Comments about ‘Michael Gerson: Obama has formally declared war on all religions’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 3 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Fear mongering at its finest.

Esquire
Springville, UT

This is such nonsense. It really is.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

"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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

More "successes" that Obama can campaign on!

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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.

The Sensible Middle
Bountiful, UT

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?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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?

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

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 opposes?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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 wrong?

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

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.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Does anyone know whether these Catholic universities, hospitals and charities receive any federal funding?

Brother Chuck Schroeder
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

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.

Obama
2012

deep in thought
Salt Lake, UT

Ummm, Chuck Shroeder

In 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...

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

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.

Furry1993
Clearfield, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Oh brother ---

Hyperbole
Rhetoric
The Sky is Falling
the End of the World as we know it

Nothing 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?!

Kdee
SLC, UT

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 on men.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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 extremist.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments