Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 7     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   Next
UTJ

Registered:
Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #126 
Quote:
This is not just about Catholics . . .


I agree !! I was watching The Five today and the first story is about "The Catholics,
"The Catholics", "The Catholics", "The Catholics" and getting them (us) stirred up. Well, I am a Catholic and exactly as you stated, Longknife, America may be missing a great opportunity.  Take  a look at "how the Faithful voted" and you see why we need to get as many of these votes back as possible.


How the Faithful Voted by The Pew Forum

0
UTJ

Registered:
Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #127 
This from the Notre Dame website...
  
The following is a statement from Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., president of the University of Notre Dame, on the change announced Feb. 10 regarding the religious liberty concerns related to the Health and Human Services ruling on birth control coverage in insurance plans:

“The widespread concerns expressed by Catholics and people from other faiths have led today to a welcome step toward recognizing the freedom of religious institutions to abide by the principles that define their respective missions. We applaud the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties.

“There remain a number of unclear and unresolved issues, and we look forward to joining the U.S. bishops and leaders from other religious institutions to work with the administration to resolve them.”





0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #128 

 

 

Except for convicted murderers . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
momamma3

Registered:
Posts: 63
Reply with quote  #129 
Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church who delivered the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, put his pro-life views against the mandate front and center.  
 
Rick Warren tweeted: 
I’d Rather Go to Jail Than Obey Mandate
  
You can read the whole article here.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #130 

"This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand"

Terence P. Jeffrey is reporting that twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members -- led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars -- have signed a statement declaring that Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand."

The statement -- put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School -- is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame's top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university's Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the President of Notre Dame.

In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree.

Some of the other distinguished Notre Dame faculty who signed the statement condemning Obama’s mandate are Prof. Patrick Griffin, chairman of Notre Dame's History Department; Prof. Richard Garnett, an associate dean; John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life; Christian Smith, director of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society; Prof. Paolo Carozza, director of Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights; Prof. Philip Bess, Notre Dame’s Director of Graduate Studies; and Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history.

Other leading organizers of the letter included Prof. Robert George of Princeton and Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.

When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame's May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong.

“Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”

Many Catholic bishops and lay leaders had criticized Notre Dame's decision to grant Obama honorary degree to Obama--pointing to his long-standing position in favor of legalized abortion on demand, which included going so far as to oppose a law in the Illinois state senate that would have simply said that a baby born alive in that state was entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as any other born "person."

In their statement released late Friday, the 25 Notre Dame faculty members and the many other prominent scholars from other institutions who joined them said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate -- even with Obama’s proposed adjustments on Friday -- remains as “assault on religious liberty and rights of conscience.”

“The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (‘cost free’) these same products and services,” said the scholars. “Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”

The statement also said that Obama’s latest iteration of the regulation is “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims” and “cannot stand.”

“The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” the scholars said. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #131 
Obama must quash religious freedom to save earth from global warming

  
Jim Hoft says just when you thought you’d heard everything from these statist crackpots, they spring this on you…
 
Obama must be able to quash religious freedom in order to save Earth from global warming junk science.
  
Think Progress reported:

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women.  The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all.  Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.”
  
Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution.

And that’s why Obama must quash freedom of religion…  To save the planet!

Meanwhile in the real world… 122 Serbians have died this winter from harsh conditions.
  


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #132 

Whom the Gods would destroy

J.R. Dunn says it seems that Obama, in a classic act of hubris, has created the means of his own destruction.  Through his great historical contribution, his health care bill, he has struck what was surely intended to be a lethal blow against the oldest organization on earth -- an organization with something on the order of a billion members, with a cadre of hundreds of thousands of highly trained and dedicated personnel, and a history of overcoming political threats that make Obama look like a kindergartner.
 
I'm referring, of course, to the Catholic Church.  Now, I don't mean that the Archangel Gabriel will appear out of the East to scourge the administration with a blazing sword, though I would pay to see that.  What I'm saying is that Obama has at last taken the step that we all knew he had in him, the ultimate act of arrogance and contempt that will bring the forces of history down upon him.
 
The left has always underestimated the Catholic Church.  "How many divisions has the pope?" Stalin once asked Molotov, mocking the Church's powerlessness in the modern era.  He was not around to see John Paul II rend the Bolshevik kingdom in twain at the climax of the Cold War, utilizing the only forces he required: moral certainty and absolute faith in the divine mission.  Most American leftists are a little different, viewing the Church as an anachronism, obsessed with medieval ideas having no place in the third millennium and populated with strange figures in outmoded clothing, if not with an endless parade of child-molesters. 
 
What they overlook is two thousand years of history.  An organization does not survive for that length of time -- and no other organization has -- without internalizing things not completely understood by even the deepest thinkers among us.  The Church survived the fall of Rome, the barbarians, the first Muslim upsurge, several schisms, the Renaissance princes, the 20th-century totalitarians, and its own plunges into decadence, and it will also survive modernism.  Which is in fact what it confronts in Obama: a man of vast though superficial sophistication and little insight who has punched all the tickets available to him in his epoch and culture and truly believes there is nothing else.  And now this man, afraid of revealing his own college transcripts, thinks he can take on the Church of Peter, founded a millennium before the appearance of any nation now existing on this earth.
 
This is Obama's game, despite the fact that it was Kathleen Sebelius who triggered the confrontation.  She is not particularly relevant, being simply a tool in Obama's hands.  (I have no doubt that she thinks that she's showing that she won't be pushed around by any bishops, several of whom have threatened her with effective excommunication.  But this is spiritual vanity, a commonplace and contemptible sin.)
 
The issue in question is a federal edict requiring that all organizations provide their employees with access to birth control and abortion as part of their health plans.  It explicitly includes the Catholic Church -- its schools, its colleges, its hospitals, its institutions -- in open defiance of the Church's basic teachings regarding human sexuality.  This edict is a direct product of Obama's health care scheme and is derived completely from his philosophy.
 
With this move, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet.  How will the Church respond?  It could be as straightforward as thousands of priests standing before their congregations the last Sunday of October and encouraging them to go into the voting booth to punish the enemies of all that is holy.  (Three-quarters of American priests condemned the policy from their pulpits last weekend.  Obama has accomplished something there -- the pope himself couldn't get that many priests to agree on anything.)  But it will probably be more subtle than that.
 
History has its own rules that are not our rules.  One of them appears to state that a man who overreaches himself will fall in proportion to the extent that he has overreached.  Obama has overreached himself as far as any political figure in the American record, and his fall will be proportionate.  He cannot avoid this or mitigate it.  His action against the Church is an example of that small class of acts that cannot be uncommitted.  (I'm sure that some will see this as a scheme by Obama the Clever -- that he will reconsider and revoke the regulations just before the election, thus winning the eternal gratitude of Catholics across the country.  Sorry...it doesn't work that way.  You can't "reconsider" an attack on basic religious beliefs.)
 
This will be the kernel around which serious disgust, loathing, and resistance to Obama at last coalesce.  It has already worked its way through the Catholic community.  In short order, it will move on to the other Christian confessions and to practicing Jews.  Believers, no matter what their connection to the eternal, will see Obama as a man who has profaned the temple.  A man who sees himself as over and above the divine.  They all know their history, they are all aware of what becomes of such types, and they will respond as their faith requires of them.
 
Serious liberals (a dying breed, it goes without saying) will come to see him as a man who has truly violated the Establishment Clause at the most basic level.  (E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post has already expressed this.)  They may not turn on him, but many will cease to support him, as a rogue politician who is capable of anything.  (It should be mentioned here that he has also thrown away his biggest weapon against Mitt Romney -- Romney's membership in the odd yet wholesome Christian offshoot known as Mormonism.  Obama will find it difficult to trample anyone's religion after this.)
 
But it will not be believers or liberals who at last bring Obama down.  That will occur as a result of his own efforts.  Consider the ancient Greek dramas -- it is the violation itself that brings about destruction, not any outside response.  The gods don't need to step in.  The act creates a cascade of consequences, each of which must be dealt with and each of which creates its own cascade, which events must themselves be addressed, until the transgressor  is overwhelmed and finds himself in a lonely place, facing the nemesis that he has fled for so long, only to learn that it was himself, always and forever.
 
This is no longer an ordinary electoral campaign.  Through Obama's action, it has taken on the status of the archetypal, with the foolish, proud mortal taking up arms against eternity.  We all know how that works out, even if Obama doesn't.  But he will learn, over the next few months, while we all look on.
 
And God help me, I am looking forward to it.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #133 

Obama won't budge on sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients

White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew told Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday this morning that the Obama Administration will not budge on the controversial mandate that forces Catholic organizations to provide birth control, abortion drugs and sterilizations to all employees for free. Lew told Wallace the White House will not budge on this,

"Our position is clear. We have set out our policy."

Lew knows the Catholic bishops are the leaders of the US church and yet he misleads on their position of authority.

Anybody still think Obama isn't acting like a dictator?

 

And the longer Congress lets him get away with this stuff, the bolder he gets.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #134 

When Karl Marx speaks, Barack Obama listens

J. Matt Barber says Barack Obama may have just lost the election. He has foolishly gone to war in an election year with tens of millions of Catholics, Protestants and Jews -- Democrat, Republican and independent alike. He has thrown down a radical feminist gauntlet and dared the Church to pick it up.
 
They’ve picked it up.
 
From running up trillions in debt and deficit, to the vast expansion of the size and scope of federal bureaucracy, Mr. Obama has done more in three years to supplant our 236 year-old Constitutional Republic with a Euro-style socialist autocracy – than a lesser Marxist could have accomplished in a lifetime.
 
But controlling the purse strings is not nearly enough. A central element of full-blown secular-socialism is the suppression of religious liberty -- principally, freedom of conscience.
 
Karl Marx once said: "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."
 
When Karl Marx speaks, Barack Obama listens.
 
In what is perhaps the most egregious executive overreach in our lifetime, Obama’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has unconstitutionally decreed that both Catholic and Protestant organizations must violate fundamental tenets of the Christian faith by providing ObamaCare coverage that includes birth control, sterilization and various forms of abortion. This is as blatant a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee to religious "free exercise" as we’ve ever seen.
 
Despite two pathetic feints at "compromise," Obama’s illegal requirement that faith-based groups pay for policies providing immoral "reproductive services" remains in full force.
 
On Friday, the Obama administration offered its latest non-compromise "compromise." LifeSiteNews.com reports: "The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work."
 
America: this arrogant, narcissistic, amoral man thinks you’re stupid. Who do you think pays for the insurance policies that provide "free" birth control, sterilizations and abortifacients to employees? Why, the very religious organizations doctrinally prohibited from paying for these "services" in the first place, of course.
 
This is nothing but a South Side Chicago shell game, dressed up as a concession. Obama’s unprecedented attack on the First Amendment continues full steam ahead.
 
In Dreams from My Father, Mr. Obama writes: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully." It should come as little surprise that, among those carefully selected friends, he gives his "Marxist professors and the structural feminists" top billing. In fact, as we approach the 2012 general election, it has become alarmingly clear the degree to which various secular "isims" have shaped the development of Obama’s ungodly worldview.
 
From the moment he falsely claimed, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation," many have screamed from the rooftops that, despite his incongruous claims to be a Christ follower, Barack Obama, in reality, harbors tremendous animus toward all things Christian.

Continue reading here . . .

Needs repeating:  "Barack Obama, in reality, harbors tremendous animus toward all things Christian."

  


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #135 

Catholic Bishops oppose compromise on birth-control insurance

Louise Radnofsky is reporting that Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration's proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn't believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.

Under the new policy, religious employers that don't want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.

Continue reading here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #136 

now, the BIG question is: WILL BOEHNER HAVE ENOUGH GUTS TO ACTUALLY USE THAT BILL and take that UP OR DOWN VOTE????

and IF HE DOESN'T, we know what his words and actions are worth, don't we??? In other words, he is just as slimey as all the others in Washington DC.

0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #137 

Evan Thomas on Obama's edict
   
   


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #138 

Wake Up, America! Your freedom is under assault each and every day

Since when does a president have the power to threaten to issue a rule gutting religious liberty and then claims the power to make compromises on that issue?

He doesn’t have the power to do anything that he did today.  He doesn’t have the power to dictate that anybody, anywhere, provide taxpayer-funded abortion or abortion services, or contraception.  He doesn’t have the power.  And particularly with the separation of church and state and the Bill of Rights.  The government just can’t get in religion in any way, shape, manner, or form.  But when it’s religion and it’s the Catholic Church and it’s Obama telling them, “Hey, we know you don’t like abortion, but guess what?  You’re gonna have to start paying for ‘em!  Ha-ha-ha-ha.”

He can’t do that.  Then he comes along and offers a compromise.  “Okay, we’ll shift my demand that this be done to the insurance companies,” and everybody says, “Good, we beat him back!”  No, you didn’t.  Nobody beat Obama back on this.  He’s just now telling another group he has no legal authority over what they’re gonna have to do.  He can’t any more tell the Catholic Church what they have to do than he can tell insurance companies what they have to do.  Not by fiat.  The president does not have the kind of power Obama is wielding.  But he’ll get a with it as long as nobody tries to stop him.  Recess appointments when there aren’t any recesses?

Fine, he’ll do it!  If the Senate is not gonna stop him, if he’s gonna make recess appointments when we’re not even in recess and the Senate accepts it?  Why stop, if you’re him?  Just because it’s unconstitutional doesn’t mean that that alone is going to disallow him from doing it.  People rob banks even though it’s against the law.  And if we stop trying to catch bank robbers, a lot more people would be robbing banks.  If we stop trying to catch murderers, a lot more people would commit murder.  By the same token, the law doesn’t stop people from doing things.  It’s the enforcement that does.

Read the whole thing here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #139 

Catholic Bishops: Obama's solution "is unacceptable"

Terence P. Jeffrey is reporting that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops  issued a statement late on Friday declaring that the small alteration Barack Obama had announced earlier in the day to a regulation that would force all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives -- including those that cause abortion -- is 'unacceptable" because, among other things, it does not protect the freedom-of-conscience rights of secular for-profit employers, or secular non-profit employers, or religious insurers, or self-insured religious employers, or individual Americans.

The alteration Obama described Friday says merely that insurance companies providing coverage to employees of religious institutions that object to sterilization, contraception or abortifacients will have to provide free coverage for these things to the employees rather than explicitly include them among the benefits covered by the premiums charged to the religious employer.

The regulation will still require individual Americans and private-sector employers to buy, and insurers to provide, insurance coverage that pays for sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients--even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.

The bishops expressed their hope that the new regulatory mandates  Obama described today "appear subject to some measure of change." "But," they said, "we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders -- for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals -- is unacceptable and must be corrected." [The bolded text is in the original.]

Here is the entirety of the bishops' statement explaining their continuing objections to the Obama administration's mandate that all heath-care plans must cover sterilizations, artificial contraception, and abortifacients -- all of which the Catholic Church teaches are morally wrong:

The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare. That is why we raised two serious objections to the "preventive services" regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011.

First, we objected to the rule forcing private health plans -- nationwide, by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen -- to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated "preventive services" prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether.

Second, we explained that the mandate would impose a burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such "services" immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage. We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders -- not just the extremely small subset of "religious employers" that HHS proposed to exempt initially.

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

·  It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

·  It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider.

·  Finally, we are told that the one-year extension on the effective date (from August 1, 2012 to August 1, 2013) is available to any non-profit religious employer who desires it, without any government application or approval process.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue -- with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency -- our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Geebs

Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #140 
Mr Longknife
  
We have many common threads indeed!  I comment further since I have learned from your response:  just at you sought to illustrate this Constitutional issue from the exterior of a religious preference, I had hoped to do the same from the cradle-core of the religious  preference at the setting's center of this controversy.  I share your aversion to legal enforcement of  morality, uneforceable laws, and totalitarian Federalism.  It is a pleasure, and I infer you are a vet -- THANK YOU.  GB
0
Geebs

Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #141 
Mr Longknife, I dont wish to derail this thread, but I appreciate your comments.  I too despise this issue.  

I question how well I might have articulated  my point given your topic sentence.  I come from a heritage of deep Southern aristocracy, deep South immigrants, USN veterans, USNA graduates, rebel heritage in 1776 and 1861 -- and still a  multi-ethnic Catholic pedigree that arrives with the occasional suspicious comment even on my own turf .  Your personal views do not conflict with our mutual political ones::  this is a STATE issue.  Further, even anti-abortion Catholics can be attuned to the corporeally compassionate gradations between early and late term actions, no matter the ethical view.  To be clear, I wish to underscore that this is about a bloated federal behemoth looking to absorb religious position in violation of the First Amendment, led by a would be dictator.  
0
Geebs

Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #142 
On the money Longknife. Thanks.

 My wife and I are practicing Catholics, married in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) 20 years as of March 7th,  We have very different opinions on a several substantive RCC teachings -- so we are a big tent within our own MARRIAGE, but we are not unclear on how being accountable to our consciences is separate matter from the doctrine of our own faith.  

Specious arguments in the media abound, focused on whether or not Catholic women use contraception, or whether or not RCC agencies should have a voice of conscience if they are receiving federal funding.  Neither have any bearing on the matter.  Orthopraxic compliance of individual Catholics has nothing to do with the doctrine of the RCC -- a position held as guaranteed by the FIRST AMENDMENT.  Acceptance of federal funding does not obviate  the Church being permitted to a conscience/doctrine that might not comply with the values of all voters -- again guaranteed by the First Amendment.  

Oddly the Catholic establishment is vilified by many who do not understand that 1) the RCC will close/divest operations of whatever good works it must to preserve its doctrinal integrity and 2) even where federal funding is received, the RCC invests considerably in good works that are a massive underpinning of education and social services in our nation.  (if the RCC suddenly ceased all educational, medical, and charitable efforts, the loss would be staggering to our society; even the wicked LBJ knew this).

The Washington Post had three columinsts (Michael Gerson, E. J. Dionne, and Molly Henneberger) that articulated this disaster last Sunday -- doing well to illustrate to the treachery of this BO-WH in their negotiations in good faith with RCC leaders.  Read these; there are liars and thieves but there is nothing like the traitors.  Lucifer himself was the first one.  

A world of Diderot reminds me of Paul Berman's TERROR AND LIBERALISM  The ideals of the Romantic movement are at the core of the modern totalitarian psyche.  We must remain vigilant to the social contract philosophy at our origin -- that as individuals we are invested with rights by our Creator.  (Like John Locke, David Hume, Adam Ferguson etc. -- NOT JJ Rousseau   

BTW... it was a disagreement with my bride that led me down the rabbit hole of arguing against being a Birther.  She was, I wasnt..... I found Beckwith on the path to better understand (and CHALLENGE!) a position I did not understand or agree with.  Now look at me.    God bless you all.  GB


0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #143 

Describes Obama to a tee
 

UnConstitutional, UnAmerican, and flat-out Evil . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #144 

Obama announces contraception rule "accommodation" for religious organizations

Jake Tapper is reporting that with the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, at 12:15 p.m. ET, President Obama will announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
 
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
 
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.
 
One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.
 
In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization strongly opposed to that care in order to obtain it.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
 
Obama digs his heels in.  It is a false compromise.  It changes nothing.  Insurance plans must still cover contraceptives.

The weasel is just trying to weasel out of of this political blunder without changing squat.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #145 
Obama's stilts


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Capt Joe

Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #146 

Isn't this wonderful! The birth rate for non-Muslims is dropping while the birth rate for Muslims is increasing. so let's drive the non-Muslim birth rate even farther down. This math formula is not good. The ancillary formula will also drive down the birth rate of the subset of Catholics and Christians. This is the Obama strategy in a nutshell. The Obama science of malgenics. Hopefully this will blow up in his face.

0
UTJ

Registered:
Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #147 
EWTN Sues U.S. Government To Stop Contraception Mandate

https://www.ewtn.com/hhsmandate/pressRelease.htm
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #148 

Remember Executive Order 13535?

Executive Order 13535 -- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered)...

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014...

Section 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language...

This was the executive order Obama filed in order to bribe Bart Stupak to change his vote.

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich-1st) eventually found it more soothing to his soul to overlook abortions, in exchange for $578 million in earmarks, and another $727,000 for airports in his home district -- the day after his 'yea' vote for ObamaCare?  Congressman, how's your "moral principle" doing this morning?

To gain Stupak's "yea" vote, and the vote of his 10-principled Congressmen-followers for ObamaCare, Barack Obama created a sham Executive Order designed to relieve their guilt.  No one, including Bart Stupak believed the Executive Order would protect the lives of the unborn.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #149 

And this guy knows Obama's mandate is unlawful

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #150 

How bad is Obama’s contraception mandate?

It's so bad that even this guy thinks it's unlawful.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved