Under God wasn’t added until 1954, and it should be removed. Your argument is irrelevant.
STFUProLife liked that post. I find it funny because I’m pretty sure I made it clear that I believed that particular act was terrorism, and as far as I can tell, they don’t think it was. Yet, for some reason, they liked it? (I apologize if I am misunderstanding.)
From terrorism-research.com: The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The U.S. Department of State defines “terrorism” to be “premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
By these definitions, that attack could very well be a terrorist attack. It can be defined a force of violence on the property to intimidate and/or coerce the family into dropping their ideology — because somebody, or some bodies, didn’t like it. And to be honest, I hope that whoever did this does gets charged with terrorism.
I doubt the person it was directed against is going to change his ideology and I doubt the people who did it expect him to. I’m sorry for his family, but I don’t agree that it’s terrorism for that very reason — I think it was motivated by anger, not by a desire to influence or further any political objective.
Just a thought.
Expecting the government not to police a person’s sex life but then asking for the our insurance THAT WE PAY FOR to provide the means to remain safe, healthy, and able to continue working for them is not hypocrisy. Asking our employers to mind their own business about what we use our insurance for goes along the same vein as telling the government to stay out of our bedroom.
It’s none of your business, or theirs.
Healthcare in all forms should be paid for. That includes giving birth to a baby you chose to have. There would be fewer abortions if this was the case, because you’d suddenly not have millions of women staring down the long end of a nine-month wait to a life-threatening birth followed by a $20,000 bill.
Right now, no one is pushing for the government to pay for contraception, and pro-lifers refusal to acknowledge this in their constant attempts to debate it is not hypocrisy, which would provide me some sweet parallels to your argument, but what it does display is wanton ignorance. People are pushing for contraception to be covered on their insurance, which they pay for. So that they can pay lower premiums (because when you’re at risk for getting pregnant, it costs more) and avoid missing work because of pregnancy and childbirth — which costs way more than a year of contraception. So that they, in turn, can provide the services that you enjoy every day without appreciation.
If you own a business, I don’t care what your religion is. Pay your taxes, and give your workers the benefits they’re entitled to as part of what they earn by working for you. That includes preventative healthcare so they can CONTINUE to work for you.
But you know what is hypocrisy? Bitching about your tax dollars maybe someday going toward the abortion of organisms that aren’t even capable of suffering, but saying not a word for how much of your taxes have led to the needless murder of countless middle easterners during the war.
Just a thought.