Jesus loves you and I love you. This is an extremely long post and I apologize. I am writing for anyone who is interested in critically examining the arguments Sam Harris makes and contrasting it to the actual truth as presented by the scripture. Sam has distorted this truth and the entire video is basically one long strawman argument.. I think that is you are going to utterly condemn something you should at least make a cursory effort to understand it. That's just me. I invite you guys to learn more about the scripture so that you can know the truth for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360718403&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+understand+the+bible

I'll answer some points..

Sam: The point of Christianity is to safeguard the eternal well being of eternal souls

You could perhaps categorize this as the main point, but there are many points to Christianity. I don't want to split hairs here; I am agreeing with Sam essentially but I just want to expand on it a bit. The main point of Christianity is to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus said when He began His ministry: "repent and believe the gospel". The gospel is that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to Earth to live as one of us. Though He did not sin, He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross so that we could be forgiven and have eternal life. The point of Christianity is Jesus, and having a personal relationship with Him. Everyone who comes to know Jesus will be born again and become a new person. There are many other points to this but I will stop here.

Sam: 9 million children die every year

Yes, this is true but most of these children, if not all of them, will be going to Heaven. Not one of them have been forgotten by God or will suffer an unjust fate. There is an age of accountability for every person, and it is different for every person. It all depends on the revelation God has given each particular person and their response to it. It is fairly certain though that most if not all children under the age of 12 will make it to Heaven automatically.

Sam in discussing the dying children brings up the problem of evil..which has been sufficiently answered by Plantigas free will defense:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Sam mentions the grief of the parents and that their unanswered prayers are part of Gods plan..

First of all, God answers every prayer, He just doesn't always answer yes. An example of a prayer God answered no to was when Jesus was in the garden of gethsemane and was asking the Father to let Him bypass the cross. Though it surely grieved His heart, He answered no to that prayer. He answered no because He was esteeming us more than Himself, which is what sacrificial love looks like. A key part of the prayer of Jesus was "never the less, not my will, but your will".

Christians do not pray to the exclusion of Gods will. we don't necessarily know what is best for us, but we trust God that He knows, and so we always pray that His will be done, even above what may seem needful for me at that time.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

I will also address the grief. The fact of the matter is, the scripture makes it very clear that Christians will suffer grief and loss on a constant basis:

Matthew 24:9

Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you:

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Look at Pauls testimony:

1 Corinthians 11:24-28

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.

Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

If you read Foxes Book of the Martyrs (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html) you will see that Christians are no strangers to suffering and grief. It is clearly taught in His word it will happen, which makes this argument have no weight at all and is simply a strawman.

Sam said that any God who would allow pain either can do nothing or doesnt care to so He is either impotent or evil

This is simply a false dichotomy. God may allow pain for a good reason, which is for the greater good. I'll give you an example:

This is Nick Vujicic, a man with no arms and no legs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXlCeKBWfaA

He is a motivational speaker and he has traveled around the world and inspired millions. Pretty much anyone who has a problem can relate to this man because Nick has overcome his extreme adversity with grace and he finds joy in his daily life. If God had answered Nicks prayer to be healed, then millions of people would have been robbed of the fruit that overcoming his adversity bore in his life. This is an example of how God can use pain for a greater good.

Sam asks what about all those who are praying to the wrong God, through no fault of their own..that they missed the revelation

This is just simply false..Sam seems to think that there are no reasonable answer to these questions when the real problem is his ignorance of Christian theology.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The word of God states that every man coming into the world is given light, and that God makes it clear to them one way or the other that He exists. Every man, woman and child dying after the age of accountability and heading towards hell had received a personal revelation from God as to His existence. How they responded to that light determined what Gods next move was. If they had responded in the affirmitive, He could have then opened the door for them to know Jesus and be saved. Since they responded in the negative, they did not receive any further revelation and died in their sins.

So again Sam creates a strawman argument when he says that they missed the revelation through no fault of their own. The truth is that they received the revelation and rejected it. He also made it sound like people are just randomly born into the world when what the scripture says is that God appoints the times and places for every human being. There are no accidents about where you are born; it is simply that God is not limited by time and space. He is omnipresent and not limited to any particular locality.

Sam accused God creating the cultural isolation of the hindus - of orchaestrating their ignorance

The truth is that in the beginning all men knew God and that over time as men formed nations they moved farther and farther away from the truth about God and invented their own gods to worship. The hindus isolated themselves, though again this is not a limitation on God. He has reached out to every hindu who has ever lived and the ones who ended up in hell are the ones who rejected Him. You have to push past the love, grace and mercy of God to get to hell.

Sam mentions how a serial killer could get saved while an innocent perishes elsewhere:

What the bible says is this:

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There aren't any innocents over the age of accountability. The man who has cheated on his wife is equally guilty in Gods eyes as the man who murdered his wife. What God calls good is not a relative standard like human beings use, as we compare ourselves to eachother and think we are good people because we haven't done the big two (rape, murder). What God calls good is moral perfection and what He calls evil is everything that falls short of that, even one sin. He also says that if you hate someone you have murdered them in your heart and you are a murderer at heart. Sam does not appear to understand what the bible says Gods standards actually are.

Sam said that there is absolutely nothing in Christianity to do with moral accountability

Again, this is false. What the bible says is that we're morally accountable to God for every sin we've ever committed, and your conscience will tell you that. It is not other people we have offended, it is God Almighty. What Sam seems to have a problem with is Gods absolute standard for moral accountability versus his relative standard (which conveniently excuses his sins against God)

Sam said there is a conflict between God being intrinsically good and what he describes as the "visitation of cruel unjust suffering on innocent people"

I've already answered this by point out there are no innocent people over the age of accountability. I would also like to add that God created a perfect world, and the reason there is sin in this world is because of mankind. The reason the world is the way it is today is exclusively because of the daily crimes of humanity (can you even begin to imagine the amount of evil that transpires on planet earth in one day?) and not because God wanted it that way.

Sam says it is a cop out to say God is mysterious and then use merely human understanding to establish goodness

Actually, what Sam has done here is create a distorted image of God by twisting or ignoring what the scripture says about Him, and the fate of human beings. Then he points to this grotesque image to condemn the true and living God who is in fact perfectly good. The truth is that His goodness is upheld entirely when you are looking at the true God through a sound understanding of scripture and not the distorted image Sam has created of Him.

Sam says its a cop out to be told God is mysterious to justify untold suffering

He is right here, it is a cop-out..and anyone making such an argument has a weak understanding of the bible. Gods will for us is actually no mystery; God makes it crystal clear what He expects from His creation, and kinds of things we will face. He is even gracious enough to tell us what will happen in the future, thousands of years in advance:

http://www.christadelphianals.org/bible_prophecy.htm

Sam says it is utter hubris and even reprehensible to think you're special because "God loves me don't you know"

Yet even little children understand that no one is worthy to be pardoned for their sins and no one can make it into Heaven on their own. There is absolutely no difference between me and anyone else except for one thing; I said yes to God, and some others say no. I am not worthy, in fact I am decidedly unworthy and I deserve the exact same punishment as everyone else does; the difference is that I accept the free gift of grace that Jesus offers upon the cross. God proved His love for all people on the cross, and He died for every single person, not just me. Jesus loves you more than you can understand.

Sam says it is morally reprehensible for Christians to drudge up some trivial circumstance God took care of while completely ignoring the suffering of other human beings

Sam is right about this and it is a complete shame to Christians everywhere that the western church is so materialistic and base in their feelings. Jesus called us to live a life of total sacrifice and to give up everything we have. I can tell you that God is even more appalled than Sam is about this issue.

Sam asserted that the bible supports slavery

This is false; the bible does not support slavery. Slavery as we understand it today is not the same as it was in the time this was written. In those times it was more of a profession and people would sell themselves into slavery so they could have food and shelter. The bible regulated these activities, but it also said that there was no difference between master and slave and that we are all equal in Christ Jesus. I will also point out that modern slavery was ended by Christians.

Sam says that the bible admonishes us to kill people for witchcraft

No, it does not admonish Christians to kill witches, or anyone else. There is no commandment for any Christians to murder anyone. It is true, however, that in the time of the Old Covenant, God set up laws for Israel which were very strictly enforced with the punishment of death. This was not anything that He ever imposed on the world, or any other people except the Jews. He also did not impose it on them: the Jews made a covenant with God to obey all of His laws, so that He would be their God, and they would be His people.

Sam says that there is absolutely nothing anyone can say against Muslims if they prayed to the right God

The God of the bible is not morally inconsistant, whereas the god of the muslims is.

Sam said Christianity is what only lunatics could believe on their own

The bible says this:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The scripture itself says that unsaved people will find the message of the cross foolish. This is the evidence that you are perishing. The things of the Spirit of God are foolish to the natural man, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Sam made a little quip about catholicism

While I am sure there are saved catholics, the church itself departed from the true teachings of Jesus a long time ago.. There is also no teaching in the scripture regarding the Eucharist.

Sam said its very strange salvation depends bad evidence

God gives everyone good evidence that He exists but they suppress the truth. God reveals Himself through personal revelation. You cannot know God otherwise.

Sam says Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice

Jesus wasn't sacrificed against His will:

John 10:18

No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded."

He gave His life just as firemen have given their lives trying to save people from a burning building. Jesus didn't have to go to the cross but He did it out of love for us:

John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Sam says the bible doesnt repudiate human sacrifice, that it celebrates it

Actually, it does repudiate it in many locations. The practice of sacrificing humans was utterly condemned in scripture. Jesus voluntarily giving Himself for the sins of the world does not resemble what Sam is implying even superficially.

Sam states that people used to bury children under the foundation of buildings and then says "these are the sorts of people who wrote the bible"

The kind of people who wrote the bible were eye witnesses to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They did not bury children under foundations; they followed the true and living God.

Sam said that if there is a less moral moral framework he hadn't heard of it

As he has presented it, most certainly, but the problem is that he largely invented it from his misunderstanding of Christian theology and personal prejudices.

The true question is this: are you an honest or dishonest skeptic? If you're an honest skeptic you will investigate, but a dishonest skeptic doesn't want to know. You will have to admit that you do not know whether God answers prayer or not, so here is a possible clue to knowledge:

Pray this: God, I don't know if you're there or not, and I don't know if the bible is your word or not. I am asking you to reveal the truth to me, and if you do, I promise to follow it where ever it leads. If it leads to Jesus, I will give my life to Him and follow Him.

After praying this, read the gospel of John. Read it slowly, a little at a time, each time beforehand praying that God will give you revelation concerning what you're reading. If you do this, by the time you reach the end of the gospel your skepticism will have grown wings and flown away.

God bless.

I agree with BR about this for the most part. Honestly, if you don't like it, walk away.

Yeah, she said "I don't do ass to mouth", I'm assuming after that they didn't film an ass to mouth scene. Honestly, who here actually knows the goings-on behind the camera? I sure as hell don't. For all I know, they said "We need a chick to take a cock up the ass, it'll pay 800 bucks. Want in?" and she said "Sure"

Then on set, that may have been the first time ANYBODY heard what her actual limitations were. The chick crying in pain about it hurting, if it hurts that much then stop. I don't understand why she felt the need to keep going, especially if she's A) Ruining the scene with Dialogue, and B) If it's about a moneyshot, they can get the guy to climax and finish strong another way.

To me, that seems more like one of the old school "we'll give you 500 bucks if we can fuck you" internet porn vids, and the chick is just worried about fulfilling her end of the bargain to get her money, because she literally turned herself into a prostitute for that one video.

I personally feel that the porn industry is just going to die out very soon. Everything this woman is complaining about is basically cured by free porn sites. LIke asians? ebony? fat? petite? whatever you want and actually enjoying what's going on, you can find it on the internet, as sad a fact as that may be.


That's a slippery slope too, however. If the industry dies out, who knows what'll be published online then. Maybe we will get rape sites, and if that happens then I fear for the sake of civilized society. But until that point, and until there's a union to back people up for making porn, if you don't like what's going on, then don't do it. Be stronger then that, walk away.

You don't have a union behind you to protect you, so YOU are the one who's going to have to decide if the risk is worth the reward, and weather or not you want to continue down the path you're on or if it's time to cut your losses and move on, be that with just this movie, or the career as a whole.

Could only watch 10 minutes of it then I had to stop.

To be honest unless you're going to start a revolution and overthrow the government it really doesn't matter what we do in our personal lives. I'm just happy that when there is absolute government control over EVERYTHING I'll be dead before then.

Again, please tell me where i said that he should be let off rape? I explicitly said "rapists should be brought to justice"!

And please do take the time to quote the exact point where i compared (that is to say likened, discussed the similarities between) rosa parks and julian assange. I guarantee you will not find it.

I mean honestly, are you reading my posts before you argue with me about what's in them?

>> ^thumpa28:

I would quote back to you the bit where you mention Rosa Parks, but i sense it would be pointless.
The point is, should someone be allowed to get away with rape because bringing them to justice 'would push them too far'? Should any criminal be forgiven their crime because they threaten others with more crime? That would be a charter for scum like Assange to get away with murder.

i totally agree.

i live in florida now but i came from rhode island and lived in new york and chicago and i can attest to how differently these regions deal with conflict.

in new england and new york things are dealt with pretty directly..and quickly..which is viewed by those from the south as being "rude and opinionated" but in actuality is just dealing with a possible conflict directly and getting it out of the way.
there is nothing wrong with being direct and honest if you do it with respect.

so when i moved to florida (first miami,then ft lauderdale and now tampa)i found many of the people here to be two faced and a bunch of shit-talkers but what i didnt realize is that is how the south deals with possible conflict.they can do this due to the fact that they are not living on top of each other and can allow space to let the conflict die down.

i do not agree with that philosophy and still deal with people with the direct and honest approach but having gained this newfound understanding i deal with southerners with a much more gentle touch and it has done wonders to clear up any misunderstandings.

an interesting side note:i took my buddy from the rural country of pasco county to brooklyn with me to visit family and he was amazed at how very cool and awesome the people were there.as if somehow all new yorkers were douchebags.
i had to remind him that when you have millions of people living on top of one another you better learn to get along or its gonna be a bumpy ride.

>> ^bmacs27:

I think he probably was discussing something to the effect of "it has less scientific purpose or efficiency than robotic exploration of space." I don't think he's ever said anything like "it's too expensive relative to other government programs." He's always been an advocate for an increased science budget. I just think he knows that the scientific reasoning for manned space exploration (especially low earth orbit) is poorly substantiated. It's more like a PR campaign for science funding, and a recruitment tool for kids.
Honestly man, you come across as cynical as anybody on here. I'm sorry if I'm the first to break the news, but there is no Santa Claus.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bmacs27:
I find this funny though, because he came out so adamantly against the manned-space program at first. He called it a joy-ride for jocks. Someone must have smacked him around and said, sorry, scientific satellites don't sell, and you're our sales guy. Get with the program.

You really believe that? Jesus there's some cynical fucks on here.



Hey! I didn't give you permission to point out my hypocrisy alright! Just you watch yourself buster.

I think he probably was discussing something to the effect of "it has less scientific purpose or efficiency than robotic exploration of space." I don't think he's ever said anything like "it's too expensive relative to other government programs." He's always been an advocate for an increased science budget. I just think he knows that the scientific reasoning for manned space exploration (especially low earth orbit) is poorly substantiated. It's more like a PR campaign for science funding, and a recruitment tool for kids.

Honestly man, you come across as cynical as anybody on here. I'm sorry if I'm the first to break the news, but there is no Santa Claus.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bmacs27:
I find this funny though, because he came out so adamantly against the manned-space program at first. He called it a joy-ride for jocks. Someone must have smacked him around and said, sorry, scientific satellites don't sell, and you're our sales guy. Get with the program.

You really believe that? Jesus there's some cynical fucks on here.

@Fletch

Congratulations, you successfully pulled me out of bed to come write this.

First off, I stated my opinion, simple as that. I didn't attack your choice for posting it, I didn't attack UP for doing it. I basically pointed out the fact that the only reason this is getting any votes whatsoever is because it has a sifter in it. If this was daisy-mae from dallas, would anybody have voted? Likely not.

Now, lets turn to your argument, shall we?

We have Zero Punctuation reviews. I typically don't vote for them, but they actually add something. Agree with it or not, they talk about a recent video game title and an Australian man gives his opinion on it.

The daily show topics are generally comedic, and involve some news coverage in at least one form of another (Same goes for Colbert.)

QI? if you're really comparing this to QI then that's probably one of the silliest things you could have done. If you're saying that QI has absolutely nothing of value to it then you're fairly dense. I can't find ONE QI video where I can watch it and not learn something.

TyT, Once again, news. Granted, in a fairly bias form, but it's still news.

Now, lets go ahead and talk about the 25 seconds of someone stepping on a toy, shall we? What does this bring to the table? Did we learn anything? Not really. Is this anything to do with current or past events? Nope. Is it artistic in any way? Nope. If I'm having a rough day, and need something to just make me smile, is this gonna do it? Definitely not.

So, apart from the fact that it's got a sifter in it, what's its merit? Did others actually find it worthy enough to upvote it? Or are they only doing so out of obligation because voting it down would potentially hurt UsesProzacs feelings? I can honestly tell you right now the only reason I DIDN'T vote it down was for that very reason. I have no grudge towards her whatsoever, I do have a problem with a video being added to this site for the sole reason of "hey look, it's part of a videosift member".

The site has already been criticized as one giant "In community", do we really need to ostracize people who aren't familiar with the community by spamming them with videos of sifters feet?

In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
I can't hear what Levar says after the speech


Don't know if anyone ever answered you (or you worked it out for yourself) but he says "I never fucking liked you though. To tell you the god's honest truth, you were a pain in the ass." "I know..." "But I'm glad you're here....because you're our pain in the ass..."

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?
I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?

Population of China: 1,338,299,512 (2010)
There is bound to be a larger number of fuck ups.


>> ^mentality:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?
I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?

The reason why Chinese drivers are bad is because China is a developing country, and car ownership is a new phenomenon. A well established driving culture and respect for traffic regulation just doesn't exist yet. Overall regulation, enforcement and education is poor compared to developed countries, so you're bound to have more bad drivers.
So in summary, it's not a racial issue and you are a racist.


It's not a geographic issue. Every auto accident I have been in was the fault of an Asian driver. Why is this? Some people are just less aware of their surroundings and don't pay the fuck attention for whatever reason. It's not ALL Asians and it's not ONLY Asians; it just seems to be a trend in my experience. Stereotypes exist because our brains have evolved to recognize patterns. If a pattern exists, it isn't because it's a figment of the imagination. Wouldn't knowing HOW and WHY those patterns exist be beneficial?

I'm a realist, and we, as a species, need to stop being fucking pussies and being afraid of everything. We're afraid of what people might think of us for looking at the evidence and trying to discern the facts. Somebody needs to do a fucking study on this. We need brain chemistry analysis, anecdotal evidence, circumstantial parameters, field studies, etc. Every region, every age group, male and female, all nationalities (both relative and irrespective to location), etc.

If it's just my luck to consistently encounter this evidence, fine. If it's a real phenomenon, even better. Either way, understanding the data can lead to solutions. Hiding from it for politically correct reasons is a disservice. Perhaps understanding certain tendencies in drivers could lead to solutions which do not single out certain groups, but also help to improve safety on the roads and prevent fatalities.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?
I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?


The reason why Chinese drivers are bad is because China is a developing country, and car ownership is a new phenomenon. A well established driving culture and respect for traffic regulation just doesn't exist yet. Overall regulation, enforcement and education is poor compared to developed countries, so you're bound to have more bad drivers.

So in summary, it's not a racial issue and you are a racist.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?
I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?


Population of China: 1,338,299,512 (2010)

There is bound to be a larger number of fuck ups.

Is it still racist, even with this continuing overabundance of evidence, to say that they can't drive for shit?

I mean, honestly, sometimes you just have to take a look and say "hmm, maybe there's something about a certain group's neurophysiology that gives them a tendency for a certain trait." How in the hell does one mistake the brake for the gas, and THEN fail to figure out what the fuck to do when the car isn't actually stopping?

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:
http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secre
tary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate
All of this is far left.
Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.
They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.
He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/ob
amas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/
The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.
When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.
Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.
>> ^heropsycho: