Forum Post: Catholic Church circulates anti-Obama letter
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 30, 2012, 6:25 p.m. EST by moochild
(-43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What do you think the MSM's reaction would be if the Bush administration were to create a law that all Muslims were forced to eat bacon, egg & cheese sandwiches daily? Obviously not good - so why hasn't anyone made a peep about the Obama administration's blatant attack on Christianity, specifically Catholics, where institutions would be mandated to cover things that blatantly violated their beliefs. What are they? Find out here. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/01/30/catholic-church-circulates-anti-obama-letter/
Glen Beck . . . please. Why not just fish for opinions in the nearest outhouse. He's like Rush Limburger's retarded brother.
Many annoying people speak truth too. Beck is a twit, but sometimes he is a correct twit.
Glenn Beck is an a$$hat.
Moo Child.
He's deserves nobody's respect! None!
I think Obama is wrong on this one.
I knew you had a bit of sense in you
Not bad for a presumptuous twit, eh? (JK, I never hold a grudge.)
did I use the word twit? my apologies
I wasn't looking for an apology. I was joking with you, but okay, I'll take it.
LOL
Thanks for your comment and your honesty.
I have some Buddhist monks that live near me. The other day I saw a crowd staring at something in the Home Depot. I noticed they were looking at a Buddhist monk wrapped up all in orange. Should we tell the Buddhist monk he shouldn't wear his saffron robes, too? Where would it stop?
It's all getting out of hand
Screw the Catholic Church.
And BO.
Take that, DHS and SS.
Hallelujah!
Glenn Beck???!!!!!???!!
Tell him to go back to Israel and wait for the flotilla.
This should be deleted as conspiracy theory.
Plus it left off bigfoot.
Please read the article eh??
Absolutely not.
Becks lack of veracity is notorious, and I won't give his site the pleasure of a hit.
He's like FLAKESnews, only flakier.
Don't feel bad, I don't shop at Wallyworld either.
IOW? Find a trustworthy source.
Don't bother with snooz. He's incorrigible.
I dealt with him b
Obama!!!! Urgent read!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077625/Michelle-Obama-insisted-4m-getaway-Hawaii-husband-wanted-local-holiday.html#ixzz1kzw02LoR
The largest tax free corporation in the world.is not worried about Hope a Dope.
The bible-thumpers are lashing out because we have a leader that respect my constitutional right to not live under the rule of religion. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran, because that sir is what a theocracy looks like. A society were decisions are made based not on fact, human benefit, or reason, but rather on faith and superstition and where the end of humanity is not only acceptable but accepted as the inevitable.
Theocracy? Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? The HHS rule is unconstitutional, but this administration has shown little fidelity to the Constitution. The Supreme Ct will have final say, and the Obama Administration will lose again.
...
The same rose-colored lenses worn by the 9 justices of the Supreme Court who unanimously found the Obama Administration to have violated the 1st Amendment rights of religious institutions just a couple weeks ago.
But this administration is more interested in pandering to its base than in the Constitution.
And why on earth are you posting excerpts re Treason?
...
You're on the wrong thread. Figure out your point (if you have one) and then come back.
Sorry, then I don't understand what HHS rule you are referring to. The point remains, your use of slapping people on this forum with the lives and behaviors of politicians is a faulty argument and anyone using such tactics to belittle there opposition is a slug.
You're drunk. Figure out what a thread's about before you start spouting off.
I noticed you hinge your arguments on establishing a false pretense that your opponent is to defend the actions of politicians aside from any statement you are trying to get across. In my eyes, you aren't here to make valid points and try to get your ideas out to other people, you're here to fluff your ego off of belittling people. And not because you make valid points but because you're being a dick and not everyone lives in a reality so negative as yours so they don't know how to deal with you. Care to buy some gold?
you are clueless. why are you on this thread? Figure out yet what HHS rule we're talking about?
I told you. I'm on this thread because I like to pick out people being dicks and debating by insult and fallacy, then fuck with them.
Riiiight... and the fact that you deleted some of your posts in this thread has nothing at all to do with their being wildly off-topic and evidence of a deeply disordered mind. Get off the sauce.
Interested in some gold? lol
This is why our Country will never get along because of you libs. You libs are going to be kicking and screaming and peeing your panties when Odumbo gets ejected out of office
If you respected your faith, you wouldn't cheapen it by selling it to your political agenda. Us libs are why you live a quality life, tell yourself what you like. If you were shipped off to Iran with your cross tattooed on your forehead, you would be begging for the help of liberal minded people. You only dislike them because your religion is popular on this particular piece of dirt, but liberals fight for free expression regardless of whats popular on any given piece of dirt.
What a load of pure unadulterated us-vs.-them bullshit that is.
Which ones us, and which ones them?
There's so many of us and them, it gets hard to keep track.
So please, help a guy out 'n' 'splian.
It is us v them dip shit. You try to sound so intelligent then you hit me with some utopian bullshit? Really? The clash between the secular and the zealots has only been going on for a few years or so.
utopian bullshit? none of that on this thread or anything else I've written. you're confused again, old man. Find your way to the bathroom and clean yourself up.
hahahhahaha now that is comical
Lib's fight for free expression ?? It seems that for lib's this cuts one way, theirs. history shows conservatives are notable for this one.
really? show an example.
Actually it's the border line Nazis in the GOP pissing all over themselves, because someone not a member of the master race is in the White House.
They've been pissing their pants for over 3 years now.
master race?? what are you one of them black pussy panthers or something??
This is one of your best posts yet. Well written and to the point.
:) thx
haha, when you're getting bouquets from Tiouaise, you know you're in the crapper
The catholic church has some serious credibility problems. They protected pedophile priests for years, fearful of the harm to their wallet and reputation. Pride comes before the fall.
Priests/Nuns do not get married despite that no biblical such doctrine exists. This is arguably the worst form of contraception and a policy that seems would invite undesirable people to the church.
Catholics and other religions make judgment that does not belong to them. They act in the same ways they condemn.
But the worst thing the catholic church has done is become a political apparatus like a corporation divined by God. This is the biggest mistake. They act like the corporation for Christ.
How many have given money believing somehow the church can get favor from God? How many honestly believe a priest can forgive sin? Not a chance.
We all have a right to practice what we believe without having someone elses belief shoved down our throats.
Insurance is a rather ungodly/unholy business after all - anyone of any decency regardless of faith would not work long in such an industry. Perhaps the catholic church should stand up against all insurance products given their unholy nature (not just the contraceptive issues) - otherwise - shut up with the hypocrisy.
Catholics should make a moral stand and walk away from all insurance products (no excuses or shut it)- problem solved.
They cannot walk away from insurance product because they are employers and as employers are mandated to provide insurance. Now with the healthcare act they mandated to cover birth control which is contrary to their beliefs.
As an atheist I have no problem with birth control but I am not in favor of the government mandating something that is contrary to someones beliefs. It is a violation of the first amendment for the government to pass a law that prohibits a person or group from following their religion.
If they the "church" declared it (insurance) to be against their religion in totality (not just - i don't like this part-but will keep this) - they perhaps could walk away from it.
They could pay a little extra to their employees (that they already pay on their behalf) and let them have the choice of insurance product (if they could be exempted for religious reasons).
I believe in God and I am also against government mandating something contrary to an individuals beliefs.( You see believers and non believers are not that much different - laugh)
Part of the problem is that people try to solve problems of complexity with simplicity - it never works.
Sick people are bad for business. People that feel better do better.
Obama's goals with healthcare are not that big of an issue for me - it is how he is trying to implement the end result that is the problem IMHO.
How many prisoners get better healthcare than a single parent working 60 hours a week?
How you get the result is as important as the result.
You hit on the heart of the problem.
They cannot walk away from it because they are required by law to provide it. Not only that but they are told what they have to cover as an employer. This is the requirement that Obamacare brought about. This is what they are protesting. They would prefer your method.
I knew you would come back with that. This problem goes beyond Obama care. The problem is with the nature of law. Today we use law as a replacement of honor, religion,decency, control or morality. Law has little to do with justice. This is the failing of law; it is not just. If the law ceases to be just then we have a form of lawlessness that has been legitimized. This is dangerous for everyone.
When we use laws in the way that we do, they always become so convoluted that they inevitably conflict with other laws. Endless arguments about nonsense - while common sense takes a back seat.
Lawyers do not think in the same way as average people. Few average people understand this.
Just about every nasty inhumane act in history was supported by law.People forget this.
It is always the few that stand up and challenge injustice by breaking laws that bring about change. When you break a law in the name of justice it is much different than breaking the law for profit or gain. How many courts understand or make such a distinction? In most cases the law allows for no such distinction.
Our laws around the world are outdated and not fit for a modern society, just like our monetary systems. They have not modernized because those working within the system see little wrong with it - it would be like admitting fault and lawyers are trained never to admit fault. Most lawyers are trained to hold the view of whoever pays them the most money (kind of like a banker)(laugh).
Can we have justice with such a system? Can we expect people that have been trained like a lawyer to change their own profession. I would say no in most cases.
The law is just another tool that should benefit society in someway. We are not getting good value out this apparatus at the moment. This issue about contraception in a small way demonstrates this.
I think its time for the Catholic church and their supporters to join with the 99%. other religions too - today contraception, tomorrow who the heck can tell when your dealing with lawyers. (laugh)
IMHO -At the heart of these global protests is justice in one form or another - all faiths have a moral obligation to come forward and demand change in the name of justice. Or don't complain when they get screwed - like they have been and are now.
People across all faiths and political spectrums can agree on one thing. Things are not good.
When the American founding fathers agreed to pay all debt of the nation - the nation did not run the type of monetary system we use today. If we did (use the monetary system of today back then) the American founding fathers would have never agreed to pay all debt (the money men were not stupid-it was very calculated). How sleazy to create a monetary debt monster of today; while knowing that America has an obligation to pay debts. All very legal you know; just a tad bit immoral. And not a shred of justice.
You see, laws often are used in a way they are not intended to be used because we fail to take in to account the spirit of the law or the intended purpose.Instead we focus on the words and throw out all common sense.
Contraception/religious views is not the problem here- it is the law broadly speaking.
[Removed]
[Removed]
As I recall, the Catholic Church endorsed Bush. I believe the article was entitled The Unholy Alliance. So much for the Catholic Church. There is something seriously wrong with your religion when many of your priests and cardinals are child molesters or aid them.
What planet do you live on? The Catholic Church never endorsed Bush
OK. It wasn't an official endorsement, but Ben and Bush sure were chummy.
So chummy that Bush no doubt loved it when Benedict said "nothing positive comes from Iraq", right in the middle of the US troop surge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6536773.stm
I agree, Ben had his regrets, like most Bush supporters.
Regrets?? Of what? Bush was already in his 2nd term when he was elected pope.
What planet do YOU live on, BonTon?
FYI, the Catholic Church is VERY DEEPLY involved in American politics and practically did endorse Bush, because of its obsession with - you guessed it! - abortion.
SO MUCH SO, in fact, that some analysts claim that it contributed to the so-called "Bush victory" in 2000. ("Google "Bush election Catholic Church".)
Another moron. I googled as you suggested; I got plenty of hits about individual Catholics' political involvement. Are you suggesting there's something nefarious and unamerican about that?
Google 'know-nothing party platform' and see if it fairly describes your preferences.
OWS Forum Hint: Using CAPS doesn't make you seem smarter.
I hate it when they use capital letters. These folks do not seem to have any true understanding of Catholicism....also alot of anti-catholic/christian bigotry is apparent. .
It isn't a question of understanding true Catholicism. Insurance must cover women's health. Period.
The services being discussed for medical coverage are not 'health" issues...You are propagating ' planned parenthood' misspeak.
Women's health care encompasses this. It isn't inherently important that you like/dislike it.
"Another moron." Niiiiiiice!
I will be more technical, if you don't mind:
Trolololololololololololololololololololololololololol
"Oh my," cried Alice, "Someone doesn't agree with me. Must be a Troll! Help! Help!"
Not much different from, "Oh my," cried BonTon, "Someone doesn't agree with me. Must be another moron."
