Goofy Facebook ad of the day:
A survey conducted by Pew indicates that a lot of people (38%) think there is too much discussion of religion by politicians. That’s good, but what amazes me is that there is still such a large percentage of people (25%) think there’s been a proper amount and another large percentage of people (3o%) think there’s been too little. Um, are you in the same country as me? (The other 7% are presumably I don’t knows – I looked at the summary instead of the full report)
People across the U.S. are knitting their male politicians uteri of their own. You know, so they can stay out of their constituents’? I especially love this post for the explanation of why, no matter how you feel about abortion, the government should not legislate its availability.
I found this post amusing. It’s also full of salient points to respond with if someone says, “Why do you waste your time with atheist activism when there are so many other people that need help (starving children to feed, etc)?”
I thought with was a fabulous NPR post about the Reason Rally and the atheist community, although I still find all Woodstock comparisons a bit odd.
#@$!@K$@HI#IHIH@#$IKH! No one is attacking the freaking chaplaincy*. All atheists and humanists and whatnot are asking for is the ability to meet as a community and exercise their freedom of religion. All the people claiming this is an attack on freedom of religion or on the chaplaincy sound like whiny brats saying, “It’s our chaplaincy. We don’t want to share any of our stuff or our meeting places. It’s not faiiirrr.” If these groups were saying that simply having the chaplaincy violates the establishment clause, that would be an attack on the chaplaincy.
“Drop culture war; tackle real issues,” is about a law in AZ to create a Bible study elective course in public schools. Certainly sounds like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I do have to say, I took a world religions and literature course in high school, and it irritated me that we learned about several religious texts without ever learning about the Bible. I think it was a personal prejudice of the teacher. We read excerpts from the Koran, but not the Bible.
I don’t know if this matters or not: it’s not as if only church-goers get out of paying for parking. If that were the case, there’d be a problem. As it is… meh.
Anti-vaccine people, again. Guh.
In an e-mail to a constituent, one Republican wrote that she thinks women should have to watch an abortion procedure before they’re allowed to have an abortion. So, do you have to watch a new procedure if you get multiple abortions? Or is it sort of like driver’s ed, once you’ve gone through it once, never again? You know, if god really created us all as he wanted us, I think we need to make a law saying if you want any cosmetic surgery, you have to watch the procedure done on someone else first before you can have it done. Oh wait…
There’s no indication that the doctor who wrote the post is an abortion provider, and in fact good reason to think he/she is not
The author does not go on to point out why there is “good reason to think he/she is not”. Not being a doctor, I could certainly have missed the signs, but since Marcotte is claiming superior knowledge of the medical procedure and is apparently claiming superior knowledge here, I would like her to back up what she is saying. I would also like to know if one comment is correct in suggesting doctors use the conscience clause to justify not administering these ultrasounds.
*No one mentioned in this article, anyway.