Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
America Moves Forward with Obama as Republicans Double Their Attacks on Gays and Women
It is important for a nation’s leaders to prioritize their agenda for the coming year, and it is expected they would assign importance to issues regarding their country’s economic health, national security, and benefits for its people. In his Inauguration Address, President Obama’s priorities for his second term were immigration reform, global climate change, sane gun controls, growing the economy, and he stressed the importance of the nation coming together to assure the Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights is extended to every citizen regardless of gender, sexual preference, or economic station. It has taken a little over a week, but finally as Republicans floundered to find a specific priority besides obstruction, corporatism, austerity, and gun proliferation, they picked up where they left off from the last session of Congress and officially announced their highest priority is imposing policy shaped by right wing Christianity on Americans.
Speaker of the House John Boehner made the announcement to an anti-choice group he addressed at a National Right to Life rally, and he did not have to make it official after Republicans in Congress began the 113th session with a personhood bill, opposition to the VAWA, and balking at immigration reform that includes same-sex couples. Boehner said Republicans were focusing on “working to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” and that it was the GOP’s “most fundamental goal this year” to “commit ourselves to doing everything we can to protect the sanctity of life” and pledged to make legal abortion a “relic of the past.” It is ironic that Boehner is using the Christian bible, a true “relic of the past” as the guiding force for making legal abortion a relic of the past, especially since a majority of Americans believe it is a woman’s personal choice and do not want legal abortion restricted via overturning Roe v. Wade. However, the theocrats have a different opinion, and they will waste more of Americans’ time and money to replace the Constitution with the Christian bible.
It was little surprise Republicans chose religion and the continuing GOP war on women’s reproductive rights as their top priority, especially after failed vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan joined a gang of theocrats to re-introduce a ridiculous personhood bill soon after the 113th Congress was in session with a view to banning abortion, contraception, and decriminalizing rape. In fact, in several Dominionist states, defunding Planned Parenthood and restricting abortion rights began in earnest within a week of the general election and continued shortly after the start of the new session of Congress.
Boehner is not alone in the GOP’s push for theocracy as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul told the crowd at the National Right to Life rally about his intention of pursuing a “spiritual cleansing” and imposing “a gospel that cannot be resisted. We much preach a gospel so full of compassion, a gospel so full of justice that it cannot be resisted.” Senator Paul’s rousing Inquisition-era rhetoric informs what many Americans have warned about for years, and it is the imposition of Dominionist martial law and little else, and it does not stop at attacking a woman’s right to choose.
The House of Representatives is still balking at re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act because they object to protection for same-sex victims of violence, and immigration reform that includes same-sex couples. Obviously, the Republican objections are founded in the bible’s prohibition on homosexuality and abortion, as well as a twisted adherence to patriarchy that provides the bible view that men are born to dominate women. What is telling about Republicans is that they still have not learned one lesson from the voters’ rejection of their extremist religious views they are intent on passing off as governance.
If one sets aside the GOP’s insistence on pursuing an extremist Christian vision of theocracy as a means of dominating women and gays in their war on women and homophobic frenzy, there is the little issue of exactly why they are in government to begin with. Their top priority of imposing a “spiritual cleansing, gospel full of justice, and preaching a gospel full of compassion” to protect the “sanctity of life” of a zygote, or defend the traditional definition of marriage, will not create one job, reduce gun violence, grow the economy, bolster national security, address climate change, or secure energy independence, but it does punish women and gays for their part in re-electing President Obama; all under cover of the Christian bible. Their top priority also wastes valuable time and taxpayer money that is better spent creating jobs or growing the economy because with a non-theocratic (Democratic) Senate and White House, there is little chance their predilection for Dominionism will succeed and, in fact, is doomed to fail.
Shortly after the November election, Republicans renewed their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the states and Congress, and pass more abortion restrictions in states. Any sane politician would think that after spending the entire 112th Congress assaulting women’s reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, that reiterating those theocratic issues is a horribly bad idea after suffering an electoral defeat for attacking women’s reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. Many theocratic right-to-life groups assailed Republicans after the election for not engaging Democrats on the abortion/rape issue, despite that in races where abortion and women’s reproductive health were attacked in full view of the voters, Dominionist candidates were rejected by wide margins because voters understand woman’s reproductive health is the not the purview of Republicans’ puritanical sensibilities.
Republicans have found themselves in an unenviable position of lacking support from mainstream America that is not founded in extremist Christianity or guns, and instead of abandoning their two-year war on women’s reproductive rights, they have doubled down and made it their top priority for 2013. Although the right wing bible crowd is solidly behind any politician promising to impose the bible’s sanctions on women and gays, the rest of America is moving forward and supporting the President’s agenda of addressing gun violence, the economy, jobs, climate change, and most importantly, equality for all Americans; even women and their right to choose their reproductive health.
The religious right, Dominionists and theocracy advocates, have been attempting to impose their will on Americans for decades, and they have always had willing partners in Republican ranks. It is curious that the party that decries government intervention into Americans’ personal lives insists on spending another session of Congress intervening in a woman’s right to choose and it is down to one decision they determined is the hill they are willing to die on, and it is their choice to support and defend the bible as the law of the land instead of the nation’s founding document. As more Americans understand that Republicans are working toward a theocratic institution dominated by patriarchs wasting taxpayer money and precious time to punish women and make their reproductive decisions for them, they will continue rejecting them at the ballot box because at this point, rejecting Republicans is rejecting Dominionism and its archaic theocratic edicts.
During the campaign for the 2010 midterm election, Republicans and particularly John Boehner said that c ...
Women in the United States have long been underrepresented and discriminated against by white males in p ...
The United States government may have avoided a government shutdown for now, but beneath the surface wha ...
During the campaign for the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans stressed that their focus in the 112th s ...
In the world of politics, the last thing one expects to see are religious edicts as legislation unless o ...
Peter Barnett
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:10 am
Republicans want to replace the Constitution with the Bible? Maybe you don’t understand that the Constitution was also based off of it.
And I find it ironic that people always say “pro-choice” and “anti-choice/abortion” rather than “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”. Because pro-abortion just sounds too bad. And on a side note, while it is true most people are pro-abortion, among younger people there is a strikingly higher number of pro-life people than pro-abortion.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:20 am
Puleeeze!!!Pro-life my arse.To be pro life means you care about life period.Not make your women carry a baby and then when it drops you say you on your own.When granny gets old you dont throw her under the bus when she is no longer productive in you sick definition of the word.Pro life means not letting people go hungry or to sick to see the doctor by saying its their fault.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Reading is fundamental.WE THE PEOPLE NOT GOD GRANTS US OUR RIGHTS.
You are the Taliban
Churchlady
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:29 am
dj – sorry about the ‘thumbs down’ – hit the wrong one not realizing your message had intervened with Mr. Barnett’s while I was writing my reply. REALLY pays to look harder before voting! I AM sorry.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:40 am
No problem.If its one thing I have learned is not to pay attention to the ratings.If you disagree then say so and then we can debate.If you disagree and dont want to debate Oh well,you must not feel that strong in your position to begin with and its better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Peter Barnett
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:53 am
Perhaps you missed the part of “that ALL men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” Yea. They’re talking about God there. And yes, pro-life means that too. Any man that leaves a girl with a child is no man at all. Any person who leaves grandma to fend for themselves is not pro-life remotely. Pro-life extends beyond just being a baby. At the National Right to Life, they mentioned that.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:58 am
Show me in the Constitution where that is at.This is getting tiresome .Did you not take any civics classes?
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 11:17 am
Remember “their creator” means their creator(your individual creator), not THE creator. Its not talking about “god”. However I do agree that pro-life extends far into our society
Daggma1107
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
“that ALL men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” Last time I checked, ALL MEN WERE CREATED BY THEIR MOTHERS!!!
Aren’t you lucky that your mother forgot her birth control one night?
Comments like yours just go to show that we still have a long way to go to wipe out ignorance. NO, the 1st Amendment was NOT based on the Bible. Nearly half of the “founding fathers” were Atheists and wanted to be free from the yoke of the church. If you are going to try to make a point, do your homework first.
The First Amendment also has nothing to do with a persons right to “pursue happiness” with the person of their own choosing. Nothing to do with Women’s rights or Gay rights. You are proving what fear does to society. Get a grip and really think about what you are trying to say. Then find a fact, if you can, to back it up.
Here is a hint: You can’t. If you read the constitution, and include some common sense, you will see that you are wrong.
Many of our laws are based, not on the bible, but on the 10 Commandments which are older than any bible ever written. They are the same laws that existed in Mesopotamia 5000 years earlier. (Unless of course you are a creationist and the earth is only 6000 years old. Still trying to figure how that is possible since the Old Testament is older than that and we all know that Adam and Eve were around long before Moses went to the mount or led his people out of Egypt. And we know that Noah came many generations before Moses….too many contradictions in that little fantasy. Try to find a modicum of truth.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“that ALL men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”
NO NO NO for the last time NO!!!!That is not in the Constitution.Stop validating that thinking with trying to debate what it means.
No where in the Constitution does it mention god ,creator,buddha,flying spaghetti monster NADA.
Here is the Constitution
www.archives.gov/exhibits...
Peter Barnett
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Apologies. You are correct. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. But seeing as the word’s “life” and “liberty” are also not in the Constitution (save the preamble, but mention it also includes posterity, referring to children AND babies) we don’t say “oh the Constitution doesn’t say liberty! You have no liberties then!” And the DOI uses Creator with a capital C to designate a specific creator, not a creator such as a mother. Speaking of which in that case, the person has two creators, a mother and a father. -_- No. We extend the DOI to the Constitution in that regard in order to declare what we were breaking away from. So yea.
And actually I am a political science major on a full academic scholarship in college. So yes, I have taken civics classes. ;)
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Posterity does mean future generations but to infer that to mean no abortions is a stretch to say the least.IMO it means that our future generations shall use this document to help govern themselves.We are not speaking about the Declaration of Independence as our governing document because it is not.It is exactly what it says.A declaration of Independence.If you want to do that I could bring up the Magna Carta which the DOI is based on.
This country was founded on secular principles plain and simple and if your professor say anything to the contrary then you should seek a refund.That is,unless you go to regent or oral Roberts then I could understand your ignorance.
Churchlady
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:26 am
Mr. Barnett – the Constitution was NOT based on the Bible but on common law. It was the excesses of both Congregationalists in New England and the threat of imposed Anglicanism by English governors that led to the First Amendment giving every right of conscience to practice whatever religion they wanted and freedom FROM anyone else’s religion or any religion at all.
People who support women’s reproductive rights are not “pro abortion” because the right NOT to have one – to be free from coercion or dictate – is a key part of freedom over one’s body. Abortion remains a “choice” that women may or may not choose, hence, pro-choice. The life, health, well being of women is paramount in pro-choice values and is very much ‘pro life’ as well – it’s a respect for her, for her centrality in her world, her family, her other children’s lives – that drives us all who support her freedom. We draw from theology as well as secular law – all values and ONLY those values that matters to us. Abortion is a reflection of milennia of undertanding that before viability the fetus is NOT a person. We respect those who think it is, but we are not mandated to give up our own views. We do not – nor does ANYONE – carry out funeral services and buy space in cemeteries for miscarried fetuses before the second trimester when viability is possible or assured. So we stand by our legal heritage and our own theological or philosophical base.
Others may do differently – but they may NOT impose those views on us.
It’s a violation of our moral rights be they grounded in faith or in secular humanism or any other base. And it’s not yours to tell us what and how to believe.
That is the beauty of the Constitution. Freedom.
Peter Barnett
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:57 am
It actually was based on the Bible. Read my reply above. And the first amendment is in acceptance of the fact that it was based on the Bible.
And it has nothing to do with the mother’s body. The right to life of the baby supersedes the woman’s right to privacy. The baby scientifically fits the six requirements to be considered a life. And seeing as how it has different DNA, it is a different person from the mother. Thereby, its right to life supersedes the woman’s right to privacy.
On a side-note, I have to say I love this website. Switching from the Drudge Report to here is like complete polar opposite and I find the extreme on both sides are quite humorous.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 11:21 am
No, its not based on the bible. The first has nothing to do with the bible. The 1st does not support the bible, or not support it. It merely states the government will not go against, create nor support any one religion that the people may want to worship. It means the same to Hinduism that it means to christianity. The founders knew there were more than one religion.
The baby is the mothers until it leaves the womb. The mother has the eright of decision and that decision should never be left to government or anyone else
SinghX
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 7:16 pm
So, basically what you are saying is, you enjoy being a pest, a bore, a lair, a bully, and, an academic fraud.*
It is apparent that you lack boundaries, believe yourself to be superior, and, project yourself into the center of attention via controversy as a way to assert your manliness (put it back in your pants; you aren’t impressing anyone).
Perhaps, you suffer from Dunning-Krueger Syndrome, or, perhaps, some personality disorder that creates your craven need of intentionally wearing on people for sake of attention (something that should have been out-grown)…or, you’ve quit taking your meds again and your parents are worried sick that you’re on the loose again. Whatever the case you’re just a pest…
but you already knew that.
Of course, it isn’t kosher for anyone to do a “diagnosis” on anyone on-line, but, I will say this; you are no an ordinary troll–you’re a piece of work that somebody turned loose on society, like a toxic plague.
Please, go play little lost soul elsewhere.
*you sound just like a David Barton wannabe…
Rich
Feb. 3rd, 2013 at 1:06 am
“congress shall make no law respecting religion…”
www.ala.org/offices/oif/f...
What part of THAT area of the first amendment of the bill of rights don’t you understand ZEALOT??
Becca
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 11:59 am
Many founders were DEIST. They believed in a clockmaker god who set the universe in motion, then stood apart. See Jefferson’s rewritten version of the Bible as an example of this. For Jefferson, Jesus is simply a man, not god. He does not perform miracles.
The founders also knew what religion did to countries. They knew all about religious wars and inquisitions, and did NOT want any part of it. The Constitution is a secular document, designed to create a secular nation where religious tests and religious wars would be alien concepts. Honestly, many of the founders would turn over in their graves if they read your post.
Reynardine
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 12:07 pm
People like you are pro-fetus and pro-punishment. As long as you can view it, in the words of a well-known psychiatrist, as”a gnawing rat placed upside down in the womb as punishment for transgression”, it is sacrosanct. The minute it appears as a helpless, needy little human being, requiring milk, love, and a future, you’d deny them all to it.
Incidentally, during the Russian Civil War, one of the stunts the Whites used to do if they captured women they suspected were Red, was to push hungry rats up their vaginas. This same stunt was repeated by Pinochet’s men towards women suspected of being leftist. So you really *think* about what your fetus obsession means.
Becca
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 12:30 pm
One thing I don’t understand about religious nuts–when they say that the Constitution was founded on the Bible, and the country should hence be run on Biblical principles, WHAT do they mean? Do they want to institute Biblical laws on, say, rape, in our society? How about Biblical laws on people who are not Judeo-Christian, or people who convert out of those religions? How about working on the Sabbath?
If they don’t wish to institute these laws, then what do they mean by Biblical principles?
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:12 am
You can believe in whatever god of your choice.You can holla for a dollar in gods name to your hearts content.But if you do not believe in the separation of church and state then you are the American Taliban.Plain and simple.
Sharin Khosa
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:29 am
Early Warning signs of GOP
Fascism
• Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
• Disdain for Human Rights
• Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
• Supremacy of the Military
• Rampant Sexism
• Controlled Mass Media
• Obsession with National Security
• Religion and Government are Intertwined
• Corporate Power is Protected
• Labour Power is Suppressed
• Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
• Obsession with Crime and Punishment
• Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
• Fraudulent Elections
www.politicususa.com
Mary
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 10:54 am
Once again the fake Christians who value life must admit that they care about control and zygotes. The minute the child is born they lose all value to the so-called Christians.
GeneralLerong
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 11:52 am
Why is it that the most rabid forced birthers are male? Anyone else smell patriarchal reactionaries?
And does anyone else wonder, if our Constitution was actually founded on the bible, why the authors were so very, very specific about the separation of church and state? Possibly because the religious nuts of their own time were sufficiently self-righteous and ghastly even then [not to mention the previous centuries of religious wars in Europe] to convince any sane person that religion should not ever, ever again be allowed the reins of government?
LookingForward
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 7:30 pm
In reading all the comments bringing up religion. Think about all the people you know. The ones that always bring up Jesus, going to church, in other words the self Righteous….. Judgmental ones! They are the ones pushing the radical personhood, anti gay views. The ones that tell you how Religious they are!
Now think of the true Christians, non judgemental, feeding the poor, helping the needy, just like the nuns on the bus……big difference!
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 1st, 2013 at 8:58 pm
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
– H. L. Mencken
Anne
Feb. 2nd, 2013 at 8:11 am
There is no reasoning with people who are so firmly mired in the past that they cling to harmful, antiquated views of gays and women which they are trying hard to foist on the rest of us. They’re the same folks who like to bray like jackasses about this country’s “exceptionalism” at the same time they work overtime to negate the reasons for any exceptionalism. Rather than being morally upright, they are only self-righteous, self-absorbed, and completely unmoored from reality.