Althouse: Take this patriotism test.

October 15, 2012

Take this patriotism test.

First, watch this ad:

Now, here's the question:

181 comments:

bagoh20 said...: Although I believe in the message, it was not chill inducing. Show me an immigrant saying it, then I get chills.; 10/15/12, 10:39 AM
Tim said...: Oh oh.

That might result in "Let the children of losers lose? They deserve it?"

Time to get epically stupid.

Vote Obama!; 10/15/12, 10:43 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Don't agree with you, Althouse.

This ad addresses the Obama attack on religious freedom aimed at the Catholic Church.

The Obama admin really is doing that.; 10/15/12, 10:43 AM
Moose said...: Missing the "Political Hooey" choice.; 10/15/12, 10:45 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: The ad is aimed at Catholic voters, Althouse.

I think you missed the point this time.; 10/15/12, 10:45 AM
Salamandyr said...: I seem to be with the main. At the cry of "Liberty", I started to get the first stirrings of emotion, blooming into full-blown chills as the last remnants of the word "Freedom" died away.

I think, if the two words had been reversed "Freedom and Liberty", as they are generally uttered, they would not have had as powerful an effect.; 10/15/12, 10:46 AM
Wince said...: I got chills when I heard Ryan say, "We won't take away your second marshmallow... or at least not as much of it".; 10/15/12, 10:46 AM
MadisonMan said...: That's a cute kid, and the flag is fluttering just right.

No chills though.; 10/15/12, 10:49 AM
CJinPA said...: This takes on the under-appreciated "We're five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," spoken by Obama shortly before the 2008 election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxDdxzX0kI; 10/15/12, 10:49 AM
Tim said...: "This ad addresses the Obama attack on religious freedom aimed at the Catholic Church."

In in Ontario, Canada, the Minister of Education "declared October 10 that the province’s publicly funded Catholic schools may not teach students that abortion is wrong because such teaching amounts to “misogyny,” which is prohibited in schools under a controversial anti-bullying law."

"Reapply" our values? Western Civilization is in the process of committing Seppuku, with Liberalism as its second.

I'd merely hope we'd stop making it worse.; 10/15/12, 10:50 AM
TWM said...: The reapply line was the best, but gimme the flag anytime.; 10/15/12, 10:50 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Don't agree with you, Althouse."

You have to infer an assertion from me to disagree. Ironically, I disagree with your inference — which I, ironically, have to infer.; 10/15/12, 10:52 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Your assertion, which I think I'm pretty close to understanding from your poll, is that this is an empty ad designed only to stroke tearful feelings of patriotism.

No, it isn't.

It addresses the Obama attack on the Catholic Church.

It is a substantive ad.; 10/15/12, 10:56 AM
Rusty said...: Never.
I don't get worked up over promises.
I get worked up over results.; 10/15/12, 10:56 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: I'm Catholic, Althouse.

I understood the substantive message of the attack immediately.

And, I didn't think it was about empty pap over patriotism.; 10/15/12, 10:57 AM
Curious George said...: "Shouting Thomas said...

No, it isn't.

It addresses the Obama attack on the Catholic Church.

It is a substantive ad."

What makes you think that?; 10/15/12, 10:58 AM
Shanna said...: I love the concept of America as an idea, so I voted for that, but I would have found a different visual more appealing. Kids and flags? It's kind of hackneyed.; 10/15/12, 11:01 AM
Unknown said...: I got chills just thinking some dumbass thought that was a good commercial.

It also gives me the chills to think that there are folks around who fall for that bullshit.

America under "assault"? Where? From whom? Black presidents? Certainly not little white boys with nice short hair - perhaps under assualt from the local priest? aha..that's it.; 10/15/12, 11:02 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: I would have addressed the imputed issue much more directly if I were making the video.

I would have stated that the Obama admin is trying to force the Catholic Church to endorse birth control and abortion, even though Church doctrine is counter to both.

But, I can understand why the video makers didn't want to issue a video that directly states the issue. It's an issue that troubles a lot of Catholic voters, and many people have a lot of trouble making a distinction between what they want to do in their lives, and what the Church holds as doctrine.; 10/15/12, 11:02 AM
tim maguire said...: For me, never.

For every "progressive" I know (and I know quite a few), it would be immediately. They can't tell the difference between patriotism and jingoism and the sight of a child waving a flag would immediately remind them of a fascist state.

It's a good message, but I agree with bagoh20 that, to be chill-inducing, the child would have to be an immigrant.; 10/15/12, 11:03 AM
gerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 11:06 AM
Cedarford said...: I thought the heighy of patriotism was the dissent of burning the Flag?
At least, that is the liberal narrative. Anytime a OWS scumbag or Islamoid burns one, we are supposed to get a warm feeling because the Sacred Parchment enobles their actions under the 1st.

My feeling is we need to test that to gauge the public reaction if a few flag-burners got shot. Preferably starting with overseas Islamoid scumbags vs. the home grown "patriotic dissenters".; 10/15/12, 11:09 AM
gerry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 11:10 AM
traditionalguy said...: Janesville raises some good men and women. That was a very good job, Mr Vice President.; 10/15/12, 11:11 AM
Cedarford said...: Tim said...
"This ad addresses the Obama attack on religious freedom aimed at the Catholic Church."

In in Ontario, Canada, the Minister of Education "declared October 10 that the province’s publicly funded Catholic schools may not teach students that abortion is wrong because such teaching amounts to “misogyny,” which is prohibited in schools under a controversial anti-bullying law."
===================
Invade Canada.
Bayonet all the PC liberals and human rights activists (pretty much all fascist liberals) in Ontario, BC. The rest of the nation, even froggie Quebec, will thank us as we withdraw.

Go to Alberta, Manitoba, BC outside MultiKulti Vancouver, the Maritimes, Quebec (for more than one reason) and say Ottowa.

You will get a reaction similar to Soviets about how Moscow was looking after their best interests, Indians about the thiefs in New Delhi, or Americans about our new Imperial City - DC.; 10/15/12, 11:16 AM
Texan99 said...: Did you mean the ugly kind of chill? Because if so, that's sad.; 10/15/12, 11:16 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: In grade school they made us watch a movie version of "The Man Without a Country."

It was pretty much a vaccination against getting patriotic chills.

Probably not the intended effect.; 10/15/12, 11:23 AM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Nice, but I wanted something about community.

The Republicans are abandoning this issue to the Democrats who are using government as sort of, to borrow a phrase, "community organizer."

Yeah, Althouse blasted David Brooks for this but I don't think Brooks is completely off base.

A mention here would have been welcome.; 10/15/12, 11:24 AM
Salamandyr said...: America under "assault"? Where? From whom? Black presidents? Certainly not little white boys with nice short hair - perhaps under assualt from the local priest? aha..that's it.

That you jump to this says more about where your mind is at than it does about anyone whose motivations you're questioning.; 10/15/12, 11:31 AM
Tim said...: Rather than an vacuous, emotional appeal to the Flag, I think Shouting Thomas is correct this way: those of us who cherish and celebrate traditional American values, those which made our nation great, will see the ad as a response to our concerns.

So, for the Catholic, a restoration of a "hands-off" policy toward the Church.

For the traditional conservative, an appeal to the founding principles of liberty and freedom.

To the small business owner and investor, a restoration of free enterprise.

For those with less clear thoughts, but still an emotional attachment of what America once was, and could be again, if only it reestablishes itself, a message of hope that it is possible.

For liberals and Obama voters?

An ugly slur, empty of thought, boob-bait for rednecks, racists, Republicans and NASCAR fanatics.; 10/15/12, 11:36 AM
ricpic said...: They picked a kid who looks like Tom Sawyer? Racisss!!!; 10/15/12, 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: I liked the ad but it didn't give me chills.

This country is $16 trillion in the hole. That gives me the chills.; 10/15/12, 11:41 AM
sakredkow said...: I'm inviting Cedarford over for the Fourth next. We'll have hots and bugers, a little pie, throw a few flags on the fire...; 10/15/12, 11:46 AM
Robert Cook said...: This would be a better anti-Obama ad, because it's substantive and doesn't rely on glittering generalities and puffery:

Obama sucks; 10/15/12, 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: "We'll have hots and bugers"

Better invite Titus too.; 10/15/12, 11:53 AM
Renee said...: As I Catholic, I was distracting asking myself if the flag was 'Made in China'. I'm a minority Catholic, most Catholics I know agree with Biden. They don't care, in fact the Church needs to be with the times and accept atleast contraception. Seriously, I'm mocked for using NFP and trying to be too Catholic.; 10/15/12, 11:58 AM
edutcher said...: Didn't have my choice,

When Ryan said, "We will apply them".

PS In for Lyndsey Meadows, Lynn Meadows.

Some phony folksy strikes again.; 10/15/12, 12:01 PM
edutcher said...: s/b re-apply; 10/15/12, 12:01 PM
Balfegor said...: Glad to see I am not the only one who found the ad not-chill-inducing at all. On the one hand, I am not a particularly ardent patriot. But on the other, I am a sucker for the the hackneyed emotional stuff (it is why I like opera and Korean TV dramas). So if this advert was supposed to be chill-inducing, it is a total failure.

Okay as a common-or-garden political advert, though.; 10/15/12, 12:06 PM
Known Unknown said...: No chills because it's a political ad.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's propaganda. I'm a tough sell.

The worst ad is the Obama/60 Minutes tax-rate jab at Romney, who pays only 14% on his capital gains. It's pretty damn disingenuous in that in neglects the initial income used the investments was also taxed at the presumably higher income rate.; 10/15/12, 12:08 PM
Known Unknown said...: The most effective ad from Romney has been the Biden split-screen laughing ad. They showed the proper amount of restraint and let Joe speak for himself.; 10/15/12, 12:09 PM
Known Unknown said...: The LBJ mushroom cloud ad was pretty cool from a concept standpoint.

But nothing much can top Morning in America.

But that's because of Hal Rainey, RIP.; 10/15/12, 12:10 PM
bleh said...: I like the ad. It's mainly positive. There is a rebuke of the Obama administration in there -- and an implicit suggestion that the administration is somehow unfaithful to our founding principles -- but I would not consider it a negative attack ad. More of a pro-Romney/Ryan ad that manages to identify the campaign with traditional American values.; 10/15/12, 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes the flag fluttering in slo mo was great, the little boy was adorable, but it was very clearly propaganda directed at Catholics, which it appears it succeeded in doing.

No chills for me though.; 10/15/12, 12:23 PM
clint said...: Interesting.

I thought that reading the poll (and several comments) while waiting for the video to fully load would skew my results -- making it much harder for the ad to affect me emotionally.

I got minor chills on the word "Freedom", and then again on "reapply them".

Question: Was the background music taken from "Friday Night Lights" -- like Romney's new catch phrase? What's up with that?; 10/15/12, 12:27 PM
Known Unknown said...: The best Obama ads are the positive ones, too.

I haven't seen as many of those lately. His attack ads are fairly confusing (especially the $5T tax cut one I believe our hostess referenced awhile ago.)

Dems have always had better design and optics to their marketing, but the gap is closing very quickly.; 10/15/12, 12:29 PM
clint said...: "BDNYC said...

I like the ad. It's mainly positive. There is a rebuke of the Obama administration in there -- and an implicit suggestion that the administration is somehow unfaithful to our founding principles -- but I would not consider it a negative attack ad. More of a pro-Romney/Ryan ad that manages to identify the campaign with traditional American values."

Yep.

Compare to the Big Bird and tax rate ads... which campaign looks more confident, right now?; 10/15/12, 12:30 PM
Rocketeer said...: I'm voting for Romney/Ryan, but political ads don't give me chills.

