Posts Tagged ‘Christians’
Yes, he is!
It’s about time somebody said it!
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) said Wednesday that President Barack Obama is acting like the U.S. is the Soviet Union in ordering that all health-care plans must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, but that when those plans are provided by religious institutions that have a religious objection to those things the insurance company must offer them for free.
“The president has said he offered an accommodation,” said Johann’s in a speech on the Senate floor. “The accommodation is that: Whoa! Lo, and behold, this is going to be free. Now, I’d like to know what legal authority he relies upon that the president could ever order anyone to offer a service or an item free.
“He has no such authority,” said Johanns. “This isn’t the Soviet Union. This is the United States of America. We don’t believe that for a moment. Of course, you are going to be paying for this through your insurance premiums. Well, my hope is that we will read our Constitution, and we will stand as a united front, upholding religious freedom which is being violated by this mandate,” the senator added.
So Secretary Sebelius is essentially admitting that the Obamacare mandate is a form of forced participation in government-sanctioned population control?
The way these people’s minds work is downright sick. They view individuals in light of their value to the state, not as human beings. In this case, people are a drain on the welfare state because of the cost to cover their health care, so fewer is better.
Clearly ignored is how much value every individual adds to society through the ways that they labor and create and come up with new ideas, the taxes that they pay and charitable activities they engage in…and in plenty of other ways that can never be measured by cold-hearted, calculating central planners.
We The People do not exist to serve the interests of the state!
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”
On a side note, who exactly does Sebelius think is going to pay for all those unsustainable Medicare and Social Security payments the Left is so enamored with, if there are fewer workers and taxpayers to pay into a system overburdened by an aging population? Will rationing boards and “death panels” pay for themselves through a reduction in the number of seniors, too?
Congresswoman Kathy Hochul of New York was challenged by her constituents regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare mandate. Her response is very revealing:
View on YouTube
Clearly her constituents understand the constitutional ramifications more than she does!
“Under what portion of the Constitution is the government allowed to require a private or religious organization to pay for anything for free?” a constituent asks Hochul.
“Well, basically, we’re not looking to the Constitution on that aspect of it,” Hochul replied. The crowd jeered. “What I’m trying to say is basically the decision has been made by this congress that American citizens are entitled to health care,” Hochul continued.
That statement is VERY telling. Essentially she is saying that whatever decision is made by this congress supersedes the authority of the constitution itself. If congress decides that the “right” to force one group to pay for another group’s health care is more important than the unalienable rights guaranteed in our constitution, then the ruling class feels free to ram it through in defiance of the law of the land.
The constituent and Hochul went back and forth over whether the new HHS mandate tramples on the First Amendment and religious freedom.
And then the constituent seemed to stump Hochul by asking another very simple and very incisive question: “So why don’t we provide free access to Band-Aids and cancer screenings? Why is it contraception? Aren’t those more important to health care than contraception?”
“Well, clearly more work needs to be done,” Hochul replied, suggesting that more and more services must be offered for free.
Obamacare has alredy has mandated “free” coverage of some cancer screenings, but the constituent raises an excellent question. Once we’ve accepted the principle that birth control and abortion pills must be “free,” why not mandate that antibiotics and surgery be covered for “free”? Where does it stop? As one popular anti-Obamacare sign from the 2009 and 2010 Tea Party rallies warned, “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.”
The Catholic church is the single largest private provider of health care, education, and charity in the US, and the Welfare State’s largest competitor. This is exactly what Obama’s contraception mandate was designed to do – drive Catholic charities out business so that all the needy who relied on them will now be totally dependent on government services.
In the face of demands from the state of Illinois that Catholic adoption agencies place children with same-sex couples, the church refused, and the state proceeded to remove all the children in their care to other agencies. In this case, there is not much the church could do since the children are considered wards of the state until they are legally adopted.
In this case, however, patients and other recipients of Catholic health and charity services are NOT wards of the state, and have a right to voluntarily go to whatever health provider or charity they please. Since the state cannot simply forbid their clients to choose their services, I hope that these religious organizations will keep their doors open, refuse to pay the fines and force the Obama administration to take them to court, so their cases can be heard and the unconstitutionality of this mandate roundly challenged.
In a missive to parishioners on the first Sunday of Lent, Cardinal George warns that the Catholic Church will shut down its hospitals, clinics, and charities before submitting to the mandate — and provides a little history lesson as well:
What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down. …
Since 1915, the Catholic bishops of the United States have taught that basic health care should be accessible to all in a just society. Two years ago, we asked that whatever instruments were crafted to care for all, the Hyde and Weldon and Church amendments restricting funding for abortion and respecting institutional conscience continue to be incorporated into law. They were excluded. As well, the present health care reform act doesn’t cover entire sections of the U.S. population. It is not universal.
The provision of health care should not demand “giving up” religious liberty. Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship. Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.
The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church. The bishops didn’t begin this dismaying conflict nor choose its timing. We would love to have it ended as quickly as possible. It’s up to the government to stop the attack.
Insofar as advocates of the mandate insist that Catholic bishops are out of touch with their own congregations, Cardinal George exposes this as a big non-sequitur:
Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.
Theoretically, it is argued that there are Catholic voices that disagree with the teaching of the church and therefore with the bishops. There have always been those whose personal faith is not adequate to the faith of the church. Perhaps this is the time for everyone to re-read the Acts of the Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles; they collectively receive the authority to teach and govern that Christ bestowed upon the apostles. Bishops don’t claim to speak for every baptized Catholic. Bishops speak, rather, for the Catholic and apostolic faith. Those who hold that faith gather with them; others go their own way. They are and should be free to do so, but they deceive themselves and others in calling their organizations Catholic.
Although Cardinal George doesn’t spell this out, this is the crux of the difference between the church and the Obama administration. Membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary, as is employment in their extended organizations like schools, hospitals, and the like. If people don’t like the teachings of the church or want to work for an employer willing to give them contraception at no expense, they are free to seek those associations as they like. Obama and his HHS want to force Catholic organizations to accept the administration doctrine on contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, and force Catholic organizations to fund and facilitate access to them — by declaring which organizations the church runs to be authentically religious and which are not, an arrogance without precedent in the US, although certainly precedents in other political models abound, as Cardinal George points out.
Steven Ertelt reports at Life News that one Cardinal estimates that the more than 400 Catholic Hospitals in the US may have to close their doors within two years:
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago complains that the Catholic Church is being “despoiled of her institutions” as “freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past.” He says the Obama administration is saying “the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must ‘give up’ her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations.”
“So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society,” he continues. “The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.”
About the warning that Catholic hospitals may have to close up shop, he said the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012 for his area has ” a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.”
Why would Media Matters be interested in ‘fact checking’ religious groups like Focus on the Family or the 700 Club? Because Christians who speak up for Biblical truth stand in the way of the leftist agenda to establish the state as the ultimate authority on morality and truth.
This is was an Alinskyite campaign to discredit, smear and isolate influential Christian voices like Pat Robertson and Dr. James Dobson.
In light of Obama’s recent attack on religious liberty with an unconstitutional contraception mandate, the job of “watch dogs” like Media Matters is to “debunk” any claims that religious leaders or groups make in their defense and destroy their credibility.
Follow the money.
The liberal Media Matters for America organization once accepted a $50,000 grant to monitor and attack religious news outlets, according to tax returns examined by The Daily Caller.
The grant came in 2006 from the ARCA Foundation, a 60-year-old philanthropy that funds Democratic causes. The foundation gave Media Matters the $50,000 “to support a Religious Broadcasting Project to expand the monitoring and fact checking of religious broadcasts,” according to its tax return that year. [...]
…it is clear by browsing the Media Matters’ site that its researchers often write about religion: Since 2006, Media Matters has published at least 65 articles about the Christian Broadcasting Network. Titles of those stories included “Is there any tragedy Pat Robertson won’t exploit?” and “Robertson blamed [Ariel] Sharon stroke on policy of ‘dividing God’s land.’”
Other articles critical of religious broadcasters included swipes at Rev. Jerry Falwell and the then-president of Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson.
Reached by phone on Wednesday, Chris Roslan, a spokesman for the Christian Broadcasting Network, said the network was unaware of the grant or any specific program by Media Matters monitoring religious broadcasters.
“But they’d be very curious to learn about that,” he said.
A search of religion-themed stories on Media Matters’ website shows the liberal group has most recently been hitting news outlets for covering the uproar over the Obama administration’s birth control rule. One such story was headlined “Obama’s Birth Control Policy Has Support From Catholic Hospitals, Colleges, And Charities, But Fox Won’t Tell You That.”
Since being evicted from Chapman and Lownsdale Squares, costing the city thousands of dollars toclean and restore the parks they destroyed, and causing general mayhem throughout the city, Occupy Portland has been meeting daily at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Portland.
They meet in the “Che room,” named after Che Guevara, who ran Fidel Castro’s murderous gulags in Cuba and orchestrated the mass murder of millions of innocent people (essentially the Cuban version of Heinrich Himmler).
What on earth possesses a Catholic church to honor a communist butcher and host groups fighting for socialist revolution?
Liberation Theology is an attempt to dress up Marxism as Christianity. Discover The Networks gives this historical overview of the movement:
A movement that sprang from late 20th-century Roman Catholicism and has found a particularly welcoming environment in Latin America, liberation theology holds that the church must stand on the side of the impoverished and the downtrodden, and that it must, if necessary, support the overthrow of social systems that contribute to their oppression. Its more extreme advocates believe that capitalism is chief among the oppressive systems in causing social and material inequities around the world.
This movement is usually held to have begun with the second Latin American Bishops’ Conference, which was held in Colombia in 1968. At that conference, the attending bishops proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Karl Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism. The bishops interpreted every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots, and every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for a social uprising by peasants and workers. At the end of the conference, the bishops issued a document affirming the rights of the poor and accusing industrialized nations of enriching themselves at the expense of Third World countries.
The liberation theology movement’s seminal text, A Theology of Liberation, was written in 1971, three years after the Bishops’ Conference, by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian priest and theologian.
Prior to liberation theology, Catholicism was unambiguously hostile to socialism and communism, which it saw as “godless.” From the earliest centuries of the Christian era, a long line of orthodox theologians had consistently rejected collective ownership, embraced private property, and affirmed business economies. In the first year of his papacy, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) devoted an encyclical to criticizing socialism.
But in using the texts of the New Testament to justify political activism, even violent activism (Jesus was often portrayed as a revolutionary dressed in guerrilla fatigues and carrying a rifle), liberation theology seemed to embrace socialist theory as well. Dressing up Marxism as Christianity put it at odds with the Vatican, which, in the 1990s under Pope John Paul II, began trying to slow the movement’s momentum through the appointment of more conservative prelates throughout Latin America.
Ultimately, liberation theology was crippled by a convergence of several factors: (a) oppsition by the Church hierarchy; (b) the defeat of the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador; and (c) the free market economics boom that swept through Latin America soon after those defeats. This boom demonstrated that economic growth was a far more efficient way of fighting poverty than armed struggle.
It’s no wonder, then, that we find churches that embrace this Marxist ideology are deeply involved with Marxist movements like Occupy Wall Street.
Clearly, the pastoral administration of St. Francis unquestionably believes that “the cause” to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a socialist utopia “is just.” They merely question whether or not “violence has a place in protest movements.” Funny, that’s a question Jesus never had to ask, seeing as he was NOT a Marxist revolutionary.
The founders only took up arms after a decade of peaceful appeals and overtures resulted in the king deposing their elected officials, quartering soldiers in their homes, arresting and holding innocent citizens without due process, blockading their ports, and other abuses which could only be dislodged by force. By then, it was no longer a “protest movement.” It was defending their homes and families from military aggression, which is clearly permitted by scripture.
Occupy Wall Street has no such claim. In fact, Occupy has clearly been the aggressor against any who dared to stand in their way, and their protests have been rife with drug use, theft, vandalism, public urination and defecation, and even rape and murder.
The Tea Party proved for three years that it is possible for Americans to make their voices heard in a peaceful, law-abiding manner.
It won’t be the last, unless we get it repealed!
Leftist “tolerance” on display, terrorizing a 14-year-old girl for daring to exercise her right to free speech with an opinion they disagree with. THIS is what REAL “hate” looks like.
A 14-year-old homeschooler who testified before the Maryland state senate against a bill redefining marriage has been the subject of cyberbullying, vicious name-calling, and death threats.
Sarah Crank, 14, told the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee last month she believes children need a mother and a father. “ I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender,” she told the senators. “Even though some kids think it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on.”
She continued, “People say that they were born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change.”
“Today’s my 14th birthday, and it would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote ‘no’ on gay marriage,” she said.
After audio of her uncharacteristically mature testimony was posted on YouTube, the story went viral on homosexual activist websites—and death threats quickly followed.
TFP Student Action, a Roman Catholic organization dedicated to traditional morality, recorded several of the most offensive threats in a press release. A commenter on the YouTube video wrote, “If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”
Other YouTube comments ranged from, “Her parents should be exterminated,” to, “Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”
A comment posted on LGBTNation.com said, ““And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…”
Since TFP issued its press release, the comments have not moderated. Supporters of same-sex “marriage” continue to wish violence, sexual assault, or censorship upon the girl. (Warning, profanity):
- I hope you get raped by your married parents.—madisonen;
- Stupid bi**h – I hope you die on your Bday!!!!!—geminiboi007;
- A dumb way for a dumb bi**h to do dumb things. Stop talking nonsense that your Christian, Anti-Gay parents are force-feeding you through a thin straw, and learn to accept other people. Now shut up bi**h, before I smack you.—123adbnvcs;
“I really applaud and admire Sarah’s remarkable courage,” John Ritchie, director of TFP Student Action, told LifeSiteNews.com. “Her testimony against counterfeit same-sex marriage in Maryland was truthful and articulate. She spoke for the overwhelming majority of Americans – including many teenagers – who want to protect true marriage from being dishonored, redefined, and distorted.”
According to its website, TFP Student Action “networks with college students on more than 719 campuses,” promoting chivalry and a Christian ethical conduct.
“The homosexual movement only talks about ‘tolerance,’ but never really practices any,” Ritchie told LifeSiteNews.com. “Sin produces anger and disorder within souls,” he said. “Vice clouds reason.”
Pray for Pastor Youcef and his family. The Iranian court has sentenced him to death for the “crime” of believing in Christ, for asserting his God-given right to educate his own children according to his faith, and for trying to follow the law by registering a home church. This is Sharia law in action – no tolerance, no freedom of conscience, no “peace” for those who dare to assert their God-given, unalienable right not to bow to Islamic tyranny.
Unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, not the state. Youcef has an unalienable human right – granted by God – to choose his religion according to his conscience, no matter what a tyrannical government says. By denying him this right, Iran is committing a crime against God’s “Natural Law” – the higher law that no man or ruler is above.
Our founders understood this, which is why they condemned King George III for violating “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, and protected unalienable rights with in the constitution. Any government or law which violates Natural Law and unalienable rights is unjust by definition.
Pray for Youcef and his family as they are being subjected to this tyrannical injustice!
Despite the international outrage over the incarceration and slated death penalty for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, Iran’s judiciary has issued orders to hang the dissident Christian.
Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the Washington-based American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), said on Wednesday, “We are hearing reports from our contacts in Iran that the execution orders for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may have been issued.”
Nadarkhani, now 34, was arrested in 2009 for questioning the compulsory Islamic education of his children and for seeking to register a home-based church. He was sentenced to death in 2010.
The ACLJ has closely monitored the case and has previously translated Iranian legal documents.
Sekulow added, “It is unclear whether Pastor Youcef would have a right of appeal from the execution order. We know that the head of Iran’s Judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, must approve publicly held executions, but only a small percentage of executions are held in public – most executions in Iran are conducted in secret.”
There has been a dramatic increase of executions in the Islamic Republic over the last month, Sekulow said.
Star Parker argues that it is the Left who is waging a deliberate culture war to destroy traditional morality and institutions in America, and Rick Santorum’s recent surge in the polls reflects American’s desire for a candidate who is willing to push back on more than just fiscal issues:
While the Republican Party splits on whether “values” should stand front and center on its platform, Democrats and the left make no pretense about this.
The political left, led today by President Barack Obama, is defined and energized by an ongoing sense of mission to wage a cultural war in America.
And the left is determined to win this war, to obliterate traditional values and to sever the connection between rights and responsibilities.
The three recent left-wing victories all touch these key areas: End the traditional institution of marriage as a bulwark of our society. Continue to promote sex as recreation and relegate the life created by this activity as a trivial byproduct that we allow to be destroyed with ease. Destroy the sanctity of private property so government can finance irresponsibility with other people’s money.
Obama is unapologetic about this agenda and even has the audacity to call it Christian for government to borrow trillions on the American people’s good credit and then permit politicians to determine who should be taxed to pay for it all.
The Santorum surge, I think, is being fueled by a growing sense that our economic crisis is at its core a moral crisis. And there is a growing sense among Republicans and conservatives that we must recognize the cultural war being waged and engage it with clarity and aggressiveness that matches that of the left.
An America with broken families, with an aging population growing old alone, with no educational framework to pass traditional truths on to our children, and with no private property so that our wealth and our wages remain exposed to politicians, is an America without a future.
Santorum is offering the very clear, consistent conservative alternative to this disaster. I think it’s why he is becoming the biggest surprise so far of this campaign.
Allen West’s History Lesson To Congress: GOP Party Of ‘Free Men,’ Democrat Handouts ‘Insidious Form Of Slavery’
Allen West gave this phenomenal address on the House floor in commemoration of Black History Month, reminding Congress of the many historical instances where Republicans have fought for racial equality and freedom since the party’s founding, and how Democrats have continually been the party of racial discrimination and government dependency.
When the Civil War ended, and after Republican President Abraham Lincoln liberated the slaves, Democrats initiated Jim Crow laws to discriminate against blacks. Later on the KKK was founded as the the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.
The Ku Klux Klan assassinated many Republicans including Republican RepresentativeJames M. Hinds (December 5, 1833—October 22, 1868) of Little Rock. Hinds represented Arkansas in the United States Congress from June 24, 1868 through October 22, 1868.
Today Rep. Allen West (R-FL) praises the Republican Party’s proud and storied history in standing up for the rights of African Americans.
Republican Rep. Allen West decried government “handouts” as the worst form of modern “slavery” during an impassioned floor speech Wednesday evening.
The freshman Florida congressman, who is black, made the remarks in commemoration of Black History Month. He used his floor speech to detail the Republican Party’s role throughout American history in promoting equal rights and freedom for black Americans.
He said that commitment did not end after Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.“Republicans have been on the frontlines of the fight for equal rights and individual manifest destiny since our party’s founding under Lincoln,” he said.
In modern times, West said, this has meant fighting to prevent black Americans “from being trapped in a permanent underclass through dependence on government handouts.” He said that fight continues despite the welfare reform of the 1990s.
West said the GOP “firmly believes” in the safety net. “We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock,” he added.
“For this reason, the Republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us. Conversely, the Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today, and it does not promote economic freedom,” West said.
Jesus is not a Democrat or Republican, and anyone who claims that “God is on our side” politically needs to step back and take a second look.
As Christians, we are supposed to be on God’s side, not He on ours. We are the servants, He is the Master. We are obligated to look at scripture and interpret the claims of the world – including political parties – through that lens. Whenever something does not align with scripture, we are called to reject it, not to twist scripture to fit with our preconceived ideas.
We are commanded, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.” ~ Romans 12:2
So when I look at political issues, I am constantly asking myself, “what does the Bible say about this?” What does God say about human life? About economics? About private property? About justice? About the poor?
It baffles me how many Christians vote loyally along partisan lines without ever questioning whether the positions of that party or candidate measure up scripturally. How they will vote for someone who supports killing the unborn, debasing the currency, selling the next generation of citizens into debt slavery, keeping the poor dependent on government handouts, or robbing one citizen of his rightfully earned property in order to “redistribute” the stolen property to another.
Now, Americans are faced with one political party which is directly assaulting religious freedom itself.
Christians, it’s time to wake up and ask, “what does God have to say about this?” Then go out and vote for those who are on God’s side.
I don’t get it. I really don’t. Most of my friends are true Christians, believing wholeheartedly that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. But many of them will almost blindly enter the voting booth every two years and pull the lever for the Democrats.
Just recently, hundreds of Christians of all denominations marched here in New York City to show their opposition to Mayor Bloomberg’s school-use ban. Trotting out the tired “separation of church and state” defense, Bloomberg declared that religious organizations are no longer permitted to use public school property, when not otherwise occupied, for meeting space.
However noble this peaceful assembly of believers was, many in the crowd were die-hard Democrats. This is, after all, New York City, the very heart of liberal and progressive thought. And how many of these faithful will allow their party faithfulness to trump their biblical beliefs when this November’s election rolls around?
Nationally, Catholic and Protestant charity programs doing great work with children, single mothers, the elderly, and others must now provide abortion coverage in their health care. This is an obvious affront to the teachings of these religious groups. But will there truly be a stand against this move come election day?
The Democratic Party is proudly pro-choice, supporting abortion in all its forms, including partial birth abortion. The Democrat Party supports gay marriage. Isn’t the Bible very clear on where it stands on these two very divisive issues?
And the Democrats, from top to bottom, have unabashedly latched onto the “redistribution of wealth” concept, adeptly dovetailing it with contorted biblical teaching.
At last week’s National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama talked about being his brother’s keeper and how we all have an obligation to share what we have. In this crucial area of alleviating the pain of poverty, according to the president’s take on the Bible, the government is somehow mandated to shove religion down our throats.
The president, however, was clearly twisting Scripture. The Bible encourages believers to give generously to the needs of others. It does not tell us to set up civil overseers to force us to do so.
Obama Forces Christians Into Lose-Lose Choice: Abandon Religious Principles, Or Be Forced Into Nationalized Obamacare Plans
If Catholics stick to their principles, Obama wins because they will be forced to cancel their coverage and all their employees will forced into nationalized Obamacare plans. If they compromise, Obama wins because he has forced religious institutions to bow the knee to unconstitutional dictates.
What if you are an individual who refuses to purchase an insurance plan that pays for services you abhor? You will be penalized with enormous fines. Most families can’t afford to pay the fine AND pay out-of-pocket for health care services (like our family does). Eventually there won’t be any doctors or facilities left that aren’t nationalized…all private competitors will be gone. That is their end game.
This tyrannical assault against liberty must NOT go unchallenged! REPEAL OBAMCARE NOW!!
Consider: why would a politician force unwilling Catholics (and others) to pay for services they consider patently immoral…and with no co-pay?! When was the last time you saw something covered in a health plan with no co-pay? Ask yourself: why would a politician risk making an already unpopular health care plan more unpopular by immediately validating everyone’s worst fears about federal “overreach” in its first years by mandating services that everyone in the country knows are likely to be not only the most controversial, but more to the point, the most uncompromisingly unacceptable to a very large group of people in the country?
Why indeed, unless it’s a win-win.
What will happen if universities like Notre Dame, for example, who are self-insured, refuse to abide by the contraceptive mandate? Very clearly, if they decide to abide by their consciences, they’ll have to cancel their health care plans and pay the fine. That’s what people who are true to their consciences do: they make sacrifices. But now what happens to all their employees? They go out on their own, where they will be vacuumed up in the nationalized health care plans of ObamaCare. All of a sudden, the president not only has a huge influx of cash in his system from these large fines, but he also has a whole host of captive customers with no place else to go. They are all required by the government to have health care coverage; their institutions cannot in good conscience insure them under the requirements stipulated by the government; ergo, what else can they do but buy into the nationalized health care plan, their consciences now assuaged about doing so because there was nothing else they could do? So it’s agree with me and cover contraception, or agree with me and join one of the nationalized plans that covers contraception. Do you see? It’s a big win-win.
The calculation is that too few people will want to enter into the nationalized health care pool and that it will have too little money to cover them. What to do? Is there a ready source of cash and of potential clients who can be forced to join the system without appearing to force them to join the system? Yes, there is. Catholic health care is the largest in the nation. Where better to go for potential customers for your nationalized health care plan? But how do you get them into your system rather than staying in theirs? Easy. Require the plans to do something they can’t in good conscience do. They will then have to dissolve themselves and hand over their assets and members to you, or else look like hypocrites for acting against what they insisted, just weeks before, was a rock-solid principle of conscience.
Notice here that there’s no substantial reason to “compromise” on the mandate, because the mandate isn’t merely one goal among others; rather, it’s a means to an even greater and more noble end: namely the sort of nationalized health care system you’ve been envisioning all along. The mandate is the catalyst that’s going to get certain large portions of the private system to cannibalize themselves and hand their members over to the government. It’s brilliant, really.
Jason Pappas writes that by focusing exclusively on the controversial contraception mandate rather than the constitutionality of ANY such mandate, Conservatives have lost a major opportunity to make the argument for repealing this monstrosity:
The recent Obama mandate for universal birth control gave the Republicans an opportunity to fight for individual liberty — and they missed it by a mile. Instead of attacking government-imposed health care as a violation of liberty, they only selected a minute fraction of the leviathan and subjected it to very narrow criteria. This was an opportunity to aim for the heart of ObamaCare, but critics asked for only a minor adjustment — and that’s all they got.
Government-mandated health care violates individual rights. The objection of Catholics to the funding of contraceptives is just one example of forcing people to fund and purchase the government health plan. Catholics aren’t the only ones who have rights. Everyone — including atheists — has rights. Any basis or no basis at all is legitimate to opt out of funding and accepting a government program. There is no reason why an employer, or better yet, an employee can’t contract for the exact health insurance that fits his or her needs.
The recent uproar by conservatives gives the impression that only the religious have rights. How about the rest of us? What if an agnostic objects to elements of government laws on principle or, perhaps, merely on a prudential basis? There was an opportunity to put the whole government-run health care system in the crosshairs. A passionate defense of individual rights could have and should have been the emphasis.
It is not the government’s place to decide if an institution is “religious” enough to qualify for an exemption from mandates which are unconstitutional in the first place. It is not the place of government to decide what is and is not proper theology or legitimate conscientious objection.
Government has no constitutional right to force ANY individual or group to buy or sell a product or service against their will – PERIOD. The rights of ALL Americans – not just the religious – are at stake in this battle!
As Congress begins moving forward on legislation to counter the Obama administration’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandate, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held what was essentially a protest hearing Thursday on “freedom of conscience.”
Republicans called a Catholic bishop, a rabbi, pastors, and leaders from an array of religious colleges to testify about the mandate amidst fireworks from Democrats who said Republicans were ignoring women’s voices in the debate.
“I completely loathe the partisan nature of this discussion,” said Rev. Matthew Harrison, the president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS), who testified against the mandate even though the LCMS is exempt because it is a church.
“Religious liberty is not a partisan political issue,” added Ben Mitchell, a professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., and a Southern Baptist minister. [...]
“This whole conversation is utterly surreal,” Harrison told the committee. “I find it totally offensive that we are subject to accommodation and grandfather clauses. You cannot accommodate and grandfather the First Amendment.”
John Garvey, the president of the Catholic University of America in Washington, said the mandate reflects a “narrow” understanding that religion is “only when you’re in your church and on your knees.”
Most Democrats criticized the religious leaders (and less notably, their Republican colleagues) throughout the hearing, calling down “shame” on them for appearing to testify, and accusing them of wanting to criminalize contraception. [...]
Rep. Gerry Connelly, D-Va., called down “shame” on the religious leaders for coming to testify. “You are here to testify that your rights are being trampled on—an overstatement if there ever was one,” he said. “I’m very sad you’ve chosen to participate … as if people are going to jail over this. … Everyone knows this is not true.”
Harrison, for one, has said he would go to jail before violating his conscience. “We must obey God rather than men, and we will,” he said.
Representatives from the Protestant churches and colleges emphasized that they don’t have moral objections to contraception, but to covering abortifacients, Plan B, and Ella, which are Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives included in the mandate.
“It is ridiculous to claim that organizations like mine don’t care about women’s health,” testified Samuel Oliver, the president of East Texas Baptist University. “We already cover preventive services including contraception under our employee’s health plan. We simply object to a few drugs … that cause abortion. …We are offended that this administration says we aren’t religious enough to have our religious beliefs respected.”
The Leftist media, shrewdly looking for any excuse to take the focus off of Obama’s unconstitutional abuses of executive power and blatant assault on 1st Amendment rights, chose to focus their reporting almost entirely on the fact that no women testified at the hearing. As if men are disqualified on testifying regarding religious liberty and unconstitutional power grabs.
This contraception mandate doesn’t just affect women – it affects ALL Americans who care about the liberty and the rights of conscience!
“It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!” ~ Glenn Reynolds
When George Stephanopoulos began grilling GOP candidates about contraception while moderating a debate last month, most pundits were wondering why on earth he was asking such seemingly irrelevant questions. Now we know he was laying the groundwork for Obama’s false new narrative that Republicans want to deny women contraception:
Obama has since declared war on the Catholic church by requiring religious institutions to cover birth control and abortion drugs as part of their employee’s health care plans, even though to do so would clearly go against their faith.
Senator Rick Santorum, due to his comments in 2006 that contraceptives are harmful to women (which, in the case of the pill, is medically accurate), has been put on the defensive by the Leftist media, who are intent on painting him as a religious extremist on a mission to ban contraception. This testy exchange with Charlie Rose is just a taste of things to come:
I hope Santorum is on to their game. Obama wants the media narrative to be that evil Republicans want to ban birth control (a ludicrous straw man) and he’s the hero on the white horse riding in to save women’s health.
The whole farce is meant to distract from the fact that Obama’s orchestrating the nationalization of health care by forcing Catholics out of the business completely – the second largest health care provider in the US, and the government’s biggest competitor.
Santorum better clue in quick, stop trying to defend himself against a straw man argument, turn the narrative back to the REAL issue, and go on offense!