This Nasty Comic Strip on Religious Freedom Ran in the NY Times

So it would seem the New York Times believes that if you want to make a living you must give up your constitutionally protected rights. I guess because money is dirty and so are those evil Christians...or something.


*subhead*Freedom.*subhead*

Comments

  1. That's a horrible insult to Mr. Chick!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm getting so tired of saying this - Hobby Lobby already provides coverage for birth control. Their argument is against the morning after pill.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mack stole my thunder - Jack Chick immediately came to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought it was the White House that paid women less than men.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, do I have this right? Religious employers don't have any conscience rights, and companies don't have free speech rights...but when a company puts its money and influence behind "progressive" social causes... and promoting their " corporate values"...which stem from their ummm..." corporate conscience"...The NYT and the rest of the anointed cheer. As, with so many things, it all seems to boil down to "that which we like is compulsory, that which we do not like is forbidden".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are progressives really that stupid?


    (No need to answer that).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tyranny. Our basic rights and freedoms are being denied systematically by dictator- states. Civil disobedience is morally required. Catholic bishops and priests ought to be leading people in standing against intrinsically evil laws and policies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The distinction between unconscionable and immoral is more relevant than ever...

    ReplyDelete
  9. All of these crazy examples would be struck down under RFRA. So the cartoonist is merely lying.
    Before world war II, there was a media campaign that tried to present Jews as evil and a threat to the country. More and more, this anti-religious campaign is starting to look like "The Eternal Jew"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Apparently (contra Dr. Edward Peters) evil will be ugly for awhile longer, or perhaps beautifully attractive evil will always be run parallel with it.
    http://tinyurl.com/kgb3yct

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have never word a word printed in the NYT. I do not plan to start.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And yet Hobby Lobby invests in abortion drug companies.
    Can you say double standard?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I doubt it is keeping the editor up nights.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'd say it is pretty much on the money.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Because you're not capable of reasoning or you refuse to employ reason because you don't like to accept objective truth.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reminds me a lot of KKK anti-Catholicism, circa 1920. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hobby Lobby's problem is with four prescriptions:


    Plan B - The "morning after pill"
    Ella - The "week after pill"
    Mirena (Hormonal) IUD
    Paragard (Copper) IUD


    Most of the coverage is about Plan B, in part because there is little evidence that it actually is an abortifacient. This fits into the secular meme is that Christians don't believe in science and their concerns can be ignored. However, Plan B is available over the counter, so I'm not sure why this even needs to be covered.



    Ella is new and not widely used or prescribed.



    The real issue is coverage of the IUD. IUDs have a high upfront cost, but can last for several years. The Administration wants more women to use IUDs. Problem is that it is much more likely that the IUD works as an abortifacient. Neither the Administration nor the media wants to talk about this, so they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If the "morning-after" pill is not considered an abortifacient. this can only be argued if one believes that live does not begin until implantation - which it is designed to render impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That's not how Plan B works.

    Plan B works by interfering with the ovulation process, not implantation. It has no effect if taken after ovulation. The big question is whether the interference with ovulation has a post-conception effect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. That comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    And before you comment again I'd suggest that you look at the cartoon and understand that it is NOT a crack about religion--it is a crack about businessmen using religion to their own ends.
    And if you think they won't you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Morning after pill can Suppress ovulation but if ovulation has already occurred and certainly if conception has occurred, it acts to prevent implantation of the embryo in the womb (5 to 8 days after conception) thus causing the death of the embryo.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment