at a very high price. What we want is that you refer to as free stuff:

A. Be treated with respect and not have racial or demeaning terms used when referring to our ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and/or religion.

B. Be paid a wage that one can support themselves and their families on, so they would not have to be on any assistance program.

C. Exercise our right to vote without it being an endurance act, without someone trying to suppress our votes because of we are elderly, middle class or financially challenged, our ethnicity or where we live.

D. Stop referring to people as Makers and Takers. Here is another way to look at that wording. Over the last 30 years the top 1% income has increased 240% and the remaining 99% increased approximately 18%. Their income could not increase by 240% if not for the people who worked for them or for the companies and corporations they invested in. So perhaps the makers are the middle class and poor working Americans and the takers are the 1%.

E. The equal rights for all our citizens, even those who wish to marry someone of the same gender.

F. The right for women to be Pro-Choice and make their own health decisions.

Interesting.

I voted for President Obama and I don't receive any sort of government assistance. This meme is old and it's incorrect. Find another lie to peddle.

come on guys, dont respond to shooters....just laugh. it improves your health and serves him right

Is this the line for free lemons?

What the hell does your article have to do with free stuff? Nothing in your article talks about Obama winning because of "free stuff." It talks about Romney losing because he wasn't authentic and wouldn't take a solid position on policies. It talks about him losing because people didn't know who he was or what he was going to do in office. I would actually agree with that analysis, but no federal programs are mentioned in that entire article. What the hell are you talking about here? Do you EVER read these articles before you link them???

I actually found the article that Shooter referred us to to be pretty interesting. In the article, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada offers some advice to the GOP. In essence, Harper says (1) be authentic--have a firm identity or "brand" (although he himself did not use that term); (2) focus on the economy; (3) reach out to immigrants instead of demonizing them; (4) ignore hot-button social issues such as gay marriage.

Some pretty good advice. However, I doubt that the GOP will listen. It's much more fun to fantasize that people voted for Obama because they wanted lots of free cell phones and free T-bone steaks and (to hark back to Reagan) free Cadillacs. Not to mention all that wonderful free health care people get in emergency rooms in urban hospitals.

Shooter has been reduced to , " na na ne na na...na na ne na na...na na ne na na...repeatedly with hands over ears. "I fell down and I can't get up"...Shooter: "She wants free stuff...she wants free stuff".

"I got a phone cause I can't afford one and I have a serious medical condition and so does my grandson whom I care for. Thank you Bush for initiating that program" Shooter: "She want free stuff...she wants free stuff".

A petulant child who spends hours trying to find something to rile 'others' he dislikes but too stupid to be creative so just repeats what he's heard from those who dislike the same people. Sad. No change likely for those who refuse to deal with reality except to throw rocks at it.

Can't figure out who's the dumbest, anymore.

Three years ago I was in the hospital for a month (fortunately paid for by the VA), and after being released was enrolled in Medicaid (in Arizona it's the AHCCCS, or "access"). Although I am no longer enrolled, I do periodically get offers of a free phone. The phone has limited minutes (200 per month) no Internet, and is primarily for low income people who need it for emergencies, as a means of contact with employers, etc. It's a great idea, and the upside is amazing. Try to live without having some way to contact other people, especially employers.

Shooter, as usual, just pops up like a Whack-A-Mole, doing his best to divert the conversation. Hey Shooter, how long did you have to look to find the Vancouver Sun, and did you really think nobody would go to check out your lie?

DisgustedWithItAll: I know: it's exhausting;

the constant bickering back and forth and forth and back.....but necessary. The claim shooter made being so soundly debunked by all the posters who followed....people read that, it moves people. Facts spread like probiotics to keep the body-politic's immune system strong, we need the trolls and the fools to try to stir the doo-doo and have their nonsense out in the open to be picked apart publicly, where potential voters can read it and see what his ilk are saying. Since most of our households deter political or religious discussions in polite company, there must be a place where citizens can toss ideas, however insane or inflammatory, back and forth to vet them. I must argue that the internet's discussion boards are that forum we used to have in the middle of town in the 1800s where discussions were publicly held.

Yes, the church of free stuff. You may recall Sandra Fluke having a hissy fit because her contraception wasn't free? There are two kinds of Obama voter. The kind that wants free stuff, and the kind that wants to give it to them. And both want someone else to pay for it.

Yes, Mr. Harper seems to be on to something.

You may recall Sandra Fluke having a hissy fit because her contraception wasn't free

No. Sandra Fluke gave testimony as to the importance of contraception and how sometimes costs and access can be limited for women with lower incomes. Including contraception with your health insurance plan doesn't make your contraception free. You have to pay your health insurance premium or else you will not have coverage. That's like saying that diabetes medication is free because it's covered in your health plan.

And both want someone else to pay for it

Really? Because last time I checked the only person paying for health care...was the person paying for their insurance plan. Please explain whose getting stuff for free and why don't you take advantage of the free stuff and quit being so envious of the people who get it? Hmm?

Yes, Mr. Harper seems to be on to something.

At no point in time did your article mention anything about government assistance. So again what are you talking about here? Mr. Harper was elected in Canada because he's not an extremist, he avoids social issues, and he doesn't flip-flop on policies. That's what the article is about. How does that relate to anything you've said in either of your posts?

No, it's not necessary. Not at all. Keep it alive if you must; you are just giving it more oxygen. Look what happened when it was engaged. Just more opportunity was provided.

Carry on if you think infection is a good thing.

Including contraception with your health insurance plan doesn't make your contraception free.

Depends on who is paying for the policy. If Ms Fluke is paying for the coverage she can include what ever she likes. If the employer is paying they can include what they like, or nothing at all. I don't see a problem here.

Sadly I get nothing free.

Mr. Harper may be the model for a new conservatism which eschews judging popular culture and concentrates on finances. A more libertarian stance if you like.

See? And on and on and on..., it continues. It's like you folks can't even sense the desperation, the cry for relevance, the hope to not be forgotten, the need to be fed, ....

Sad. Just really sad. Stupid is more like it, though.

I have a relative on FB that was quite tea party like before the election, and says things like, "When do I start getting free stuff?" all the time now. I comment back, "I don't want FREE insurance, I want FAIR insurance. " He continues on and on about free everything, forcing people to have abortions, how America is going down the tubes, etc. And he doesn't have any facts to back these comments up, but he continues with a new unbased "fact" every day.

Depends on who is paying for the policy. If Ms Fluke is paying for the coverage she can include what ever she likes. If the employer is paying they can include what they like, or nothing at all. I don't see a problem here.

then why do you and your party keep repeating the crap you just repeated ? its because that is all you people ever have , is repeated talking points you have been assigned , you have zero substance to offer in ideas of legislation

your candidate romney spent the last 2 months apologizing for saying 47% of americans want freee stuff . why is that ? it's because it was a proven lie

now the flip flop party wants to just keep trashing their integirity and prove themselves as lower than low on the subject , congratulations

The employer doesn't pay for insurance, shooter, the employee does. The employer simply acts as a middle-man to spread costs around all employees. It seems to me that you and other conservatives don't fundamentally understand what insurance is and therefore you keep misrepresenting it. The employee pays for insurance, period. There's no such thing as free coverage. Even if the employer decided to cover X like you say you DO realize that that would STILL not be free coverage because it would STILL require the employee to a. pay into the plan and b. that the employee work for the employer, yes? Use some common sense Shooter. I get that you're pissed that your guy didn't win the election, but that's no excuse for letting your entire brain go out the window.

If the employer is paying they can include what they like, or nothing at all. I don't see a problem here.

Because employers aren't allowed to dictate existence to their employees like tiny fascist @!$%#s? I mean honestly ya'll spend so much time being terrified of the big bad government, yet it never occurs to you that private business spies on you more than your government, manipulates you more than your government, steals more of your money, and makes you a slave. Let's be slave to our employers! Ya know cause that's so much more preferable than being slave to our government. Hows about you don't have to be slave to anybody??? Nope that doesn't come in place cause that might make you think for yourself. It might require that you read these articles you link to it might require that you exercise some independence.

And lastly what does the article you linked to have ANYTHING to do with government assistance??? At NO point in time are benefit programs mentioned so again WHY do you insist on pretending that they are? Hmm???

Amen!

uh -hear them down here...more coffee, NOW!

yeah, those are the same ones who emphaphtically said early on when they thought they would have a different GOP choice, i.e. Santorum, "I don't know any SBC member who would EVER vote for a Mormon cult member." Basically verbatim words used by an SBC friend of mine during the GOP primary run up. And I absolutely do believe that, in the solitude of the voting booth, quite a few of them left the presidential choice box blank.

Always remember whenever you're doing anything where beer is involved, never take along just one Southern Baptist, because he'll drink all your beer. Bring two, and they won't drink any!

Actually they get hilarious when drunk. It is well worth the price of two drinks to watch them get all redneck.

" And I absolutely do believe that, in the solitude of the voting booth, quite a few of them left the presidential choice box blank"

Well gee whiz gwhiz401, I was about to mention how Obama got 42% of the vote here in SOUTH Carolina. Killjoy!

Actually, TCinLA, I heard that same joke from some Mormon friends of mine back in the 1960's. Always invite two Mormons to a party, so they keep an eye on each other.

I thought they (southern baps) were ordered to write in cheezus for president.. I know Darwin got over 5,000 votes,, how many did cheezusguy get?

An old joke: "A man goes to heaven, St. Peter is showing him around. And its very big and very filled with good people. And the guy asked St. Peter, "And what is going on with that tiny little group over there on that hill?" St. Peter said, "OH that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here." lol

Indeed. That was my big question too. As I understand it, the country is about 3/4 Christian, divided roughly into thirds: Catholics, Mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals. Anecdotally, I'd guess that Mainline Protestants (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and so forth) probably voted similarly to the way Catholics voted. I don't have any hard data though-- that's just a guess.

When I clicked the link to the report, I found that Protestant and Catholic affiliations were 78% of the electorate. Evangelicals are 23%, and Catholic are 25%, so 30% would be Protestant, Non-evangelical. The Hispanic Catholic population is 5% of the electorate. 2% are Jewish, 7% other faiths (Hindu, etc.) and 12% are unaffiliated.

As Johnny Cash said in song--"the one in the middle...was Methodist" We are methodical.

The original Pew Forum website has much fuller information than what Steve gave us. According to the Pew people, non-evangelical white Protestants went for Romney (54%), white Catholics went for Romney (59%), while Hispanic Catholics went for Obama (75%) and black Protestants went for Obama (95%). The data also indicates that regular churchgoers favored Romney, while occasional churchgoers favored Obama.

I myself am a regular churchgoer, white, and am a non-evangelical Christian. So I defied my demographic by voting Obama.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx

When I was young (eons ago) I was baptized in the Methodist Church. My dad thought the Methodists were the closest thing to being atheists while still having a building to meet in on Sundays. I cut out the middleman by the time I was twelve.

My Mom's Dad was German Lutheran. My grandmother was a Mormon. So they both argued over which religion to raise the children in. So every Sunday, they went to the Lutheran Church at 9 am. And then went to the Mormon Church at 11:00. But if they had a party afterward for a holiday, they had to go to the Lutheran Church because they had beer. LOL. According to my Mom, who went to both Churches for about 12 years, there is very little difference in Sunday school between the two. She never noticed any big difference.

Well from the sheer number of "Bishop Letters" that were put out there, you can assume all Catholics were told that!

I know... which makes me very curious to know what percentage of people might actually have ended up voting for him without having first run into threats along the way regarding fearing God and God's wrath. Think it would be a fascinating survey... Did you vote for Romney because, 1) You fear God and don't want to go to hell, 2) You believed the rhetoric of the Romney-Ryan campaign (and/or their backers), 3) You were influenced by the positions and plans the Romney-Ryan campaign put forth, 4) You are a Republican, and that's that... 5) Some of the above, or 6) All of the above. (Did I forget anything?)

kassr: I do think that would be interesting-- it would pretty clearly indicate their vote was "coerced" in some way. I also, though, would be interested in knowing something about the "rebellion" vote: that is, "If you did NOT vote for Romney, was it because you were disgusted that your church would attempt to coerce your vote by threatening you? Would you have voted for Romney if you had a fee and unencumbered choice?"

Nik, I think those questions are perfect, and would love to see the results of such a survey. I'd also be completely interested in knowing how many people in Ohio or other places ultimately changed their voting preference from Romney to Obama (or an alt option) following Romney's campaign lies and the ads surrounding Jeep, etc.

kassr- I'd only add one more. (7)did you vote for Romney because you couldn't bring yourself to vote for the "blah" guy?

Oy. You're right, rwsgate. That's a question that would definitely belong.

I had read "the white horse prophecy" about a President being elected and is a Mormon and makes this country in to a theocracy, then tries to take over the world. I assumed that Mittens probably thought this was his destiny. However, a Mormon once told me that the white horse prophecy is not a good prophecy, it is bad for the Mormons and their Church too. Along with the country and the world.

The Church is not saying you can't decide, just don't force them to participate.

BS. The Church is saying they want the RIGHT to decide for the rest of us!!

@once

You totallly misrepresent the disagreement. The issue is whether the gov't can force a religiously affiliated org to violate it's conscience. HHS seems to think forcing the insurance companies to pay resolves the issue. Unanswered is the self insured where insurance companies only act as administrators under a policy defined by the employer.

Many of the autocrats in churches and secular institutions interested in promoting particular social values are interested in using all tools at their disposal, including coercion through tools of the state to force individuals to change their behavior. The right wing likes to make the argument that the left wing does the same thing because they are fond of using to power of the state to attempt to force them to not make employment decisions based on race.

These critics are correct that we do use politics as an expression of morality. We should not be shy about that. The election of Obama was good because of the values he is championing, and the ideals he enumerates in his speeches.

The critics are wrong because there is a crucial difference between anti discrimination laws and anti abortion laws. Few right wingers are willing to stand up and say they believe that whites are superior to other races. The difference is the basis for the legitimacy of applying the coercive power of the state is that we agree on the premise. We may not agree on the means of battling racism, but we agree (at least publically) that it is a social evil.

That is not so on the question of when there an emerging lump of human cells becomes a person and when a declining lump of human cells stops being a person (eg brain death). At some point we may have science to empirically quantify the level of conscious activity in an organism. Until then, we have unprovable philosophical beliefs on which there is no common ground.

So there is no basis for legitimate application of the powers of the state to change the behavior of individuals, and punish them for misbehavior.

If they're self-insured, they're functioning as an insurance company, not a "church" and should follow the rules.

But that's simply not true. The church IS trying to say you can't decide. And not just for the "church" itself, but for for-profit businesses they're associated with. And it really bothers me the prevalence in our society with which people conflate individual, isolated experience with statistical generalizations. Saying that "on the whole" something TENDS to happen is not at all the same thing as saying that it happens in every individual instance, and arguing that a generalization is not true because a specific experience doesn't bear it out makes no logical sense.

It is also funny how on one hand Republicans call for smaller government, fewer regulations, "don't let the government take away my right to arms", etc. However, on the other, they want to impose their beliefs on women. Regardless of the circumstances. They want less welfare, yet a woman should be forced to give birth to child that she may possibly have to use welfare to feed.

Archie Bunker is not particularly religious or even ideological. There is no real logic to his bigotry. As was pointed out on Up with Chris Hayes today, the GOP has a product to sell to that established market for bigotry. It really doesn't matter what the ideological or religious packaging of it is.

Archie Bunker buys it. He will watch any network that gives him a steady diet of it, and politicians that speak to his primitivist social ideas. If you think about it, the Archie Bunker demographic and the people who pander to it has had remarkable resilience through the ages. He has always been with us, from the first days we gathered together in villages scores of millennia ago for common defense against marauding bands of thieves. The only thing that changes is the particular details of his gibberish of intolerance.

Pamela: The fact any institution decides to self insure is a financial one. They believe it is more cost effective to set aside funds themselves than turn it over to insurance companies.

Nik: Several points. At least for Catholic affiliated orgs, they are non profit. The Church is not saying you can't decide, just live with the choice and pay for it yourself. The bill specifically excludes churches from the contraception requirement.

The issue is about compelling a religious organization to pay for something that is clearly against their church doctrine. If they are self insuring, they are paying for that benefit. In forcing them to cover certain things, isn't the government imposing their doctrine on them?

I am considering the plight of a private school that was originated by and is overseen by an order of nuns. What position has the government placed them in?

Tom,

MORE BS. Each Catholic Hospital has to turn over a portion of its profits to the Vatican. If you don't believe me, check with your Catholic hospital administrator. They are a MONEY MAKING organization to keep the Vatican in trinkets. They should be declared a "for profit" enterprise because of that.

The people who work at the hospital aren't Catholic - the hospital isn't a Catholic Church AND the hospital receives Federal Funds. EVERY OTHER "business" that receives Federal Funds has to follow Federal law. But the hospitals, in order to increase their profit, do not want to do that and they are crying "religion".

This is JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT (and there have been SOOO MANY before this) where the Catholic Church is trying to impose its will on non-Catholics. You DO NOT get to cry "religious freedom" when you are purposely using it to deny the freedom of others!!!

@once

I don't know where you get your info from, but, for example, a Catholic hospital does not return money to Rome. In fact, each diocese has annual fund raisers to support affiliated orgs.

While they receive fed funds, think about what would happen if they discontinue their service because of some stupid issue like free contraception. We've already seen orgs close because of mandates to enforce social issues - adoption agencies come to mind.

Employees have a choice where to work. If they're hell bent on this issue, then don't work there.

Tom,

I used to work for a Catholic Hospital. I KNOW how much money they send back to Rome - Don't feed me BS!!

And as far as the threat about what would happen if they discontinue service?? GET a CLUE! There are a LOT of other organizations that will fill the void - my hospital right now is NOT a Catholic Hospital - thank GOD - no silly "nun visits" in the morning!

No, employees don't have much "choice" of where to work anymore - haven't you heard??

Oh, and BTW, the Catholic Hospital I worked for had insurance that paid for all of my birth control - hell, they even had them in the hospital pharmacy- AND NOT A SQEEK from anyone about it!!! What's different now? Oh, yea, the Catholic Church thought they saw a chance to take over and force themselves on everybody - how'd that work out?

Repub:

Not that I don't believe you, but please cite which hospital you worked at and where it is stated that monies are sent back to Rome. It's not unusual for employees, unless they are in a position of know, to believe rumors. Hell, Al Smith and JFK were going to bring the Pope over.

As far as filling the void, I can cite two examples where Catholic hospitals were kept open to fill the void. On Long Island the state tried to force a Catholic hospital to perform abortions in order to take over a failing hospital. In Augusta, Ga, the state tried the same. In both cases, the state failed because they were more concerned about filling the void.

By the way, you can always refuse to see the nun. Here, even in secular hospitals, the Church sends people to give communion if you so choose.

Not that I don't believe you, but please cite which hospital you worked at and where it is stated that monies are sent back to Rome.

First Tom, give me your name and address - why should I expose personal information about myself to YOU??? Especially since you have been known to troll here?

All I will tell you is that it was a small town with one Catholic Hospital and I worked with the nun who did the accounting!

Frankly, you believe whatever you want - I'm done with youl

'

The church makes a choice to hire employees who are not of the faith and who are not taking up official positions within the church. Why does the church get a pass when it has the opportunity of choice, but the individual does not? It never ceases to amaze me how people always side with the one they agree with. For the record being self insured only means you handle the administrative costs and transferring of money. You are acting as a middle man as opposed to another entity acting as a middle man between the money and the doctor. The employee still has to pay for their monthly premium (so it's not free like you incorrectly keep saying it is) and the administrative office is never notified of what the service is being used for. Morally speaking this is no different than the church saying it won't pay it's employees because one of them might go out and use that money for contraception or to have an abortion. It's moronic thinking. The church is trying to force it's beliefs onto it's employees by limiting their options and that's wrong. If the church doesn't want to be morally implicit then it can a. only higher people who are of the faith who wouldn't be using contraception in the first place b. only higher people into official church positions or c. not provide health insurance. All of which are options the church has. So why doesn't the church exercise personal responsibility and handle it's issues without pushing them off onto the employee?

The catholic hospitals I know of had private insurors and did not tell them what to cover. Check and see...most Catholic hospital's insurance companies already covered BC pills and this was never an issue until the GOP made it one to influence the elections. Suddenly it became about forcing the Catholic Church to go against its teachings...when in fact it was the insurance companies who contracted with the Catholic hospitals who covered birth control for their participants never asking if they were Catholic or not.

More divisive tactics from the GOP. It is and was always..a non issue till the GOP made it one...hop on board Catholic stooges.

Because a religious organization is welcoming of those of other faiths, they are then mandated to sacrifice their religious tenets?

It is my understanding that when a company is self insuring, they themselves are the "insurance" that their employees medical bills will be paid per their contract. I f contraception is mandated, they are then paying for contraception.

Typically as part of one's benefits package, a percentage if not all of one's health insurance premium would be covered. So they are directly paying for that as a possible service.

So your suggestion is... if the church doesn't want to be morally implicit... limit the job market further and only hire people of Catholic faith or don't provide any health insurance to employees.

Great idea...

"Because a religious organization is welcoming of the government funds they receive for providing services for those of other faiths, they are mandated to sacrifice their religious tenets?"

There, fixed it for you.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

Because a religious organization is welcoming of those of other faiths, they are then mandated to sacrifice their religious tenets

No, but they aren't allowed to force their religious beliefs onto those of other faiths. That's the whole point here.

limit the job market further and only hire people of Catholic faith or don't provide any health insurance to employees

Yes. The church is exercising personal choice when they hire an employee. They have the ability to only hire people who agree with their position, only hire people to an official church position (in which case they then can mandate what that person does), or they can not provide health insurance. The church is making this choice. That is something that they choose to do. It is not their business to enforce what the employee does or doesn't use their health insurance to cover. That's private and is none of the employers business. If the employer doesn't like it then the employer needs to grow a pair and deal with it like an adult. Why do you conservatives always peddle personal responsibility onto the individual, but when it comes to businesses of any kind you cannot give them enough excuses? Businesses don't have responsibility for the things they do and the way they treat their employees? This especially is annoying because you accuse people who use the government for things like food and healthcare and housing of being lazy and irresponsible. Yet here we have a church whining because it can't do whatever it wants without consequences. Isn't that your whole argument against things like contraception? That you don't like people being able to have sex without consequence? Talk about hypocritical.

It is my understanding that when a company is self insuring, they themselves are the "insurance" that their employees medical bills will be paid per their contract. I f contraception is mandated, they are then paying for contraception.

Insurance companies are middle men who exchange the money between the patient (in this case the employee) and the doctor. A self-insured company is a company that performs the middle-man practice itself instead of outsourcing it to a third party. That means they handle the exchange of cash from the employee to the doctor- the employee is the person who is paying for the insurance. It is not a free ride. But even so the only way the church can complain that it is morally complicit is if the church believes it has a right to dictate how an employees money is spent. There is no difference between this and a church saying it won't pay a salary to an employee because it's afraid that salary will be used to pay for contraception. In both cases the employer is simply the middle-man between the exchange of currency. Why one would suddenly be more immoral than the other is beyond me.

Once: I'll miss you, but I've learned on this blog, if you disagree, you're a troll. No room for intelligent disagreement .

Cartoon: you make several points:

Employees can refuse to offer insurance. Not true if you have more than 50 full time employees.

An employer who provides insurance chooses what they will cover, then negotiates with an insurance company to administer the plan. An employee cannot choose what benefits they want under the plan. The amount an employee pays toward the cost is decided by the employer. It generally is not the employee .deciding what services. The administrator can only pay what the employer defined policy allows.If employees could decide, then Fluke wouldn't have had an issue with Georgetown.

I still believe this is a constitutional issue on how free anyone is to exercise their religious beliefs

The church is limiting the ability of the employee to exercise his/her first amendment rights by denying the coverage. You are not going to get anywhere by making the liberty argument because in this situation both entities have liberty to claim (the employee vs. the employer). The employer should be the one to capitulate since they have the least to gain and the least to lose int his scenario. They have the most opportunity to work around the problem and therefore have the most freedom to exercise choice within the confines of the law. There isn't an argument you can make as to why the employee should be the one to capitulate for the business that will ultimately win because the employee can die and the business cannot.

I used to work for Centura Health, a part of Catholic Health Iniatives. I paid my half of health insurance payments, they paid the other half. I went to the doctor, got a prescription, took it to the pharmacy, paid my 5.00 co pay, and took my BC pills home. Catholic Health Iniatives never stuck their nose in my business. My rights as a Protestant nurse, were more important than their rights to refuse to pay for something. I am sure, if I had gone to a Episcopal hospital (in Pueblo, COlorado), that I could have gotten an abortion using my health insurance from the Catholic Health Iniatives. As it is, I got BC control, I got a hysterectomy from a Catholic Hospital without a problem. They provided the health insurance, I and my Doctor decided how to use it. they stayed out of it.

Doesn't it say somewhere that the rights of the Individual are more important than rights of the majority.

Even the Nuns are saying that the GOP are not prolife, they are probirth. If they really felt it was important to deliver that child and raise it, they would improve WIC, Early childhood education, Headstart, school lunch payments, better daycare, etc. But as soon as that child is born, he's on his own. The Evangelicals and the rest of the GOP don't like slackers, even if they are babies.

@Doug... in terms of private parochial schools, government programs are limited to textbook loans and approved instructional materials and various auxiliary services (speech, hearing). Private schools subsist on tuition and private endowments.

I invite you to think about this a little further... what about a school originated by an order of nuns and overseen by it? They should be forced to cover birth control?

@Cartoon...easy for you all to say to only employ Catholics although certainly they may be forced to. There are alot of non-Catholic teachers employed by Catholic based schools that would be hurt by this.

Also, paying a salary is different than paying for a DEFINED benefit.

Typically, the employer does cover all or part of insurance. I never said that it was a free ride. It is part of a benefits package...

@cartoon

"This especially is annoying because you accuse people who use the government for things like food and healthcare and housing of being lazy and irresponsible. Yet here we have a church whining because it can't do whatever it wants without consequences. Isn't that your whole argument against things like contraception? That you don't like people being able to have sex without consequence? Talk about hypocritical."

I did not make those statements so please don't attribute them to me. I find it exceedingly tiresome to be thought of in a one dimensional manner. I consider that this is about religious freedom and it is a slippery slope once we move the bar.

Also @Cartoon First amendment? Not applicable. I'm not seeing where there is the right to paid birth control anywhere in the first amendment. Unless you are aware of a religious organization that has that as part of it's tenets.

Lisafp,

The only thing you seem to be good at is throwing red herrings.

First of all a Catholic run school or a Catholic run hospital are not the Catholic Church, they are businesses - pure and simple!

If you are harmed egregiously by the actions of a Catholic hospital, do you sue the Catholic Church? I GUARANTEE to you that the Catholic Church would be the FIRST to say that you are suing the wrong entity - that you should be suing the hospital (the business that harmed you) instead!

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the first amendment - nada, zilch! The first amendment applies to religions, NOT to businesses.

The Congress has written laws to control what happens in BUSINESSES, not churches an if the Catholics want to run businesses, they they have to follow the laws for BUSINESSES! If that is too much for you Catholics to bear, then GET OUT OF BUSINESS!!!

Here it is just in case you don't know 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.

Does it say there ANYWHERE that religions can DENY rights to any other American citizen?? If you want to practice your religion, you are certainly free to do so and Congress has NO INTEREST in stopping that. However, it gives you NO RIGHTS to force your religion on others!!!

You Catholics seem to want it both ways, you have the right to practice as you choose, yet you are intent on stopping others from practicing as they choose!

Hey, if you want to make this an issue and bring it up for vote, I am all for that!! You will get stomped on again and again and again because the rest of us see what the Catholic Church is up to even if you, because of your brainwashing, don't!!

ENOUGH of your "red herrings"!!!

@Once... actually, Many of these faith based organizations were orginated by various orders of nuns as part of their mission. They did not create the organization for profit. Their primary mission is service to others. Faith based schools endeavor to provide a quality faith based education to children and they endeavor in all that they do to follow the original tenets of their religion.

How is a religious organization choosing not to violate their religious tenets (by not paying for birth control) denying the rights of someone else? Birth control is readily accessible to all at a low cost.

"You Catholics"????

Actually, I'm a Methodist... who considers that government intrusion into religious organizations can be a real slippery slope.

Lisasp,

I'm sorry I called you a Catholic.

I too am worried about the "slippery slope". There are several religions in this country who don't believe in medical care at all. Should they have the right to deny employees access to medical care?

Do you know what it takes to declare yourself a religion in this country? What if someone like Murray (the owner of many coal mines) decides his "religion" doesn't believe in MSHA? Does that mean his miners have to work in horrendous conditions and perhaps lose their lives because you are "afraid of government intrusion into religious organizations"?

Frankly, there is a DIFFERENCE between religions and "religious organizations". If the "religious organization" runs a business in this country, then they should be subject to all of the laws governing that business, or they should exercise their religious freedom and get out of that business.

Interesting question about religions who are against medical care. I am not quite sure how they chose to handle this with their employees. Anybody out there familiar with this? I would think that it would be more likely that this type of organization would either employ only members of their own religious faith and/or (pre affordable care act) inform potential employees that it is against their religious faith.

I believe that all organizations are subject to labor law. This prevents horrendous conditions for all.

I don't think that it is as simple as "get out of the business" if you don't like what the government imposes on you. Society ultimately benefits greatly from the fruits of the missions of various religious organizations. Also, in order to carry out various missions (considering that service is an integral part of most religions) being a formal business is a necessary part of it in our country.

Lisafp,

You are making a lot of "assumptions"!

I would think that it would be more likely that this type of organization would either employ only members of their own religious faith and/or (pre affordable care act) inform potential employees that it is against their religious faith.

For one: The Christian Science (owners of the CS Monitor) religion doesn't believe in medical care but unlike the Catholics, they obey the laws of the land and provide insurance for all medical needs for the people who work for them.

If a "religious organization" can disobey ONE law in the name of religious freedom, why can't they disobey others? What is to stop them?

Frankly, there are MANY organizations that are willing to obey all the laws of the land that can certainly fill in for these "religious organizations". Look at this list of hospitals - do you see any CATHOLIC hospitals there? There are Jewish hospitals and Presbyterian hospitals and NONE of them would deny contraception to their employees - so what is it that is so "special" that Catholic hospitals do?

http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings

Because religions have forgotten why they exist and have tried to extend their "missions" doesn't give them the right to deny anyone else ANYTHING!! I know that many religions felt the "need" to expand into areas of poverty, but I can't see that they did anything valuable or long lasting in those areas.

You ever read "Toxic Charity" by Robert Lupton?? It might change your mind about "charity" and what religions "do" to help others!

@Once... actually, Many of these faith based organizations were orginated by various orders of nuns as part of their mission. They did not create the organization for profit. Their primary mission is service to others. Faith based schools endeavor to provide a quality faith based education to children and they endeavor in all that they do to follow the original tenets of their religion.

It is futile to try and hurl this into the debate , the church chose long ago to turn these into FOR PROFIT business's , so it does not apply to this topic whats so ever , they have chosen profits over service to the people , for them to then try and claim their religion can also dictate OVER free market rules and regulations , is disingenuous , and reveals how shallow their beliefs really are in actual spiritual work ....as oncearepub has laid out so well

Corporate Christian Plutocratic Government ? No thanks

@once... I prefaced that by saying that I wasn't quite sure how they would choose to handle it. Perhaps the difference is the discussion of medical care versus issues of life/conception.

What is the stance in the Jewish faith on birth control? I am not aware of any formal doctrine within the Protestant faith. The difference is that it is quite clear in the Catholic faith.

I keep hearing that these organizations will "deny" women birth control. No one is being denied anything, birth control is readily available at a reasonable cost. The issue is having to pay for something that is in direct violation of one's religious tenets. Wouldn't a person have the right to say that they don't want to work for an organization that won't pay for their birth control? Or might they decide that they want to work for the organization for other reasons and pay the $9 /month themselves?

I just think that we are letting the government decide what religious doctrines are valuable and what ones can be marginalized.

I think that it is a gross generalization to state that religious organization are of no value. Schools have no value? Really? Because I've seen otherwise.

The difference is that it is quite clear in the Catholic faith.

No it is not , the majority of american catholics have no problem with BC , while the minority of conservative catholics , along with the leadership , are trying to shove their opinion down every ones throats

I keep hearing that these organizations will "deny" women birth control. No one is being denied anything, birth control is readily available at a reasonable cost.

You seem to be confused , we are talking about people trying to deny woman BC , they are singling women out , they are singling BC out , and saying they must pay for it , while men can get coverage for their penis pills etc etc , and they have no problem with that

The cost has nothing to do with it , you are advocating its ok to discriminate against people for no other reason than what they are doing does not agree with your / their religious beliefs , the u s constitution forbids that , this point has been made all over this comment section

not only that , but you are advocating that one free market entity , can dictate what another free market entity does with its business , while trying to claim you have some kind of religious right to do it

@Patango. The Roman Catholic Church has not made an exception to their doctrines based on what may very well be the beliefs of many American Catholics.

Several individuals on this blog have talked about women being denied BC. That was what I was referring to... so kindly don't be condescending by calling me confused.

Of course BC is being singled out... it's use is against the Catholic Church's doctrine. The very issue is about mandating that a religious organization pay for BC when it is against their doctrine. This is an issue of religious freedom.

I don't see this as the church trying to shove their opinion down anyone's throat. We all have the freedom to freely purchase birth control. We all have the freedom to choose to not work for a religiously affiliated agency. Don't we?

Where is it in the constitution that a religious organization can and should be forced to pay for something that they find morally objectionable.

Patango: You are confusing popular opinion with Church teachings. The Catholic Church clearly teaches birth control is wrong. People choose the actions and must live with them.

"Clearly fell on some deaf ears" is plainly implied. Conflating individual experience to averages and generalizations demonstrates a woeful ignorance of how generalizations (which actually are REALLY useful) work.

It is difficult to generalize Catholic voting patterns because I suspect that the patterns are more related to age group. The younger Catholics have largely rejected the Church's teachings on contraception. They may accept the doctrine on abortion but not because the Church says it is wrong. I suspect that younger Catholics are more likely to accept the idea that the decision to have an abortion is personal to the woman and the state should not be involved in that medical decision. Also, these Catholics are likely to accept the exceptions for rape and incest. In essence, younger Catholics do not see abortion as the decisive issue when voting. The bishops have been largely unsuccessful because younger Catholics and even some of the clergy do not blindly accept the Church's teachings on many issues including social justice. Bishops have very little influence on voting despite the fact that they claim to represent the Catholic viewpoint and this has been true since the 1960's.

If the Catholic Church was really prolife, they would evolve and change their views on contraception. But the Church believes that unless you are procreating, sex is sinful and lustful. So they put the label on sex as procreation, having that child that God says is good for family.

If they would evolve and allow contraception, and change their views toward sex in marriage is for procreation and also for drawing the couple closer together, thereby allowing birth control, the % of abortion would drop to near zero. They passed a law in Norway, allowing free contraception for anyone that wishes to use it, regardless of age, gender, finances, etc. And their abortion % dropped to nothing. That is truly pro life, and pro responsibility instead of the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.

I'm still stuck on 'house-wifey types'....

It's the only time I actually pee on my TV screen right in Pat's mouth. I know, I know...but it gives me some weird feeling of relief and justice on God's tax collector and fleecer of the fearful 'sheep'. Pocketing money keeping it from Katrina victims while installing marble toilet seats and buying his own private jet was still not enough to keep people living in near poverty from sending him even more money.

God just can't handle money huh Pat. Hurricaines yeah...but dollars...He's powerless over.

Barf

Who was it that said something along the lines of, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with entrails of the last priest"...I wonder

I suppose that statement should include a caveat: "in the modern political era."

Jon Huntsmann was running too. He was a more moderate Mormon, more common sense candidate. I think President Obama would have had a tough run for the office if Jon Huntsmann had gotten the nomination. If Huntsmann had run, I'd have to think long and hard about who to vote for.

Probably because he studies it routinely.

I would bet that Pat has watched a lot of porn. You know, just so he could see what he is fighting? Ha Ha. He is an old pervert asking that young woman about how she views porn. He assumes she watches porn? Women are in all porn except some gay porn, so why is he surprised women watch it. Damn, he is so stupid. Did he and Karl Rove go to the same school?

I bet Pat watches porn and is a big fat hypocrite.

Anybody here old enough to remember the Meese Commission during St. Ronnie's administration? They were tasked (due to pressure by the Moral Majority) with defining pornography. The Commission spent over a year on the project, perusing thousands of pornographic movies, books, photos, etc. Meese was Reagan's Attorney General. Google him and have fun.

The only guy that makes porn boring is Ron Jeremy or whatever his name is. you know, the kinda hefty guy with the curly black hair, who tries to put humor into the porn? I was never interested in porn, I think men are more visual, and women are more physical.

I used to work as a cashier in a convenience store, also had subs, pizzas and VCR rentals. We kept the XXX VCRs in the back, and the guy had to pick the VCR by name, and I would go get the movie. One young newly married guy came in and was all embarassed that he wanted to rent a movie. i told him, "I think this VCR video has been watched by every man in town." He was surprised, "You mean you rent these movies out a lot?" "Yep, most of the men in this town have rented these out." He didn't know. Must have been very protected living on the farm or something.

"Romney did slightly worse among Mormon voters this year than George W. Bush did in 2004." That's the observation about that datum that I think is most important.

Well Jon Huntsman for one...

Most excellent observation!

Aren't we ALL "African-Americans", since we ALL came out of Africa originally?

As to "race", there is just one- the human race. . .

Absolutely!!!! We are human, period. The rest is just a variation on a theme.

One thing that struck me awhile back. I was reading about DNA testing. And they said that the number of genes related to skin color was just a few. But the number of genes different between blue eyes and brown eyes is a massive amount. IOW, skin color is just a flip of a switch. But a massive amount is used up between eye color. So the eye color of an African American having brown eyes is really the biggest difference between that person and a blond blue eyed person.

I am 1/8 African American and 1/8 Native American and 3/4 German. So therefore genetically I am probably more related to the AA and NA than I am the German because I have brown eyes.

Watch out for the Opus Dei Cult...!

Even worse than Opus Dei. An Opus Dei member, Father Maciel started Regnum Christi. Father Maciel ran Regnum Christi for many years, and several times was being investigated for pedophilia. The Pope backed him up and said, "He says he does not do this." So they would drop these investigations, only to bring them back up over and over. Father Maciel was finally kicked out of Regnum Christi and Opus Dei several years ago, and he died a few years ago, leaving behind several illegitimate children and a whole bunch of damaged youth. Santorum and Mel Gibson are both Opus Dei and Regnum Christi. makes you wonder about their hidden agenda.