Quite different, actually! For one thing, I back up my assertions.
My, my! Still looking for answers in "Alice in Wonderland!"
Here is Wikipedia on trolls:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Trolololololololololololololololololololololololololol
oooooooo Christians will have access to abortions. Pffft. Like Catholics don't make up 99% of abortion seekers.
You do realize this isn't about christians having abortions. This is about obama demanding that churches spend money on health insurance that covers costs that go against their religion. Furthermore that insurance is for employees, employees that are suppose to remain abstinent and have no need for abortions and contraception. This is government imposing wasteful spending and insulting a certain group of people.
Where do you come up with your figures that "99% of abortion seekers" are Catholic, Percentages R Us? At least contribute honestly not with the mendacity of a typical fanatic.
You may be anti-Catholic or completely anti-Christian. I don't know which, but fabrications only work against your efforts to make a point.
Here the question should be does the federal government have any Constitutional right to force insurance carriers to comply and Catholic-funded hospitals to provide abortions to continue receiving federal money from, for instance, Medicare?
Whether you're for or against legalized abortions, you should ask yourself if your really want the federal government encroaching even further into the private lives of average Americans.
When the federal government starts forcing Christians to have abortions to keep them from breeding, I may start to worry about government interference.. though I may not necessarily disagree.
Do you think its the 1% muslim population???? 40% of the people getting abortions are BLACK. 99% of blacks are Christian. The remaining 50% are white or other(10%), EVER MET A LATINO who does not practice Christianity??? So the rest are white folks, DO YOU know how many jews live in the US???? I DO and I can tell you that it would take each female Jew to have 10 abortions a year to even get that demographic into the 1% mark. So who is left?? Christians by a WIDE MARGIN
It must be Percentages R Us. Where do you get your figures. "Ninety-nine percent of blacks are Catholic." I really doubt that. They may be Christian, but not Catholic, which is distinct denomination of Christianity.
99% of abortions are had by people who 'believe' in JESUS CHRIST but only when its convenient for them. You know this, the world knows this, and the 1.3 MILLION DEAD BABIES these ''Christians' MURDER every year, sure as hell know it.
I see. You confuse Catholicism with Christianity in general.
Quite a few Christians, including most Catholics, are very anti-abortion. Most Fundamentalist sects are generally anti-abortion, because they believe personhood begins at conception.
Many, many people, who were born Christian, certainly don't practice their religion, including numerous Catholics, but your postion seems to be to throw out the baby with the bath water.
No it does not, they are Christians, believe in christ, plain and simple, your trying to argue that there is a substantial difference between a Catholic, a baptist, a protestant , a New Kingdom Life, whatever. There is not. In fact, I grew up in the ghetto, around black people, the MOST DEVOUT CHRISTIANS I have EVER seen bordering on lunatic scientologist behavior, and those SAME people are the ones who have abortions en masse. Self Hating Abortion Having Highly Questionable Motive Christian Apologists.
besidesASSHOLE no where does it say you have to USE IT!!!!!!!!
Bill, don't post after your sixth Colt 45
I'm w/ you Bon Ton...
You've found something you're experienced at..............:)
Good for you.
Keep at that 12 pack.
moron alert
wrong
the only thing more disturbing than that 99% of abortions are carried out by Catholics are abortion having catholic apologists like yourselves
Debt ceiling skyrockets, Obama no longer calls Bush 'unpatriotic' for increases
Debt ceiling skyrockets, Obama no longer calls Bush 'unpatriotic' for increases
This isn't an attack on Christianity. I fail to see how it could be deemed as such.
And even if it was criticism of Christianity, what would be wrong with that?
ALL religions are imperfect and therefore need to be openly - but not hatefully - criticized.
Myself, I have the same sentiments as Thomas Jefferson on Christianity: THE MORE I LOVE JESUS, THE LESS I LIKE CHRISTIANITY, which for the most part has been a gross betrayal of the Master's original teachings. (Try googling "Thomas Jefferson on Christianity").
I don't find anything wrong with criticizing Christianity. I do find something wrong with this pretense of persecution. I find it ludicrous.
Who's talking persecution? We're talkin unconstitutional actions against religious entities (again) by Obama Administration zealots.
They aren't unconstitutional.
They sure are, and the Supreme Court will whack the Obama Administration for its 1st Amendment violations again, as it did a couple weeks ago.
There is absolutely no way Barack Obama can make the Catholic Church use its own money to fund abortions or even birth control, for that matter. It would be antithetical to everything this country stands for. We'd be living in a totalitarian state at that point. It will not happen.
You mean kind of like how the adoption agencies lost funding?
Do not want to be subject to the rules of the rest of society then do not open other institutions. Pretty simple stuff. Have more than 50 employees and have to have insurance? Then the insurance must cover women's health.
[Removed]
Well, of course you wouldn't
Smile. :D
Listen to Mr Becks radio show
Why would I do that?
[Removed]
Let me explains something. Obama didn't tell the Vatican how to operate the Catholic church. Catholic institutions outside of the church receive 2/3 of their funding from tax dollars at the federal/state and local levels.
Two, if you work for these institutions and you are not Catholic then your insurance should still cover this. This is an idiotic Beck game.
I see that I am getting some negative feedback. I came to this forum for discussion. Is this what happens when you do not agree 100% with the liberals??
yes.....they attack w/ insults...and do not care for honest discourse.
I'm discussing. Pointing out the obvious, really.
Here is some more links on Obama attack on Christianity
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Our-Religion-Liberal-Christianity/dp/1439173168
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/07/stop-obamas-attack-on-christianity/
http://westsiderepublicans.com/?category_name=assault-on-christianity
http://westsiderepublicans.com/?category_name=assault-on-christianity
http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2011/07/stop_obamas_attack_on_christia.html
Obama isn't attacking Christianity. You aren't being persecuted.
I highly doubt you took time to read any of the links. Here is another one and their is hundreds of them.
http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/obama-attacking-catholic-colleges-againthis
I am not going to. This isn't the first time that people have cried wolf.
Let me explains something. Obama didn't tell the Vatican how to operate the Catholic church. Catholic institutions outside of the church receive 2/3 of their funding from tax dollars at the federal/state and local levels.
Two, if you work for these institutions and you are not Catholic then your insurance should still cover this. This is an idiotic Beck game.
One, what does "outside of the church" mean?
Two, how about, if you work for a Catholic institution, you don't expect it to pay for your abortion?
Catholic institutions (hospitals/social services, etc.).
Two, how about, Catholic institutions do not receive funding at the Federal/state and local levels?
@GirlFried: If it's a "Catholic institution," then it is not "outside of the church." Q.E.D.
Sure, cut off funding because you don't like the Catholics. So a few people don't get cared for. I mean, they're just the sick, elderly, poor, etc.
Occupy Catholic nursing homes!
Ha ha, girl fried...that is an apt name for this person. you go Bon ton...I like your style
Little Liar is back. Good stuff. Let's see if you have the capacity to add to the discussion instead of your usual douche bag BS.
I tried to discourage the little soup-Nazi, but it looks like we'll have to endure more cobra venom, and bread recipies. Good God!
Is Lara your creation? or someone else's?
My creation? What do you mean?
I did.
I'm sorry.
I was reffering to LLT, not you. Perhaps you mistook me.
as usual ....so crude...clean it up a little please.
As usual, your still not capable of holding a conversation.
@GirlFried - pot, kettle, black
This discussion is about the insurance policies that do not incorporate women's healthcare into their plans.
@GurlFried - You can call it "women's healthcare," "reproductive services," "family planning services," or any other user-friendly term you can come up with. The bottom line is the same: the government can't force religious institutions to pay for it. (Check out the 1st Amendment.)
@BonTon, you still need to come up with a valid line of reasoning for withholding women's health insurance. Start working on that. :D
@GurlFried - "withholding women's health insurance"?? Who suggested that? The discussion is about forcing religious entities to pay for abortion and contraceptives thru their heath plans.
It's insurance sweet pea. They aren't churches. Deal with it.
I have a better idea for you "bottom feeder" Go occupy the unemployment office
Grow up!
No.