Missouri law presents new abortion warfront

This comes back to one thing. Religion in government! It's time that if a politician even raises religion as an aspect of law, they need to be immediately impeached! By the way you religious whacko's out there who take an affront to this, the only way to religious freedom, is NOT to have religion in government. Otherwise, it may not be your religion that becomes the "State Religion".

Oh the horror! A “medical” clinic will have to comply with medical health standards!

Judge Ortrie Smith was appointed by President Clinton which means he'll be for killing babies. By 5 p.m. Monday Planned Parenthood will be back in business unfortunately. I would like to STOP Planned Parenthood they collect money from state and federal goverments to ply their nasty trade. We have had far too many abortions in America it is our holocaust. All you lefties listen up we have far fewer soldiers that die in Iraq than we do babies aborted each year some 45,000 annually. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

By 5 p.m. Monday Planned Parenthood will be back in business unfortunately. I would like to STOP Planned Parenthood they collect money from state and federal goverments to ply their nasty trade.
Posted by: Jerry White | August 24, 2007 1:31 PM

....and I would like to take away the tax status for all religious groups who wish to take a political role in government.

Is abortion a medical procedure or is it not? If it is medical, then why should abortion clinics not be held to the same health and safety standards as all other medical facilities? I fail to see how abortions being "less available" until the new clinics come on line would in any way harm the public. This law is not banning any type of abortions. It is simply making it more expensive for Planned Parenthood to perform them. Do you care about the health and safety of women or not?

Hey Jerry-
Did you know that over 600,000 Iragi citizens have died because of our occupation in Iraq? I guess the Iraqi deaths are irrelevant to you because Jesus says its OK to kill in a war. I think Jesus would say ALL KILLING is wrong. Until humankind agrees with that, the killing frenzie will continue. Women who choose to have an abortion need the safest environment for the procedure. Men should not be allowed to take that away from them. You guys, should focus on all the killing you do in your little wars and let women focus on all the killing they do with abortions. One form of killing is not better than the other.

First of all, you disingenuous bible-beating pigs: we know full well you have not the slightest interest in "medical health standards" for abortion clinics. You care only about preventing people from choosing abortions by obstructing their ability to go to a doctor to get one. Is being a disingenuous pig contrary to biblical teachings? Don't know; I do know that it reflects poorly on your integrity.

Second, I'm guessing that "back alleys," or the sanctity of a bathroom and coat hanger, do not present more sanitary conditions than the present clinics in Missouri. Yet that is exactly the result that this law will produce. That, or an influx of people getting abortions in other States.

You can't stop abortions by making them illegal. Deal with it, religious zombies. Deal with it.

Ummm Jerry??

Tell me what government and state money Planned Parenthood gets.

For all anti-abortion zealots Google WI-38 cell line. It was cultivated from the lung tissue of an aborted fetus. Not only was this line used to develop the first polio vaccine, but also has been used to innoculate billions of people around the globe. Yes that's right. An aborted fetus led to protecting BILLIONS from many viruses such as rubella, rubeola, varicella, mumps, rabies, adenoviruses and hepatitis A, and hundreds others to name a few.

These judges are trying to subvert the will of the people and their elected representatives. I thought voting was to be more than who gets to pick our judicial masters.

Hey Jer-
I just thought about something....If the soul lives forever and never dies...and our human form bodies are merely just a suit coat, so to speak, for our souls to wear. Then is destroying our suit coats really killing (keep in mind that the soul never dies and is eternal)? My gosh, religion is confusing. I wonder......

To all you anti-religion fascists:

Please show me the evidence, in the article above, or elsewhere, that shows the new rule was implemented out of some religious hatred for abortions.

Can't do it, can you? Then put a sock in it.

These judges are trying to subvert the will of the people and their elected representatives. I thought voting was to be more than who gets to pick our judicial masters.

Posted by: whatnow | August 24, 2007 4:17 PM

Having flunked every American Government course you ever took, I can see why you'd hold that view WhatNow.

We have three equal branches of government. Two of them are "political," in the sense that the President and the Congress have to get voted on and thus are more apt to follow the winds of public opinion.

The framers were very careful to ensure that the third branch, the judiciary, was not to be so closely tied to popular sentiment. The Constitution accomplishes this by giving Federal Judges lifetime appointments, the reasoning being that if your job does not depend on popular sentiment, you'll be more willing to make what you perceive to be the "right" decision, even if unpopular.

In short, you freak, the Constitution recognizes that the "will of the people" can be evil -- e.g., racial segregation -- and took great pains to blunt that evil by creating an independent judiciary.

You may not like the Constitution. That's ok. Either get it amended or move to a country whose foundational document is more in keeping with your hateful ways.

BobnATL: Here you go: Planned Parenthood, which receives $305 million in tax dollars a year, is the largest abortion chain in the United States and has killed more than 3 million children by abortion according to the American Life League. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

And to think many people consider the leftist democrats to be antireligious.
Must be Hillary voters.

John W:
Show me one, just one anti-religion statement made here, today. Come on John, line them up so I can knock them down. Remember, they have to be anti-religion statements.

John W.:

Don't be disingenuous.

1. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that the legislation was sponsored by anti-choice interest groups. Legislation does not come from thin air -- it shows up because someone asked a legislator to put it there.

2. Every anti-choice interest group that I've ever been aware of has coalesced on religious grounds. For example, here's the mission statement of the group that Jerry White just cited. http://www.all.org/about_mission.php.

The crosses you see on the anti-choice pickets and posters are another clue. To my understanding, crosses represent Christianity, which is a well known religion.

You use of the word "fascist" to describe pro-choice people is kind of, um, imprecise. Strikes me that people who seek less governmental restriction are not really in favor of governmental control. Could be wrong 'bout that I suppose.

---

What now: not all "leftist democrats" are antireligious, but I think it's fair to generalize that anti-religious people tend toward the left while freaks like you stay hard right, with the party of war, hatred, bigotry and death. But it's certainly inaccurate to suggest that there are not many deeply religious people in the Democratic party.

Read the Constitution yet. Maybe you can just pray hard and it'll come to you.

DB - Find religion in this:

Do you want abortion

...then be ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support. She made the choice to bring the child into the world, not the man.

.... then be ready to legalize prostitution and drug use. If it's a woman's (or man's) body to choose to do with it as they please, then abolish those laws.

.... then be ready to file only one count of homicide against a defendant when a pregnant woman is murdered.

.... then abandon the right to prosecute a woman who does harm to her fetus by participating in excessive drug and/or achohol use.

Donna Bell - give a link to that 600,000 and it better not be that Johns Hopkins piece of crap.

"Show me one, just one anti-religion statement made here, today. Come on John, line them up so I can knock them down. Remember, they have to be anti-religion statements.

Posted by: jj | August 24, 2007 6:42 PM

You're on Jack:

1. ". . . . By the way you religious whacko's out there who take an affront to this, the only way to religious freedom, is NOT to have religion in government. . . . . "

Posted by: DB | August 24, 2007 1:06 PM

2. "First of all, you disingenuous bible-beating pigs . . . . Deal with it, religious zombies."

Posted by: a blinkin | August 24, 2007 3:37 PM

3. The entire post of Donna Bell | August 24, 2007 4:43 PM;

4. The entire tone, and much of the text, of a blinkin’s reply to me - Posted by: a blinkin | August 24, 2007 4:46 PM

No one who has any respect for a person's faith would refer to them as "whackos," "disingenuous bible-beating pigs," or "religious zombies" regardless of how much they disagreed with that person's religion or political views. This stuff is just over the top and unnecessary to whatever valuable political dialogue might otherwise be achieved. That is to say, whoever says stuff like that isn’t at all interested in any dialogue. It's like saying, 'you're a dirty slob and the dregs of the earth, etc., but this is my political view." It’s like if I started out addressing every Democrat as a lazy, communist pervert. These are all snarl words without any valuable content. If you can’t see that then, jj or Jack, you’re either a blind man or a religious bigot yourself. If you are the latter, that totally disqualifies you – in my view – from making any judgments regarding what is or isn’t an anti-religious comment.

Furthermore, my point is still made. These people came out of the blocks lashing out at people of faith. But there is no proof – just all kinds of supposition – that only "bible-beating pigs" or "religious zombies" could possibly be interested in having abortion clinics maintain a high standard of medical care – just because it deals with abortion clinics. The idea is preposterous on its face. I seriously doubt that people on the religious right would be interested at all in making things betteror saferfor women having abortions. Nor do I believe people of faith would attempt to gnaw away at the edges by fiddling with the regulations. It doesn’t get them what they want – which is no abortions. Abortions don’t stop, or even slow down – because the clinics have to maintain the standards of an outpatient clinic. That hardly suits the RR perspective.

Thus, blaming religious groups - without any proof - demonstrates a highly anti-religious bias.

@#$$^%$&*

Posted by: a blinkin | August 24, 2007 6:42 PM

You call me disingenuous? You have a lot of freaking nerve to call me disingenuous, you closed minded ideologue.

And you can’t freakin’ read either, can you?

I asked for “evidence, in the article above, or elsewhere, that shows the new rule was implemented out of some religious hatred for abortions.” You have not been forthcoming with any evidence. You only offer your assumption and conjecture that the legislation was offered by an anti-abortion group on the further assumption that making abortion clinics comply with health and safety standards for outpatient surgery centers IS AN ANTI-ABORTION MEASURE. What a stupid idea!!!

Do you really think politically motivated zealots are interested in making abortion clinics better and safer places for someone to have an abortion? That's nuts.

Does making those clinics comply with health and safety standards abridge a woman’s right to chose? Not at all.

Does it stop abortions from occurring? No.

Does it even slow down the availability of abortions on demand? For a very short period of time, but only in the Planned Parenthood clinics until they come up to specs. It doesn’t slow down – at all – the availability of abortions in any other medical facilities that already comply with the States health and safety codes.

So, then, does a law that has the effect of slowing down the availability of abortions for a short time in a limited number of abortion clinics – but which does not otherwise stop or abridge the “right to choose” – sound like a plot from the religious right? No, it really doesn’t – and you might have realized that if you had given it any thought. It doesn’t sound like a RR plot because it doesn’t serve the RR’s ultimate goal – which is to do away with abortions altogether. In fact, in the long run, making abortion clinics comply with State health and safety codes makes abortions a better birth control “choice” by making abortions safer to perform.

The bottom line is this: without any proof, your supposition that this is a religiously motivated anti-abortion measure isn’t worth the wind it takes to blow a drop of piss off a well polished boot.

And I’m the disingenuous one? Oh, and so much for your concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

And, no, I wasn’t calling pro-choice people “fascists.” I was calling YOU a fascist, and all others who came out of the blocks attacking people of faith for what you assumed was an attack by them on the right to choose. Religion apparently doesn’t fit in well with your humanist, socialist views of society. So people of faith get attacked and blamed for a variety of things you don’t like, even though you have no proof of guilt. That’s the kind of stuff Hitler did to the German Evangelical Church and, to a lesser degree, the Catholics.

And then you exculpate yourself by attacking me as being a “freak” that supports “the party of war, hatred, bigotry and death.” Where did you get any of this crap, buster? I am a conservative of libertarian leanings, much like Ron Paul. I am no neo-con, and I don’t support the current administration or its non-conservative, repressive and neo-imperialist policies. But, of course you could make some contrary assumptions about me and feel safe, knowing that most people here would gladly look the other way if you stepped in your own muck (like you did).

BTW, I never said anything about the Democratic Party either, did I? So how did that come up?

Finally, I have read the Constitution cover to cover many more times than you probably ever will. What’s more, unlike you, I actually understand it. I don’t have to pray to get it either. Instead, I’ll pray for you so you don’t embarrass yourself like this again.

Hey Jerry-
Did you know that over 600,000 Iraqi citizens have died because of our occupation in Iraq?

*****

Posted by: Donna Bell | August 24, 2007 3:35 PM

Hey Donna,

Why should he believe such a thing when you can’t prove it, and even the Iraqis tend to disprove it with their own statistics. When some people were crowing here that the death toll among citizens in Iraq were at 600k, the Iraqi’s claimed that the figure was inflated by a multiplier of four or five. The Iraqis were going by their morgue and funeral statistics.

In contrast, the clowns that came up with the 600k figure used an unscientific method of calculation. They asked a “sample” of Iraqi’s (without checking the veracity of their sources) concerning the number of people they knew who had died. On the assumption that death statistics were uniform throughout the country, they then applied a multiplier to the averages of the sample to arrive at a statistical guess.

They gave new meaning to the adage, “Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.”

How is a guess better than hard facts? Beats me, but I guess that doesn’t stop a lot of people here either, huh.

This notion of "safe" abortion clinics is just another way to place obstacles in the way of women getting abortions, akin to parental notification legislation. It does not directly attack the right to an abortion, but it chips away at the edges.

Your attempt to characterize me as a fascis is just silly. I'm not in favor of restrictions. I favor freedom. The trouble the right wing has is that I favor people having freedom over their own conduct so long as I did does not harm others.

--

I did not call you a religious freak or anything other than "disingenuous, which I think you still are, by asking for "evidence" other than what is directly in front of you. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Missouri legislation resulted from lobbbying by relgion-based antichoice groups, and my guess is you're not risking one donut to the contrary point.

My rants about the constitution and religiosity were expressly directed to WhatNow, who's got this twisted idea that the judiciary is a political branch of government. That of course is the religious nut cry every time a Federal Court tries to get a law off someone's back (homosexual conduct, abortion, etc.).

I respect everyone's right to a religious believe. I do not respect the beliefs. The notions of virgin birth, the universe being created in six days, etc. are every bit as incredible to me as praying to a god of rain. Sorry -- I realize many good people hold these beliefs, including pretty much everyone I know -- but that doesn't entitle those beliefs to respect.

Religionists need to stay out of everyone else's lives. If your religion doesn't like abortion, don't have one. But mind your own business and stay out of mine.

Here's the Mizzou Gov's press release crowing about his signing the bill. Suppose any of the crew complimenting him were religion-centered groups, John W?

You owe me a donut.

Boards Appointment Application Boards Appointment Application Boards/Commission Listing Boards/Commission Listing Contact Information Contact Information Constituent Services Constituent Services Proclamation Request Proclamation Request Photo Gallery Photo Gallery Senior Staff Senior Staff Cabinet Members Cabinet Members Internship Application Internship Application E-mail Governor Blunt E-mail Governor Blunt Governor's Biography Governor's Biography First Lady's Biography First Lady's Biography News Releases News Releases 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 Governor's Office e–News Governor's Office e–News Executive Orders Executive Orders 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 Legislative Actions Legislative Actions Governor's Columns Governor's Columns Home | Office of the Governor | Press Room | Boards & Commissions | Search FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 6, 2007
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290

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

What Missourians are Saying About Gov. Blunt Protecting the Sanctity of Human Life
The following Missourians today voiced their support for House Bill 1055, legislation that enacts provisions to further protect the sanctity of human life.

"I have always had a passion for protecting our teenagers from coercion in the classroom from outside influences. I’m so pleased Governor Blunt is going to be signing this bill which will do that, and it is a great statement to have him come to St. Charles County, which is where the idea for that part of the legislation originated."

Cynthia Davis
State Representative, District 19

"I appreciate and commend Governor Matt Blunt for signing and enacting the provisions of House Bill 1055 passed by the Missouri Legislature. House Bill 1055 enacts three pro-life provisions that will greatly impact Missouri’s abortion industry. These three provisions will make a difference in our schools to the clinics and when women find themselves in crisis situations. Missouri Right to Life has worked to pass these important pieces of legislation for many years and it is most rewarding to see the fruits of our labor come to be signed into Missouri law. Thank you Governor for your support of and for signing House Bill 1055."

Susan Klein
Legislative Liaison, Missouri Right to Life

"The Missouri Alternatives to Abortion Services Program is an important program to the women we serve at LifeChoices. Many of the women we see feel overwhelming pressure to choose abortion due to circumstances, individuals, or difficulties in their lives. This bill will empower women to make an informed decision based on information instead of fear."

Rita Lawson
Client Services Director, LifeChoices

"Now that unlicensed abortion clinics must be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers, they will have to comply with the same commonsense health and safety regulations that other ambulatory surgical centers in the state have been following for years. If a woman has an abortion, she shouldn’t have to worry that she won’t get prompt emergency treatment in case something goes wrong. And state health officials will now be able to investigate problems in these abortion clinics when they get a complaint from the woman or her family."

"For years, lawmakers have been funding alternatives to abortion services on a year to year basis. Now, this program is made permanent. Also, the new law will allow pregnant women who are not sure where to get help to go to a one-stop shop internet Web site where they and their families can access information on alternatives to abortion services and agencies."

"It is an inherent conflict of interest to have abortion clinics teach school kids how to practice so-called ‘safe’ sex. Because when the school girls end up getting pregnant, the clinics can provide abortion as a back-up for a very hefty fee."

Samuel Lee
Director, Campaign Life Missouri

"The Alliance For Life-Missouri compliments Governor Blunt for signing into law House Bill 1055. This legislation will make a significant difference in the lives of all Missourians by increasing the medical responsibility of those doing abortions, eliminating abortion providers from teaching our youth about sexuality and providing medical, physical and emotional support to women choosing not to abort their children. Governor Blunt has consistently supported efforts to reduce abortions in Missouri, and his support and signing of this legislation is further evidence of his commitment to preserving the lives of the unborn."

John McCastle
President, Alliance for Life-Missouri

"This is a great day for all pro-life Missourians. Today Governor Matt Blunt has signed House Bill 1055 into law after working diligently to support and encourage the Legislature to pass major pro-life policies. These new protections will save many lives while guaranteeing reasonable safety standards for women’s health and protect school children from the conflicts of interest of abortion providers.

"Missouri Family Network wants to thank members of both the Missouri House of Representatives and State Senate who have demonstrated such a high respect for the sanctity of life by passing House Bill 1055. As Governor Blunt takes the opportunity to sign House Bill 1055, Missouri law will provide a wall of protection for our school children who are targeted by abortion providers.

"Missouri families say "thank you", Governor Blunt, for your endorsement of life and your commitment to reducing abortions in Missouri."

Kerry K. Messer
Missouri Family Network

"House Bill 1055 is lifegiving for all of us. It makes permanent the Alternatives to Abortion Program which provides services during pregnancy and for one year after the birth of the child including prenatal care, medical and mental health care, parenting skills, newborn and infant care, education services, housing, clothing, food, supplies related to pregnancy, newborn care and parenting and adoption assistance. House Bill 1055 also allows public schools to provide sex education that focus on abstinence. This is a bill that I am happy to support."

Father Mike Quinn
Pastor, Holy Family Catholic Church in Hannibal

"We here at Concord Baptist Church have prayed, preached, worked, and gone to the polls so that the lives of precious little ones may be saved. This is legislation that we can celebrate. House Bill 1055 will result in fewer abortions in Missouri. It is a good fair law that makes sense. I am excited to host Governor Blunt as he signs this progressive piece of legislation."

Dr. Monte Shinkle
Senior Pastor, Concord Baptist Church

###

Governor's Office Home Page | State Government Home Page

Well at least the libs might learn an economics lessons:

The more regulations, the less economic activity

a blinkin:

I reply to your last post (August 25, 2007 9:50 AM) as follows:

1. It is nonsense to suggest, as you have, that making abortion clinics “‘safe’ . . . is just another way to place obstacles in the way of women getting abortions, akin to parental notification legislation . . .” Parental notification legislation has one feature that a health and safety regulation does not have, to wit: an explicit veto power of the parent over the minor’s choice to have an abortion if the law has no judicial bypass system. And that will always be the case for minors having to seek their parent’s consent where there are parental notification laws. On the other hand, a health and safety measure, once complied with, is never thereafter an impediment. As such, the law complained of here is simply not analogous to the parental notification laws or any other rule that materially impairs a woman’s abortion rights.

In the meantime, Planned Parenthood is not without its resources. Yes, they have only one clinic in Missouri that complies with the new law. But what they fail to tell you is they also have numerous other clinics nearby just over the state lines in Illinois, Kansas, Iowa and Arkansas. Those facilities remain untouched by the law, and many are actually closer to some Missouri residents than many of the in-state facilities. Knowing how well organized and funded Planned Parenthood actually is, it is quite doubtful that they would not be able to effectively use these alternate locations in the meantime. Then again, being the well-oiled machine that it is, there is also nothing stopping Planned Parenthood from leasing or temporarily using other compliant medical facilities within the State. Thus, not only does the new law prevent no abortions, there is no serious reason why anyone would have to wait for one in the meantime.

So what it all really comes down to is money. Planned Parenthood just doesn’t want to spend the money to make whatever changes are required by the new law. This is a tempest in a teapot, and you shouldn’t get your hackles up over it.

2. The essence of fascism isn’t repression. Fascism is the collectivization of society in a manner that forms a single set of ideals and a single national identity, characterized by ultra-nationalism. Imposing restrictions was merely one of many non-exclusive means of achieving a single, collective social order in Nazi Germany. Hitler did not repress religion or religious expression because he didn’t like religion. He would have been very happy with the churches had they supported him. He repressed them precisely because they disagreed with him, and particularly his ideal of a single, monolithic social order grounded in pagan values.

So, when you come slamming down on a group of people because you presume, without evidence, that they are guilty of something that offends your ideal of what society and the nation ought to be, that smacks of fascism. And you did precisely that. What’s more, you didn’t limit your criticism to those individuals who may have been actually responsible. You went after an entire class of people, and you chose words like “bible-beating pigs” and “religious zombies” to characterize all of them. That, my friend, is hatred directed at people, and not merely their ideas. To call that intolerant is a gross understatement. It is that intolerance that earned you the “fascist” moniker from me, and not anything you suggested about restrictions.

3. I said you called me a freak – and you did. I didn’t say you called me a “religious freak,” although it’s nice to know that’s what you were thinking. Allow me to replay what you said back to you in case you can’t read your own posts:

“What now: not all "leftist democrats" are antireligious, but I think it's fair to generalize that anti-religious people tend toward the left while freaks like you stay hard right, with the party of war, . . .” etc.

(Emphasis added.)