Santorum and Mel Gibson are also Opus Dei and also Regnum Christi. Unknown the agendas of these groups. I wonder if Paul Ryan is Regnum Christi also? I know Santorum and Ryan had connections to C STreet.

I spent quite a bit of time this past year explaining our crazy politics and idiot system to my Canadian, Australian, New Zealander and British friends. And reassuring them that the batshhit crazy ones weren't going to win (with my fingers crossed).

I agree, TC. In the last election in the UK, the radical fundamentalists got less than 1% of the votes. In Nevada in 2010, Sharron Angle got over 45% of the votes. Stranger things have happened. When I realized that the unknowledgeable voters vote for a single wedge issue, and don't consider all the facts, it makes me really nervous to let the voters decide. Thankfully they pulled it together this year. but if the radicals continue to gain political power, someday its going to make a big mess.

They also want smaller government, but a larger defense budget, which is, de facto, bigger government.

And they want smaller government, even going so far as to say they want to starve the government. Yet they have the military spending AND they want morals police watching us through the bedroom window, and keeping a "Big Brother" eye on our health care decisions and contraception. they want to be involved in what we do with our vaginas.

No abortion, no hormonal birth control (doesn't allow the fetus to attach to the wall of the uterus) those fat old white men want to control everything with a pro life ideal. But after that baby is born, they don't want to ensure that child lives decently, with WIC, food stamps, day care, education, etc. So they aren't prolife, they are actually probirth.

There has actually been a couple of studies done on the efficacy of prayer in affecting medical outcomes (specifically speed of recovery and incident of setbacks after surgery). And the results are quite interesting. Where people didn't know, there was no difference between the prayer and control group. Where people did know they were being prayed for, they did slightly worse than the control group! Not a huge difference, but just enough to be statistically significant.

Actually, as Obama won, it would appear that God did come through for at least a handful of Evangelicals and Mormons... and maybe for more than we'd suspect (or they'd perhaps realize) if any number of them were praying for things like "the best leader for America" or the like... :)

And it's interesting regarding the prayer thing, dwestler, as I know I've read something (some things, actually) that could seem opposite of these findings, at least when it comes to how well people have healed from major illnesses when they have faith (in some form of a higher power) vs. not (definitely not necessarily corresponding to having any sort of religious affiliation).

And, of course, faith in your doctors, treatments, medications (even placebos), etc., as well as personal attitudes and personality attributes, etc., can definitely influence things, too... I mean, if someone believes they won't make it through because a doctor says so, they also still actually have some version of faith... it's just being linked to the proposed negative outcome. So, I would think/guess/suspect that the thing you saw regarding the impacts of prayer would actually be just one component of something that's likely more complex than whether or not prayer alone is effective in influencing anything, and would actually be comprised of some number of these other things, as well. Guessing it would be very difficult to manage to take all of these things into account, though I'd be very impressed if they somehow did incorporate them into their study. :)

Quantum physics has the best studies on how objects change behavior when being observed...so any "observed" study can now be said to be 'tainted'. It's our expectations of God, prayer. spirituality etc. that prevent us from seeing or knowing what actually is and how it operates. The "observer" influence should also be applied to out thinking. We are not the thinker or that voice in our heads. We are the observer of that voice or of the thinker...and the observer cannot be identified because it does not label or judge or do anything except observe... it has no other identifying qualities ...yet it is who we all are. Amazing.

I saw the study that dwestler brought up, and the reason that people did worse when told that they were being prayed for, was because they thought, that with all those people praying for them, they must be in worse shape than they thought. Blind studies on prayer have shown no effect at all. But kassr, I agree that placebos, personal prayer (not public), can affect someone in a positive manner, just as knowing that people are praying for you can do the opposite.

bjobotts, your comment is fascinating. And from a real world standpoint, I can definitely come up with examples that show how expectations can either help or hinder people, depending on how they choose to interpret situations or stimuli. So, it makes tons of sense to me that observed studies would all be 'tainted,' at least to some degree. rwsgate's comment re. the prayers in the study seemingly not helping because they were interpreted by the patients as an indicator of poorer than imagined health now seems to fall on that list (potentially undone by the patients' own negative assumptions - here credited to their own 'observers' - as to the motivation behind the prayers), as might also be things like those times when someone is trying to say something 'right' in front of someone whom they feel or believe they can't please, etc. (perhaps vs. the way someone can otherwise step up to meet the expectations of a teacher, parent or coach who demands tons but who also makes it clear that they believe a person can meet the challenges). In these ways, it would seem we can each at least have an impact on our own 'observer' - and potentially on others' 'observers,' too, for better or worse, whenever they give us that opportunity (or to whatever degree).

And I'm tempted to say that the quality and care of the interactions we have with our own observers, and that we try sharing with others, is what influences whether the essence behind our individual observers lends us a feeling of internal contentedness... or else one of dissonance... And do you think the essence behind our individual observers could be linked to our feelings and emotions? It seems to me we can also influence our emotions through what we think and do while either consciously or unconsciously in our 'observer' mode, but then that behind whatever we do as 'observers' our feelings and emotions just surface as a sort of organic consequence... I mean... in some way... they're just present (coming as a result of whatever our 'observers' have been up to, and/or who they've been hanging out with, and/or how we choose to deal with whatever ends up coming our way as a result). :)

Hoping that makes sense... :) It just occurred to me that it's actually maybe our conscience I was speaking of as a component of the 'essence' that's behind our observers... not so apparent, perhaps, when our observers are on their better behavior. :) Though, as with everything above (and where this whole thing for me began), it also wouldn't surprise me if there were more that needed to be taken into consideration. :) Very cool, though, to be given the opportunity to ponder... will continue processing. :)