You know what gives me chills? Watching the Baumgartner jump video. Also, knowing that I share the franchise with an out-and-proud racist and anti-Catholic Know-Nothing like Lynn Meadows.; 10/15/12, 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: edutcher: I don't quite get your insistence that L. Meadowes must be somefeller posting under an alias.

There are plenty of leftist boneheads out there.; 10/15/12, 12:36 PM
Mark said...: I thought the ginger child was coming to get me. That kind of gave me chills in a fear-inducing sense but I don't think that's what the commercial-makers intend. And I'm Catholic.; 10/15/12, 12:37 PM
Curious George said...: "Inga said...
but it was very clearly propaganda directed at Catholics, which it appears it succeeded in doing."

How is this very clearly directed at Catholics? ST couldn't provide a reason...can you?; 10/15/12, 12:40 PM
Texan99 said...: I realize this ad was put out by "Catholics for Romney/Ryan," but I didn't even notice that the first time through. In what sense is this ad aimed specifically at Catholics? It seemed pretty mainstream conservative to this Protestant.; 10/15/12, 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "In what sense is this ad aimed specifically at Catholics?"

I don't know, perhaps "liberty" and "freedom" are papist dogwhistles that really means "albino monks from the Vatican are going to force women to wear chastity belts if Romney wins."; 10/15/12, 12:48 PM
ndspinelli said...: Sean Hannity got a chill up his leg.; 10/15/12, 12:48 PM
chickelit said...: A river runs through Janesville called the Rock.; 10/15/12, 12:49 PM
sakredkow said...: Amber alert on the kid. He's been abducted by the forces of banality.; 10/15/12, 12:52 PM
chickelit said...: The Yahara feeds the Rock with lots of runoff.; 10/15/12, 12:53 PM
furious_a said...: It also gives me the chills to think that there are folks around who fall for that bullshit.

It gives me the chills to think that we might be in for four more years of bullsh*t that sock-puppets like Lindsey fall for.; 10/15/12, 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 12:58 PM
Known Unknown said...: I realize this ad was put out by "Catholics for Romney/Ryan," but I didn't even notice that the first time through. In what sense is this ad aimed specifically at Catholics?

If you're Catholic, you'll understand the context of the words specifically to the effects of Obamacare on the Church. If you're not, it just sounds like the regular platitudinal stuff every campaign does.

You know, Catholic dog whistling and all that.; 10/15/12, 1:07 PM
KCFleming said...: The ad is a mirror, and Lynn Meadows is sore ugly.; 10/15/12, 1:12 PM
virgil xenophon said...: Sorry, left me cold, sort of a "Meh." ok, I guess, for a political ad for many of the reasons mentioned above. Now show me the pic of raising the flag on Iwo Jima, OTOH..

I should say that perhaps because of my age and background the very phrase "patriotism test" is a sensitive one for me. As a child I remember the "loyalty oaths" that university faculty members were required to sign in the 50s and how much my Father, a decorated WWII combat inf veteran and rock-ribbed Republican bridled at the very idea considering all that he had gone thru (and pretty much the same sentiments were held across the board by ALL faculty members who were veterans, be they officer or enlisted, Democrat or Republican, moderates, conservatives or extreme leftists.)

And it's the same for me. Although a decorated combat veteran of Vietnam (USAF, Officer) I've never felt compelled to join the VFW or American Legion, although I would put myself in the top 1% (however those things might be measured) in terms of love for the country and am an openly unrepentant advocate and defender of almost everything the left loathes..; 10/15/12, 1:13 PM
Anonymous said...: "It was aimed at Catholics because it was made for Catholics for Romney Ryan as the credit at the end stated."

Not to belabor a very obvious point, but by the time the viewer finds out who made the ad, it has either given you a chill or not. It is not aimed exclusively at Catholics, unless they're showing it only on EWTN.; 10/15/12, 1:16 PM
rhhardin said...: It needs a dog.; 10/15/12, 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: That's true exiled, you have a point.

I don't get a thrill from such political propaganda, kind of turns me off. However, when I am at some military ceremony with all the pomp and circumstance and young men and women in uniform, I always tear up, maybe because it's not related to some political campaign.; 10/15/12, 1:27 PM
furious_a said...: It needs a dog.

...and a pope hat.; 10/15/12, 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga, the sound of "Taps" always does it to me.; 10/15/12, 1:32 PM
Known Unknown said...: "only on EWTN. "

Is that old nun in the brown habit still on? She's the original Church Lady!; 10/15/12, 1:38 PM
ken in tx said...: I have Catholics in my family. They're not too bad.; 10/15/12, 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Well chills usually come to me unexpected. For some reason if someone suggests them to me I am more likely not to get them. Even if I might have. Better to hide the poll for me and just say watch this.; 10/15/12, 2:02 PM
Synova said...: Nice ad.

I don't get chills.

Silly unemotional conservative that I am.; 10/15/12, 2:05 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: ...the Church needs to be with the times and accept atleast contraception.

Absolutely. It is from public opinion polls, not the Church, that we can learn the true will of God.; 10/15/12, 2:06 PM
edutcher said...: exiledonmainst said...

edutcher: I don't quite get your insistence that L. Meadowes must be somefeller posting under an alias.

There are plenty of leftist boneheads out there.

Agreed. I was being facetious in that one.; 10/15/12, 2:13 PM
Balfegor said...: exiledonmainst:

Inga, the sound of "Taps" always does it to me.

The ewig entering in towards the end on top of the high sustained note (E, I think?) in the last movement of Das Lied von der Erde does it for me. I actually teared up when I heard it in performance.

This stuff . . . not so much.; 10/15/12, 2:20 PM
Unknown said...: "edutcher: I don't quite get your insistence that L. Meadowes must be somefeller posting under an alias.

awww you guys are just upset and out of sorts because a woman can out argue you, is sharper than you are, and can, essentially as the saying goes "take you down town".