See, you said it. That’s what I was talking about.

4. As a preliminary matter, if your rants were directed at WhatNow, how is it that your post came before WhatNow’s in both time and order in the blog? Your post with the “bible-beating pigs” and “religious zombies” comments came in at 3:37 p.m. on August 24, 2007. WhatNow’s first and only post came in at 4:17 p.m. How, then, could your post be in reply to a post that didn’t come in until 40 minutes later? It was that earlier post of yours to which I responded, and not the one you addressed to WhatNow.

5. I wouldn’t be so sanguine about the “evidence” that this was some RR plot to throw a monkey wrench in the works. The Missouri State Attorney General – who is a “liberal” Democrat – has vowed to defend the new health and safety law as being just that: a valid health and safety regulation. Furthermore, the co-sponsor of the bill swears that it was intended as a measure to promote health and safety in medical facilities. Indeed, as I have already pointed out three times now, the health and safety measure directed at abortion clinics is a poor to non-existent as an anti-abortion measure if that was its intended goal.

Moreover, the long list of cites provided by Anonymous is skewed in a manner that he/she doesn’t appear to appreciate. You see, there were actually three different provisions in the bill. One of them altered the rules regarding sex education in Missouri public schools. Another provision set up a clearing house to provide information to pregnant women, to give advise them of available alternatives to abortion. These two are the “pro-life” provisions that most, if not all, of the cited statements were praising.

6. I never expected you to agree with anyone’s beliefs. That you don’t have any religious beliefs isn’t my beef. On the other hand, you can’t convince me that you “respect everyone's right to a religious believe,” as you claim. If you respected people’s faith, you would have limited your attacks to what those people do and maybe even their ideas, or the results thereof. But “bible-beating pigs” and “religious zombies” are not terms one uses to respect another person’s beliefs. Those phrases attack People precisely because they hold certain beliefs. That’s not respect for beliefs.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you John.

Can't find a single thing in your examples that are 'anti-religious' They are all rather derogatory towards a certain view points that are espoused by several Christian sects but that by itself doesn't make them 'anti-religious' Maybe we have different definitions for what being 'anti-religious' means, I don't know. Seems to me it means being against religion, all religion. Now maybe your one of those people who believe there is only one true religion & so anyone who does agree with you must be 'anti-religious' Generally I like your posts, I find them well thought out even when I don't agree with your point of view but when the subject comes to religion you seems to lose all objectivity & take this 'its my way or the highway' stance with a 'your either with me or against me' attitude. As for the whole respect thing:
1. I can't find anything in the definitions of 'anti-religious' that mentions respect.
2. It is possible to respect your right to religious freedom without respecting the religion you choose to practice or the beliefs your religion teaches you.

Derogatory? Yes
Disrespectful? Yes
Anti-religious? No

jj:

The posts were derogatory toward people because of their particular religious belief system. That is anti-religious.

For example, calling someone a "bible-beating pig" or a "religious zombie" is clearly an attack against the person, and the "bible" and "religious" parts tell us that the attack is motivated because the target of the attack possessed a particular religious belief system. No one other than a member of the target group is singled out for attack, meaning that the existence or non-existence of that belief system is the determining factor from the perspective of the attacker. This is, in turn, circumstantial evidence that the very belief system is what the attacker hates.

One reason we might not see eye to eye is that I don’t believe one can separate a particular belief system from the group of people who hold the belief system. Religion is, after all, a human spiritual phenomenon because only humans have religion. No religion or religious “belief” exists, in any real sense, unless it has its “believers.” Thus, to attack the believer for the belief, is to attack the believer and the belief itself.

I also disagree with your definition of "anti-religious" as being against "all religion," as any intelligent, thinking person ought. One need not be against “all” of something to be significantly “against” or “in opposition” to it in most possible applications.

One, for instance, wouldn’t have to hate all racial minorities in order to be earn the label “racist” or “bigot.” One might even belong to a minority group and be a bigot or racist for hating or opposing any other racial segment of humanity.

The same is true of belief systems. One can belong to a religious group and still be “anti-religion” if one singles out any other particular religious group for hatred or mistreatment. In fact, I think a lot of Americans are anti-religion because, while most are nominally “Christian,” they attack and abuse others who actually care dearly about their spiritual state, as well as those who express those convictions.

Or maybe I should have used another, more precise term to describe people who use epithets like “religious whacko,” “bible-beating pig” or "religious zombie." Would it satisfy you if I said they were “bigots?” They are clearly bigots because they are “strongly partial to [their] own group, religion, race or politics and . . . intolerant of those who differ.” Their own group tells them to keep religion non-existent or hermetically sealed inside church buildings in order to be tolerated, and they showed intolerance toward those who believe religion must be expressed in human action to be valid.

However you cut it, we are playing word games to quibble over the particular application of the term “anti-religious.” The words they used were directed in an attack against people of faith. Whether you deem the term “anti-religious” fuzzy or precise to describe their behavior, my message was never materially misunderstood. I was taking them to task for their bigotry and intolerance of other’s religious belief system. If I had it to do all over again, I would probably use the same terms.

[I suppose this takes care of your observations on “respect” as concerning the definition of “anti-religious.” If not, I refer you back to the place, above, where I talk about attacking a person because of a belief system as being an attack against the person and the belief system. I think you have now unreasonably ducked behind some denotative dictionary definition in making this point.]

Finally, I have to question why you even try to make the point that it is “possible to respect [one’s] right to religious freedom without respecting the religion [one] choose[s] to practice or the beliefs [one’s] religion teaches . . .” Yes, its possible. But that doesn’t describe what happened here, or what others did to draw my criticism. I defy you to explain how a person is “respecting” another’s “right to religious freedom” when, at the same time, attacking that other person precisely because of his or her religious beliefs. Sure, these guys respected the “right to religious freedom” of all those religious “whackos,” “bible-beating pigs” and “religious zombies. Sure they did.

Just like Don Imus respects women college basketball players of African-American extraction.

Yes John we are playing silly word games. And yes John I was foolish enough to use the literal definition of anti-religious, I didn't realize you had created your own interpretation of its meaning. As for your statement that to question/attack the believer is to question/attack the belief, I'm sorry that argument holds no water with me. Same goes for the whole respect issue, in fact its the same argument over again.

It is possible to respect your right to your own beliefs without respecting the belief itself just as it is possible to question/attack the believer without questioning/attacking the belief. These things are not mutually exclusive & they do seem to explain exactly what has happened here. I'm sorry that your own belief system has made it impossible for you to see it this way but there isn't much I can do about that.

Lets put this one simply & accurately, the anti-abortion movement is a faith-based movement. To try and claim it as otherwise is disingenuous at best & while no religious group was mentioned in the article any sane, rational, intelligent person knows the anti-abortion movement was instrumental in the crafting & support of the new law so lets not hide behind semantics here.

If its your contention that according to your own belief system that abortion is immoral & wrong I don't have a problem with that (I might even share that belief with you). If it is your contention that (insert belief here) is immoral & wrong & you intend on trying to force those beliefs upon others then we have a problem & that is, in essence, what the anti-abortion movement is trying to do, force part of their belief system upon others. You & I both know this to be true so lets not dance around the issue here.

It is completely acceptable & rational that I can respect a persons right to religion without respecting what that religions beliefs are. There are quite a few religions that believe (& teach) that discriminating by race/gender/sexual orientation is perfectly acceptable & morally right. It is no stretch it say that I fully support their right to religious freedom but don't honor (respect) their beliefs. At the same time possible to respect someones beliefs but not respect the person because they seek to impose their beliefs upon others.

Once again John, the posts that have offended you are derogatory & disrespectfully but they completely fail to be anti-religious unless we use your interpretation of its meaning. Of course, if we use your interpretation, we would all be anti-religious if we spoke out against the teachings/beliefs of any/all religions, regardless as to what that belief may be.

As always John, I like you & respect you but I cannot respect your opinion as you have stated it here. In the end I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.

While we are on the whole respect thing, the screen name is jj & nothing else.

To: jj & nothing else

You have succeeded in either entirely misunderstanding my perspective or deliberately twisting my words to mean something entirely other than what I intended. I prefer to think it is the former and not the latter.

First, my argument was never so simple as: attack on the believer == attack on the belief. But that is how you now have it misrepresented. You missed it.

I said: “[T]o attack the believer FOR THE BELIEF is to attack the believer and the belief itself.” Your representation of my argument misses the bold, italicized and capitalized part (ala Roger Morris). [And I’m sorry for resort to visual aids, but I find it terribly frustrating when plain English fails to convey fairly simple ideas.]

Second, don’t try to drape noodles on my ears with this stuff about using a “literal definition” of ‘anti religious.’ There are definitions out there which are fully justified by the component terms “anti” and “religious” which mean less than opposition to all religion. Wikipedia, for instance, defines “Antireligion” as “opposition to some or all religions in some or all contexts.” But, hey, who or what is Wikipedia anyway? Right? I tend to agree with this definition – against yours – because yours is far too under- inclusive to be meaningful in any discussion of the subject. Yours excludes, for instance, hatred and abuse directed toward specific individuals for specific religious beliefs. Furthermore, you have never given a logical explanation why being anti-religious, in part, doesn’t still fall within the definition of “anti-religious;” much less why the concept has to embrace an “all-or-nothing” opposition to religion or its manifestations to qualify. In short, you can’t hide behind a “literal definition” (especially when you don’t even give me the citation for your source).

Third, I never said one is “anti-religious” simply for speaking out “against the teachings/beliefs of any/all religions, regardless as to what that belief may be” – as you have misrepresented my argument to be. Go ahead and speak away. I find some religious beliefs totally abhorrent. To me, hating, mistreating or killing anyone in the name of God is abhorrent - and that one covers a lot of history and territory.

What I said (instead) is that one is anti-religious when one “singles out any other particular religious group FOR HATRED AND MISTREATMENT.” Go back and re-read my post. I never misquote my own posts, so it’s there.

[And try to read a little slower and/or more carefully.]

Singling out a religious group “for hatred and mistreatment” is exactly what the earlier posters did. I’ve already explained this, and I’m not going to elaborate on this further. If in doubt, re-read my previous posts.

Fourth, it’s not legitimate to try to drag my personal beliefs into this discussion because I never injected them into the argument before. In particular, I never stated my opinion, pro or con, toward abortion. So, bringing my views in is a red herring. I simply find it offensive to judge and verbally abuse a group of people based on assumptions about them before the evidence is in. Moreover, I find it unacceptable to use such verbal abuse against an entire class of persons, when only a subdivision of them ultimately turn out to be guilty of whatever heinous secular offenses are suggested.

Fifth, and finally, you may be right that we will never see eye to eye on this because I cannot conceptually reconcile an attack against a group of people because of their religious beliefs with a respect for those people’s right to their beliefs. If I tell you I respect your right to freedom of speech, I believe it would be objectively contradictory for me to then start throwing bricks at you because you are walking a picket line or giving a speech in the park across from city hall. I don’t see a meaningful difference in the paradigms in these situations.

Please consider, even if ever so briefly, the possibility that you are not sensitive enough to the rights of others to their religious freedom, and that this is why you can’t see what I’m saying. My own experience has taught me that we can travel a great deal in our thoughts without recognizing how far we have gone.

This is the leaven of the A.C.L.U. They claim to stand up for constitutional rights, but individual members in the group, when asked, find the expression of certain constitutional rights (e.g. religion) “offensive.” (Their word.) This goes a long way in explaining why these defenders of the Constitution don’t defend people against attacks on their constitutional right to religious freedom or religious expression. This is a good example of how our political and cultural milieu can blind us and de-sensitize us to the biases we express in our thoughts and actions. Just think about it.

Sorry this took so long John, family drama at home & not much time to write.

I'll try to keep it short. Please consider, if just for a moment, that while you think that I'm not sensitive enough for this issue that the reverse just might be the truth? That its you that is being overly sensitive? That you are overreacting & assuming that insults hurled at others were meant somehow to include you?

Like I said, time is short but one more thing, by your broad & vague interpretation of anti-religious you, yourself, come off as being anti-religious.

BTW: You said anti-religious not antireligion & they are not the same thing, one is a descriptive term the other is the name of a movement.

jj:

There you go again, trying to draw my feelings into the matter. I never assumed that insults hurled at others were intended for me, and nothing I ever wrote indicated as much.

I did not come off as anti-religious, and my definition isn't as broad and vague as you claim. I can freely disagree with any idea included in any religious doctrine without being anti religious. The fact that I find certain religious doctrines abhorrent, likewise, does not make me anti-religious. All of this is true because I am still not prepared to subject those with whom I disagree to ridicule, hatred, abuse or violence. Disagreement with, or the failure to grant intellectual assent to, a particular doctrine is not hatred for or opposition to religion. I feel sorry for people whom others have led astray.

If you haven’t noticed by now, my definition of anti-religious is, and always has been: the attitude of subjecting another person, or a group of persons, to ridicule, hatred, abuse and/or violence because they adhere to a religious belief system. That is hardly what I call vague.

BTW: Anti-religious is an adjective, and antireligion is a noun. The first is descriptive of the second. So, in essence, they are part and parcel of the same thing. I any event, you still haven’t favored me with an explanation as to why the definition of “anti-religious” has to involve opposition to all religion. Nor for that matter have you even given me the citation to your source for such a proposition, in the event you were relying on an outside source. I have already given you plenty of reasons why it doesn’t.