Comments about ‘Obama's assault on the poor’

But don't the employees of churches and church owned enterprises deserve equal protection under the law?

This story deserves a cut and paste response from an Obama cheerleader.

Obama's problem is that he has underestimated the results of his ill conceived assault on religion.

An attack on religion is a means to an end. The objective is control. The government (and this administration in particular) is always uneasy when something is going on outside their span of control.

This was my primary objection to Obamacare. I have much less fear of private industry who merely has profit as their motive than I do someone who wants to crawl into every aspect of my life and exercise control over it.

People don't seem to realize that we are becoming a slave people; exactly the opposite of what was envisioned when this nation was born. But we deserve exactly what we ask for and right now we are asking to be enslaved over and over and over again.

Just last night, I asked my wife when she thinks it will get so bad we need to cash in everything we own and move to a nation that still values liberty and the voice of the people over the tyranny of the few with the consent of the people. Ironically those who are most ovine (like sheep) are the ones who call themselves liberals.

In Italy the country surrounding the vatican, birth control is mandated coverage.
I can't believe the catholic hasn't moved yet.

This is more sensationalism by the extremist who haven't even bothered to read all the exemption.
One being, don't water at the federal trough, if you expect special treatment

Apparently oppression by religion is still a popular idea with the older folks, but if I'm not a member by choice,
your rules shouldn't dictate my access to medicine.

Like the orher left wing extremists of his party, Obama is determined to stamp out all religious influence on American life. The mandatory provision of birth control is just one more step.

The left wants to destroy religious influence because any reliance by the public on religious institutions reduces the public's reliance on government. Thi in turn reduces the power of government and that is not what the left wants.

The First Amendment was enacted as a sheild to protect religion from interference from the government. The left has turned this sheild into a sword to be used by the government to chop down any religious belief that it disagrees with.

Obama, like all leftists who ignore the Constitution, will find that the majority of the public still supports the belief of the Founding Fathers that religious freedom must be protected. Now that the majority now see Obama for what he is, they will vote him out of office and replace him with a candidate who seeks to protect religious freedom.

@Marxist

That dog wont hunt.

The employees you speak of are already afforded equal protection under the law. They are by no means compelled to work for those churches, and for that matter nothing is stopping them from getting thier own health insurance or paying for the services themselves.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Thats an important clause that everyone seems to miss. The ruling that has come down is clearly a violation of that clause and as such should be struck down.

This is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said we would have to pass Obamacare to find out what's in it. Not rule of law, but rule by fiat. The Secretary of Health and Human Services as mini-dictator, trampling the First Amendment.

Obamacare must be repealed. This won't happen with Obama as president. November can't come soon enough.

Employees deserve wages that are commensurate with their value to the organisation.

Do a little research on WHY employers started providing health insurance in lieu of wages to their employees. It was because the GOVERNMENT put a cap on wages. It was because the GOVERNMENT interfered with business. It was because the GOVERNMENT stuck its nose into private businesses.

Now, in today's world, very few people actually think that they are receiving health insurance in LIEU of wages. Somehow they think that the company they work for pays their taxes, their Social Security "contribution", their Medicare tax and their health insurance premiums. All of those payments are in LIEU of wages.

This whole problem started because GOVERNMENT interfered with business.

As for requiring "an establishment" of religion to do ANYTHING, the government does not have that authority. It's right there in the 1st Amendment. The canopy over "an establishment" of religion covers not only the chapels. churches or sanctuaries, it covers all activities of that religion. It covers all humanitarian services provided by "an establishment" of religion. It covers the schools.

Obama needs to study the Constitution and then he needs to obey it.

Re: "But don't the employees of churches and church[-]owned enterprises deserve equal protection under the law?"

Therein lies the problem -- once government pokes its narcissisitic, bureaucratic nose into what should never have become a governmental function at all, one group -- family-planning believers -- can only be given "equal protection" by denying another -- believing, practicing Catholics' -- their constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom.

This sets American against American, in a classic, anarchistic, Cloward-Piven, collapse-the-government scam.

Socialist, nanny-state mandates, notwithstanding any accompanying high-toned, leftist spin, always have -- always will -- produce the violent class warfare marxist political theory demands.

Socialism is anything but compassionate.

From the article: "But religious liberty is also popular, given the Constitution and all that." like you-know whatever...
is this now the standard we should expect from DN's?

Like the wealthy, religion is off limits to taxes and government interference.
Anything we say or do to them will have a trickle down effect, or they'll pass the buck to the little guy or as the stretch in this spin piece "You'll hurt the poor" if you don't bow to the catholic churches demands.

This is not about Government vs. Churches.
Maybe this will help those who still can't quite understand the difference.

This paper is owned by the LDS church,
it is a seperate "business",
it most likely has employees who are not even LDS members,
BUT
it is NOT the LDS Church.

Therein lies the difference.

As a seperate "business" entity, Government can make the same requirements as it does with other "businesses".
Even more so, when that "business" is given Federal money in assistance/aid.

Obamacare must be repealed and Obama must be repealed and the Democrats and Republicans must be repealed except a very few such as Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee? and Jason Chaffetz. Of course I mean impeached, which won't happen, or replaced which is far more likely. The GOP that fixes elections must go the way of ACORN.

Obama is only insuring that employees of religious institutions are offered the same healthcare benefits that others get. The practice is already going on in institutions like Georgetown University, a Catholic school. I promise Obama isnt the antichrist no matter what Glen beck and michele Bachman say. You wanna talk crazy??

So, it's 'bad' for Obama to do it...

but it's 'fine' for Romney to do it?

**'HYPOCRISY: Romney Maintained Massachusetts Contraception Requirement That Mirrors Obamas Rule' - By Igor Volsky - Think Progress - 02/07/12

'In 2002 the very same year Romney campaigned for governor of Massachusetts the state enacted a contraceptive equity law that required insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone replacement therapy and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods.' - article

Don't like what Obama is doing?

Don't vote for Romney.

Pagan,

Why do you continue to mix the authority of a STATE with the authority of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

They are two different entities. They have different authority given to them by the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE of a State can authorize their STATE to do things that the PEOPLE of the United States have not authorized the Federal Government to do.

It's simple.

We authorize the Federal government to do a very few things.

We authorize the State government to do more than we have authorized the Federal government to do.

We authorize the County and City government to do more than the State and the Federal government.

We keep all other authority to ourselves.

We decide what will be done, spoken, seen, or taught in our own homes. We decide where we will work, where we will live, where we will worship, not the Federal, State, County or City governments.

Mr. Obama is forcing his views on contraception and abortion onto the people. He is trying to establish a religion.

If monuments must come down when they are seen as a symbol of religion, surely forcing an establishment of religion to offer birth control is not allowed.

An RPPI poll found that 52% of Catholics support requiring religious universities and hospitals to cover birth control in insurance plans.

We tried to tell all of you "universal health care" cheerleaders that Obama care was going to be a nightmare but as usual you have no concept of cost-benefit analysis or unintended consequences or that nothing is free or that when the government grows liberty shrinks.
Why can't the pro-abortion crowd follow their own advice and "keep their laws off our bodies"?

'Pagan,
Why do you continue to mix the authority of a STATE with the authority of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?' - Mike Richards | 9:34 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

**'Herbert touts Utah's economy, blasts feds in State of the State speech' - By Dennis Romboy, Deseret News - 01/25/12

Then:

**Utah to receive $60M in USDA disaster aid to states By Bill Draper AP Published by Dsnews 01/18/12

I had good teachers Mike. :)

Regardless of how you try to seperate the federal and state level, this is still irrelevent.

Romney's ACTIONS...

are the very same thing he is criticizing Obama, for.

Want another example?

Healthcare reform. :)

If the state controls
That which you are said to own,
Who really owns it?

Re: "An RPPI [should be PRRI] poll found that 52% of Catholics support requiring religious universities and hospitals to cover [free] birth control in insurance plans."

Which means, according to the same poll, 37.3 million American Catholics [48% of 77.7M], along with 55.2 million American evangelicals [69% of 80M] and fully 46% of all Americans, in general, do NOT support forcibly filching money from us to buy contraception for anyone that wants it.

With that level of division and active opposition among Americans, you gotta wonder, what possible reason could the regime have for forcing it on us?

Vote-buying among clueless rubes and the Democrat hard-left base, maybe? Shoring up support amongst the abortion-as-secular-sacrament crowd? Cloward-Piven government collapse?

None of them sound like valid reasons to alienate 46% of Americans, so maybe it just boils down to personal and political narcissism.

Whatever the motive, it's bad, divisive, destructive politics -- the defining feature and long-term legacy of the Obama regime.