Cynthia Schultheis of Lakewood, California dutifully and obediently turned Democrat talking points into a letter to the Orange County Register:
The men you cite were elected, under the Constitution, by voters. Then their peers appointed them to a committee. It isn't like they are a bunch of whiny protesters who just showed and started spouting off at the mouth., like Occupy or a group of hair-legged feministas.
Finally, Testicular Americans can have logical, reasonable points about matters under public debaste, and there's something called the First Amendment.
An organization riddled with pedophiles. Hmmm... who is she talking about? LAUSD? The Directors' Guild? Planned Parenthood? My guess is the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is never again allowed to have its teachings because there were some pedophiles in it? How does that follow? The Catholic Church isn't telling anyone they can't use contraception. It is objecting to being forced to pay for it.
The RCC has been around for 2,000 years. Does that quality as medieval? Let's grant the mistaken assumption that the teaching is medieval. There are no doubt things from that time period you believe or live by, so your use of that word might be emotionally effective, but doesn't really discount the teaching.
Doug Sorey or Irvine also wrote in:
Democrat Playbook
Step 1: Pass unconstitutional federal law.
Step 2: Have some "ordinairy Jane" publicly testify before Congress about something with which Congress shouldn't be involved in the first place, demanding strangers pay for her private decisions.
Step 3: Sit around all day listening to commentators who might disagree with Jane's position, to document what they say.
Step 4: Feign outrage at a commentator's statement (even if it is like something someone on your side said that you didn't say squat about).
Step 5: Cite commentator's statement as an example of some sort of concerted war on all women.
Too bad I don't have any sponsors to harass, right?
I'm tired of hearing and seeing men argue and discuss women's issues, without any women present (i.e., a recent panel in Washington, D.C.).Ms. Schulteis, I agree that Congress should not be discussing "women's issues". However, since the Obamacare unconstitutionally inserts the federal government into these matters, we don't really have a choice, ironically.
The men you cite were elected, under the Constitution, by voters. Then their peers appointed them to a committee. It isn't like they are a bunch of whiny protesters who just showed and started spouting off at the mouth., like Occupy or a group of hair-legged feministas.
Finally, Testicular Americans can have logical, reasonable points about matters under public debaste, and there's something called the First Amendment.
I feel moral outrage over an organization riddled with pedophiles expressing their moral outrage over contraception.Feel anything you want. What does it matter to anyone else in the world what you feel? If someone felt you were a shrew, would that mean anything?
An organization riddled with pedophiles. Hmmm... who is she talking about? LAUSD? The Directors' Guild? Planned Parenthood? My guess is the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is never again allowed to have its teachings because there were some pedophiles in it? How does that follow? The Catholic Church isn't telling anyone they can't use contraception. It is objecting to being forced to pay for it.
How can celibate men who will never marry or have children counsel anyone on sex, contraception, marriage or child-rearing?The same way government officials and public educators can counsel (and make and enforce law) about things they've never done themselves. The difference is, people have a choice about whether or not to support or attend a Catholic Church or follow its teachings. The church does not have the power to fine you, take your property, or throw you in prison.
It's irresponsible and inconceivable that the Roman Catholic Church preaches abstinence or forbids condoms to those who may be infected with HIV or AIDS, again only proving how out of touch and medieval they truly are.Uh, do you know what abstinence means? There's no chance of spreading HIV if you abstain. But at least you are in touch. Sounds like literally.
The RCC has been around for 2,000 years. Does that quality as medieval? Let's grant the mistaken assumption that the teaching is medieval. There are no doubt things from that time period you believe or live by, so your use of that word might be emotionally effective, but doesn't really discount the teaching.
What consenting individuals and/or couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else’s business; it is truly a personal decision, not the government’s or the church's.Exactly. And that's why neither the government (taxpayers) nor the church should pay for it.
Doug Sorey or Irvine also wrote in:
After reading about the $168 million judgment against a unit of Catholic Healthcare West for sexual harassment, it seems that the Roman Catholic Church, to say the least, has some serious women issues.Mr. Sorey, anyone with a penis is at risk for being sued for sexual harassment. This includes, I presume, you.
The Catholic Church appears to be like the Republican Party: a little bunch of old white men trying to run the lives of females.Since when is refusing to pay for someone else's private behavior trying to run their lives? And he's right. The GOP is nothing but old white men. See for yourself.
Democrat Playbook
Step 1: Pass unconstitutional federal law.
Step 2: Have some "ordinairy Jane" publicly testify before Congress about something with which Congress shouldn't be involved in the first place, demanding strangers pay for her private decisions.
Step 3: Sit around all day listening to commentators who might disagree with Jane's position, to document what they say.
Step 4: Feign outrage at a commentator's statement (even if it is like something someone on your side said that you didn't say squat about).
Step 5: Cite commentator's statement as an example of some sort of concerted war on all women.
Too bad I don't have any sponsors to harass, right?
"What consenting individuals and/or couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else’s business; it is truly a personal decision, not the government’s or the church's."
ReplyDeleteWhat they do may be their own private business, but the consequences of their private choices affect the public. Since "no wo[man] is an island," we can't do whatever we want to do, without affecting others. If folks really want to govern their own lives, they should take more personal responsibility for the consequences.