Check out this article by Verily, Love and Living Green. We are becoming increasingly obsessed with organic, hormone free foods and products across the grocery stores - except when it comes to birth control.
You can make the comparison between birth control and other medication, saying that it's no more unnatural for us to use hormonal contraception to 'treat' various symptoms than it is for us to take a prescription antibiotic for an infection. I don't buy that at all. Please, try to convince me that fertility is a disease that needs to be cured.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
And So It Begins..
Oh, CNN. Why do you toy with me?
I am so glad I got this screenshot before they corrected it.
Here is the full text of the Supreme Court Decision on the ACA.
The page numbers below refer to the second document in the PDF (the first is only a few pages): the Opinion of the Court.
Perhaps this is why CNN got it wrong this morning. On p 27, "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”
woohoo! It is unsustainable! Oh, wait. It's just unsustainable under the Commerce Clause. But it's alright if we call it a tax.
I get that the ACA Individual Mandate can be interpreted as a tax. The Justices are supposed to interpret the law in a way that would keep it constitutional, if they can. That they did. Still, it's interesting that they have deemed it a tax.
It's a tax. Did you hear that? It IS a tax. So that's why this is so funny.
From the text again, end of page 31, "And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that
does not do so."
First meaning:
"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance"
And at the top of 32: "Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause,
and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one."
That's the second interpretation.
Ok, makes sense.
"The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932)."
Oh. So the straightforward meaning of a law doesn't have to be the only interpretation, but 'fairly possible' interpretations are valid?
"As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). " p 32
I didn't know that - every possibility must be entertained before determining unconstitutionality. I suppose it's like deciding a 'guilty' verdict - innocent with reasonable doubt, and guilty only when no doubt remains. If there is a feasible alternative to a guilty verdict, the defendant (in this case the ACA Individual Mandate), must go free.
But then it doesn't matter what Congress' argument was in the first place? It doesn't matter that they argued that this was NOT a tax? Apparently not.
Bottom of 33:
"It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power."
I am so glad I got this screenshot before they corrected it.
Here is the full text of the Supreme Court Decision on the ACA.
The page numbers below refer to the second document in the PDF (the first is only a few pages): the Opinion of the Court.
Perhaps this is why CNN got it wrong this morning. On p 27, "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”
woohoo! It is unsustainable! Oh, wait. It's just unsustainable under the Commerce Clause. But it's alright if we call it a tax.
I get that the ACA Individual Mandate can be interpreted as a tax. The Justices are supposed to interpret the law in a way that would keep it constitutional, if they can. That they did. Still, it's interesting that they have deemed it a tax.
It's a tax. Did you hear that? It IS a tax. So that's why this is so funny.
From the text again, end of page 31, "And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that
does not do so."
First meaning:
"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance"
And at the top of 32: "Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause,
and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one."
That's the second interpretation.
Ok, makes sense.
"The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932)."
Oh. So the straightforward meaning of a law doesn't have to be the only interpretation, but 'fairly possible' interpretations are valid?
"As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). " p 32
I didn't know that - every possibility must be entertained before determining unconstitutionality. I suppose it's like deciding a 'guilty' verdict - innocent with reasonable doubt, and guilty only when no doubt remains. If there is a feasible alternative to a guilty verdict, the defendant (in this case the ACA Individual Mandate), must go free.
But then it doesn't matter what Congress' argument was in the first place? It doesn't matter that they argued that this was NOT a tax? Apparently not.
Bottom of 33:
"It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power."
They cite several precedents to support this. Congress was wrong to deny that the penalties for non-compliance were a tax, but they are nonetheless, and it is within Congress' power to tax.
Here they are:
States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935): “Disregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.”
United ; cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310 (1992) : “[M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941): “In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it” (internal quotation marks omitted)
United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978): “That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty’ . . . does not alter their essential character as taxes”
That's how I read the ruling, anyway.
I have no doubt that a conservative majority could have found and worded a full justification for striking down the Individual mandate. After all, four of the nine Justices did not find the majority's argument sufficient. As it is now, I have only just realized the grave significance of the appointments of the most recent justices, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan by President Obama.
I don't know much at all about the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have been the deciding vote in this case, and he was appointed by George W. Bush.
