Kathleen, thank you for such a well writing article. I would have simply done
my best Scott Walker impression and shouted out "You Lie!". When I read
that Obama made statements about the importance of "upholding religious
freedom" I thought "Who does this guy think he's fooling?"
Unfortunately has fooled way too many people. To claim that Obama supports
religious freedom is the clearest case of The Emperor Has No Clothes I've
seen in a long time.
oh by: Your info about Sweden must be from be from a trailer set up as the seat
of government, but not enough room to refute here. hitler went to church too,
but most scholars wouldn't put him in the religious camp as you have done.
Atheism, on the other hand, is quite clear about its objectives and although
the Spanish conquistadors waved the flag of Christ, I would not define them as
such in my view of Christianity. Atheism can't hide behind an evil
leader, however. If you call yourself an atheist, you also must admit that the
only rights you have in that state are what is granted by the government and
it's evil leaders, which usually means death to any detractors. Death in
Siberia is hardly something for humans to aspire to! Religious liberty is the
reason why America became the economic envy and powerhouse of the world, despite
detractors who pretend to believe otherwise!
re: bandersen,You're starting to play a little loose with the
facts. Sweden's per capita GDP is 7th in the World (the US is 10th) and
standard of living is in the top ten. In terms of total national wealth, Sweden
is number 3, behind Norway and the US. In other words, by every measure I can
think of, Sweden is doing fine.To the point about the Soviets, I did
not brush it off. I called it terrible, as is any mass murder situation. While
the numbers are great, is the extermination worse in kind than the extermination
of 93% of the Incas by the Spanish? Here again, however, you're playing
loose with the facts. A recent, extensive study of East European archives found
that the number is actually 8-9 million. Besides, Stalin was trained in a
seminary, so religion didn't prevent his actions. If we're going to
play with numbers, however, I bet you can find no more than about 10-15 examples
of atheists killing people, while it wouldn't be hard to find hundreds of
religious regimes oppressing their people and religiously fueled wars.
I'll bet all the liberal commentators on this forum would do a 180 degree
turn if we had a right-wing radical president (you know, one as far to the right
as Obama is to the left), who decided that not only was owning a gun a
constitutional right, but that it was a civil right to have one paid for by
someone else. (An "Obamacare" program for guns.)Imagine if
anyone who objected to the policy on moral grounds would be marginalized.
Businesses would be forced by the government to provide "gun insurance"
to subsidize the purchase of firearms for their employees. All objections that
employees might have against guns would be ignored and mocked as
"unreasonable" and bigoted.Would all the liberal arguments
here still be valid under such a scenario?
OHBU: Sweden would be the sixth poorest state in the United States if it were
apart of our Union. As a whole country, I would hardly view that as an economic
miracle. The people who love to talk about the enlightened european countries
all speak from a podium in the United States. Few actually are willing to put
their words into action by moving there. If I actually thought there was a
place with more liberty and freedom, I'd be on the first boat out of here.
Again, as stated before, anyplace that views itself as a follower of Christ is
not representative of Him, no matter what is stated, that burns people at the
stake, or won't allow other "Christian" religions to flourish,
something that anyone with a little common sense can see in the countries you
mention. This discussion began about Athiesm and what happens when athiests are
in charge. 50 million people in Russia alone, and into the hundreds of millions
when God isn't around, is not something to cavalierly brush off as you have
done. Religious freedom, and God-given rights, have a record far superior to
athiesm. Period. End of story.
I'm entirely with the article's author on this. When news of his
speaking at the prayer breakfast came, I almost cracked up. We know through
revelation and historical pattern that the lukewarm peace that saints enjoy
today will not last, and not only us, but all Christians are marginalized and
bullied increasingly further by law and common people both; A doctor attempting
to manage Syria's lung cancer wouldn't turn a blind eye to
America's increasingly frequent smoking addiction.
The only thing I'm surprised by Kathleens article is that she apparantly
has heard Obama say something that he does not believe or is contrary to his
administrations actions. Welcome Kathleen once again to the world of liberal
media protection of their beloved dear leader. Allowing him to get away with
this kind of stuff for years now. Us conservatives saw it coming and have been
talking about it since before Obamas election. It is right out of the methods
and techniques of "Rules for Radicals". Obamas real Bible. Say what the
audience wants to hear and then do what you want. Then let the low information
voter do the rest. It's been working well so far for Obama. I'm
still hopeful though that the famous phrase, You can fool some of the people all
of the time, and all of the people some of the time..........will in the end
play out and the American voter will correct this 8 year mistake.
One mans mortal enemy is another mans freedom fighter., thank you president for
standing against the theocracy that some wish toImpose on INDIVIDUAL
religious liberties through the power of the purse.
bandersen: "And by what standard would Egypt be a religiously free
state?" This is exactly my point--religious liberty has, more often than
not, been threatened by other religions, not atheists. Reread my comment,
"people in Egypt are using religion to kill and oppress Christians."
Meanwhile, those countries that are largely irreligious (e.g. Belgium, Finland,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, etc.) often have a high degree of
freedom and are doing just fine financially--many have a higher standard of
living than us (look at Germany - the country holding up the economy of Europe,
where 62% of the population profess no religion). You point to
Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. That's two examples that are certainly
terrible. But you seem to think they have a monopoly on oppression. How about
the near extermination of native people in the Americas by European Christians?
The murder and enslavement of untold peoples in the Roman Empire (first in the
name of their pagan religion, later Christianity). Abusive Islamic theocracies.
The Crusades. Religiously based genocide in Rwanda, Sudan, and of American
Indians. The list goes on. Religion is far from a guarantee of freedom.
Likewise, lack of religion rarely portends anarchy.
It is always amazing to me the inflammatory, over the top rhetoric that the
right uses in order to make partisan political attacks.In reality,
there is little difference in the way the historical GOP and Democrats have
governed.It really is embarrassing. What ever happened to the GOP
of Ronald Reagan? While he was a conservative, he did not, nor did the party,
stoop to such levels.You know. Those who are Birthers. Those who
know that Obama hates our country and wants it to fail. Those who paint Obama
as a Marxist or Socialist, as if he is different from Bush.There is
nothing wrong with being a conservative. Heck, I used to be one. Until I
became too embarrassed by their antics to call myself one.
@Lagomorph "How is being required to pay money into a pooled insurance
account, some small portion of which will subsidize contraceptives, any
different than a Quaker being required to pay federal taxes, some portion of
which will be used for weapons and war?"I'll side with the
Quaker on that one. Not that I'm not a pacifist, but that the Quaker should
be allowed freedom of conscience.
OHBU: And by what standard would Egypt be a religiously free state? Perhaps we
aren't reading from the same history books. You are absolutely right about
states where there are more irreligious people than religious. One look at
their economies and it is quite easy to see why they are in shambles, including
the fact that some cultures are disappearing because of the simple fact that
they have forgotten one of God's oldest commandments to multiply and
replenish the earth. I am not cherry picking from history, unless
the death of at least 50 million people at the hands of a Russian athiest state
under Stalin and Lennin doesn't mean anything. That wasn't Stalin and
Lennin either that caused their deaths; It was a system that allowed it. We
have many Stalin and Lennins in our country who are only stopped from doing the
same tragedies here by Constitutional government and protection of God given
rights. One doesn't even have to be a student of history to see the obvious
connection between the two.
Just THINK!As a business owner YOU earned the money - not the
government.As a business owner YOU paid for the insurance - not the
government.BUTThe government acts like they already own the money,
that you are working to get ... And that's BYE BYE to the American freedom
and liberties.But that's OK to this government...because, as long you
talk about GUNS, HEALTH, RELIGION etc.. You will not talk about IRS, ATT, AP,
Religious liberty is the freedom to practice your religion and the prohibition
of anyone imposing their religion on you. The cases with Hobby Lobby and the
Little Sisters is related to the latter--they are attempting to use their
businesses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. No one is
making them get an abortion or use contraceptives. re:
bandersen,Just because someone said it, doesn't make it true.
Once again, you're cherry-picking from history, as their are at least as
many, if not more, examples of governments using religion as an excuse to
oppress their peoples and slaughter others. There are several countries in
Europe right now that have more irreligious people than religious. Guess what?
Nobody is being slaughtered, and freedom is at a high. Meanwhile, people in
Egypt are using religion to kill and oppress Christians. I find it ironic that
you are claiming everything good in this world to your religion, while telling
atheists to be more humble.
Someone once said that if God didn't exist, anything is permissible! If He
doesn't exist what distinguishes Mother Teresa from Hitler? Athiests should
be more humble about the freedom they enjoy because of those who believe in God.
Religious people make it possible for athiests to live, breathe, and exist. If
the athiests were in power, religious people would die by the millions, as
history has already shown. It doesn't take a genius to figure out without
religious influence, nations fall and people are smothered in one form or
another. Where religious liberty is allowed, with the attendant values that
follow, ecomomies flourish. Athiests, stop looking in the mirror. It's
not about you.
Question for the "Religion only should exist behind closed doors" crowd,
i.e. the liberals: Can a Seventh Day Adventist who has their own business close
their doors on Saturday for religious reasons? A Jew? Or are they forced to stay
open 7 days a week? Isn't that mixing religion with business, and therefore
Maybe there was no hint of irony in the president's speech because the
speech is not ironic. It's an honest, straightforward protest against the
death dealing and oppression of people because of their religious beliefs.
Providing healthcare options for one's employees is hardly in the same
category as "religious persecution," regardless of the hyperbole from
the Obama haters.
By going against all his own lovely talking and words since he first came on the
political scene, this President has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy
And now--and for the rest of his time as President--completely
irrelevant. That photograph is a super illustration of the contempt
he has for things he pays lip service to, but actually despises.
I'm willing to accept the notion that corporations are legal
"persons," though they have no corporal existence. They have some
advantages over us humans-- they cannot be imprisoned and can be essentially
immortal.With respect to the Hobby Lobby case, can a corporation be
said to have a religion? If so, how is it determined? Is it the religion of
the CEO? The Board of Directors? The stockholders? Say a priest, a rabbi, an
imam, and an LDS bishop own equal shares of a corporation. Does it have a
religion? Will they serve wine and bacon-wrapped shrimp at the annual
stockholders meeting, or orange juice and felafels? Will they ever walk into a
bar together?With respect to the ACA contraceptive mandate, where is
the religious conflict? The company is not required to buy, provide, or use
contraceptives (nor are its employees). How is being required to pay money
into a pooled insurance account, some small portion of which will subsidize
contraceptives, any different than a Quaker being required to pay federal taxes,
some portion of which will be used for weapons and war?
My own religion teaches me not to have an abortion, nor to pay for an abortion.
Yet, under Obamacare, I am forced to subsidize health care plans providing
access to abortion-inducing drugs.It is laughable that Obama can
stand there with a straight face and talk about religious liberty. But it is no
longer a surprise when his actions don't match his words.
I expected better from Kathleen....
Maybe true religious 'freedom' should look like freeing religion from
the undue influence it has on politics.
"and one is reluctant to criticize.But pry my jaw from the
floorboards."Which "One" is reluctant to criticize?
Obviously not you.If ONE does not criticize any and everything Obama
does, they are labeled eithera Liberal or a Rino.
In countries where a national healthcare is a standard ... Contraceptives are
NOT a health/sickness issue, but a personal decision of a personal chosen
activity and therefore NOT part of medicines covered by insurance! Sex is not a
sickness! This is just another example of how poorly Obamacare was researched
and "planned". I am absolutely for national healthcare and health
as a RIGHT - but absolutely against Obamacare! Anyone who has seen the benefits
of good heathcare programs knows that Obamacare is not going to work! WHY?
Because it is built on old system which was the most expensive (per capita) in
the world and left 50 million people under or uninsured.