Your video, Betty Explains Religious Freedom, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think you missed the whole point of the video. When you say "Muslims" are you referring to people who live in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Canada? Because you're going to find wildly different rates of violence (towards women or otherwise) based on where those people are practicing their religion. In fact I'd wager you'd find more Christians and atheists beating their wives in a country like Canada than you would Muslims--probably for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (alcohol or substance abuse, history of being abused themselves, etc.).

Why do "Muslim countries" seem more violent or more violent towards women? Maybe because of the fact that the ones that are most talked about in the news have majority populations that live literally like it was 500 years ago? Or maybe because the ones that pop up in the news frequently (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) are controlled by autocratic regimes that rule with an iron fist and are far more concerned with keeping power than promoting democracy and human rights? Or maybe because of local tribal practices that pre-date Islam and have continued until today (i.e. female genital mutilation)?

If you're going to compare countries, then compare apples to apples. Compare Saudi Arabia to 1500s England in terms of the rights of women and religious freedom, because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy much as 1500s England was a Christian monarchy. Compare human rights in a developing country like Indonesia to early 1900s U.S., where other religions were ostensibly tolerated but Christian norms were de facto.

But comparing human rights in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the modern U.S. and then generalizing the results to all "Muslim" countries is, as Reza mentioned, just stupid.

Saw in the news the Supreme Court upheld the right to restrict cover (5:4), for "closely-held" corporations based on a 1993 law that limited the ability to restrict religious freedoms.

I kind of see the logic of saying that if non-profits corporations can already avoid providing it (which seems to be the case), then for profit corporations should have the same rights. But then I don't see why non-profits should have had the right to deny it either.

Either way though, I agree with John Oliver's bit. Plenty of people would have liked to veto funding for the Iraq war but obviously never had the option. To say that religious objections are specifically excluded is highly arbitrary. No employees who receive a salary should be excluded.

The "closely-held" provision is also highly arbitrary, almost implying that the court doesn't like the law and are trying to limit it's impact. Maybe it was some kind of compromise to get a majority. Either way, I imagine the notion of "closely-held" will be stretched as loosely as possible in practice.

http://time.com/2940577/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception-obamacare/

its not so much the message. It's about the shitty analogies and their obsession with this stuff. And for lantern53 too. Here's the difference:

If you think masturbation or porn is fundamentally bad. I don't have a problem with that. I disagree that it's significant problem. Just like it's amusing how obsessed with homosexuals Lantern is, I find it very amusing how obsessed Mormons are with masturbation. and thanks to freedom of speech, I, and others are choosing to mock the way they are delivering that message in the way they compare masturbation/porn to a wounded combatant. In no way are any of us saying that Mormons should not be allowed to send that message.

If certain people DID have their way, they would enforce their religious standards on others. Oh wait, that's already happening.

One is mocking, one is legislation...big honkin difference. Religious freedom doesn't trump other peoples' freedom.

Sorry, I missed the part where you "declared tribal Pakistan as being ... a separate state from Pakistan". I didn't realise we could do that.

In that case, I declare tribal USA (aka Arizona or Texas, take your pick) in every meaningful way, a separate and independent state from the USA. They're insane right wing christian nations who pretty much share the goals of fundamentalist Islam. They just have better weapons.

When do the rest of us get to drone strike the Arizona State Legislature or the Texas Board of Education?

As for Pakistan or Yemen, what do you think would happen if they declared war on the US? It would be an open invitation to be curb stomped and have haliburton run their country. The fact is, the US are drone striking their citizens and there isn't a god damn thing they can do about it.

I have no doubt that some of the people killed were evil scumbags who the world won't miss. But the video on this very page shows how often civilians were killed.

Besides aren't there laws around declaring war in the US? I'm pretty sure this is not something that should be done away with lightly.

So, it seems to make your point of Christian tollerance you show me a site all about Christianity including a part where non-Christian speak is absolutely not allowed. Hmmmm.? You don't see the issue there?
You are allowed to say whatever you like, and others are allowed to speak their mind about what you said. Where's the persecution? Being ignored is not persecution, neither is being disagreed with, and so far as I know no one banned you.
My experience was far different, growing up in the deep south as a non-Christian is a truly hard row to hoe, and a dangerous one. I also disagree that our entertainment or education system is secular, it may have pockets of secularism, but not an entirety by far. Consider how you would feel if your money had "there is no god" printed on it, it's an example of how our society caters to religion across the board.
As far as religious freedom's being curtailed, that's a good thing, religion has enjoyed a freedom from responsibility for it's actions for far too long, and needs to be curtailed before we live in the Christian equivelant of sharia law, like many Christians support and vote for.
I would continue this discussion, but you do not seem to be following the logic or even the truthful statements I am presenting. As I wrote previously, I do not expect to change your mind, I simply hope to offer a different point of view for the other readers of this exchange.
Not ignoring, but done replying.

Here is a Christian website where you can talk about whatever you want:

http://www.christianforums.com/

There are some sections of the forum which are Christian only, but most are not. If the rule of the website was secular only, then I wouldn't post anything there. If it is anything goes, like the sift is, then I can talk about whatever I want to within reason.

You're also acting like no one brings up religion here. Go to the religion channel and you'll find hundreds of videos about it, most of them portraying it in a negative light. If the members of the sift are free to post videos and make comments against God and Christianity, then why aren't I, who am also a member, free to post videos and make comments supporting Christianity?

I grew up in a secular home without any religion. I wasn't persecuted by one Christian in my entire life. I realize some people grow up in religious homes and when they become atheists they get persecuted, but I just want to note that this isn't what Jesus taught them to do. I will join anyone in condemning that behavior. However, American culture is overwhelmingly secular. Our entertainment is secular, as well as our education system. I grew up without much of any exposure to Christianity, and I lived all over the country. So I think you are overrstating things, especially in America. You may say the same for me, but it's absolutely true that religious freedoms in America have been curtailed and dialogue about God has shunned from the national conversation. It's not as bad here as it is in other places but it could get that way pretty quickly.

As far as intolerance goes, I don't have a problem with you or anyone here. My most ardent critics are the ones usually on my heart the most often. I care about you guys and I hope the best for you. God bless.

As an atheist, you think injecting religious nuttery into a government proceeding is "beautiful and touching"? I think it's atrocious, and I think it's unfortunate that someone who thinks critically enough to reject the supernatural delusions of religion can't perceive the impact it can have on religious freedom (read: my freedom from it) when it infects government on any level. The efforts (some successful) of the insane hoards of thousand-yarders in this country to do just that definitely have me "spoiling for a fight".

"I am as separation-of-church-and-state as you get."

I value intelligence, but don't think that culling the slower members of our species is a good idea. In your country though, the outcome of a court case depends on the factors I mentioned. To some degree actual guilt or innocence plays a part, but if the D.A. is out to get you it might take a while for justice to prevail. I can provide examples if you don't believe me.

My points were that slave labour is common in both the U.S. and China, and that although the particular form of discrimination in this video is less common in the U.S., there are other equivalent forms which at least to me make it very much a case of people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

As an aside, religious freedom seems not to apply to the same degree to Muslims in the U.S. as it does to other religions.

If you're a member of an irrational cult you don't get to complain about the irrationality of another irrational cult. She deserved to die in agony. Hindus and catholics are equally guilty and they should all die together. Ireland is not a legitimate state and every member of its government should be executed.

"Why are you putting your morality on me?"

Fuck you relativist. That's exactly what you should do with morality; right and wrong isn't negotiable and it should be enforced. If catholics were right then abortion should be banned. Religious freedom would be ridiculous in a world with a correct religion. There isn't one, catholics are not right, they don't have any morality, they've abandoned their humanity, abortion should be easy and every catholic on earth should be killed.

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.

Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.

Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

I'm not particularly interested in the social issues either. This country is degenerating at an exponential rate and I doubt anything will change that.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.

>> ^heropsycho:

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

>> ^shinyblurry:


If you're going to keep cherry picking your responses, I don't see much reason to waste my time writing a reply.

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


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.
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.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
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.

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:

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

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-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

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.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

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.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

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.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

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: