From the (Pea)Nut Gallery
Not everyone is a constitutional scholar
From the (Pea)Nut Gallery
When you write about religion, you can expect some feedback from the asylums.
This week was no exception.
In response to my recent column about the birth control mandate, several irate readers (who apparently get newspaper privileges between electro-shock therapy) took issue with my suggestion that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from forcing private organizations to directly or indirectly subsidize birth control if this violated their beliefs.
Here are some of the more colorful responses, and while it occurred to me to include full names and emails in case any of you were interested in corresponding with my 'friends,' I realize that postal rates to the Twilight Zone might be prohibitive.
From John R:
There is something wrong with you. Your religion is so far up your ass, you have a problem thinking straight. It's ok for priest to fondle little boys. It's ok for your sacred church to hide it for years. But YOU want to stop a woman from going to a pharmacy on a prescription plan and get birth control. You are seriously screwed up. Stop forcing us to we [sic] sick like you. What a bitch.
(Blogger's note: When you don't have profundity, use profanity)
From wwwd666:
It's hard to believe you're a lawyer. Geez, in a country where, under the consitution, the courts are a co-equal branch of government, and they actually strike down a portion of ACA that YOU don't like. THat's they way we operate. If you don't want birth control, don't take it. But don't have the audacity--or stupidity--to deny it to others who disagree with YOUR religious beliefs.
(Blogger's note: I have neither the desire, nor the ability, to deny a woman birth control. I do, however, have the right to keep her hands out of my pocket.)
From Wayne:
And the churches who is fighting this have issues in there self,especially the catholic church who hid outrageous sexual abuse and protected priest .wow and they now out rage ,instead they should be outrage at a culture of protecting priest and demonized abuse victims and we should listen to them!!!!!
(Blogger's note: Global warming wasn't caused by the abuse scandal, either. Stay on point, people...)
Thank God for emails. I don't know what I did for amusement before.
Duh, duh, and more duh. Christine writes a deliberately inflammatory (and predictably stupid and repetitive) column. People send her hate mail. She freaks and repeats the hate mail. How many times have we seen this before? So stupid. So stupid. So stupid!! (repeat ad nauseam) Get a new line of work Christine, or--how about this--stop writing stupid columns.— sophistry
To paraphrase something I read recently: "When you bang your head against the wall, it's your brain that gets damaged, not the wall."
Christine, stop banging your head.— ChrisElliottWasRight- It's really getting hard to read Christine's unhinged rants. They are the ramblings of a mentally unstable person. But what do you expect from someone who voted for Mittens Mandate? He was willing to do and say a thing to beco e President. What do you think Jesus would think of such a person?— The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- And carl, I did read scooby's comment about the payroll raise equal to the amount of the insurance co-pay. Things are seldom that simple or easy. (But at least the comment was delivered sans snark.)
Everyone pays insurance premiums, but not everyone uses the insurance. For example, I have no prescriptions to fill at the moment, but still have a pharmacy insurance plan. I am not even sure if the plan covers contraceptives.
We comingle so much of our monies in group plans that is it hard to separate who pays what, when and to whom.
— Gendres - Carl, you do not have to look to emails to find "crazy". You are new to the fan club. Stick around and you will see much insanity to amuse you.
BTW - is it "insane" to agree with the values of a religious conservative? Some think so.
— Gendres - I think it's insane to dictate that your religious beliefs be adhered to by others who don't believe in the same way. Religious conservatism is fine. The inquisition is not. — carl and sons
- Carl, I think the point here is that emails (and often comments on the board) can be both stupid and funny.
The serious comments do not entertain as well.
And, yes, it is impressive that Christine bothers to read any of it.
8-)— Gendres - No, crazy is more entertaining. This is the whole basis for talk radio- not the callers, the "hosts".
Maybe Christine should print the insane comments that agree with her. I'm sure there are some of those too.— carl and sons - If one of them happened to make a coherent point in opposition to one of your pieces, would you share that with us too? Or do you just print the stupid ones in an attempt to paint all those who disagree with you as stupid?
Just asking. I'm impressed that you bother to read them at all.— carl and sons - notusip - Thank you for an intelligently written comment.
How refreshing.
As you said, there have been countless court decisions based on the first amendment that further define or describe how much religious freedom is actually allowed.
In regard to the reimbursement for prescription drugs, the ACA has already made exceptions for religious institutions. The question becomes: can any employer request the same exemption if paying for contraceptives goes against his personal conscience?
Obviously, these questions must be taken further up the court ladder.
This is not a case for going to jail but for paying a fine.— Gendres - Scooby had a good solution in the comments for the other article. Employees who work for these suddenly "conscience stricken" businesses should recieve reimbursement for the amount of money that the birth control would cost, and make their own arrangements from there.
I'm sure these fine Christian (or Catholic) employers would support this opportunity to show that this is really about conscience and not merely about money.— carl and sons - I am a Quaker. Conducting war is against my religious beliefs. Nevertheless I am compelled to pay taxes that directly support war. I have no choice in this.
Federal courts have determined--most recently in the 1990's--that I may not have the percentage of my taxes that go towards supporting war held back.
Conscientious objectors may not be forced to kill, but those CO's who refuse to do alternative service, because it releases someone else to kill, go to prison. And many Quakers and members of other pacifist religious groups have chosen that path.
Our freedom of religion is contained in the phrase, "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Countless decisions have interpreted that phrase to mean that there are many occasions when members of religious groups are not free to carry out their beliefs: animal sacrifice, polygamy, refusal to pay war taxes, are some that come to mind, as well as the decision as to what legal prescription drugs one's employees may be reimbursed for.— notusip - Less, thanks, but commenters like snacks only provide comic relief. Never substance.
Hey, must get some Christmas decorations up......
Tooooodles.
8-)— Gendres - scoobysnacks, LOL - Don't you think you have met your quota of ignorant, obscene, low class commentary? Try giving reason and literacy a shot.— Gendres
- Seriously?! That's all you've got Flowers? How pathetically thin-skinned and quite lame. You need a different line of work - this isn't working out for you. Not at all.— B Beal 19146
- What kind of responses do you expect to receive when you write the kind of garbage that you do?
"You're right. You're always right, Christine. Let me count the ways in which you are right. Brava. Let me come over and kiss your backside."
Jeez. Don't you get enough of that from Gendres?— scoobysnacks - I don't want to be(too) to be mean, but this post was pretty funny. — carl and sons
- Chris, I am so glad these often illiterate emails (wayne in particular) amuse you.
Really, it all boils down to who pays for what here. Of course, we as taxpayers often compromise our values when paying taxes that we know go to purposes with which we do not morally agree. The list is endless.
But in the matter of employer provided group health insurance per se, an employer who must implement and support a mandatory program, should have some say in whether it violates his freedom of conscience.
Remember during the wartime draft, when draftees were given the option of doing non-combat service if carrying a gun violated their conscience? There is precedent for conscientious objection.
That should apply to employers as well.
There should be some accommodation for them uder the ACA.— Gendres 
That's right honey, if the ladies want their depth charges activated with taxpayer money, I should get my submarine Viagratized with federal funds.
And my Percocets, too.
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
