Get E-Mail Updates

Sam Hamilton

History

Member for
28 weeks 1 hour

Comments

Date Comment Source View
03/14/2012 - 7:46pm

Agreed.  Santorum's getting a lot more airtime and mileage out of this than he deserves.  He's simpy the non-Romney that has lasted the longest.

I do not right now have the specifics on what Maher said; when I get them I'll post them.

Any luck finding Maher's comment yet?

Santorum Shows the Religious Right isn’t Dead Yet view
03/14/2012 - 7:35pm

Well said Tim, thanks.

(Home) Schooling Bill Maher view
03/14/2012 - 7:35pm

Tim never said he watched it.

(Home) Schooling Bill Maher view
03/14/2012 - 7:32pm

Enough Already: It's Time For The Media To Tell The Truth About Who's Winning The GOP Nomination

The media is telling you that last night was a BIG WIN for Rick Santorum, and a big loss for Mitt Romney. They say there is a "narrative" ( that means story) where Romney hasn't solved his "Evangelical problem" and "has problems in the South"? This is a distraction. Let's talk votes and delegates.

Total up all the votes from all the primaries and caucuses and it looks like this:

Mitt Romney: 3,223,633 votes or (39.16%) of the votes cast.

Rick Santorum: 2,075,781 votes. or (25.22%) of the votes cast.

Mitt Romney has won almost 1.2 million more votes than Rick Santorum overall.  How much did Rick Santorum gain on him last night? 39,119 votes.

So in Rick Santorum's "big wins" he erased approximately 1.35 percent of Romney's lead in votes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/enough-already-can-the-media-stop-pretending-that-rick-santorum-is-beating-mitt-romney-2012-3

Santorum Shows the Religious Right isn’t Dead Yet view
03/14/2012 - 3:52pm

I like your perspective Michelle.  I think you'd find wide agreement among Christians that unplanned pregnancies, particularly among unmarried individuals is something we should try to reduce.  I'd also think you'd find wide agreement among Christians that pregnancy resource centers, support for mothers-to-be and new mothers, education about human physiology and sex are good things.  People might disagree on some of the details, but I doubt you'd find many Christians opposed to these things on a broad level.

I think you'd also find that Christians, in general, don't have a problem with insurance companies covering contraceptives.  I certainly don't.  No one is protesting the government mandate of contraceptive coverage for non-religious employers.  What people are protesting is the government mandating that religious employers provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans.  The protest over this mandate isn't some scheme cooked up by men who want simply to control women's bodies or punish people for having sex.  Take people at their word that this is really about religious liberty.

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 3:33pm

I do not right now have the specifics on what Maher said; when I get them I'll post them.

Are you kidding me?  Yesterday, you said Maher affirmed Rush Limbaugh's comments to Jesse in a failing attempt to try and disprove his point and now today you're saying you're not really sure what he said.  Perhaps you should have checked what Maher said before commenting.  I'll check back with you next time I see you post  on this blog to see if you've found Maher's comments.

No, it's about trying to equate one bad remark by Bill Maher with Rush Limbaugh's stock in trade, which is ridiculous given the larger context.  And that's why I called it a distraction.

That would have been a distraction, yet niether I nor Jesse was equating Maher with Limbaugh!  You brought Maher into this discussion in an attempt to disprove Jesse's point and then, when I showed you to misstating Maher's opinions, you starting talking about false equivalency between Maher and Limbaugh.  You're responsible for the distraction in this instance, no one else.

Disagreeing Wthout Being Disagreeable view
03/14/2012 - 3:22pm

stonecherub,

You made this argument before in a prior thread, so I'll respond how I did before.  Who, in this contraceptive debate, is the authority telling other people what they must do?  Who is the authority respecting the free will of individuals?

On one side, you have the Catholic Church.  It's leaders say that men and women using contraception goes against the intention of God.  Yet the Church doesn't impose this rule on anyone.  It has no method of enforcement.  It simply says: "This is what we believe.  You, the individual, have free will to decide what to do."  There are no repercussions for any Catholic who uses birth control, as evidenced by the high numbers of those who do.

On the other side, you have the state.  The state says to the Catholic Church that if it provides health insurance to its employees, it must provide contraception coverage to them in its health insurance plan or forgo providing insurance coverage and pay a large fine.

Like you, I disagree with the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception.  But the Catholic Church has no power over me, you or even Roman Catholics to abstain from use of contraceptives.

So who's the authoritian in this situation?  To quote you from your prior post, which entity is saying “You will do what I goddamn-well tell you to do, when I goddamn-well tell you to do it!”?  Who has the power to force others to bend to its will?  Is it the Catholic Church or the state?

 

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 3:18pm

Perhaps they do see it as a money issue.  I don't know.  

Here's the poll:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/poll-finds-support-for-con...

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 2:49pm

Joseph Knippenberg at First Things analyses whether Romney has an “evangelical problem.”

He answers:

Yes. Is it a big problem? In one way, no: he’s usually within shouting distance of second place and often within hailing distance of first place. In another way, yes: the media narrative keeps telling us that Romney can’t win the evangelical vote. But consider this: in Mississippi, roughly 7,000 votes separated the winner (Santorum) from the third place finisher (Romney). A shift of less than 2% of the more than 200,000 evangelical voters from Santorum to Romney would have changed the picture completely. A second place finish would have required only a shift of about 1,000 votes from Gingrich to Romney. I know that close only counts in horseshoes (and delegate apportionment), but I’m not willing to base too much of an interpretation on numbers that small.

I know that saying that Romney 2012 is pretty dadgum close to McCain 2008 is damning the former with faint praise. But there aren’t many more states where the evangelical proportion of the electorate matches what we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks…But even if, as is likely (nay, certain), Romney’s path is tougher than McCain’s, we would do well to remember this last number: in 2008, McCain won Protestant weekly church attenders 2-1 over Obama. Nothing I’ve seen over the past three months or three years leads me to believe that any Republican candidate’s margin will be less than that.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/03/14/romney-and-the...

How to Measure the 'Evangelical Vote' view
03/14/2012 - 2:37pm

Well said Mick.  I'll take this type of discourse over that of Rush Limbaugh or "Jonny Stew" any time.

Blame the Comedians: Playing the Humor Card view
03/14/2012 - 2:29pm

Please don't hijack the thread.

How to Measure the 'Evangelical Vote' view
03/14/2012 - 2:00pm

Thanks for the reply Sandi; I appreciate it.  I'll admit I was a little confused after I wrote what I did and then I saw on your bio that your husband is a Lutheran preacher, yet it sounded like from your blog post that you've eschewed church.  Perhaps it was all the "we" talk in the blog post that made me think that'd you'd dropped out of going to church.

I totally get what you're saying about wanting to be outwardly focused rather than inwardly focused.  That's important both on the individual level and the congregational level.  I find that belonging to a congregation pushes me in that other-focused direction because otherwise I'd have a tendency to withdraw into my own world of ease.  I guess I'd say that an inwardly-focused congregation is a bad thing; and outwardly-focused congregation is a good thing.  But I don't think the fact that there are inwardly-focused congregations means that we should discourage the forming or joining of church congregations in general.  It sounds like you agree...

As long as this new movement is, as you say, a "both-and" scenario it sounds positive to me.  But we need solid, outwardly-focused institutions.  If you're interested, here's a blog post from Ross Douthat at the NYTimes that sort of relates to this topic:

"...this is one of the themes of my forthcoming book — the extent to which the story of religion in America over the last two generations is a story, not of outright secularization, but of institutional decline. Contemporary Americans are as religiously-minded as ever, but the rise of church-switching and do-it-yourself faith and the steady weakening of the traditional churches and communions has left the country without religious institutions capable of playing the kind of social role that Levin describes above. This organizational decline has been most pronounced within what’s often described as liberal Christianity — in the churches of the Protestant Mainline, and in the “Spirit of Vatican II” wing of the Catholic Church. But among more self-consciously conservative believers, too, constant church-shopping is commonplace (just ask Marco Rubio), national political causes often excite more interest than local social engagement, and the glue of confessional and denominational traditions is much weaker than in generations past. The vitality of American Christianity today is too often a vitality of individuals rather than institutions, or else of institutions that depend too heavily on a single personality for their strength and survival. We have plenty of celebrity pastors and authors and bloggers and television hosts, but the more corporate and communal forms of faith are growing weaker every day."

Here's the link:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/religion-and-the-social-crisis/

Young Evangelicals: Unaffiliated Does Not Always Mean UnChristian view
03/14/2012 - 1:09pm

ejackson - Can you provide some examples of unnecessary requirements that the establishment adds on?  I'm trying to get a better understanding of what the criticism is.  Thanks.

Young Evangelicals: Unaffiliated Does Not Always Mean UnChristian view
03/14/2012 - 1:06pm

Huh?  It was just an idea.  And it's not "because I said so" it's because God wants us to be generous with what he's blessed us with.  Calm down.  I never said NFL players don't donate money.  But it's pretty clear that judging by a lot of their lifestyles, they could afford to give more.  Heck, we all can.  

NFL Salary Increase Ten Times the Poverty Line view
03/14/2012 - 1:04pm

According to the NYTimes, only 36% of women think institutions that have religious objections to to contraception should be forced to cover it in their insurance policies.  This isn't even a winning issue for Democrats among women.

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 1:03pm

Wow, what a great story. Thanks Cathleen.

I liked the statements in the video about the importance of establishing relationships and the emphasis on meeting both worldly and spiritual needs.

Unfortunately, from the link provided, it doesn't look like you can vote unless you're a member of facebook.

LifeBuilders: Help Rebuild Lives (and Souls) in Detroit with the Click of a Mouse view
03/14/2012 - 11:35am

Good points Paul.

I'm on the younger end of the age spectrum (but I don't think I'm young enough to be considered a millenial).  I get this feeling from reading things like this that people want to avoid ever having bad experiences that come from associating themselves with people they haven't chosen to associate with.  One of the things I love about being part of the church congregation is that I'm forced to interact with people that I normally wouldn't if it was up to me.  The church brings in all sorts of people - different ages, ability levels, ethnicities, cultures, spiritual gifts, personality types, etc. and I'm forced to consider them all beloved by God and part of the body of Christ with me.

I recognize this could just be my personality.  I'm introverted and normally don't go out of my way to put myself outside my comfort zone.  Belonging to a church congregation forces me to do this though.  Not only that, the congregation pushes me to pray, engage in Bible study, worship, sing, rejoice in others' coming and growing in the faith (their baptism, their first communions, their confirmations, etc.).  Fellowship with other Christians is much more than simply getting together with your friends for a meal/drinks and watching a ball game.  There's nothing wrong with doing that of course, but we need more.  Our spiritual growth depends on so much more than community with other people that we choose to associate with who share our views and we enjoy hanging out with.

Yes, sometimes community within a congregation is messy.  Sometimes there are disputes.  Sometimes people get hurt.  Sometimes there is baggage that comes along with a denomination.  That's part of life.  There's always baggage whenever you join any sort of group or community.

I live in a major metropolitan area, so I might have a different perspective than someone who is living in a small town with only two or three church congregations to choose from, but there are so many options out there when it comes to churches it's hard for me to believe that someone can't find one congregation that they feel comfortable enough to associate with.  I'm familiar with the Washington, D.C. metro area and there are hundreds of churches of all sorts of styles and doctrines (or lackthereof) to choose from with 20-30 minutes of travel time.  If the author of this piece can't find one that meets all her wants, desires and dreams, then I would very hesitantly suggest that perhaps that's not a problem with the church congregations.

Young Evangelicals: Unaffiliated Does Not Always Mean UnChristian view
03/14/2012 - 11:28am

Nothing you've written here has anything to do with the fact that you were blatantly trying to change the subject when I corrected your misstatement about what Bill Maher said.  You still will not own up to the fact that you were factually incorrect about what Bill Maher said.  You're the one who's "unwilling to concede defeat" (although I don't look at discussions on this blog in terms of "defeating" anyone).

If, after my correction of your inaccuate characterization of Maher's comments, you'd simply said "Oh, you're right, thanks for the correction,"  this ridiculous conversation could have been avoided.  Instead, you act like your misstatment never occured and changed the subject to something else.  This conversation isn't about a clash of worldviews; it's about correcting misinformation you're spreading.

Disagreeing Wthout Being Disagreeable view
03/14/2012 - 11:20am

PLease explain what you mean by religious employers.

A religious employer in the context of this news article appears to be an employer that is affiliated with a church (e.g. a Catholic hospital, a Lutheran school, a homeless shelter run by a church, etc.)

Were you for the blunt law?

I don't know.  I didn't look at the details of it.

Is it ok for employers to dictate what's in an insurance policy?

As long as the employer follows the law, yes.

Isn't that the job of the state's insurance commissioner and now perhaps the federal gov't to get some standards?

Yes, insurance commissioners have been given that task, and the federal government has, to some degree, as well.

Is it ok for the fed to determine what's in medicare and medicaid?

I think state governments have a role to play in Medicaid coverage as well.  But of course the federal government can determine what is covered by Medicare and Medicaid.  Why shouldn't they?  The federal government (with some help from the states) administers these programs.

What's your point?

Disagreeing Wthout Being Disagreeable view
03/14/2012 - 11:11am

It must have.  His train of thought with me is farcical.  

Disagreeing Wthout Being Disagreeable view
03/14/2012 - 11:09am

Insurance coverage is not just compensation like cash; it's also a product.  No religious institution should be forced to distribute a product which violates it's religious beliefs.

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 10:31am

Perhaps someone should start a ministry to NFL players to encourage them to donate a good portion of their salaries to assist the poor.

NFL Salary Increase Ten Times the Poverty Line view
03/14/2012 - 10:20am

Thanks Michelle.  I had read her testimony at the time and it seemed strange that they wouldn't cover it, particularly since the insurance policy stated that it would cover the pill for non-contraceptive purposes.  It sounds like a glitch in that insurance policy that could be fixed.

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 10:19am

I don't think there'd ever have to be an inquisition by the employer.  I'm no expert on insurance policies, but I assume the insurance policy could say that it covers the pill for treatment of an illness but doesn't do so for contraceptive purposes.  Therefore, if a doctor prescribed it for one purpose, the insurance wouldn't cover it but if he/she did for the other, it would be covered.  The employer would never have to be involved.

Viagra is not a contraceptive.  It's a treatment for an ailment.  To my knowledged, the Catholic Church doesn't oppose medication designed to help the body function properly. I don't know why the Catholic Church, in your mind, should be against coverage of it.

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
03/14/2012 - 10:14am

I wouldn't think it'd make a difference how the institution came to be run by the Catholic Church.

Contraception Debate Overlooks the Obvious view
Election 2012