I won't say this decision was wrong since I have no experience, no authority, and no comprehensive argument to support that. Right now my biggest disappointment is due to the fact that this is not over, and they fight for religious freedom must go forward. I was honestly hoping the ACA would be struck down just so all of the HHS lawsuits would be unnecessary.
Check out this graphic
I can't deny that the ACA has been helpful, but I am so worried about the costs, to both our finances and our liberty.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Common Arguments, Part 1
I would like to go into detail about some common arguments supporting the HHS contraception mandate and condemning opposition to the mandate:
1. Separation of Church and State
I found it interesting that "separation of church and state" is not a phrase found anywhere in the Constitution or it's amendments, the Bill of Rights. Rather, the first amendment reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In context, we see that Congress cannot make laws restricting this group of rights. The question is, which right is violated? Would a religious exemption to the HHS mandate be a law 'respecting an establishment of religion,' or does a law requiring an employer to provide a service against their conscience and religious beliefs "a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Well, what does it mean for a law to respect an establishment of religion? As I understand it, this law would have to apply to one establishment, one religion, one denomination. The Catholic Church has made the loudest objections to the mandate, but they are not alone.
In fact, USA today has an article outlining Protestant leaders' petition for a broader exemption to the birth control mandate. Signers of the petition include Evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christians.
Clearly, allowing for a broader exemption (that would exempt anyone who objected to the mandate on religious grounds) is something that would benefit many different religions. But are Christians the only ones objecting? If so, couldn't it be argued that a broader exemption would be a law respecting Christianity, as a religion, and no one else?
Let's see.. (Google searching..)
Ah yes. The Jewish Daily Forward has a call-to-arms to its readers to defend this injustice. This narrow exemption (that only includes churches, really) is a re-definition of a religious institution written by a department whose chairperson was appointed by our president. Catholicism, like Judaism, focuses on inward and outward service. This was mentioned in both the Protestant petition and the Jewish Daily Forward articles. Because of their outward service to the poor, hungry, young, old, students, homeless, sick, dying, or despairing people, they are labeled 'non-religious' by the current exemption.
I would like to make a quick point on 'religious exemptions' : There has always been a "conscience clause" for situations such as these. However, the department of Health and Human Services wrote an overriding, new exemption that only includes institutions that employ and serve people primarily of their own faith, "have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," and is non-profit under the IRC. This can be found on the HHS website - let me know if you want a search.
This is why schools, hospitals, and charities are not included. Even if they are non-profit, they still cannot satisfy the three other requirements: they employ teachers, doctors, social workers based on merit and character and not on religion; they enroll students, treat sick, and help poor people regardless of religion; and they, by mere definition, cannot declare their purpose to be the inculcation of religious values. They are schools, hospitals, and charities.
But wait! These are all religious groups. Changing the mandate would still be respecting a religion, right? No non-religious object to this ruling, right? Wrong. No one should be forced to pay for and provide a service that they morally oppose.
(Edit: I can't find a strictly atheist group against the mandate. I did find 'atheists against abortion,' and 'secular pro-life.' I also found an article on the first secular business to file a lawsuit against the department of Health and Human Services.)
I seem to have digressed from the question at hand. Would a broader exemption be a violation of separation of church and state? How could it be, when it has been in place for decades? The first conscience clause was established the same year that Roe v. Wade was settled.
One more question: why do we keep saying 'separation of church and state" when it isn't even in the Constitution? Good ol' Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, in 1802. Was he writing them to tell them 'sorry, but we can't write any laws protecting your special rights' ? No - exactly the opposite. The Danbury Baptists were afraid that they're religious practices might be regulated or controlled by the state. To quote,
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
1. Separation of Church and State
I found it interesting that "separation of church and state" is not a phrase found anywhere in the Constitution or it's amendments, the Bill of Rights. Rather, the first amendment reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
In context, we see that Congress cannot make laws restricting this group of rights. The question is, which right is violated? Would a religious exemption to the HHS mandate be a law 'respecting an establishment of religion,' or does a law requiring an employer to provide a service against their conscience and religious beliefs "a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Well, what does it mean for a law to respect an establishment of religion? As I understand it, this law would have to apply to one establishment, one religion, one denomination. The Catholic Church has made the loudest objections to the mandate, but they are not alone.
In fact, USA today has an article outlining Protestant leaders' petition for a broader exemption to the birth control mandate. Signers of the petition include Evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christians.
Clearly, allowing for a broader exemption (that would exempt anyone who objected to the mandate on religious grounds) is something that would benefit many different religions. But are Christians the only ones objecting? If so, couldn't it be argued that a broader exemption would be a law respecting Christianity, as a religion, and no one else?
Let's see.. (Google searching..)
Ah yes. The Jewish Daily Forward has a call-to-arms to its readers to defend this injustice. This narrow exemption (that only includes churches, really) is a re-definition of a religious institution written by a department whose chairperson was appointed by our president. Catholicism, like Judaism, focuses on inward and outward service. This was mentioned in both the Protestant petition and the Jewish Daily Forward articles. Because of their outward service to the poor, hungry, young, old, students, homeless, sick, dying, or despairing people, they are labeled 'non-religious' by the current exemption.
I would like to make a quick point on 'religious exemptions' : There has always been a "conscience clause" for situations such as these. However, the department of Health and Human Services wrote an overriding, new exemption that only includes institutions that employ and serve people primarily of their own faith, "have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," and is non-profit under the IRC. This can be found on the HHS website - let me know if you want a search.
This is why schools, hospitals, and charities are not included. Even if they are non-profit, they still cannot satisfy the three other requirements: they employ teachers, doctors, social workers based on merit and character and not on religion; they enroll students, treat sick, and help poor people regardless of religion; and they, by mere definition, cannot declare their purpose to be the inculcation of religious values. They are schools, hospitals, and charities.
But wait! These are all religious groups. Changing the mandate would still be respecting a religion, right? No non-religious object to this ruling, right? Wrong. No one should be forced to pay for and provide a service that they morally oppose.
(Edit: I can't find a strictly atheist group against the mandate. I did find 'atheists against abortion,' and 'secular pro-life.' I also found an article on the first secular business to file a lawsuit against the department of Health and Human Services.)
I seem to have digressed from the question at hand. Would a broader exemption be a violation of separation of church and state? How could it be, when it has been in place for decades? The first conscience clause was established the same year that Roe v. Wade was settled.
One more question: why do we keep saying 'separation of church and state" when it isn't even in the Constitution? Good ol' Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, in 1802. Was he writing them to tell them 'sorry, but we can't write any laws protecting your special rights' ? No - exactly the opposite. The Danbury Baptists were afraid that they're religious practices might be regulated or controlled by the state. To quote,
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Sure it's open to interpretation, but within the context of the Baptists' concerns, I think it's clear that Jefferson would not be happy with the current state of affairs.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Earl Grey Poppy seed Muffins
I made these muffins from this recipe by rasberri cupcakes (one of my favorite baking blogs). They came out just as delicious and satisfying as promised in the blog post. I made them mini-size, and used the rest of the batter in a mini-loaf. Why mini? Perhaps I wanted to be different. Or maybe I wanted to be able to eat more of them, telling myself it was OK since they're so small.
Here is my rack of muffins:
I followed the recipe as written, using Apricot Preserves for the glaze. Don't skip this step! The preserves or marmalade give the muffins the right amount of extra sweetness - the muffins themselves are not too sweet.
As ordered in the recipe, I enjoyed a small pile of muffins with a cup of tea :).
Here is my rack of muffins:
I followed the recipe as written, using Apricot Preserves for the glaze. Don't skip this step! The preserves or marmalade give the muffins the right amount of extra sweetness - the muffins themselves are not too sweet.
As ordered in the recipe, I enjoyed a small pile of muffins with a cup of tea :).
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Where are the Women?
I love this guy! This is a video from a hearing in February on the HHS mandate. This is the same hearing that prompted one of the Democrat representatives to ask of the Republican majority, "Where are the women?" (You may have seen that quote floating around). I've been watching pieces of it, and apparently the Democrats were mad because Sandra Fluke (the Georgetown Law student) was not accepted as an appropriate witness. Having no professional experience in the topics of the hearing - freedom of religion, medicine, church and state, etc - she was rejected. It is also noteworthy that she was only presented as a requested witness 2 days after the cut-off for new witnesses, and less than 24 hours before the hearing.
For Mr. Gowdy's part, I watched from about 2:20:13 to 2:25:45.
Where were the women at that hearing?
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Woe..
Well, I just had an unexpected emotional blow... I won't go into details, because there is so much I have to sort out and decide for myself, and it feels so personal. Basically, my faith in an institution that was so important to me has been shaken. My first instinct was to defend them, which resulted in a backlash from people I thought would understand. Now I am doubting myself and everything I have believed about this entity. How can something so close to home be guilty of their charges? I can't believe it yet - I must be patient and take the time to understand the full situation before judgement can be made. What does this mean for me, my family, and my future daughters? I have no idea, but right now it doesn't look good.
I have to channel this emotion to something else right now, or this will consume me for the rest of the weekend.
Mother's day is tomorrow, and I just found this amazing idea:
DIY Glass Etching
You can etch anything into any glass dish! I with I had time to do this for my mother or grandmother tomorrow, but it will have to wait until the next birthday, or maybe Christmas.
I'm thinking of etching names into the sides of some of my mom's many many pie dishes..
Update:
I did it! Well, not exactly. But almost.
I started shopping around at Joann's for the etching cream, but they recommended a hardware store instead. They didn't carry it, and neither would Michaels (for reasons involving vandalism!). I bought a couple of vases, deciding to etch them if possible but if that failed I could at least get flowers for them.
I headed over to Lowes, and hoped to find it without having to ask someone for help. I just feel like it's so obvious I don't belong in there. I have no idea what I'm doing, and the last thing I want is for someone to try to help the 'lost little lady.' That's exactly what I had to ask for, but they didn't have it either. They recommended Michaels. This being Saturday night (I can't do anything unless its the absolute last hour, apparently), I was a bit desperate. The very helpful Lowes employees (yes, it took two. Slow day. Who shops at Lowes the day before Mother's Day?) showed me the spray paint aisle, and pointed out a 'frosting' spray for glass/plastic/mirrors. Obviously, the item I used it on would no longer be oven, microwave, or dishwasher safe, but it would work for a vase.
Results:
Here is my mom's vase - the other side has her name.
I used contact paper instead of vinyl, and followed the directions for cutting the words. I have become somewhat skilled with an exacto knife, so it wasn't too bad. Then I took them outside and sprayed them a few times with the froster.
Some things I learned:
1. Cover the whole vase with something plastic. I cut larger than necessary pieces of contact paper so it would cover all sides of the vase. Then I taped plastic from a bag to the top, closing the top.
That way, no frosting spray gets in where it shouldn't.
2. Make sure you take the top layer of contact paper off of the cut-out layer. The instructions have you place a whole piece over the cut-out, then remove the cut-out backing and put the paper in place on the vase. This keeps things like the holes in a's, o's, e's, etc. in place. After it's on the vase, take off that top layer so you're not spraying (or spreading etching cream, if you ever find it) on the plastic.
2b. Check your closed letters! The a, e, o, b, d, etc will have a tiny circle that needs to be on the glass in the right spot, or you'll end up with your letters filled in.
3. If you want to spray a bit, go inside, come back later and spray some more, make sure you don't wait too long. I did, and some pieces of the contact paper at the cut edges was peeling back a bit. I though it wouldn't make much of a difference, but the letters ended up a bit blurred and I had to scrape away excess with a knife. That said, if it was etching cream and it blurred, there would be nothing I could do to fix it.
This was a really fun and not to difficult project. When I finally get my hands on some etching cream, I am totally personalizing all my pyrex dishes.
I have to channel this emotion to something else right now, or this will consume me for the rest of the weekend.
Mother's day is tomorrow, and I just found this amazing idea:
DIY Glass Etching
You can etch anything into any glass dish! I with I had time to do this for my mother or grandmother tomorrow, but it will have to wait until the next birthday, or maybe Christmas.
I'm thinking of etching names into the sides of some of my mom's many many pie dishes..
So cute! And it looks easy. In the comments, people have said that contact paper works instead of vinyl. Now all I need is to buy the etching cream, and 'borrow' some dishes from my mom...
Update:
I did it! Well, not exactly. But almost.
I started shopping around at Joann's for the etching cream, but they recommended a hardware store instead. They didn't carry it, and neither would Michaels (for reasons involving vandalism!). I bought a couple of vases, deciding to etch them if possible but if that failed I could at least get flowers for them.
