More Republican Idiocy

They might as well put a crucifix on the
state flag.

JEFFERSON CITY — A year after Republicans took control of state government, conservative lawmakers are promoting a wide range of social legislation designed to rein in sex and unshackle the Bible.

From new limits on sex education classes to penalties for living in sin, the proposed laws would remake Missouri’s public life in myriad ways. They would sanction prayer in public schools, subsidize religious schools and allow the Bible to be taught in school.

One bill purports to help women make “the transition from work to home.” Another wants the legislature to recognize “a Christian God” as the deity for most Missourians.

Rep. Cynthia Davis, an O’Fallon Republican and sponsor of several bills, said conservatives are tired of an overly permissive society in which high school students are taught how to use condoms.

What other litmus test bills do they have in the hopper?

Other bills would:

■ Deny alimony to ex-spouses who live with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

■ Ban all abortions.

■ Provide tax credits for contributions that help kids in lousy school districts to attend private schools.

■ Propose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to pray in schools and on other public property.

■ Allow pharmacists, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals to deny treatment if the procedure or medication offends their moral values.

■ Propose a constitutional amendment to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public property.

22 Comments

  1. Let’em go for it. It brings the eventual 2nd Civil War/Revolution one step closer, after which we will live in a truly ‘cyberpunk’ society run by the Corps with people escaping to virtual worlds that…don’t…exist…Damn- I think we’re there.

  2. And it just keep coming, doesn’t it? I thought there was a little something called separation of church and state. What about Rebublicans wanting smaller government?

    Well, I propose we start taxing churches – especially to pay for their proposed legislation. Let’s see how that goes over.

  3. I certainly see your problem with the first list, but what’s wrong with the second? OK, OK, I know. the abortion bit. We won’t get into that one here.

    All I see are alot of “allows”. Why should we need to make laws “allowing” people their constitutional rights? We are allowed freedom of religion. Nowhere is it in the constitution you get freedom from religion. The right to pray is already guaranteed. Why not allow a Dr or Rx freedom in how or who they help? The opposite of either is rather scary to me.

    So if your ex wife moves in with her new wealthy boyfriend, you still have to pay her alimony?

    Sheesh

  4. Guess that puts an end to all those mead-fueled naked pagan festivals in the ozarks… well at least i still have my fuzzy memories

  5. I’m a liberal democrat if ever there was one, but I think equal funding for public and ‘specia'(eg. religous) schools would love a lot of problems. It’s how things work over here.

    Problem solved.

  6. “Deny alimony to ex-spouses who live with a boyfriend or girlfriend.”

    Done right, this could eliminate some injustices. It hardly seems right that an ex-husband be impoverished so that he can subsidize his ex’s screwing around.

  7. Not teaching sex ed? You know, just because you don’t teach it doesn’t mean it’s going to change anything.

    That seems to be the whole problem with Republicans – they live in a fantasy world where it’s “see no evil, hear no evil,” and if you ignore something, then it doesn’t exist.

  8. Xerxes, those “allows” are awfully skewed toward Protestantism. If you allow one religious practice, then all are also allowed, not just yours. It’s all or nothing.

    “Why not allow a Dr or Rx freedom in how or who they help? The opposite of either is rather scary to me.”
    You’re scared of a doctor giving you medicine? I’m confused. I’m scared that if a doctor’s “morals” don’t feel like helping me, then he doesn’t have to. THAT scares me.

  9. Everytime I see the whole “tach kids god and not how to wear a condom” I am reminded that I am surrounded by fucking idiots.

    Couldn’t the christian nazi groups recogize how that same attitude didn’t do any favors for the catholics?

  10. Why not allow a Dr or Rx freedom in how or who they help? The opposite of either is rather scary to me.

    This seems to invite the days of ‘separate but equal’. I don’t want a doctor telling people they have to accpet Jesus, be white and Republican to get CPR because he thinks black, liberal, atheists are morally reprehensible.

    So if your ex wife moves in with her new wealthy boyfriend, you still have to pay her alimony?

    If the spouse paying alimony was abusive, then hell yeah! And if the marriage dissolved because of the partner due alimony’s cheating, then they shouldn’t get it, period.

    Also- what if a man receiving alimony from his breadwinner ex-wife and moves in with a gay lover…ehh, never mind. I was trying to stretch this into an endorsement for gay marriage, but I don’t think it can.

    *note to Chris- is the ‘preview’ button broken? It ate my post!

  11. *note to Chris- is the ‘preview’ button broken? It ate my post!

    Not that I know of but I’ll take a look. (Did you get some type of Internal Server Error?)

    Thanks.

  12. If you allow one religious practice, then all are also allowed, not just yours. It’s all or nothing.

    I would rather all, than nothing.

    ‘separate but equal’

    I really don’t think a Dr would have a leg to stand on if he claimed these as his moral principals.

    Sex Ed? Yes, you have a point there. If parents would fulfil their duty in that respect, then this wouldn’t be a problem, but many don’t. Kids do need to learn about their bodies, the physical and emotional sides of sex and how to prevent STDs. Care should be taken however in not endorsing or condemning any sexual practices. We can’t have gay teens committing suicide, nor can we give free condoms in school. Please tell me you agree that 13 is too young to be sexually active.

  13. ‘separate but equal’

    I really don’t think a Dr would have a leg to stand on if he claimed these as his moral principals.

    What if he’s a member of KKK, Aryan Nation or some other supremacist group? Who decides which moral grounds are valid and which are not?

    Please tell me you agree that 13 is too young to be sexually active.

    I do. But my seven year old asked me today why her puppy was humping (my word, not hers!) a pillow. There is no way I can not begin the ongoing dialogue about sex now, especially since she thought it was funny to imitate him (it was, but I certainly don’t want her to do it at her friend’s hopuse tonight!)

    I’m not going to get explicit- she’s too young. But children need a frank, open dialogue that recognizes what they already know, corrects misconceptions and teaches safe practice (at the appropriate age).

    Telling kids to not have sex has been about as effective as telling them not to drink and smoke.

  14. My parents never told me not to drink or smoke – they didn’t HAVE to. It’s odd, really – my sister and I were brought up in a house essentially without religion, but we have better morals and values than 80% of these fundamentalists spouting about Jeusus, Mohammed, or the FSM.

  15. McGee

    80% huh? Were’d that number come from?

    Gorckat

    You’ve got the right idea. Sex ed starts when your child is old enough to ask the questions. For me too, it was pets that prompted the asking. I just know that all parents aren’t so comfortable with there own sexuality to be so frank. You can’t just tell kids not to have sex, drink or smoke. They need concrete reasons why. If your logic is successful in getting through, they’ll refrain.

    Who decides what is moral? Any belief that sees one man as better or worse than another is not moral. So anyone whos claim to moral grounds for not treating a Black, or Jew or gay or poor or whatever, loses the lawsuit. A doctor should be able to decide for himself however, if he or she will prescribe birth control, perform an abortion (if legal), perform a sex change or breast enhancement.

  16. Who decides what is moral? Any belief that sees one man as better or worse than another is not moral…A doctor should be able to decide for himself however, if he or she will prescribe birth control, perform an abortion (if legal), perform a sex change or breast enhancement.

    I can’t phrase my thought properly at the moment…I’m trying to get at the moral judgement a doctor would make when denying an abortion…isn’t that saying the person requesting it is ‘lesser’ for asking for it?

    But really, I think abortion may be a poor example- a doctor who is pro-life isn’t gonna be working the abortion clinic anyways 😛

    And as for pharmacists, I think their role is best considered a gateway for the drug between doctor, drug firm and patient- they can consult on effectiveness, identify harmful interactions and such, but in no way should be the decision maker. If I’m unmarried and request Viagra as prescribed by my doctor, what would prevent him calling me a sinner and denying me?

  17. If the pharmacist told you he didn’t carry Viagra because he was opposed to its use, are you suggesting he should be forced to sell it?

    If not, then we are in basic agreement. If he carries it, he should not be allowed to discriminate who he sells it to, but if he does not want to sell it, he should not be forced to.

  18. Dude, I wish I had gone to med school now. I’d “convert” to Christian Science and get a job at a hospital in Missouri, then claim that EVERY medical procedure was against my religion. Then try to get ’em to fire me and sue their asses for religious discrimination. What a sweet gig. Any young interns about to make the leap to doctoring, here’s your ticket to mega bucks in a few short weeks.

  19. If he carries it, he should not be allowed to discriminate who he sells it to, but if he does not want to sell it, he should not be forced to.

    This seems reasonable. As long as drugs can be filled reliably and safely via mail/’net order then things should be cool…except for the whole ‘morning after pill’ thing 😛

Comments are closed.