Print

News >> Browse Articles >> Off Beat

-11

Rush Limbaugh apologizes for 'slut' remarks aimed at Sandra Fluke

Article Submitted by :
Mr-natural_1__max50

mz66

over 2 years ago

351 articles submitted

Source: Los Angeles Times


March 03, 2012


Read Article


-11
  • Mr-natural_1__max50

    mz66

    over 2 years ago

    3906 Comments

    I didn't sidestep the separation of Church and State--I stated my interpretation of it, which may be very different from yours. On the other hand, your interpretation of MY interpretation is way off. When I refer to individual rights, I mean the rights of people directly affected as such.

    Hypothetically, let's say we're neighbors, and that your religion says, "On the Sabbath, you must break into your neighbor's house at 5 in the morning and smack him upside the head, then poke him in the eye and say 'Bless Mo, Larry, and Curly'. and then cross yourself." By your absolutist definition of the separation of Church and State you're good to go on your merry way without being arrested, jailed, etcetera.

    Also, let's use our imagination and hypothesize this same scenario using old school biblical principles that are no longer acceptable in polite society. I'm not going to state any examples, because, frankly, I'm not a biblical scholar--but I know I've heard them and I know you can quote them chapter and verse. Are these also immune to State intervention?

  • 582602_3283682777720_334551836_n_max50

    LanaNJ

    over 2 years ago

    7028 Comments

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church teaches Students to abstain from having sex? Now while I believe this is an antiquated Idea in the 21st century, (i.e. some people are advocating same sex marriage these days which kind of says to me it's a different world) the State should NOT be persuaded to delegate policy to not only the Catholic Church, But any Church. As far as people like Rush, he has freedom of speech although he might be better off exercising his right to remain silent when making derogatory comments against woman. A sincere apology, ummm yeah. Open mouth, put foot in.

  • 1979_max50

    Robocop33

    over 2 years ago

    14642 Comments

    Bump MarlyB. The State has no right to demand that the Church suddenly break with it's teachings and provide either devices or money to buy devices for contraceptives when they do not consider it proper behaviour. I am not saying the Church is right or wrong, it is their belief and they have the right to practice their beliefs. The Constitution says so.

  • Female_bodysurfer_max50

    MarlyB

    over 2 years ago

    5052 Comments

    mz66 Kindly refrain from patronizing the "spirit" of my argument as you grapple to for traction up the slippery slope of your argument for State-Controlled Theology Pogroms in US Churches.

    I am crystal clear when I refer to Church-engaged insurance companies as 'proxy' in terms of their vulnerability to State interference as the State goes about skewing Church teachings under the Church Roof. A simple step back to the insurance company level does not take the issue out from under the Church Roof.

    The separation of Church and State is THE central issue you conveniently sidestep.

    Fortunately, the banner of Individual Rights flies freely over employees who have accepted work at religious institutions, or who attend religious school. Rather than demand the State meddle in Church teachings and practices, such employees and students can simply choose other employment and schools.

    An individual right, exercised - one that does NOT compel the State to act as the Church's Master.

    mz66, your Big Brotherish idea of "Individual Rights" and "Basic Right to Health Care" raises absurd scenarios. You would have the State using physicians notes' to to compel Loma Linda University to see to it their cafeteria concession offer meat dishes because some students have an allergy to soy and dairy.

    Under the convenient banner of "basic human right to health care" and "individual liberties of the citizen" you would condone the State compel the Jewish faith to refrain from the practice of male circumcision if some consider it traumatic to the infant.

    You might even make a case for the married student at a Catholic University to demand the State interfere on behalf of her right to a healthy, more stable marriage and compel her school marriage counselor to recommend a quiver of marital aids to help her spark up her lackluster marriage in her husband's absence!

    Humbug.

    Protect basic human rights to freedom of religious worship? Guarantee no State takeover of the pulpit?

    You bet.

  • 1asteriskshield_ezr_max50

    ajsdaddyBPD

    over 2 years ago

    3152 Comments

    Here's an idea. If a person wants to enact secular principles, why not attend a secular school? There are plenty of them out there. For this person to demand the school she attends, Georgetown University, to hand out for free by government fiat contraception that goes against everything the Catholic church stands for is reprehensible and once agaon smacks of her ultimate agenda. You think she went in there wide-eyed and inncoent? No! She went in with the notion to create "change". Mz, you mentioned earlier certain medication which are covered under health insurance, viagra etc. In my opinion, unless it is a health issue, which a limp noodle is not, it should not be carried or covered by health insurance either. Otherwise we get back to the government mandating personal responsibility. Not my problem you can't do what you want to do in the bedroom, suck it up and move on. Government requiring help with self-esteem, WOW only in America!

  • Mr-natural_1__max50

    mz66

    over 2 years ago

    3906 Comments

    The spirit (no pun intended) of your argument is well received, but one idea in it actually "muddies the waters" itself: "by proxy". The State may require insurance companies to pay for contraception even if the church is paying the premium. People and institutions are free to practice whatever faith they practice...and to any degree they practice it...so long as it doesn't interfere with the individual liberties of the citizen. Health care is a basic human right (my opinion) and in this country we protect basic human rights, even (especially?) if it runs counter to a religious institution's practices.

  • Female_bodysurfer_max50

    MarlyB

    over 2 years ago

    5052 Comments

    mz66, your opening salvo - a convenient claim of obfuscation and confusion - your own or mine - will not muddy the waters, try as you might.

    Split hairs all you like as you tilt toward a words-mincing, legalistic approach to the principle of separation of Church and State - but this issue is clearly a breach. And, probably, the most glaring example of a breach in recent years.

    One with far-reaching consequences to our democracy's foundation.

    The State is absolutely prohibited from interfering in the teachings and practices of the Church. When the State obliges the Church's businesses to see to the sales of contraception and abortion practices, the State is certainly obliging the Church to carry out practices contradictory to its teachings.

    When the State compels Church-owned employers to engage in practices the Church has deemed sinful, the State effectively informs Church teachings with hypocritical, and contradictory messages that serve to undermine and corrupt Church teachings.

    The State will have moved in under the Church Roof to and begun dictating.

    No State action can damage Church teachings more. No act is more invasive, interfering, and injurious to our democratic principle.

    You cite Individual Rights in a facile, gratuitous way. You do not address the State's assumption of the role of a religious ideology usurper conducting vigorous operations under the Church Roof. For surely, this is being attempted now.

    Don't call up Sharia Law without addressing the tyranny of a State that positions itself at the pulpit to interfere with Church teachings. For when the State steps in to proffer a hand-full of birth control pills under the Church Roof, all the Church's teachings will have been cast into a sea of doubt.

    And the State will be conducting itself as The Mullah.

    In this, the State has committed the top crime against our democracy.

    Individual Rights? Individual rights are currently exercised without State dictates contrary to religious doctrines under the Church Roof. Currently, whatever the individual chooses to do with Church teachings has to do with Free Choice, something the Church explains in its own doctrine, but will not condone Church complicity or participation.

    Quite conveniently, individual rights may be fully exercised by refraining from accepting employment by a Church-owned business.

    Conversely, when an employee chooses to work for a Church-owned employer Individual Rights rights as well as Free Choice are exercised. The decision is to comply with religious ideology in the employee's actions under the Church Roof - namely not to compel the Church to contradict its own teachings to suit the whims and corrupt agendas of secular interests.

    For these reasons, II am not going to sign up as an art teacher at a Catholic School then countermand Church teachings about Mapplethorpe's work under the aegis of Free Speech where the Church has deemed such teachings deleterious to youth's spiritual health.

    Mz66, you cannot call the Church Roof a mere construction of wood and shingle, tear it of, extract Individual Rights from its doctrines, then dump it into a murky notion of Separation of Church and State to justify State interference in Church affairs. The definition of Church Roof is not subject to your legalistic slide rule.

    Fortunately, in these United States, State action is not unassailable, residing "everywhere out there/ All State-Controlled Jurisdictions." Things change when the State enters the doors of the Church to start calling the shots under the Church Roof.

    We want it that way.

    For, when the State, grasps the hand of the Church, crams a heap of birth-control pills into it, then guides it toward the open mouths of disgruntled employees, the State has assumed control of Church teachings.

    There is no more heinous breach.

  • Car_004_max50

    copper380

    over 2 years ago

    2026 Comments

    I have to bump ajsdaddyCCSO and MarlyB

  • Mr-natural_1__max50

    mz66

    over 2 years ago

    3906 Comments

    MarlyB: I'm not so sure about the connection to "the separation of Church and State" here. I think there's something missing in the translation.

    For one, I think what separation means in this case is that the State cannot dictate to the Church what its teachings are. However, I think the Church has certain obligations to the State when it comes to its role as an employer, and it has certain obligations to the State when it comes to the rights of individual Americans. The State cannot tell the Church that it must teach that contraception is okay, but by the same token the Church cannot ultimately dictate to the Individual citizen what it can or cannot do with that information. It cannot force compliance. Paying for health care may or may not be a State-mandated action for employers (one role of the Church), but if it is offered, under their obligation to the State as an employer they cannot discriminate based on degree of compliance to their particular ideology. If this were so, can you imagine what this would mean for employees of Christian Science Church or a Sharia-law leaning Muslim congregation?

    (Just some early morning musings--devoid of any actual research (out of character, I know), but I'm certain I'm onto something.)

  • Self-3_max50

    educator1209

    over 2 years ago

    968 Comments

    Sorry. Meant to say that I don't think his apology was heartfelt.

  • Self-3_max50

    educator1209

    over 2 years ago

    968 Comments

    exactly, Sargekk. I think his comments were heartfelt. Money talks.

  • Female_bodysurfer_max50

    MarlyB

    over 2 years ago

    5052 Comments

    Rush Limbaugh will survive this latest episode at the center of another convenient, well-orchestrated maelstrom.

    Privately-owned religious institutions should not be obliged by the government to provide, either directly or through proxy, goods and services - including teachings - that run contrary to their tenets and teachings. The State is legally and morally obliged to recognize the separation of Church and State in such matters and refrain from interference.

    Conversely, the State is obliged to permit no special interest religious organizations to assume control over its legislative processes and policies. To do so imperils the principle of separation of Church and State, makes a sham of religious freedom, and lays bare our Democracy to the tyranny of self-styled prophets.

    The People must vigorously oppose any breach of separation of Church and State.

  • Photo_user_blank_big

    Anonymous

    over 2 years ago

    mz, hmmm! With this morons record what took so long?

  • Mr-natural_1__max50

    mz66

    over 2 years ago

    3906 Comments

    The latest is that it is not just advertisers, but radio stations have begun to bail on him.

  • Photo_user_blank_big

    Anonymous

    over 2 years ago

    True that, SargeKK!

PoliceLink School Finder

Save time in your search for a criminal justice degree program. Use PoliceLink's School Finder to locate schools online and in your area.

Get Info

* In the event that we cannot find a program from one of our partner schools that matches your specific area of interest, we may show schools with similar or unrelated programs.