Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Birth Control As Election Issue? Why?


10 posts in this topic

Posted

No se porque los republicanos conservadores se preocupan tanto por los anticonceptivos y no se preocupan por tantos curas pedofilos que abusan de los nenes.....eso esta permitido en la biblia? Estos idiotas ya cansan!! Yo le propongo a estos republicanos idiotas que para que las mujeres no se embarazen que los hombres desde jovencitos les hagan una vasectomia sino que se lo corten....asi no se tienen que preocupar tanto por los asuntos de las mujeres....

Please Login or Register to see this image.

/idiot.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':idiot:' />


[b] Birth control as election issue? Why?[/b]

[b] By Ann Gerhart, Updated: Monday, February 20, 7:48 PM[/b]

Who says you can’t turn the clock back?

[b]Decades ago, near the end of the Age of Aquarius, a Republican congressman from Texas argued passionately that the federal government should pay for birth control for poor women.[/b]

“We need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather, are using it as a political stepping stone,” [b]said George H.W. Bush[/b]. “If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.”

Title X, the law he sponsored that still funds family planning for the poor, passed the House by a vote of 298 to 32. It passed the Senate unanimously. [b]A Republican president, Richard Nixon, enthusiastically signed it.[/b]

That was 1970.

This is now: The issue of birth control has suddenly become an obsession of the 2012 presidential campaign. To many observers, it seems that the clock has indeed been turned back.

Using birth control to have sex without making a baby has been settled social behavior, not a taboo but an ordinary prescription that [url="""]virtually all[/url] American women present at the drugstore counter at some point in their lives. For many, it seems the common-sense way to avoid the prospect of abortion, which has been the really divisive issue of sexual politics.

Now gender warfare is erupting anew, at least in the spheres where political agitation thrives.

“Now you have a group of inflamed, enraged and constantly provoked women,” says Clare Coleman, who heads the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Or, as Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, said incredulously on Saturday during a rally in Austin:

“Somehow in this country, in 2012, this election might turn on whether women should have access to birth control.”
This might seem a bewildering turn of events, particularly when polls consistently show that (a) voters place jobs and the economy atop the list of their concerns and (b) large majorities of Americans of all faiths support the use of birth control, the most commonly prescribed drug for women between 18 and 44, and have done so for years.

But elections have a way of becoming national conversations — often unwieldy ones.

[b]On the surface, this battle seems to have been joined by liberals and conservatives over President Obama’s insistence that all employers, including religious institutions, who provide health insurance include birth control at no cost.[/b]

This expansion of reproductive rights has thrilled liberals and dismayed conservatives, who see it as a violation of the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution.

Catholic [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/birth-control-compromise-still-presents-grave-moral-concerns-to-catholic-church/2012/02/16/gIQAwpTtHR_story.html"]bishops have been most opposed[/url] to the policy directive, because doctrine holds that any birth control except natural family planning is a sin against God. And the bishops have gained allies among those eager to overturn the entire health-care act. Repealing Obamacare, as Republicans call it, is a central pledge of all the men who want to be the Republican presidential nominee.

Layer on the public proclamations of one of those candidates, former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), who has pulled ahead of the presumptive front-runner, Mitt Romney, in several national polls. He says that states should be free to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-santorums-very-catholic-birth-control-beliefs/2012/02/16/gIQALczyHR_blog.html"]ban birth control[/url], that [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-prenatal-testing-encourages-abortions/2012/02/19/gIQAvmZeNR_blog.html"]prenatal testing leads to abortion[/url] and that as president he would warn the nation about “the dangers of contraception.”

And the nostalgia of one his wealthiest backers for the days of abstinence when “gals” used to put Bayer aspirin “between their knees.” And the spectacle of House Republicans inviting an[b] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/birth-control-hearing-on-capitol-hill-had-all-male-panel-of-witnesses/2012/02/16/gIQA6BM5HR_blog.html"][color=#ff0000]all-male panel[/color][/url][/b] to testify about the issue, which caused two congresswomen to stomp out of the chamber.

All of it made Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) “feel like I woke up this morning on the set of ‘Mad Men,’ ” as she put it in a fundraising letter Friday, “and the Republicans have set their time machine for the 1950s.”

As is often the case in these matters, a variety of seemingly disparate issues get all tangled up — the Commerce Clause and Catholic doctrine, religious freedom and the right to privacy, feminism and liberty and conscience — at a time of economic uncertainty and vast demographic and societal transition.

Two states move to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/same-sex-marriage-bill-passes-maryland-house-of-delegates/2012/02/17/gIQARk7XKR_story.html"]legalize gay marriage[/url] on two consecutive days; the Maryland governor [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/omalley-unveils-agenda-including-same-sex-marriage-bill/2012/01/23/gIQAV8gMMQ_story.html"]pledges to sign[/url] the law, and his counterpart in New Jersey [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-gay-marriage-bill-delivered-to-nj-governor-who-has-vowed-to-veto-it/2012/02/17/gIQApnPrJR_story.html"]vetoes[/url] it. The Pew Research Center reports that [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/intermarriage-rates-soar-as-stereotypes-fall/2012/02/15/gIQAvyByGR_story.html"]interracial marriage[/url] is at a new high, and America learns of a new threshold crossed: [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=jason%20deparle&st=cse"]More children are born[/url] to single women under 30 than to married ones.

These streams of social change from different sources tumble into one another and form a whirlpool that roils an already unsettled electorate.

Listen to Dianne Schram, who expresses a deeper sense of unease in a letter that appeared Saturday in the Detroit Free Press:

[b]“It is a sad day in America when you have to compromise your religious rights. This disagreement has nothing to do with birth control, sterilization or abortion; it is the right given to us in the First Amendment, separation of church and state.[/b]
[b]“Our freedoms of choice are slowly disappearing. The government is telling us what light bulbs to use, what kind of cars to drive, what to eat and what kind of health care is required.”[/b]

The long-settled right to contraception takes its place alongside all kinds of cultural struggles underway in America, over immigration, gay rights, lifestyle, government power and income inequality, at a time when people feel threatened and wary of giving away what they have.

Any one of those can erupt and spread in fast frenzy, amplified through the bullhorn of social media.

This latest argument sets “a claim of a certain good that should be provided” — free preventative care to all women — “versus a claim of freedom of association” — workers accept jobs with religious institutions knowing their beliefs might conflict with their own — says Patrick Deneen, a political science professor at Georgetown University and one of more than 100 scholars who signed [url="http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Garvey-Glendon-George-Snead-Levin-stmt-Feb-11-2012.pdf"]an open letter[/url] that argues the administration’s “conscience” accommodation on the issue is unacceptable.

“This is a long-standing set of debates that go way back in American history implicating all kinds of issues — federalism, whether states should have certain kinds of organizations,” Deneen says. “It’s a very old issue that is popping up in an election year in surprising ways.”

Here’s another way to frame it, says Coleman, a Catholic with a long career in protecting and providing reproductive health care to the poor.

The church’s argument that providing birth control violates its conscience inevitably comes into conflict with the rights of its nonbeliever employees to have the same access to free birth control that others do. There are real-world concerns, too. Some say that if you want birth control, don’t work for a Catholic organization. Others say that an orderly or cafeteria worker in a large Catholic hospital might not have other job options or the money to buy her own birth control, which can cost up to $600 a year. Those who favor the new ruling add that these religious institutions also are receiving federal funds.

“That is the age-old question of where does your freedom end and where does your neighbor’s begin,” Coleman says, “and that is the core idea of America, and we are going to keep battling it out.”

The unresolved search for a “truly conservative Republican nominee and the backlash against Obama” has forged an election-year unity among Catholic bishops and religious evangelicals on an issue about which they usually disagree, says D.G. Hart, author of “[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080286628X?ie=UTF8&tag=washingtonpost-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=080286628X"]From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism[/url].”

He says that the chief reason birth control has emerged as a prominent issue is because the religious freedom argument can be a fresh line of attack against Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment, which is being challenged in the courts.

“The way the American democratic system works is very peculiar,” says Hart, who teaches history at Hillsdale College in Michigan.

“But I don’t know that this [election cycle] is any worse than any other period when religious and racial preferences were expressed as cultural preference,” when a presidential election becomes an even more pointed referendum on what kind of society we want to construct.

He notes a disconnect among Republican voters between what the law currently requires and permits and “what people think Obama is requiring, and their perceptions go a long way to motivating them. You might think we would be better, and it is surprising that these cultural matters keep coming up this way. But that is where we are, and perhaps that is where we always will be. It is the only national election we have.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[color=#ff0000][i][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]No se porque los republicanos conservadores se preocupan tanto por los anticonceptivos y no se preocupan por tantos curas pedofilos que abusan de los nenes.....eso esta permitido en la biblia? Estos idiotas ya cansan!! Yo le propongo a estos republicanos idiotas que para que las mujeres no se embarazen que los hombres desde jovencitos les hagan una vasectomia sino que se lo corten....asi no se tienen que preocupar tanto por los asuntos de las mujeres...[/font][/i][/color]


El issue de asunto (y lo dice el articulo aunque tu no te dieras cuenta) no es los anticonceptivos. Es que el gobierno obligue a iglesias a pagar por practicas que estan en contra de sus doctrinas.

Ya que ustedes liberales tienen un mantra en contra del cristianismo, te lo voy a poner de esta manera politicamente correcta para que lo entiendas:[b] Que Barack Obama obligue a iglesias (o a las aseguradoras pagadas por las iglesias) a pagar por servicios de aborto y contraceptivos es como obligar a las mezqitas musulmanas a vender jamon serrano y tocineta en sus cafeterias.[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Las iglesias deberian regalar los anticonceptivos a las mujeres.....bastante inmorales que son....hipocritas!! Los mismos curas abusan de las mujeres que trabajan para ellos.....Los curas se acuestan con cualquiera y los evangelistas se las pegan a las mujeres con la primera mujer que les sonria...son todos unos enfermos!! Idiota y estupida es la gente que sigue a estos enfermos .....comenzando por el Santorum y los conservadores enfermos!


Pero nada entre mas hablen mas votantes pierden....y yo?? gozandoooooooooooooooooooooooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

La verdad que los republicanos cada dia son mas anormales.....un tipejo como Santorum, su madre debio abortarlo!


[b] Santorum Now Against Prenatal Testing[/b]


February 20, 2012By [url="http://www.addictinginfo.org/author/justinrosario/"]Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario[/url]

[url="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/20/santorum-now-against-prenatal-testing/rick_santorum2012-pointing-med-wide/"][img]http://addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/rick_santorum2012-pointing-med-wide.jpg[/img][/url]
You only have the rights I decide you're allowed to have!

One of the key characteristics of this election cycle is that the GOP is not [i]for [/i]anything. They have defined themselves as the party of “No” and[b] Rick Santorum is the leader of the pack. No separation of church and State. No premarital sex. No birth control. No abortions. No taxes. No EPA. No FDA. No evolution. And now, no prenatal testing.[/b]

Santorum’s problem with amniocentesis (and presumably other forms of testing) is that it can detect genetic defects and other problems early enough for the mother to abort, therefor it should not be covered by insurance. Here, again, we see the black or white extremism of one of the top contenders in the GOP field for the presidency.
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/politics/santorum-prenatal-testing/?hpt=hp_bn3"]CNN[/url] Reports:[indent]
[b]“One of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America,” Santorum, a conservative Roman Catholic, told a Christian Alliance luncheon in Columbus. “Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”[/b][/indent]
So now we’re one step removed from abortion but Santorum [i]still[/i] wants to restrict our rights. Smoking cigarettes [i]might[/i] lead to a miscarriage. Liberals would like to ban them for indisputably killing one out of every three people but Republicans faint with outrage at the idea. Being in a car accident [i]might [/i]lead to a miscarriage. Perhaps we should ban pregnant women from getting into cars? Toxins in the environment can trigger an abortion as well. Yet Mr. Santorum thinks there should be [i]less[/i] regulation on industrial pollution. It’s interesting how selective he is about what he opposes.

The reality is that prenatal testing like amniocentesis allows parents to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with a pregnancy. Can the parents afford a special needs child? Will they be able to care for it properly?

Remember, Republicans viscerally object to government programs that help people without financial resources. This includes cutting services to, yes, special needs children. This is the Catch 22 of conservative politics. You would be forced to have a child you cannot care for but will receive no help from the government that forced you to have it.

But aside from Santorum’s one track mind, prenatal testing does, actually, serve a vital function aside from determining to terminate a pregnancy. I know this from personal experience.

Several years ago, my wife’s cousin found out very late in her pregnancy that her baby had [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly"]Anencephaly[/url]. The baby had not developed a brain beyond the most rudimentary of functions. Its heart and lungs would pump and breath and the baby would be alive in only the most technical of senses. It would never grow, smile, speak, walk or crawl. It can usually be detected by a sonogram but not always.

Further testing would have revealed it but as it would have been cost the insurance company extra, no testing was done until it was far too late. She had to have a third trimester abortion. I can imagine had she lived in Kansas she would have been threatened and denounced by fanatics who would not have taken the time to learn the details of her suffering. In Rick Santorum’s world, she would have delivered that baby stillborn or watched it die slowly over the course of a few weeks.

Mandated prenatal testing would have saved my wife and I a good deal of grief as well. Our first two pregnancies ended in a miscarriage because there was an easily correctable problem that went undetected. Why? Because our insurance company would not pay for the testing and we couldn’t afford it out of pocket.

I don’t necessarily blame them for the first miscarriage, although if they were less concerned about profit, we might have had the tests and prevented the loss. I certainly blame them for the second which terminated in exactly the same way and could have also been prevented had our insurance authorized the test. If we were rich, we could have just paid for it ourselves, but we weren’t and so we lost the second baby as well. Why? So some insurance company executive can get paid millions?

A message for all of you “free market” lovers out there: A “free market” is never free. There’s always a cost and it’s more often than not measured in human suffering.

So, yes, Mr. Santorum, sometimes prenatal testing leads to abortion. But sometimes it leads to saving the life of the baby or avoiding profound and unnecessary misery. In your rush to strip us all of our rights so as to conform to your Biblical ethics, would you, perhaps, care to factor that into your equation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Estoy de acuerdo con Artaguito... El gobierno no debe de obligar a las iglesias a nada... Y las iglesias no estan obligadas a solicitar ayuda economica del estado si los requisitos de este van en contra del dogma de su religion. Muy sencillo. No quieren repartir condones y demas, no mamen de la ubre gubernamental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Y yo??? gozandoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo



[b] Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him[/b]


[b] By [url="/eugene-robinson/2011/02/24/ABPAwVN_page.html"]Eugene Robinson[/url], Published: February 20[/b]




Republicans haven’t quite thrown away what they see as a winnable presidential election, at least not yet. But they’re trying their best.

In GOP circles, there is more than a whiff of panic in the air. Unemployment is still painfully high, Americans remain dissatisfied with the country’s direction, even the most favorable polls show President Obama’s approval at barely 50 percent — and yet there is a sense that the Republicans’ odds of winning back the White House grow longer day by day.



Mitt Romney, whose main selling point is his supposed ability to beat Obama in November, has shown himself incapable of putting away a couple of — let’s face it — political has-beens whose glory days were in the previous century.

Romney was crushed by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, which has a history of picking the Republican nominee — perhaps because the party’s most loyal voters, as well as its heart and soul, reside in the South. Romney was beaten by Rick Santorum, of all people, in the heartland states of Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, as well as in Colorado, a key swing state.

And, according to the polls, Romney is in grave danger of losing to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-santorum-leads-in-michigan-polls/2012/02/16/gIQAZZDcHR_blog.html"]Santorum[/url] next week in [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-faces-major-test-in-michigan-primary-once-thought-an-easy-win/2012/02/14/gIQAffpcDR_story.html"]Michigan[/url], the state where Romney was born and raised. If this were to occur, Santorum’s tentative status as the new front-runner for the nomination would be confirmed. Hence the wave of fear that is washing over the GOP establishment.

The prospect of a Romney flame-out has given rise to crazy talk about a brokered convention at which an attempt is made to dragoon somebody else, into accepting the nomination — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, just about anybody.

This remote scenario would probably lead to a debacle. The last contested GOP convention was in 1976, when incumbent Gerald Ford narrowly defeated insurgent Ronald Reagan — and then lost to Jimmy Carter in the fall. Back then, the establishment still had the clout to impose its will on the party. Today, restive constituencies such as the Tea Party refuse to get pushed around by — to use a Gingrich term — political “elites.” The convention hall in Tampa would be a battle zone.

But what’s the alternative? At the moment, Gingrich seems to be fading. This could change in March if he does well on [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/newt-gingrichs-risky-super-tuesday-strategy/2012/02/16/gIQAznOWJR_blog.html"]Super Tuesday[/url], but for now it looks like a race between Romney, who has trouble communicating with voters, and Santorum, whose message is alarmingly clear.

At times, it seems as if Santorum is running to become [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-weaving-faith-into-campaign-santorum-resorts-to-chiding-opponents/2012/02/19/gIQANddFOR_story.html"]theologian in chief[/url]. He made the bizarre allegation Saturday that Obama’s actions are motivated by “some [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/santorum-stands-by-statement-that-obamas-theology-not-based-on-the-bible/2012/02/18/gIQAfXGAMR_blog.html"]phony theology[/url], not a theology based on the Bible.” On Sunday, he said by way of clarification that he understands Obama is a Christian, but that the president was somehow [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorums-phony-excuses/2012/02/20/gIQAbbrLPR_blog.html"]misinterpreting God’s truth[/url] — as revealed to Rick Santorum — about our duty to be stewards of the Earth.

This is not customary fodder for a presidential campaign. Nor is Santorum’s obvious obsession with women’s reproductive issues — not just his absolute opposition to abortion but his criticism of contraception and [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-prenatal-testing-encourages-abortions/2012/02/19/gIQAvmZeNR_blog.html"]prenatal testing[/url] as well.

[color=#ff0000][b]Santorum’s social conservatism is a huge iceberg, and his views on women and childbearing are just the tip. He not only opposes gay marriage but has criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws and declared that “I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.”[/b][/color]

[b]That alone would be enough to put him well [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-adds-fuel-to-the-culture-wars/2012/02/18/gIQA3v1NMR_blog.html"]outside the mainstream[/url]. But his Ozzie-and-Harriet ideas about family life place him in a different solar system.[/b]

In his 2005 book, “[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193223683X?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=193223683X"]It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good[/url],” [b]he lectured women who choose to work outside the home, writing that “the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.”[/b]

Convenient rationalization? Given all the money Santorum has made as a Washington insider since leaving office, perhaps he forgets that most American families need two incomes just to put food on the table.

[b]The issue, for Republicans, is not just that Santorum would lose in November. It’s that he could be [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/is-santorum-the-sharon-angle-of-2012/2012/02/18/gIQAdjU8LR_blog.html"]a drag[/url] on House and Senate candidates as well. Imagine, say, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) trying to explain to his constituents why someone who doesn’t fully understand women’s participation in the workforce should be president.[/b]

[color=#ff0000]Listen closely and you can hear the anguished cries: “Mitch! Chris! Jeb! Help!”[/color]

Please Login or Register to see this image.

/hysterical.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':hysterical:' />

Please Login or Register to see this image.

/hysterical.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':hysterical:' />

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bueno, veamos los que propone Eugene Robinson...

De estos Mitch Daniels es el unico con posibilidades.

Christie ya dijo que no le interesa.

Jeb Bush tiene su cola que le pisen y es tipico de la dinastia Bush donde hubo un tio que se vio a ley de nada de ser acusado de traicion por venderle combustible a los nazis... Para mayores datos: [url="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm"]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm[/url] y [url="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3308.htm"]http://www.informati...article3308.htm[/url]

Hay otras opciones. Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[quote name='mimapr' timestamp='1329791924' post='2946962']
No se porque los republicanos conservadores se preocupan tanto por los anticonceptivos y no se preocupan por tantos curas pedofilos que abusan de los nenes.....eso esta permitido en la biblia?
[/quote]

Los republicanos necesitan 'bullsh:t issues' como dice Bill Maher para distraer a la gente estúp:da que es susceptible a propaganda religiosa, para evadir los issues verdaderos.

La táctica no es nada nueva. Siempre han tenido 'bullsh:t issues'.

[quote name='mimapr' timestamp='1329791924' post='2946962']
Listen to Dianne Schram, who expresses a deeper sense of unease in a letter that appeared Saturday in the Detroit Free Press:

[b]“It is a sad day in America when you have to compromise your religious rights. This disagreement has nothing to do with birth control, sterilization or abortion; it is the right given to us in the First Amendment, separation of church and state.[/b][/quote]

Otra religiosa haciendose la victima? Cuando son los derechos de la gente que no cree (el 18 % de la población) los que estan siendo violados. Si una persona no comparte las creencias catolicas, por ejemplo, el estado no deberia forzar a esa persona a asumir los tabues del catolicismo sobre su cuerpo.

Si miramos los [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z8P9vufl_E"]resultados del censo en Reino Unido[/url] veremos que en Europa es aun mayor la cantidad de gente que no cree, lo cual hace que sea surreal la clase de poder que ejercen las religiones y el modo en que le quieren imponer sus agendas a la mayoría de la población.

Los políticos van a tener un 'rude awakening' cuando se den cuenta de lo irrelevantes que son las religiones, del modo en que hay mucha menos gente dispuesta a votar hipnotizados por estos bullshi+ issues.

Creo que es importante que la gente que no es crédula se unan y se organicen políticamente. Los ateos y secularistas somos una minoria mas grande que los negros, los hispanos, los asiaticos, los judios, los musulmanes, los gays, sin embargo el ateo es un ciudadano invisible y uno de los mas repudiados por gran parte del establecimiento, sobre todo politico.

El video [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzGieIRLd5g"]Atheism Saves: Some scary statistics for Theists[/url] menciona varias estadísticas alarmantes asociadas con la religión, y menciona en específico el modo en que Suecia es el pais mas ateo y tiene los mas bajos niveles de mortandad infantil, de crimen violento, bajos niveles de enfermedades venereas y hasta de adiccion a drogas (aunque muchas drogas y la prostitucion son legales) ... tambien tienen puntuaciones mas elevadas en las pruebas que se hacen en las escuelas, estan entre los pueblos mejor educados del mundo. Al lado del video se citan innumerables fuentes de datos para corroborar y expandir estos datos.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PEmSLoDwiQ"]Estadísticas relacionadas al ateismo[/url]: 93 % de los miembros de la Academia de las Ciencias son ateos. Europa es mayormente atea. Las prisiones casi no tienen ateos. [b]Hay estudios que muestran una relación positiva entre ateismo e inteligencia / niveles de educación, junto a bajos niveles de crimen y divorcio[/b]. Los países mas religiosos muestran mayores niveles de desigualdad social y económica y elevados niveles de violencia y crimen: de hecho EU es el pais desarrollado mas religioso y tiene la población en prisión mas grande del planeta. El video [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v0yI2VnHUU&list=FLzUxYrdG3x0_4nOLaz6uqzA&index=159&feature=plpp_video"]Breaking Down Atheist Prejudice[/url] contiene mas estadisticas que afirman similares conclusiones.

El video Mississipi vs. New Hampshire es aún mas elocuente:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QrJnW2VAmM[/media]

Presumiblemente, si los políticos son anti-ateismo es porque quieren una poblacion menos educada, mas sumisa y dócil, mas manipulable, porque quieren una clase laboral mas barata que este dispuesta a trabajar en sweatshops sin quejarse y porque algunos d estos politicos son parte de esa peculiarmente inmoral y despreciable porción de la clase dominante capitalista que quiere incluso un lucrativo sistema de prisiones privatizadas donde cada prisionero sea una mina de oro para los inversionistas. Edited by NewJLo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

New JLo: [color=#ff0000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][i]Presumiblemente, si los políticos son anti-ateismo es porque quieren una poblacion menos educada, mas sumisa y dócil, mas manipulable, porque quieren una clase laboral mas barata que este dispuesta a trabajar en sweatshops sin quejarse y porque algunos d estos politicos son parte de esa peculiarmente inmoral y despreciable porción de la clase dominante capitalista que quiere incluso un lucrativo sistema de prisiones privatizadas donde cada prisionero sea una mina de oro para los inversionistas.[/i] [/font][/color]

Ves lo que te digo Charlie, no puedes competir con JLo en el departamento de 'Multiple Blame Class Warfare', ella ya tiene an~os de practica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No trato de competir en eso.

Ni asumo que en todo se equivoca el adversario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0