Who did the best job of flensing Jamie Steihm’s bigoted and logically vapid attack in USNWR on SCOTUS justice Sonia Sotomayors’ siding with the law in allowing the Little Sisters of the Poor to define their own perspective on, um, Catholicism, faith and religion?
Was it Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia?
Was it Ed “The Captain” Morrissey?
Why choose. Read them both.
The only thing I want to add to the whole flap? Let’s not Catholicize this mess. There are plenty of us Protestant goyim who object to having the state define the boundaries of our fath too.
Heard about this controversy on the interwebs but hadn’t read the original article (USNews is still a thing?) until now. To quote a millennial or a grown up pretending to be a millenial: “Wow. Just. Wow. Umm.”
Why is it the Left is so comfortable with saying, ‘tweeting’ and publishing racist, homophobic, sexist and/or bigoted thoughts? Because there is no penalty beyond criticism from the ‘other side’?
I suppose I just got a reminder from the “Bridgegate” controversy – where there was 15 times more coverage of the “Bridgegate” story in the media in the last day than there was of the IRS story in the last 6 months.
I will admit that I was disappointed that she didn’t call anyone a Papist.
Its kind of like the Chris Kluew thing. No one in MSM cares that he is a vicious nasty anti-Catholic bigot. That he talks, sends letters, and rights books about his intense hatred of Catholics. He could put on a white hood and burn a cross in front of a Catholic church and MSM won’t report it.
Those nuns are, indeed, unreasonable. All they had to do was fill out “one little form” to affirm their faith. Not unlike the whiny Jews who only had to wear a red Star of David on their outer garments as an affirmation of their faith. How about providing one little document to prove voter eligibility? Selfish.
Again, the convenient war on women gets a shot in the arm by raising the question, Why is Justice Sotomayor against women’s health?
This assertion portrays women as being so promiscuous that the withholding of payment for birth control, the means to engage in recreational sexual intercourse without pregnancy, is a strike against their physical well-being.
This raises the question, Why is Steihm hyper-sexualizing and promoting the objectification of women, while ignoring the needs of homosexuals?
“There are plenty of us Protestant goyim who object to having the state define the boundaries of our fath too.”
That’s gonna be a hard argument to make when Protestant faiths can’t define their own boundaries….jus’ sayin 😉
Yeah, mine defines its own theological boundaries just fine.
It’s the secular boundaries that’ve gotten me to pull up and leave.
When conservatives pass laws, lets say carry laws, we allow liberal churches and private businesses to put up “no guns allowed signs”. When liberals pass laws, they do not allow any dissent.
What are the odds Steihm has “Croppies Lie Down” in her iPod rotation?
You know, when I look at a list of some Catholics in Washington, I must (tongue in cheek) admit that Ms. Stiehm has a point. Nancy Pelosi. Joe Biden. John Kerry. The late Teddy Kennedy. John Roberts’ bizaare opinion saving the Health Insurance Deform Act.
See a pattern? :^) Oh, wait, it’s not exactly the pattern Ms. Stiehm is making, is it?
I think what you mean, Mitch, is let’s not lose sight of the central issue, which is the federal government take-over of the health insurance industry. Yes, I agree.
But when speaking of the specific article in question, it’s not the responders who are Catholicizing the issue – the author claims Justice Sotomeyer was motivated to grant the temporary injunction by her religious faith.
True, she didn’t explicitly call Sotomeyer a Catholic Knight Witch-Hunter, as a local disbarred lawyer called a Catholic bankruptcy judge, but her bigotry is no less vitriolic.