President Obama was not trying to "trample our freedom" when he mandated that birth control be made available to all; he is preventing religious employers from trampling on our freedom.
Also, for the record, contraception and even abortion can be a lfe sustaining procedure to which the religious right is trying to prevent access. If you do not believe me, look up the medical definition of "ectopic pregnancy."
Again, the new mandate is not forcing religious institutions to provide abortions or hand out contraceptives. It is merely preventing them from denying their employees access to these services.
The hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze me. They love to cite "separation of church and state" when it protects their particular religious beliefs, but refuse to believe it should apply to any other faiths...like Muslims for instance. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that they do not understand the doctrine.
"Separation of church and state" simply means that the government cannot stop you from practicing your personal religious beliefs and it also cannot sanction or sponsor any particular faith. It doesn't mean that religious institutions can operate in the United States without any concern for our laws. You are more than welcome to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church in your own life. The minute you want to open a business in the US, you are subject to our laws. I'm sure most of the right would not support the Catholic Church if they decided to use slaves rather than paid employees. We outlawed that practice a long time ago, but it is sanctioned in the Bible.
The point is, if you want to personally refrain from the use of contraception, that is great. The government cannot force you. But, you don't have the right to deny others access to it because it is against your beliefs.
By the way UnionshateAmerica, which unions want to legalize illegals? Can you provide proof or are you just repeating some crazy rant you heard from someone on a street corner?
How exactly does paying union dues and, consequently, taxes equate to freebies for the illegals? Isn't one of the big teabagger agguments that illegals are a drain on our economy because they live here tax free? Wouldn't legalizing them make them pay taxes and create a huge tax base to help pay back the deficit? Further, if they were legalized, wouldn't they be protected by our labor laws and have to be paid a fair wage? I would think that would make it hard for them to take American jobs. Is what Cambridge said true? Did you really work for a union your whole life? Kind of hypocritical isn't it?
And hatred for upper mobility? Isn't that what you are doing by claiming that anyone in a union is overpaid?
Also, unions didn't kill anything. GM and Chrysler made terrible cars that nobody wanted to buy. Union workers only assembled the turds designed and marketed by the engineers and upper management. The steel mills were killed by a massive influx of foreign made steel subsidized by Japan and China. The only way to compete would have been to impose tarriffs, subsidixe our own steel, or pay the workers pennies per hour to make it here.
Are you seriously arguing that unions want to pay people better wages so the government can collect more taxes? So, by your reasoning, the best way to avoid paying high taxes is to earn lower wages by getting rid of unions. Sounds like a "logical" teabagger argument to me. I just don't understand why people like you can be so angry at unions for trying make employers pay people a liveable wage, but aren't angry at the greedy employers that don't want to pay them. Large corporations are raking in enormous profits; CEO pay is up 25% from last year alone; Sales of high-end luxury goods are back up to pre-recession levels; but the pay for the average worker is down. And all the teabaggers/conservatives/republicans can say is that the unions caused it and everyone should take a pay cut so it's fair. Why not fight for higher wages instead? I wish just one of you could formulate a coherent argument to suport your views instead of just repeating talking points you hear on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Please explain how the unions, whose purpose is to ensure that their membership receive fair wages and working conditions, are anti-american. I just don't follow your "logic."
I would love to know what Bertram thinks the faculty should do. He villainizes them for accepting the factfinder's report by referring to it as "gifts bestowed by Howard D. Silver of Columbus." As if somehow Mr. Silver's report was written on behalf of the union. Evidently, the faculty are wrong no matter what they do. Maybe if they agree to work for minimum wage with no benefits Bertram will be satisfied. I find it interesting that a "journalist" with virtually no talent would rant about what others are being paid. I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion that if Bertram is making more than minimum wage for the garbage he spews weekly on this worthless column, he is overpaid.
Keep up the good work Bertram. Maybe next week you can write about how lazy the rest of the government workers are again. We haven't read that column in a few weeks.
Bishop Murry’s letter appalling
Letstryagain:
President Obama was not trying to "trample our freedom" when he mandated that birth control be made available to all; he is preventing religious employers from trampling on our freedom.
Also, for the record, contraception and even abortion can be a lfe sustaining procedure to which the religious right is trying to prevent access. If you do not believe me, look up the medical definition of "ectopic pregnancy."
Again, the new mandate is not forcing religious institutions to provide abortions or hand out contraceptives. It is merely preventing them from denying their employees access to these services.
February 12, 2012 at 8:59 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Bishop Murry’s letter appalling
The hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze me. They love to cite "separation of church and state" when it protects their particular religious beliefs, but refuse to believe it should apply to any other faiths...like Muslims for instance. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that they do not understand the doctrine.
"Separation of church and state" simply means that the government cannot stop you from practicing your personal religious beliefs and it also cannot sanction or sponsor any particular faith. It doesn't mean that religious institutions can operate in the United States without any concern for our laws. You are more than welcome to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church in your own life. The minute you want to open a business in the US, you are subject to our laws. I'm sure most of the right would not support the Catholic Church if they decided to use slaves rather than paid employees. We outlawed that practice a long time ago, but it is sanctioned in the Bible.
The point is, if you want to personally refrain from the use of contraception, that is great. The government cannot force you. But, you don't have the right to deny others access to it because it is against your beliefs.
February 12, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Ohio Republicans are to blame for partisan tone in Columbus
By the way UnionshateAmerica, which unions want to legalize illegals? Can you provide proof or are you just repeating some crazy rant you heard from someone on a street corner?
August 23, 2011 at 9:45 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Ohio Republicans are to blame for partisan tone in Columbus
How exactly does paying union dues and, consequently, taxes equate to freebies for the illegals? Isn't one of the big teabagger agguments that illegals are a drain on our economy because they live here tax free? Wouldn't legalizing them make them pay taxes and create a huge tax base to help pay back the deficit? Further, if they were legalized, wouldn't they be protected by our labor laws and have to be paid a fair wage? I would think that would make it hard for them to take American jobs. Is what Cambridge said true? Did you really work for a union your whole life? Kind of hypocritical isn't it?
And hatred for upper mobility? Isn't that what you are doing by claiming that anyone in a union is overpaid?
Also, unions didn't kill anything. GM and Chrysler made terrible cars that nobody wanted to buy. Union workers only assembled the turds designed and marketed by the engineers and upper management. The steel mills were killed by a massive influx of foreign made steel subsidized by Japan and China. The only way to compete would have been to impose tarriffs, subsidixe our own steel, or pay the workers pennies per hour to make it here.
August 23, 2011 at 9:41 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Ohio Republicans are to blame for partisan tone in Columbus
UnionshateAmerica,
Are you seriously arguing that unions want to pay people better wages so the government can collect more taxes? So, by your reasoning, the best way to avoid paying high taxes is to earn lower wages by getting rid of unions. Sounds like a "logical" teabagger argument to me. I just don't understand why people like you can be so angry at unions for trying make employers pay people a liveable wage, but aren't angry at the greedy employers that don't want to pay them. Large corporations are raking in enormous profits; CEO pay is up 25% from last year alone; Sales of high-end luxury goods are back up to pre-recession levels; but the pay for the average worker is down. And all the teabaggers/conservatives/republicans can say is that the unions caused it and everyone should take a pay cut so it's fair. Why not fight for higher wages instead? I wish just one of you could formulate a coherent argument to suport your views instead of just repeating talking points you hear on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Please explain how the unions, whose purpose is to ensure that their membership receive fair wages and working conditions, are anti-american. I just don't follow your "logic."
August 23, 2011 at 8:52 p.m. permalink suggest removal
At YSU, it’s all about parking
I would love to know what Bertram thinks the faculty should do. He villainizes them for accepting the factfinder's report by referring to it as "gifts bestowed by Howard D. Silver of Columbus." As if somehow Mr. Silver's report was written on behalf of the union. Evidently, the faculty are wrong no matter what they do. Maybe if they agree to work for minimum wage with no benefits Bertram will be satisfied. I find it interesting that a "journalist" with virtually no talent would rant about what others are being paid. I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion that if Bertram is making more than minimum wage for the garbage he spews weekly on this worthless column, he is overpaid.
Keep up the good work Bertram. Maybe next week you can write about how lazy the rest of the government workers are again. We haven't read that column in a few weeks.
August 21, 2011 at 8:07 a.m. permalink suggest removal