Relax boys. Go with the flow. Even my husband has given up in arguments.; 10/15/12, 2:31 PM
Unknown said...: hmmmm wonder the box was that indicated at what point I got nauseous.....; 10/15/12, 2:32 PM
Balfegor said...: I went and checked and I have misremembered. The part of Das Lied von der Erde that makes me cry is "Die liebe Erde," not the ewig big.; 10/15/12, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: It addresses the Obama attack on the Catholic Church.

There is no Obama attack on the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church wants to provide secular services and participate in secular life (hospitals, universities that are open to all qualified applicants regardless of religion, social services based on need, etc.), then they must play by the same rules as a secular provider.; 10/15/12, 2:33 PM
sakredkow said...: You mean Obama doesn't hate the Catholic Church for its freedoms?; 10/15/12, 2:35 PM
Chip S. said...: awww you guys are just upset and out of sorts because a woman can out argue you, is sharper than you are, and can, essentially as the saying goes "take you down town".

That's ridiculous. Everybody respects yashu.; 10/15/12, 2:38 PM
Known Unknown said...: If the Catholic Church wants to provide secular services and participate in secular life (hospitals, universities that are open to all qualified applicants regardless of religion, social services based on need, etc.), then they must play by the same rules as a secular provider.

Freder forgets who did the providing before the secular providers showed up.; 10/15/12, 2:39 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Cheat Sheet Alert...

The answer is Never.

I didn't get the chills.; 10/15/12, 2:40 PM
chickelit said...: Lynn Meadows insists:
awww you guys are just upset and out of sorts because a woman can out argue you, is sharper than you are, and can, essentially as the saying goes 'take you down town'.

Crack-style braggadocio. This belies an inferiority complex. I'm sure you have some valid arguments, but there's no reason to insist that you do.; 10/15/12, 2:40 PM
KCFleming said...: "Even my husband has given up in arguments."

The meaning therein has eluded you.; 10/15/12, 2:41 PM
chickelit said...: Also, what Chip S. says at 2:38.; 10/15/12, 2:41 PM
furious_a said...: (hospitals, universities that are open to all qualified applicants regardless of religion, social services based on need, etc.)

Catholic hospitals, charities and schools are turning away non-Catholics because they're...non-Catholic..or poor? Who knew?; 10/15/12, 2:42 PM
furious_a said...: Lindsey: Even my husband has given up in arguments.

As you noted in an earlier thread, he has to put a Romney t-shirt over your face to, you know...; 10/15/12, 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: "awww you guys are just upset and out of sorts because a woman can out argue you, is sharper than you are, and can, essentially as the saying goes 'take you down town'."

This is wonderful stuff! When Lynn the Talking Vag manages to construct something that vaguely resembles an argument, please let me know.

"Even my husband has given up in arguments."

It's called being pussy-whipped. A very common condition among liberal men married to shrews.; 10/15/12, 2:47 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm trying to picture Lynn Meadows with a clergy collar ;); 10/15/12, 2:50 PM
Chip S. said...: I'm trying to imagine Lynn Meadows writing something insightful, but when I do that Darcy's avatar keeps popping up in my brain.; 10/15/12, 2:57 PM
rcommal said...: the sound of "Taps" always does it to me.

Every evening I can hear Taps floating across the river from the Rock Island Arsenal. Even after 16-1/2 years, it's never gotten old.

Political ads--including this one--never give me chills, though, at least not the type of chills referred to.; 10/15/12, 3:06 PM
Synova said...: Agree on Taps.; 10/15/12, 3:24 PM
Renee said...: Umm. the Catholic Church is responsible for the origins of the University system, as with hospitals.

It just creeps me out completely, that we should force people into a secular way of life. Do you really think that? Whatever that means?; 10/15/12, 3:35 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Freedom of religion is one of our sacred principles which are the foundation of our constitution.

That is why it is under attack by aliens such as Obama, Cedarford, Inga, Freder and the rest.

They would wipe their ass with our "sacred parchment."

To ignore these attacks would be a grave mistake.; 10/15/12, 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Freder forgets who did the providing before the secular providers showed up.

And that has what to do with the issue?; 10/15/12, 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Freedom of religion is one of our sacred principles which are the foundation of our constitution.

Actually, it is an amendment. So by definition not part of the foundation of our constitution.

And it prohibits the establishment of religion and prohibits the free exercise thereof. Requiring religious employers who are providing non-religious services to include birth control (but not abortion) as part of their health insurance coverage is not stopping anyone from freely exercising their religion.; 10/15/12, 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: They would wipe their ass with our "sacred parchment."

By calling us (and the president) "aliens", when at least Cedarford, the president and I are U.S. citizens shows you also have precious little respect for the Constitution.; 10/15/12, 3:58 PM
Chip S. said...: Actually, it is an amendment. So by definition not part of the foundation of our constitution.

This is just spectacularly wrong, as a matter of both history and philosophy.; 10/15/12, 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: It just creeps me out completely, that we should force people into a secular way of life.

Who is being forced into a secular way of life, and by whom?; 10/15/12, 4:05 PM
Baron Zemo said...: The fact that the people who swore you in as citizens made a horrible terrible mistake is something that we can all lament.; 10/15/12, 4:07 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 4:08 PM
Baron Zemo said...: You are alien to our American way of life.

As is this President.

He will do all he can to destroy our freedoms in favor of government control. Of our economy. Our healthcare. What we eat. Our religious practices.

He is the ultimate fruit of the unholy matrimony of Marxist collective thought and affirmative action entitlement.

He is Un-american.; 10/15/12, 4:13 PM
Chip S. said...: A little bit of remedial education for Frederson:

Although the American Revolution was not fought over religious matters, the legacy of the religious strife in the world preceding the revolution provided the impetus for the American founding fathers to see to it that religion would not become a divisive issue in the new republic. Starting with George Mason’s Virginia Bill of Rights, written in 1776, which stated that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,” the state of Virginia and the nation followed a policy of keeping religion and politics officially separated. With the Virginia statute on religious freedom written by Thomas Jefferson, endorsed by James Madison, and enacted in 1786, the states gradually began to remove all connections between governments and churches.; 10/15/12, 4:15 PM
Synova said...: "...and prohibits the free exercise thereof."

I'm assuming that's not what you meant to say.

And when a religion is officially and doctrinally opposed to birth control, making a that religious institution pay for it or distribute it is absolutely "prohibiting the free exercise" of that religion.

And our courts do not even require that a religion be official or have a particular proven doctrine, as the Catholic church does, before that protection comes into play. Normally the test is far more subjective to an individual's arbitrary understanding of what his or her faith requires.

The requirements for the COURT before infringing on religious freedom is to prove that the state has a compelling reason to do so AND to prove that there is no other way to meet that compelling need. Not that there is an *easier* way... but that there is a way.

If there is a compelling need for the State to ensure that women have access to birth control and abortions, the State still has to show that there is no other way to provide that access but force Catholic organizations to become procurers of those services.

And that's just laughable.

In any case, is there a reason you specifically excluded abortion? Is there some substantive difference between one thing that is specifically against church doctrine and some other thing that is specifically against church doctrine?; 10/15/12, 4:19 PM
edutcher said...: Lynn Meadows said...

edutcher: I don't quite get your insistence that L. Meadowes must be somefeller posting under an alias

awww you guys are just upset and out of sorts because a woman can out argue you, is sharper than you are, and can, essentially as the saying goes "take you down town".

When it happens, be sure and let us know.

This is not to say there aren't women who could do it. I would think twice before going full bore with vbspurs or DBQ, but they usually make sense.; 10/15/12, 4:21 PM
harrogate said...: When i noticed that the blogger and the majority of the commenters were responding to the ad in this way, doing so entirely without irony. That's when I got chills.; 10/15/12, 4:24 PM
chickelit said...: Freder Frederson joked:
And it prohibits the establishment of religion and prohibits the free exercise thereof.

Such a careless parsing of American Law hints that Baron Zemo is right about your alien nature--and your obvious disrespect for religion. But we knew that already.

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.; 10/15/12, 4:26 PM
Renee said...: Freder, It seems there is no limitation to what the secular rules of play are. What are the limitations? If any?; 10/15/12, 4:27 PM
Chip S. said...: Well, naturally.

Liberty : Socialist :: Crucifix : Vampire; 10/15/12, 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: You are alien to our American way of life.

Who appointed you the judge of what constitutes "our American way of life"?

And when a religion is officially and doctrinally opposed to birth control, making a that religious institution pay for it or distribute it is absolutely "prohibiting the free exercise" of that religion.

Running a hospital or a University that accepts all religions is not the free exercise of religion. When Obama forces convents and seminaries to provide contraception to their employees (which of course he can't), then you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Forcing the strictures of Catholic doctrine on a non-Catholic employee of a Catholic hospital has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.; 10/15/12, 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: and your obvious disrespect for religion. But we knew that already.

When have I ever shown disrespect for religion?

Shows that you think what you want about me.

As it happens I am a Christian.; 10/15/12, 4:35 PM
Known Unknown said...: Forcing the strictures of Catholic doctrine on a non-Catholic employee of a Catholic hospital has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

Tying health care/insurance to employment is becoming a disaster of epic proportions.

If people were really responsible for their own insurance, this wouldn't be a problem.; 10/15/12, 4:35 PM
Chip S. said...: Forcing the strictures of Catholic doctrine on a non-Catholic employee of a Catholic hospital has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

Once again it's necessary to explain the most elementary stuff to the house lefties.

Employees and students of Catholic institutions are not forced to conform to the church's doctrine on contraception. They are completely free to purchase whatever birth-control device they choose.

Forcing Catholics to pay for the contraceptives used by their non-Catholic co-workers is an unprecedented expansion of state control over religious practice.; 10/15/12, 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Tying health care/insurance to employment is becoming a disaster of epic proportions.

Can't argue with that--although your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.; 10/15/12, 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Baron, I know you are looking for a reaction from naturalized citizens here on this blog, but really that is pretty low. Makes you look like one of those repulsive and toxic conservatives Althouse has mentioned.

My brother served in Vietnam, my daughter serves with the Marines in Afghanistan, my nephew is a Seabee, been deployed numerous times, my other nephew is a Marine Captain. My family is every single bit as patriotic as yours, you jerk, there you got your reaction.

Oh, I forgot to mention my sister just retired from 35 years at the Veterans Hospital and my brother just retired as a cop from the Milwaukee Police Dept.

I've volunteered at my local Veterans hospital since I've retired. My parents became citizens the as soon as was allowed, they never missed voting and always voted Republican, BTW. I served on a jury for a six week long trail, I vote. My children and husband were born here.

And I know that you already know all this about me, because I know who you are. Perhaps you are simply bitter because of your recent failure.; 10/15/12, 4:49 PM
chickelit said...: Tying health care/insurance to employment is becoming a disaster of epic proportions.

Tying health care/insurance to unemployment is the Bain of Obama's presidency.; 10/15/12, 4:52 PM
Synova said...: "Running a hospital or a University that accepts all religions is not the free exercise of religion."

Interesting constitutional test.

So the way to ensure that one's religious faith is not infringed upon by the state is to refuse to hire or treat anyone not a member of your religion?

We lose our constitutional guarantees when we interact with society?; 10/15/12, 4:52 PM
Baron Zemo said...: I am a loyal true blooded American.

As are many naturalized citizens.

The Mexican busboy and the Indian computer specialist who come to this country and love it with all their hearts. They know that to attack someone's religion is to attack them. They have become "Real Red White and Blue Americans" and would scorn your alien attitudes.

You sir are a stain on our American mosaic.

You don't have to born here to be a "Real American."

You fail the test. As you have done time and again.; 10/15/12, 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: And Baron, Meade has said who you are several times, he is right, in case anyone remembers what Meade said to "Baron". Althouse is a better place without him, he does nothing but call Althouse and Meade vile names and seems to be very jealous of their success. Pathetic, I thought this person was kind and decent at one time.; 10/15/12, 4:55 PM
Synova said...: "Forcing Catholics to pay for the contraceptives used by their non-Catholic co-workers is an unprecedented expansion of state control over religious practice."

Is why I chose to use the word "procurer". It's precise and doesn't allow twisted ways to get around "pay for" to pretend that the Catholic institution is somehow able to procure something contrary to their religious faith without actually, you know, procuring it because someone said "everyone close your eyes now as we pass this money over there and it will be like it never happened."; 10/15/12, 4:56 PM
Synova said...: And also because another word for procurer is pimp.; 10/15/12, 4:58 PM
chickelit said...: Freder Frederson accuses:

Who appointed you the judge of what constitutes 'our American way of life'?

I wouldn't accuse the Baron of being a judge but rather part of a jury in a court of a public opinion. We are holding a democratic election soon on related matters.; 10/15/12, 5:00 PM
harrogate said...: "You are alien to our American way of life."

Stick around the comedy that imagines itself substantive political "debate" these days, and you will soon discover a decent rule of thumb: that arguments about US elections (or really, about most anything at all), containing the sentence quoted above, are probably little more than preening--an effort to regard oneself and one's actions and opinions as rightly and truly ambassadorial of the way, the truth, and the light. As it were.

That is, arguments containing the above quoted saying, can generally be counted upon as garbage in and out. Still worth sifting through perhaps--you never know when you might find a gold watch side-point amongst the refuse--but on the whole, it's going to be drivel.; 10/15/12, 5:01 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 5:02 PM
Chip S. said...: harrogate said...
arguments about US elections (or really, about most anything at all), containing the sentence quoted above, are probably little more than preening--an effort to regard oneself and one's actions and opinions as rightly and truly ambassadorial of the way, the truth, and the light. As it were.

I'm going to heed these words, coming as they do from someone whose preening has no rival:

When i noticed that the blogger and the majority of the commenters were responding to the ad in this way, doing so entirely without irony. That's when I got chills.

Yes, those rubes who care deeply about individual liberty and its future totally creep out a sophisticate like harrogate.; 10/15/12, 5:08 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I wouldn't accuse the Baron of being a judge but rather part of a jury in a court of a public opinion. We are holding a democratic election soon on related matters.

You have a pretty stupid view of representative democracy. Voting against the winner in an election does not mean you have to give up your citizenship. In fact, by your logic, I am the American and you are the alien since my candidate won the last time.; 10/15/12, 5:08 PM
furious_a said...: When Obama forces convents and seminaries to provide contraception to their employees (which of course he can't), then you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Wherein Freder demonstrates unfamiliarity with the Establishment Clause. Catholic hospitals, schools and charities are part of its religious ministry. The ACA arrogated to itself the statutory definition of "ministry". So ACA not only violates Free Exercise by forcing religious employers to pay for services that violate their teachings, it also violates the Establishment Clause by dictating what constitutes a qualified religious employer.; 10/15/12, 5:10 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Inga it is the attitude that you and Freder and Cedarford have to our First Amendment and freedom of religion that marks you as "alien" and "Un-American." Cloaking yourself in the contributions of others does not cover the stain of your "Un-american" belief's.

There are many loyal and true naturalized American citizens. Your record does not inidicate that you belong to that group.

From your own mouth we can tell where you stand.

You fail that patriotism test.

As does the President. He will not be marked on the curve this time.; 10/15/12, 5:10 PM
harrogate said...: Straight up--this commercial really, really did give Chip. S. chills. Because he "cares deeply"!!!!!!!!!!!; 10/15/12, 5:11 PM
Chip S. said...: You have a pretty stupid view of representative democracy.

He knows a lot more about representative democracy than you know about the foundational principles of the Constitution.

You also don't read too well. Chickelit said that this election was about "related matters"--meaning, quite clearly, the proper sphere of religious and other freedoms. Not about who is or isn't a citizen.; 10/15/12, 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 5:16 PM
chickelit said...: @Freder: You have a pretty narrow view of the term "alien", construing it only in terms of legal citizenship. But I understand that you want to stir the birther stew, because that and false charges of racism are pretty much all you have left.; 10/15/12, 5:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Baron, you don't know the meaning of Patriotism. If you did, you never would've said what you have said here on this blog. You do not deserve citizenship any more than any naturalized citizen. You are attempting to smear, Obama, myself and others here as being unAmerican, by doing so you portray yourself as the true unAmerican.

You are repulsive and toxic, a poor example of what America represents.; 10/15/12, 5:17 PM
chickelit said...: Inga said...

You are repulsive and toxic, a poor example of what America represents.; 10/15/12, 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Wherein Freder demonstrates unfamiliarity with the Establishment Clause. Catholic hospitals, schools and charities are part of its religious ministry. The ACA arrogated to itself the statutory definition of "ministry".

I didn't just make this shit up. These issues (in other contexts such as discrimination) have been litigated extensively. If you don't like the fact that some religiously affiliated institutions are subjected to the same rules (even if they violate some religious doctrine) as secular employers, take it up with the Supreme Court, not me.; 10/15/12, 5:19 PM
Chip S. said...: harrogate, it was your 11th exclamation point that really stung.; 10/15/12, 5:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Set to music by Mrs. Barbara Silberg | Lyrics from the inscription on the Statue of Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning,
And her name, Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand glows world-wide welcome;
Her mild eyes command the air-bridged harbor
That twin cities frame.
"Keep, Ancient Lands, your storied pomp!"
Cries she with silent lips.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
----------------------------
This is MY America. She belongs to me as much as the Barons of America, maybe more.; 10/15/12, 5:27 PM
furious_a said...: Freder: I didn't just make this shit up.

