Quantcast
Opinion

Michael Gerson: Obama has formally declared war on all religions

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    The Deseret News should be ashemd of itself, for continuing to perpetuate this falsehood, when confronted with....

    *’Obama, family attend Christmas church services’ – By Julie Pace – AP – Pulibshed by DSNews – 12/25/11

    Obama has never had a 'war' on anything. Conservatives just like to the talking point, while taking us into Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    To "homebrew" you are wrong. The fight is not about contraception. The fight is about government forcing a religion to pay for something that it finds wrong.

    Would you agree with forcing a muslim charity to buy bacon for those it serves? Would you be ok with the government mandating that an athiest has to buy Bibles?

    At what point would you say that government is not permitting the free exercise of religion?

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    This is about contaception, nothing more. Obama has not declared war on religion. He has declared support of womens rights. Even women suppressed by religious institutions. Funny how the GOP wants to declare when life begins, prevent abortion, in an over crowded world, see that all these women are forced to give birth with all other options taken off the table. Then they throw the children to the wolves, deying them support, welfare, medicaid because the poor should take care of themselves. The typical GOP. Hypocrites. They have No clue.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 6, 2012 9:32 p.m.

    Total nonsense
    DN, owned by the LDS Church, ought to have higher standards for providing factual, reasoned information.

    Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.

    No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception:   No Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception. 

    No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.

    Drugs that cause abortion ARE NOT covered by this policy. (Note, Plan B is over-the-counter and is not covered by insurance)

    Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions.  Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.

    Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.

    Contraception coverage reduces costs.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2012 11:10 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal 2:13 p.m. Feb." unfortunately your views of liberalism and reality do not meet.

    The fact that you are Pro-Abortion (lets be honest, Pro-Choice is just a nice way of putting it) shows that you do not understand what agency is. Agency (free agency is a misnomer because there is nothing free about agency) begins at the first choice a person makes. If a woman decides to sleep with a man, she should be prepared for the consequences. The LDS stance on abortion reflects this.

    Nowhere in the LDS scriptures does it call for a redistribution of wealth. There are calls to help the less fortunate, but this is not a redistribution of wealth. The wealthy are still wealthy, and the poor are still poor, but none are starving and in need of anything.

    You said that "Republican Mormons remind me of Gadianton Nephites." But, when you look at the back room deals and the power that those in the Democrat party (and those that call themselves Progressives) seek, they are moden day Gadiantons. Take a look at the number of people that are appointed as "special advisors" to the President, and the people that he goes to for advice, they are exactly like those who followed Amalikiah. See Alma 46:3-5 "3 Now the leader of those who were wroth against their brethren was a large and a strong man; and his name was Amalickiah.

    4 And Amalickiah was desirous to be a king; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were seeking for power.

    5 And they had been led by the flatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people."

    Look at the hate and anger that the liberal media puts out against anybody who dares oppose them. They sound just like those who supported the Gadiantons.

  • Hawkdriver New York, NY
    Feb. 6, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    LDS Lib:

    First, I don't listen to AM radio. Second, free agency has nothing to do with politics. There is always free agency regardless of what laws may or may not be on the books. Third, I never said Democrat or Republican. Fourth, the LDS church says that abortion MAY be justified in RARE cases after careful counsel with leadership and God. That is not the same as "allowing." Fifth, the LDS church does NOT "allow" civil unions in any way. Where in the world did you get that? Have you read the Family Proclamation? Sixth, are you kidding me with the redistribution of wealth? I challenge you to find that phrase is any official document of the church. I mean, are you at all familiar with the church's welfare system? It is based on something for something, not something for nothing (like the government system). Also, financial help from the church is defined and finite, not collect a check every month (like the government). The church preaches self-reliance, not some work and some don't. The idle shall not wear the garments of the laborers--ring a bell?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 5, 2012 2:13 p.m.

    Hawkdriver | 6:14 a.m. Feb. 4, 2012
    New York, NY
    LDS Lib: interesting logic there. What about being LDS aligns you with American Liberal values? Just curious, since several items from the current Lib platform are issues the church has actually taken a political stand against (same-sex marriage, abortion, gender roles). I'm not saying there is a church party by any stretch--I just would like to know how you define "liberal" as it applies to LDS doctrine.

    ================

    First of all - stop trusting AM radio for an eduction and read a dictionary for the definition of "Liberal".

    Second,

    Free Agency = Freedom = Choice
    That means I am Pro-Freedom, Pro-Choice

    and if it's the "Democratic platform" you worry about -- I'm not a Demcocrat, I'm Libertarian.

    Futhermore - The LDS church allows for abortion,
    The LDS church allows civil unions,
    Mormons Scriptures and Leaders preach constantly about needing a proper re-distribution of wealth, ect., ect.

    If you are Republican and Mormon -- how on Heaven and Earth can you justify waging Wars for Oil, shunning the poor and the needy, and giving Corporations more Control over our Government than the PEOPLE?

    Republican Mormons remind me of Gadianton Nephites.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 6:35 p.m.

    @merich39 - so are you suggesting Catholic hospitals refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid enrollees? Can you please let us know what secular organizations are operating schools or hospitals in inner cities ? Which ones do you donate time or money to?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 6:04 p.m.

    Yes, of course, the left seems to think that students who receive PELL grants and other government funding automatically mean that the University has received those forms of funding. Isn't that one of the ways that the government tried to change BYU's housing policy?

    Students may choose to earn money before going to college, to ask Dad for help or to ask Uncle Sam to pay their way. If Uncle Sam decides to pay their way, it in NO WAY means that the University has accepted funding.

    Churches do NOT receive tithes and offerings from the Government.

    Churches DO provide help for the needy - even those who are not members of their church. If churches are taxed for doing good, let them directly bill the government for every act of charity. The Government would lose BIG TIME.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Feb. 4, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    What a ridiculous hit piece.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 3:43 p.m.

    the solution to this problem seems very very simple. those Catholic hospitals or universities that want to be exempt from this federal requirement need only stop accepting federal funding. why should an institution that receives federal funding be exempt from federal regulations simply because they are owned and operated by a religious organization? these aren't houses of worship. they are businesses that serve the general public and receive federal funding for doing so.

    they should quit whining and play by the rules. the rules do not state they have to provide medical care that violates their religious beliefs. the rules state that if they receive federal funding, they have to follow federal rules. there's a big difference that the choose to overlook. this is a situation over which they have complete and total control. just stop accepting federal funding.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    @ pragmatist ... oh really? Why don't you go on a typical college campus and give a pro life speech or anti gay marriage speech and see how fast you get shouted down. Because as we know, the opposite of diversity is university.
    I guess I'm just a "bitter clinger" to guns and religion but I'm not trying to compel anyone under the force of law to provide condoms, morning after pills or sterilization to their employees. That's Kathleen Sebelius and Barry O.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 4, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    Gerson:
    "an edict delivered with a sneer."
    The whole tone of this article, including the title, is ridiculous, more suited to the standards of tabloid journalism.

    "Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients."

    Facts:
    Health and Human Services:
    "Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations DO NOT include abortifacient drugs."

    In developed countries, the vast majority of Catholics use birth control.
    In underdeveloped countries, people are less likely to use birth control, including condoms. As a result, AIDS is an epidemic, resulting in death and an increase in the number of orphans.
    Hard to see how the Catholic policy is pro-life.

    1. Catholic institutions employ many people who aren't Catholic.
    2. Birth control medication is used to treat many other gynecologic conditions, not just the prevention of pregnancy.
    3. Can't Catholic institutions just stop offering healthcare coverage, pay the "tax" and require their employees to purchase it on their own?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 4, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    So Red State do you happen to own a mirror..I thought not. Try walking past a store window and looking in with the sun at your back. "I don't like calling someone evil or un-American but there is something deeply disturbing about the American secular left (and the international secular left). It's creepy how intolerant they are of anyone who doesn't toe their ideological line. Celebrate diversity? Oh sure, as long as we're not talking diversity of thought."

    So if someone disagrees with you they are intolerant of thought diversity? No one here said you should be put in jail, no one here said you didn't have a right to your thoughts and expressions, they simply have in various ways said you're wrong.

    I would never have any delusions of affecting your thoughts but you don't get to call someone else intolerant because they disagree with you, without being called on it.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    I can't believe Catholics were duped so badly in the last Presidential election. What did they expect from this man? We tried to warn them. Maybe they'll see the light in the next election.
    I don't like calling someone evil or un-American but there is something deeply disturbing about the American secular left (and the international secular left). It's creepy how intolerant they are of anyone who doesn't toe their ideological line. Celebrate diversity? Oh sure, as long as we're not talking diversity of thought.
    Welcome to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer's brave new world. Government is your new religion and if you don't fall in line we'll re-educate you.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    What a ridiculous hyperbolic conclusion. Because the Obama Administration has determine catholic institutions must provide the same levels of health coverages for their employees as do other corporate interests, he is engaged in a "formally declared war on all religion" Give me a break! If you want a real "war" on all religions, elect me President. I would tax them like any other business. That is what they are!

  • rpjense West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 8:36 a.m.

    The problem with what is happening here begins with the word "creeping". Creeping secularism, creeping liberalism, creeping Obamacare, creeping entanglements.

    A poet has written: "Vice is a monster of such frightful mein, as to be hated needs but to be seen. Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.

    The path of diminution begins as a broad, well paved, illuminated freeway. It continues with an exit onto a two-laned road, then a turn onto a dirt road. It finally leads to a rutted path with growing vines and creepers wrapping themselves so very tenderly around you. And then, there is no turning back because you are embraced by the jungles.

    There are many who warned about this when the 2000+ page Obamacare was passed. Few, if any, really understood the lurking hazards when the vote was cast. A bill with that many pages will most certainly provide the exits and detours that the Piper wants you to follow to his lair in the jungle.

    This decision by the Obama administration is simply one of many that will surely follow if we continue this course. Make no mistake .... this is not a mistakeI It is a carefully calculated plan by people who have no interest in the America that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The Piper's calling you to join him.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    re: Wally West | 7:51 p.m

    Article 1, Section 1:

    "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

    Yes "Congress" makes all laws. The President cannot legislate.

    The Presidential oath:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    He cannot preserve, protect and defend the Constitution when he forces an establishment of Religion to change its doctrine. The 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution.

    You can read. I can read. We hope that he can read.

    The PEOPLE are in charge, not the President, not Congress, not the Court. The PEOPLE have limited the duties of the President, of Congress and of the Court. "WE THE PEOPLE" hold all rights, all power, all authority except those rights, powers and authority that we ENUMERATED and AUTHORIZED in the Constitution.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 4, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    It is amazing and sad to see the blatant disregard for religion and religious protections displayed in the postings here.

  • Hawkdriver New York, NY
    Feb. 4, 2012 6:14 a.m.

    LDS Lib: interesting logic there. What about being LDS aligns you with American Liberal values? Just curious, since several items from the current Lib platform are issues the church has actually taken a political stand against (same-sex marriage, abortion, gender roles). I'm not saying there is a church party by any stretch--I just would like to know how you define "liberal" as it applies to LDS doctrine.

  • WayneDe MONROVIA, CA
    Feb. 3, 2012 9:45 p.m.

    If the administration has overstepped the intent of the law, I presume that Congress, especially the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, will hold hearings and can amend the law to redress any excesses. The federal courts are also quite capable of correcting excesses. Finally, there is a presidential election coming in less than a year. Our system is one of checks and balances. I presume the current administration has overstepped the bounds of good judgement and Constitutional authority in this area, but I trust that our normal political system will correct these excesses.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    Title:

    "Obama has formally declared war on all religions"

    ============

    This one definetly belongs in the "National Enquirer" or FoxNews.
    Yellow Journalism.

    Pathetic.

    newintown | 7:40 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012
    WOODS CROSS, UT
    Again I question your name LDS? Liberal.
    ----
    Yes - LDS and Liberal
    Just as we should be.

    I'm Liberal because I'm LDS,
    not inspite of it.

  • jzelouise cincinnati, ohio
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:03 p.m.

    I'm so tired of all the Lies. Tax Churches NOW. The tax free status is unfairly subsidizing religion, all religions. Your God tells you how to live your life= religion, You and your God telling me how to live my life= politics and negates your tax free status.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:03 p.m.

    per Mark B 10:42 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012

    **Since there is no formal declaration of war here, wouldn't a more accurate title include something like "symbolically declared war"?**

    No would buy , read, or comment and we all know its about the bottom line... Just ask Romney's CPA in the Caymans,

    **And wouldn't a government's first obligation be to individuals rather than institutions, such as the Catholic Church?**

    You would think so. But, according to Willard the insincere, ''corporations are people too'. So, I guess using the same so called logic that churches & corporations > individuals.

    To quote the musical group Megadeth, "Tell me something, it's still 'We, the people', right?"

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:51 p.m.

    re: Mike Richards 7:09 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012

    We are talking about Obama & what is the 1st word in your quote? Can't believe I'm the only one who noticed the discrepancy?

    I agree with Ranch Hand & Esquire in the posts prior to MR.

    If the SCOTUS ruled for religion in *EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School* then why shouldn't a parallel be drawn with the current hype about churches & health care?

    I'm all for seperation between C & S; Though, its funny/ironic/hypocritical that the right can peddle influence/shape policy during certain administrations but when the left pushes back the pious/zealous/repressed get all bent out of shape.

  • newintown WOODS CROSS, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:46 p.m.

    Make no mistake about it. It is war. It has been going on since before this world, and continues to escalate. Take a side folks. The fence sitters are luke warm. Do your own research on this one. Your sign is know, LDS? Liberal. You have chosen.

  • newintown WOODS CROSS, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    Again I question your name LDS? Liberal.
    You and Esquire always resort to pretending there is no problem rather than facing the increasing obviousness of the Obama administration war against religion. deny it, decry it, point fingers and name call. It still is an obvious elephant in the living room. Obama had a chance to back away from a violation of the establishment clause. Two years ago he would have, but he becomes increasingly bold, aided by your denial of the obvious.

    Fearmongering? Not by a long shot. LDS? I think not.

  • whatajoke Hory, NJ
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:29 p.m.

    Good, at least someone is willing to ignore all the crazy superstitious babbling.

  • DougH2 Lithonia, GA
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:07 p.m.

    War on all religion? There are so many things wrong with this article that I don't have time to write them. I think even commenting beyond a blanket statement like STUPID might give it more credibility than it deserves.

    I've wasted enough of my time already.

  • RepresentingNoOne seattle, WA
    Feb. 3, 2012 6:51 p.m.

    Irresponsible journalism. There is no war on religion. This is a refutation of a war on women's rights which has been, unfortunately, successful for much of humankind's existence. Moves such as this are another positive step toward equality and freedom from religious intolerance.

  • akset chestnut ridge, NY
    Feb. 3, 2012 6:49 p.m.

    Somebody should declare war on all religions, they're all a bunch of bs. Tax them too.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 6:13 p.m.

    Windmill. Tilt at it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 3, 2012 4:39 p.m.

    Perhaps the most important question in religion is whether God is in control or whether the President of the United States is in control.

    Who made Barack Obama - God? When did that happen? Why is he so certain that he can redefine religious doctrine?

    God instructed us to be fruitful, to multiply and to have joy in our children. Mr. Obama seems to be telling us that birth is a burden, that life must be stopped before it commences, that HE will choose for us what influence religion should have in our lives.

    Who is the VOICE? Is it Barack Obama or is it God?

    That is the fundamental question that we will have to answer before the November elections? If Mr. Obama has replaced God, then we had better be willing to bow before him, to worship him, to strike out the word "In God We Trust" and replace it with, "In Obama We Trust".

    Is this extreme?

    Hardly.

    We have a Constitution that PROHIBITS the President from doing what Mr. Obama is doing. Does law and order mean nothing?

    We have an agreement with the government that government WILL NOT tell us what religious doctrines we must follow. Mr. Obama believes differently. It's time to retire him and his policies and his beliefs before further damage is done.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 3, 2012 4:24 p.m.

    So Lost in DC contractives are abortion??

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 3:30 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    "Would you condone forcing a muslim to buy pork, or force the LDS church welfare program to provide alcohol?

    Why is it ok to force a religious group to pay for something that they have deemed a sin?"

    With income tax, a Muslim buys pork products and support the subsidized farming of pigs. Open a case of MREs that are given to disaster victims and military personnel and there are pork products in many of them.

    Do Muslims get to to specify in their taxes that they are not to be used to buy pork products? Can an orthodox Jew specify not to purchase food that is not kosher with their tax dollars? And, I hate to tell you this, but your tax dollars subsidize the farming of corn, which is turned into whiskey. Your tax dollars subsidize the farming of hops and barley, which are used to make beer. How about tobacco farm subsidies? I am personally opposed to smoking, yet my income taxes pay to subsidize tobacco farmers.

    BTW, there is a very simple medical way to avoid pregnancy. It is practiced every day by people who don't have sterilization surgery or use other birth control products. It is called abstinence.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    'Why is it ok to force a religious group to pay for something that they have deemed a sin?' - RedShirt | 2:58 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012

    Because religion uses it's belief...

    to justfy action on those, who never claimed to believe.

    **'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn Arave - By Dsnews - 02/03/09

    Muslims, do not eat pork.

    Isn't it about time they 'act on those belief's'....

    and LEGISLATE that particular sin...?

    ***'Religious lobbying is changing political focus' - By Mercedes White, Deseret News - 11/21/11

    'Number of lobbies has grown from 40 to over 200...' - article

    Or is it only 'acceptable'...

    when you do it?

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    @ lost in DC: "from the article - compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and Abortifacients. if it isn't a form of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?"

    It's called hyperbole.

    As I stated in my previous post, there are unproven claims that Plan B will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting - which is where the "abortifacients" claim comes in.

    Since there is no support for the claim, it is hyperbole. It's sole purpose is to get people riled up.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    To lost in DC | 2:17 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012
    West Jordan, UT
    bubble and furry
    from the article - compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and Abortifacients. if it isn't a form of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?

    ----------------------------
    Because the church is playing word games. It's NOT an abortifact, no matter how much they wish differently.

    ==============================

    furry,
    I think it would be better to allow private institutions proividing care to the elderly and poor (medicare and medicaid), especially those supported by or affiliated with a religion, to provide that care while maintaining their standards without having the government dogma of abortion, abortion uber alles forced upon them.

    ---------------------

    Abortion isn't being forced on them. This has nothing to do with abortion, regardless how much they would like to claim to the contrary. This deals with contraception, which prevents pregnancy. Specifically, contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, which prevents abortion. This is just an attempt by the Catholic Church to force their dogma on people who believe and act differently. They should serve the people needing medical treatment without imposing their dogma.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 2:58 p.m.

    To "CHS 85" No JWs will be forced to have blood transfusions because insurance covers alternatives. From the Jehova's Witness web site "Jehovahâs Witnesses request nonblood alternatives, which are widely used and accepted by the medical community....The medicines and surgical techniques used in place of blood are so effective that doctors now offer them to patients who are not Jehovahâs Witnesses."

    Tell us, what medical alternative is there to birth control or sterilizations?

    Would you condone forcing a muslim to buy pork, or force the LDS church welfare program to provide alcohol?

    Why is it ok to force a religious group to pay for something that they have deemed a sin?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    'if it isn't a form of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?' - lost in DC | 2:17 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012

    Birth control...

    kills?

    How can you 'kill' a person...

    who is not even concieved?

    Should we then, place legal protections on EVERY egg a woman produces?

    Sperm?

    This is foolish logic.

    As,

    you celibrate your birthday.

    Not your 'unfertilized egg', day.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    bubble and furry
    from the article - compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and Abortifacients. if it isn't a form of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?

    furry,
    I think it would be better to allow private institutions proividing care to the elderly and poor (medicare and medicaid), especially those supported by or affiliated with a religion, to provide that care while maintaining their standards without having the government dogma of abortion, abortion uber alles forced upon them.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    floridadan | 1:00 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012
    Palm Bay, Fl
    I am not too concerned because in November our one term president will be replaced by a real american that I hope will fight to give america back to americans.

    ================

    "a real american"

    a sure fire Talk radio listener give away....

  • floridadan Palm Bay, Fl
    Feb. 3, 2012 1:00 p.m.

    I am not too concerned because in November our one term president will be replaced by a real american that I hope will fight to give america back to americans.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    To lost in DC | 10:50 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012

    I would ask you what YOU think is more important -- the medical needs of the people seeking treatment and the ability of those people to have their medical needs satisfied, or the ability of the institution to impose its dogma on the people seeking treatment from it. My vote goes to the people seeking treatment.

    BTW -- the issue in this matter isn't abortion. It's contraception which, together with appropriate education, reduces the need for abortion. Your hypothetical did not accurately represent the issue in question here.

  • MormonConservative A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 3, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    Do we then want a Jehovah's Witnesses as President then?. Why NOTHING gets done in Congress. The Obama administration pursuit of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers is akin to McCarthyism at its worst or Richard Nixon's enemies list. And it's all because Charles and David Koch are an attractive punching bag for the left due to their public stances promoting crooked for them only liberty. The misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political enemies is abhorrent and the very antithesis of a free society and a government of laws, not men. It is time for the public to ask those engaged in these practices. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community organizer on the left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be the target tomorrow. Have you no sense of decency in Utah anymore?. I really now hope Obama will pander to the extreme left with divisive tactics, trying to get 51 percent of Americans to buy into the notion that they'll be better off if they give him the power to make other people not worse off.

    Mitt Romney
    2012

    Catholics use contraception or breed like rabbits?.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    Surveys show 95% of Catholics use contraception and 89% say the church has no business getting involved in it. They really don't care about the issue.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    So how many Jehovah's Witnesses will be forced to have blood transfusions? How many Catholics will be forced at gunpoint to take birth control pills?

    My insurance pay for gastric bypass surgery, but I don't plan to use those benefits for myself. My insurance also provides obstetric care, even though most of the employees are men.
    Just because the coverage is there, does that mean that it has to be used?

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    @ lost in DC: Plan B does not cause abortions. It prevents the fertilization of the egg, thereby preventing a pregnancy from occurring (and incidentally preventing the need for an abortion later).

    There is some unproven speculation that Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and those who wish to engage in hyperbole focus on this unproven speculation to claim that this failure to attach is an abortion. The way to prevent it from reaching this hypothetical scenario is to make sure Plan B is taken as soon as possible after it's use is indicated. Once an egg is fertilized and implanted, Plan B is no longer effective - it will not terminate a pregnancy - in other words, it does not cause an abortion.

    Additionally, since Plan B is over the counter unless you are 17 or younger, it is questionable whether insurance would cover it anyway - I know my insurance doesn't cover my over the counter meds.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    What? This is nonsense. It sounds like something Rush would write.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 3, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    @ 9:58AM Romney opponents struggle for traction on ice, ahead of Nevada caucuses. Trump is still "punch-drunk" when he hugs Newt the way he does, over Mitt Romney. Thing's go down hill real fast when Trump has his hands on someone. WWE owner Vince McMahon has sold WWE Raw to real estate magnate Donald Trump has purchased WWE Raw, in what appears to be a new storyline for the long-running wrestling program. This isn't Trump's first appearance with the WWE, Trump took part in the Battle of the Billionaires, where Trump's fighter Bobby Lashley took on McMahon protege Umaga. Stone Cold Austin served as the referee. Lashley ended up winning the fight, afterward Trump and Lashley shaved McMahon's head. Austin then performed a Stone Cold Stunner on Trump. Trump trumped owner Vince McMahon in the "Battle of the Billionaires," now he's going after Newt's billions he got off from bow down to K Street and Wall Street Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games. Koch Brother's and ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more-corruption, and "crony-capitalism."

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 3, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Kdee SLC, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    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?!

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 10:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    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.

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    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...

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 3, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    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

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 9:22 a.m.

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

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    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?

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    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?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    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?

  • The Sensible Middle Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    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?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 3, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    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.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    More "successes" that Obama can campaign on!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:09 a.m.

    "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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:03 a.m.

    This is such nonsense. It really is.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 3, 2012 7:01 a.m.

    Fear mongering at its finest.