Published: Friday, Feb. 3 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Fear mongering at its finest.
This is such nonsense. It really is.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"The "Constitutional
scholar" has done it again; he has shown the world that he neither
understands nor does he have any intention of understanding the Constitution.
He mocks it. He mocks his oath of office. He mocks those of us who believe in
America.That problem can easily be fixed in November.
More "successes" that Obama can campaign on!
This unconstitutional action should surprise no one. The left wing has an open
and stated agenda of stamping out all religious influence on American life. It is apparently not enough for the left to destroy such time honored
practices as displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and team prayers
before high school football games. The left is now determined to eliminate
religious beliefs themselves.The whole purpose of the First
Amendment is to prevent government from telling religious organizations what
they can believe and what practices they can follow. Obama and the rest of the
left wing extremists are attempting to turn this sheild into a sword with which
they can cut off religion at the knees.
The administrations motive is not hidden it's very obvious. Denying the women
who work in these organizations contraception as part of their health care is
pure and obvious discrimination against those women. That's the motive to
counter that discrimination. The problem is that religon enjoys both legal, and
cultural favor in this country, and therefore religious discrimination against
women enjoys that same favor. It's in no way an attempt to
secularize religon, cut religon off at the knees or any of the other hyperbolic
claims made on this thread. Personally I don't think it was a very good
political move..but it is principled. Once again the President does what he
thinks is right not what is popular. I'd also be surprised to if there isn't
some kind of retreat from this.
Obama is not denying anyone the right to live their religion. Those people who
work for a Catholic business (such as a hospital) can still if they want to
refrain from using contraceptives.Medical insurance is forced to pay
for blood transfusions. Should this not be paid for merely because Jehova's
witness don't believe in blood transfusions?
I completely agree with pragmatistferlife.This headline reeks of
hyperbole, is this what can start being expected by having so many retired
spokes men for the republican party working at the DN?
Everybody has to make compromiss on our society. If I have to live with a huge
percentage of my tax dollars going towards a military-industrial complex that I
oppose, then what's the big deal about a tiny percentage of the insurance
premiums the Catholic Church pays going towards health insurance benefits it
To "The Sensible Middle" actually Obama is denying the Catholic Church
the ability to practice its religion.Lets use you Jehova's Whitness
example. Health Insurance covers blood replacement. According to the Official
Jehova's Whitness web site "Jehovahâs Witnesses request nonblood
alternatives, which are widely used and accepted by the medical community."
So there is a medical alternative to blood transfusions.Can you
tell us what medical alternative there is to the belief that birth control is
Christian Democrats have been on the edge of a dilemma for some time now. Many
Democrats have been troubled by the strong association between their preferred
party and its "Pro Choice" position on abortion. Catholic Democrats
have had this concern more than others.This latest affront to the
Catholic, and all Christian, supporters of the Democrat Party certainly will, I
think, force many Christians to decide whether they can continue to support
Democrat politicians. Democrats like to play both ends: they like
to represent their doctrines are compassionate and therefore Christian. At the
same time their hostility to Christians is seen in other statements and
legislation such as that featured in this article, forcing Catholics to
contribute to abortions. This panders to the atheistic contingent of the
Democrat party. This inner contradiction cannot last.A conscientious
Christian Democrat must address this quandary. Since they cannot alter their
party they might well change their party. If they cannot support the Republican
Party they might create their own party. In Catholic nations of Europe there
has been a sharp demarcation between the "Christian Democrat" and the
"Social Democrat" parties. It is not hard to see why that is.
Does anyone know whether these Catholic universities, hospitals and charities
receive any federal funding?
I see no problem with this. Obama administration announced its final decision
that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for
health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.
Oh I'm sure Ted Kennedy rolled over in his grave over this one, but who really
cares anyway. Obama2012
Ummm, Chuck ShroederIn the last month or so, I have seen comments
posted by you where you are slashing Romney as a miserable flip flopper, then
suddenly you confess you are voting for Romney, then I see you advertising a
meetings for the Democrats, then praising Romney again and slashing Newt, and
now voting for Obama.I enjoy reading comments but usually people
stick to their man. I guess it is entertaining, I never know what to expect
when I see your name...
It's too bad the author didn't bother to inform us that Catholic hospitals,
universities and charities receive government funds. In the words of Mary Floss:
"If you want to promote discrimination, do not apply for any federal or
state funding. In other words if you want to promote discrimination you will
have to do it with your own funds."The position of the Obama
administration clearly does not violate religious freedom.
To Steve C. Warren | 9:22 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012 WEST VALLEY CITY, UT Does anyone know whether these Catholic universities, hospitals and charities
receive any federal funding? -------------------From
what I've heard, they do.
Oh brother --- HyperboleRhetoricThe Sky is Fallingthe End of the World as we know itNothing like the parroting of AM
Hate talk radio to get one's blood flowing in the morning!I swear,
why are so many addicted to negative extremism?!
If the issue is freedom of religion, why should my employer get to force me to
follow his religious beliefs?I also like the way that an article
about birth control for women focuses on the negative effects providing it has
Since there is no formal declaration of war here, wouldn't a more accurate title
include something like "symbolically declared war"? And wouldn't a
government's first obligation be to individuals rather than institutions, such
as the Catholic Church? Let's be real - almost all American Catholic women do
use contraceptives at some point in their lives. No one is COMPELLED to use them
at all. The difference in the insurance premium is probably tiny as well.
BO said Obamacare wouldn't cover abortions. he lied.Furry,if
you lived in an area served only by a catholic hospital, would you rather they
were forced to provide abortion coverage to their employees as long as they
serve medicare patients, or would you rather they refused medicare patients so
they can refuse being forced to provide abortion services or pay abortion
coverage to their employees? Are you so bent on forcing them to provide
abortion coverage you would deny the elderly services paid for by medicare?LDS Lib,I get it, anyone who disagrees with you is a hateful
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments