The survey finds that 72% of liberal Democrats would vote for an atheist on the ballot. 74% of them would support a more generic “non-religious” or “agnostic” candidate.Hat/tip to Friendly Atheist.
Also interesting? 14% of those voters said they would be more likely to support an atheist while only 7% say the opposite.
Three federal appeals courts around the country have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two other appeals courts have upheld it. That "circuit split" made a Supreme Court review more likely. Among the plaintiffs is Hobby Lobby, Inc. a nationwide chain of about 500 for-profit arts and crafts stores. David Green and his family are the owners and say their Christian beliefs clash with parts of the law's mandates for comprehensive coverage. They say some of the drugs that would be provided prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman's womb, which the Greens equate to abortion. The privately held company does not object to funding other forms of contraception -- such as condoms and diaphragms -- for their roughly 13,000 employees, which Hobby Lobby says represent a variety of faiths. Companies that refuse to provide the coverage could be fined up to $1.3 million daily.David Green frames the argument this way:
"This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”The Friendly Atheist responds:
On that matter, this isn’t just a war on Green’s “religious conscience.” This is a war on science and sex. Green doesn’t care that the FDA has said birth control pills don’t cause abortions — rather, they prevent abortions from happening, which you would think he’d totally support — but he believes they cause abortions. So there. And it’s hardly a surprise that an evangelical would be opposed to women having sex that doesn’t lead to a child, though Green has no problem paying for his employees’ Viagra pills…
David Green thinks his religious beliefs ought to trump those of his employees. He doesn’t want them making their own health care decisions; he thinks he knows better than they do.
There’s another issue here, too: If the Supreme Court rules in Green’s favor, where is the line drawn? What if a business owner is a Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions? Or a Christian Scientist who believe in the power of prayer over medicine?
That the Supreme Court thinks this is a case worth hearing is frightening. That they could rule in the religious owners’ favor is a disaster in the making.What if a business owner believes AIDS is God's punishment and that their religious beliefs would be violated if they paid for HIV treatment? Should businesses be allowed to not offer health plans that cover treatments for sexually transmitted infections if their religious beliefs say that sex outside of marriage should be punished?
This is not surprising, but it is useful to see in writing just how different from the rest of the United States, California is, despite having nearly 13% of the country's population.Majorities of Californians support legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage and preserving access to abortion—three social issues that have been contentious across the nation. A slim majority of adults (52%) say marijuana use should be legalized—a record high and the first time support has been above 50 percent. A larger majority of likely voters (60%) favor legalization. Democrats (64%), independents (60%), and men (57%) are more likely than Republicans (45%) and women (47%) to favor legalization. Majorities (61% adults, 68% likely voters) also say the U.S. government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in the states that allow marijuana use.Support for same-sex marriage is also at a record high, with 61 percent of adults and 64 percent of likely voters in favor. Strong majorities of Democrats (76%) and independents (67%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry, while 53 percent of Republicans are opposed. Although support continues to be higher among young Californians, a majority of those age 55 and older (55%) are also in favor for the first time. Support has increased 15 points among mainline Protestants since May (55% to 70%).Large majorities (70% adults, 79% likely voters) say the government should not interfere with a woman’s access to abortion. This view is held by majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups. And 69 percent say the Supreme Court should leave access to abortion the way it is now (49%) or make it more accessible (20%), compared to 27 percent who would like the court to make it less accessible.
It will be interesting to see how the ides that believe in progressive values of fairness and equality for all will respond to this onslaught on those value.The campaign, which largely targets states where Republicans won control of legislatures or governorships, has garnered the support of Republican political superstars such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.). The groups intend to pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban “transgender bathrooms.”Family policy councils — a creation of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family in the 1980s — have launched the Ignite plan in 15 states. Each family policy council has a three-prong plan to achieve their legislative goals over the next two years: lobbying for legislation, mobilizing pastors and social conservatives and supporting candidates that have backed their initiatives. Each group has used a stock brochure containing nearly identical wording to explain their plan and to solicit funds. In many cases, an Ignite plan was launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor.[...]In several states — such as Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — Ignite plans seems to be targeted at getting anti-gay marriage amendments passed.
Explaining her support for Proposition 8, the November measure that banned same-sex marriage, she called it a "matter of personal conscience and my faith."
But Whitman, a Presbyterian who supports gay civil unions, said the thousands of same-sex marriages that took place last year before the ban should be legally recognized -- a sentiment opposed by many Proposition 8 backers. Moreover, she said, gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children.
Whitman's approach on fiscal matters -- a key element of her pitch to voters -- rested on other seeming contradictions.
At a time when California has frozen tax refunds and halted highway construction to preserve solvency, Whitman, who described herself as a billionaire, said the state should not ask even those in the highest income-tax bracket to pay more.
"One of the things which I'm sure you know," she said, "is that 1% of the people in California pay 50% of the taxes, right? And I am not in favor of raising taxes on anyone right now."
[...]
Besides objecting to higher taxes -- which along with program cuts formed Wilson's solution to the 1990s budget mess -- Whitman also said she would have voted against Proposition 187 had she lived in California when it passed in 1994. The measure, pressed by Wilson as he sought reelection that year, was intended to deny education, healthcare and other public services to undocumented immigrants.
"I would not have been prepared to strip all of those services away from children," she said.
At the same time, however, Whitman said Tuesday that schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies should be required to report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. She later backtracked on schools, saying, "I want to think about that a little bit." She also said she opposed the issuance of drivers' licenses for those in the country illegally.
Whitman also called herself a champion of the environment. But she voiced qualms about California's efforts against global warming, mainly the attempt under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to force car makers to adopt emission standards tougher than the federal government's.
[...]
Whitman said she supported the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis -- and regretted not casting a vote in that historic election.
As an "extraordinarily busy" mother and traveling executive, she said, she "didn't vote as often as I should, and it's something I regret. And no good excuses for it. Wish I had. Should have."
As for restoring California's fiscal health, Whitman said that holding the line on taxes and scaling back state regulations would spur economic growth and pump new money into the treasury -- an agenda that Schwarzenegger pursued with no success. Whitman also called for steps that would seem to deepen the budget hole: higher salaries for math and science teachers, along with new cuts in corporate income taxes.
At the same time, she said voters should repeal ballot measures that dedicated money solely to mental health and tobacco-related healthcare programs so that revenue could be diverted elsewhere.
She offered no specifics on programs she would cut.