I headed over to Lowes, and hoped to find it without having to ask someone for help. I just feel like it's so obvious I don't belong in there. I have no idea what I'm doing, and the last thing I want is for someone to try to help the 'lost little lady.' That's exactly what I had to ask for, but they didn't have it either. They recommended Michaels. This being Saturday night (I can't do anything unless its the absolute last hour, apparently), I was a bit desperate. The very helpful Lowes employees (yes, it took two. Slow day. Who shops at Lowes the day before Mother's Day?) showed me the spray paint aisle, and pointed out a 'frosting' spray for glass/plastic/mirrors. Obviously, the item I used it on would no longer be oven, microwave, or dishwasher safe, but it would work for a vase.
Results:
This first one is for my grandmother. On this side is her name, and the other side says 'Sittie' (what we call her).
Here is my mom's vase - the other side has her name.
I used contact paper instead of vinyl, and followed the directions for cutting the words. I have become somewhat skilled with an exacto knife, so it wasn't too bad. Then I took them outside and sprayed them a few times with the froster.
Some things I learned:
1. Cover the whole vase with something plastic. I cut larger than necessary pieces of contact paper so it would cover all sides of the vase. Then I taped plastic from a bag to the top, closing the top.
That way, no frosting spray gets in where it shouldn't.
2. Make sure you take the top layer of contact paper off of the cut-out layer. The instructions have you place a whole piece over the cut-out, then remove the cut-out backing and put the paper in place on the vase. This keeps things like the holes in a's, o's, e's, etc. in place. After it's on the vase, take off that top layer so you're not spraying (or spreading etching cream, if you ever find it) on the plastic.
2b. Check your closed letters! The a, e, o, b, d, etc will have a tiny circle that needs to be on the glass in the right spot, or you'll end up with your letters filled in.
3. If you want to spray a bit, go inside, come back later and spray some more, make sure you don't wait too long. I did, and some pieces of the contact paper at the cut edges was peeling back a bit. I though it wouldn't make much of a difference, but the letters ended up a bit blurred and I had to scrape away excess with a knife. That said, if it was etching cream and it blurred, there would be nothing I could do to fix it.
This was a really fun and not to difficult project. When I finally get my hands on some etching cream, I am totally personalizing all my pyrex dishes.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Online Misery
This is me - taking one of these 3 paths to internet despair. I won't venture over to reddit, but this article is pretty funny.
The three paths are:
"a) Reading the news.
b) Caring about the news.
c) Trolling Planned Parenthood’s Facebook for 2 or 3 minutes."
I have done all three of these things, and I have never come out of it feeling better about anything. Reading and caring about the news, and reading the snide, hateful, degrading posts that are published every day on Planned Parenthood's facebook page put me in such a bad mood. (Really, take my word for it. Don't go there and drag yourself down too.)
This blog recommends the r/atheism page on Reddit as a place to find humor in opposing opinions. The blogger, Marc, says the site is funny (in a sad way) for these reasons:
"Every post is either
a) Obliviously and embarrassingly wrong, in which case much joyful correcting can be made.
b) Blisteringly right, in which case everything the Church has been saying is wrong with modern Christianity is vindicated.
c) Hilariously cliched, which lends itself to ecstasy of mockage, mimicry and spontaneous singing. (Oooooh, that freedom of religioooonnn means freedom from religiiooonn! ladadadaday!)"
Heehehe..
Follow the link if you want to see some reddit examples of poking fun at Christianity, but I'll share my favorite image from Marc's post:
:)
The three paths are:
"a) Reading the news.
b) Caring about the news.
c) Trolling Planned Parenthood’s Facebook for 2 or 3 minutes."
I have done all three of these things, and I have never come out of it feeling better about anything. Reading and caring about the news, and reading the snide, hateful, degrading posts that are published every day on Planned Parenthood's facebook page put me in such a bad mood. (Really, take my word for it. Don't go there and drag yourself down too.)
This blog recommends the r/atheism page on Reddit as a place to find humor in opposing opinions. The blogger, Marc, says the site is funny (in a sad way) for these reasons:
"Every post is either
a) Obliviously and embarrassingly wrong, in which case much joyful correcting can be made.
b) Blisteringly right, in which case everything the Church has been saying is wrong with modern Christianity is vindicated.
c) Hilariously cliched, which lends itself to ecstasy of mockage, mimicry and spontaneous singing. (Oooooh, that freedom of religioooonnn means freedom from religiiooonn! ladadadaday!)"
Heehehe..
Follow the link if you want to see some reddit examples of poking fun at Christianity, but I'll share my favorite image from Marc's post:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)