Could've fooled me. As for "litigated extensively", you'll of course have citations where a church-affiliated university or charity has been forced by law and after appeal to pay for the services currently under dispute.; 10/15/12, 5:27 PM
YoungHegelian said...: You can tell the ad is aimed at Catholics because of the Latin subtitles.

Whaddya mean your version doesn't have any?; 10/15/12, 5:28 PM
Known Unknown said...: I think it's funny Inga attempts to legitimately reason with someone who has fashioned his internet persona here after a comic book villain

Even down to his profile.; 10/15/12, 5:30 PM
chickelit said...: @Inga: the Baron isn't rejecting the huddled masses; he's rejecting the muddled asses.; 10/15/12, 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Chickelit, oh so he rejects himself?; 10/15/12, 5:32 PM
sakredkow said...: I think Inga performs a public service for all of us by engaging battle with the noisy bottom feeders, allowing the grownups to argue among themselves with minimal interference.; 10/15/12, 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 5:37 PM
sakredkow said...: She's like the grown-up who sits at the children's table for the sake of our pleasure.; 10/15/12, 5:37 PM
Chip S. said...: She's like the grown-up who sits at the children's table for the sake of our pleasure.

This is just...disturbing.; 10/15/12, 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/12, 5:40 PM
sakredkow said...: Someone like EMD - he might be worth a scornful reply, and might condescend to give me one in return. But I can't enjoy that if I gotta be arguing with children in superhero costumes running around like screaming banshees making fools of themselves.; 10/15/12, 5:40 PM
furious_a said...: Troofer Allie: He is not the voice of who is or isn't a patriotic American, if you can't see this, I wonder about you, especially since you have naturalized citizens in your own family.

In which Allie both exposes and rebuts herself simultaneously. Priceless.; 10/15/12, 5:42 PM
chickelit said...: Inga said...
Inga tries: And Chickelit, since he doesn't "OWN" America, he has overstepped himself big time.

As I tried to make clear to Freder, the Baron is not a judge, but rather a voice with which you can agree or disagree with. We're all having a vote in a few weeks where we can all decide.

He is not the voice of who is or isn't a patriotic American, if you can't see this, I wonder about you, especially since you have naturalized citizens in your own family.

Actually, I don't, but I understand you confusion. You just failed to correctly process some personal infomation which I may have disclosed here. If we were any kind of friends I'd be happy to explain things, but since we're not I'll let it go. :)

Say, weren't you chiding me the other day about getting too "personal"?; 10/15/12, 5:43 PM
furious_a said...: phx: She's like the grown-up who sits at the children's table for the sake of our pleasure.

See "Paul Ryan said...Lie." from an earlier thread wherein Allie serially beclowned her own self.; 10/15/12, 5:44 PM
sakredkow said...: All I'm sayin' is somebody has to deal with the dull-witted here. And since I'm not gonna do it, I'm grateful to someone who will.; 10/15/12, 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Chickelit, consider it payback. I honestly don't know how any of you( friends of " Baron") can defend in any way what Baron has said. It's reprehensible.; 10/15/12, 5:47 PM
Synova said...: "These issues (in other contexts such as discrimination) have been litigated extensively."

So...

It's illegal to discriminate, thus it is illegal to hire people only if they share your religious faith.

And then *having* employees of other religions removes your right to religious conscience.

At what point does "inhibit the free exercise thereof" get violated? Our religious freedom is confined only to situations where people of faith and religious organizations do not interact with society? That's a pretty huge serving of "inhibit" you're insisting on there.; 10/15/12, 5:47 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Baron Zemo

I am a loyal true blooded American.

Aber naturlich! Gleich Herr Doktor Merkwurdigliebe, ja?; 10/15/12, 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I understand your meaning Phx, someone has to do it, it might as well be me, I'm the motherly sort and I believe in spanking naughty children.; 10/15/12, 5:49 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Personalities are not the issue here.

The issue is our rights under our constitution. To abrogate the rights of religious institutions because of a devotion to abortion and contraception and to attack the first amendment because of the actions of terrorists is what is at stake.

This President is chipping away at these rights one bit at a time. If you don't see that then you are truly foolish.

If he is re-elected the damage will be incalculable.; 10/15/12, 5:49 PM
furious_a said...: Freder: Requiring religious employers who are providing non-religious services to include birth control (but not abortion)

To quote Chip S "this is just spectacularly wrong".

Provision of copay-free abortofacients is part of the Obamacare mandate. For self-insured religious institutions, this amounts to mandated employer-paid abortion.; 10/15/12, 5:53 PM
Tim said...: "Provision of copay-free abortofacients is part of the Obamacare mandate. For self-insured religious institutions, this amounts to mandated employer-paid abortion."

Yes, this is a fact.

For an Obama voter, that's a feature, not a bug.

Churches *MUST* be brought under the heel of the State.

Religious freedom *MUST* be extinguished to support Abortion Rights.

At-will infanticide in-utero is the castle keep of the modern Democrat Party. It is its sun, its moon, its stars. It *MUST* be defended at all costs.

And they will vote to confirm that once more.

And then again.

And again.

*NOTHING* unifies Democrats like Abortion.; 10/15/12, 6:01 PM
Seeing Red said...: --There is no Obama attack on the Catholic Church.--

Of course there is, where is Father when you need him?

They get it, Catholics get it and are riled.; 10/15/12, 6:13 PM
Seeing Red said...: USS Clueless' Americans by Birth & Americans by Heart is a must-read.

Freder doesn't get it.

Of course, he has dual citizenship.; 10/15/12, 6:14 PM
Seeing Red said...: Stake aimed at the heart of the 1st Amendment.

They don't have to provide sterilizations, tho, I wonder why that is?; 10/15/12, 6:16 PM
Synova said...: "Provision of copay-free abortofacients is part of the Obamacare mandate. For self-insured religious institutions, this amounts to mandated employer-paid abortion."

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why one thing that a religion prohibits is different than a different thing that the religion prohibits as far as constitutional freedoms go.

I'm protestant. I've got nothing at all against contraception. I'm all for it. But the fact that I see nothing wrong with it doesn't mean that Catholics have to bend their beliefs to what *I* feel is reasonable.

And that's the only reason I can see that Freder made a big deal about "but not abortion"... because an opposition to abortion is deemed "reasonable" in some fashion that an opposition to contraception is not. So it's a way of saying "We're being reasonable here! What's wrong with you?"

But that's not how freedom of religion works. People on the outside don't get to decide if something is "reasonable" or not. It's a matter of religious conviction and people are allowed to have entirely silly religious convictions without having to persuade anyone else that those convictions have a basis in anything.

No guarantee of freedom is necessary for those religious convictions deemed reasonable. Just like there is no need for freedom of speech when it comes to saying or printing approved things.; 10/15/12, 6:25 PM
Synova said...: What's the difference between the statements... you can say or print anything you like so long as you don't break any of the rules, and you can apply any religious belief you want so long as you don't break any of the rules?

There's no freedom there. None.

Conform to what everyone thinks, to a reasonable consensus, and then you'll be free?; 10/15/12, 6:30 PM
Chuck said...: It's a good ad.

Can anyone think of another Presidential campaign ad where they used only the words/voiceover of the VP candidate? That's interesting to me. Perhaps a Dole/Kemp one? Mondale/Ferraro?; 10/15/12, 6:41 PM
Big Mike said...: When he said "We won't replace our founding principles, we will reapply them."

He gets it. Lynn doesn't. Inga doesn't. Too bad.; 10/15/12, 6:56 PM
m11_9 said...: See Neil Diamond's "America" for goosebumps, not a presidential commercial; 10/15/12, 7:33 PM
m11_9 said...: See Neil Diamond's "America" for goosebumps, not a presidential commercial; 10/15/12, 7:35 PM
Renee said...: Thanks Synova!; 10/15/12, 7:43 PM
furious_a said...: And that's the only reason I can see that Freder made a big deal about "but not abortion"... because an opposition to abortion is deemed "reasonable" in some fashion that an opposition to contraception is not. So it's a way of saying "We're being reasonable here! What's wrong with you?"

Since reproductive rights are the closest the Left have to a sacrament, the ACA is in effect saying that the Left's embrace of them is established in this country and that compliance is the only acceptable act.

The Obama admin recognized the thin ice of this presumption by carving out a narrow religious employer exception. This exception may be even more problematic than Free Exercise issues because of the implicit establishment by gov't fiat of what constitutes "ministry". As Daniel Heninger said in a Sept WSJ column, "Welcome to 3rd Century Rome."; 10/15/12, 7:49 PM
sakredkow said...: I don't think I've ever heard "America." I just finished listening (for the first time) to Hot August Nights. I listened to all of it twice, and some of it three times. I was like "Meh". Maybe not completely, since I still want to understand more of what the entire Neil Diamond phenomena was/is about.; 10/15/12, 7:52 PM
furious_a said...: They don't have to provide sterilizations, tho, I wonder why that is?

True, as far as that statement goes, but the ACA does mandate that insurance plans pay for (no co-pay) sterilization services. Given the large number of church-affiliated organizations which are self-insured, that is a distinction without a difference.; 10/15/12, 8:00 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Perhaps the defenders of the President's contraception mandate can explain why the Little Sisters of the Poor are suing over it:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/why-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-oppose-the-hhs-mandate/

Because, according to the President's defenders, his mandate doesn't force them to participate in contraception, sterilization and abortion.

Seems like they think it does.

Are they stupid, or lying?; 10/15/12, 8:36 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Correction: they haven't actually sued; they're rooting for it's success. But my question remains: why do the Little Sisters of the Poor think the mandate is bad for them? Are they stupid or lying?; 10/15/12, 8:39 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Of course, the Catholic Church can do as Freder wishes--simply get out of the business of providing medical care and social assistance.

Imagine what will happen to taxes when all those services revert to the government, because we can't have Catholics doing those things according to their beliefs.; 10/15/12, 8:41 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: The Archbishop of Chicago has said he will close the hospitals rather than comply.; 10/15/12, 8:42 PM
furious_a said...: Fr. Fox: Of course, the Catholic Church can do as Freder wishes--simply get out of the business of providing medical care and social assistance.

That's been the plan (of ACA's backers) all along, hasn't it? Accrue to the State the monopoly on social services that it already holds on force.; 10/15/12, 9:16 PM
furious_a said...: Fr. Fox: why do the Little Sisters of the Poor think the mandate is bad for them?

For the same reasons that Sr. Keehan (Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul) of CHA, one of the ACA's most prominent Catholic former supporters, has turned against the ACA over the must-cover-and-pay-for mandate.

Don't know the Little Sisters' initial position on the ACA, but it seems Sr. Carol got played by the Administration.; 10/15/12, 9:21 PM
Rusty said...: Fr Martin Fox said...
Of course, the Catholic Church can do as Freder wishes--simply get out of the business of providing medical care and social assistance.

Imagine what will happen to taxes when all those services revert to the government, because we can't have Catholics doing those things according to their beliefs.

Imagine what will happen the neighborhoods that that hospital serves.; 10/16/12, 4:06 PM

At what point did you get chills?
	Within 4 seconds -- the sight of the flag.
	At 7 seconds -- "America is an idea."
	Around 12 seconds -- "Liberty! Freedom!"
	Around 15 seconds -- "Free enterprise!"
	Around 18 seconds, when the flag faded and the boy looked worried.
	Toward the end, on seeing "Romney/Ryan."
	Never.

pollcode.com free polls

Althouse

October 15, 2012

Take this patriotism test.

181 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Blog Archive

Althouse

October 15, 2012

Take this patriotism test.

181 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive