Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 14, 2012, 2:29 p.m. EST by Jflynn1964 (-206)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

From Chuck Kadlec at Forbes:

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States, President Barack Obama is on the brink of successfully rendering moot the very first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). If he forces the Catholic Church to comply with the Health and Human Services ruling to provide its employees with insurance that covers activities the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives — then the precedent is clear: when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.

The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.

President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.

The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:

Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.

President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.

Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.

He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.

Before our very eyes, President Obama is on the verge of establishing the principle that the right to religious freedom comes not from our Creator, but from those who rule us. A government endowed right granted to women now trumps our unalienable right to act in accordance with our religious beliefs and conscience. Not only does this overturn the First Amendment, it also tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence. Such an achievement would be the true audacity of power.

The fundamental question is whether the Catholic Church, and by extension, individual Americans have to engage in activities according to the rulings of this and future Presidents, or are we free to live our lives as we choose as long as we do not harm another. Are we free to engage in long standing religious practices that have never before been deemed unlawful, or has the federal government established a de facto state “religion” that it is prepared to enforce through the full coercive power of its financial resources and the imposition of financial penalties.

If the Catholic Church and the American people choose the face saving “Option A” instead of “Option C,” then President Obama will have transformed America. We may be allowed the illusion of exercising our freedom, but in truth, we will be subjects in ObamaLand, required to do the bidding of this and future Presidents in the name of some higher, collective good.

However, the Catholic Church can turn the tables on the President by taking Option A off the table with a humble statement of principal that in the matters of religious practices and conscience, there is a higher authority than government Who it chooses to obey. If President Obama prevails and unleashes the full force of the federal government against the Church, the cost will be the closing of Catholic schools, hospitals and the loss of social services that play a vital part in communities across the nation. Such a stand would make clear to the American people that the alternative to religious freedom would be a mortal wound to our civil liberties and a complete disruption of civil society.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I believe in the Church’s opposition to contraception. But I pray that the leadership of the Catholic Church will have the faith and courage to stand for its core beliefs and use all of its moral power and political influence to defeat the President’s edict. I pray they will reach out across the political spectrum to people of all faiths, agnostics and atheists in the name of religious freedom and individual liberty. By so doing, they, and the institution of the Catholic Church, will have my love and respect for the rest of my life.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I would love for them to do so. I believe they should begin shutting their doors to hospitals ASAP. It doesn't have anything to do with theology. This is a bunch of hog wash.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

Glad to see that you're still at your grumpy best & with all this "hogwash" how come the pigs are all still so dirty ?! ~;-)

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago


They have to stop with the silliness.

[-] 2 points by Bonobobastic (8) 6 years ago

Call me old fashioned, but I can find no sympathy for an organization that systematically protects child molesters and child rapists from justice and shows such callous disregard for true innocence, the children victimized. The mere fact that the institution still exists is a testament to the inexhaustible reserves humans possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery (if I may be so bold as to borrow the phrase).

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

The Church was wrong is the sexual abuse cases but that is more about bureaucracy than anything else. You can't get around the good the Church has done in communities around the world. A good chunk of Americans are educated in Catholic schools and receive a better education at a cheaper than cost than the public alternative.

[-] 2 points by Bonobobastic (8) 6 years ago

Well the last thing a society would want to do is give the impression that sickening and depraved tortures can be overlooked so long as the guilty practitioners perform some ancillary goods deeds while proselytizing. It wasn't a problem of bureaucracy, the problem was the desire among the adherents and leaders alike to think first of their church and the potential marginalization of her influence caused by whatever euphemism they produce in place of rape; to think second, if that, of the impact on the lives of the victims and of the justice due the predators (though I think the mere ability to structure the priorities in this manner says enough without regard to desire). And now THEY would like to complain about audacity? Should have seen that coming; the injury is done, and it's never too late to heap on the insult.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

I disagree with you. There are many examples where the US government has made large live and death decisions which were incorrect. Using your logic, they then shouldn't be the one dictating policy to the poeple.

It absolutely was a bureaucracy issue. It's the same problem that allows misbehaviour to occur in the military, in corporations, and in government. Organizations that aren't challenged die from within. That's why big government always fails because nobody can manage such an unwieldy and staid enterprise.

This is a religious issue and if the people who work for the institutions don't want to adhere to their policies, then they should leave.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

"In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States"

What the fuck? You're really putting contraception provided by insurance companies in that category? Are you forgetting the war in Iraq based on lies? Are you forgetting NIxon?

First of all reread the 1st amendment


By asking the law to be changed you're asking the government to violate the 1st amendment.

If my religion involved robbing banks, should robbing banks be legal?


Sorry but your entire argument is INVALID.

Churches don't even pay taxes.

No one is suppressing your beliefs. No one is stopping you from worshiping your God. No one is forcing anyone to take contraceptives. Believe it or not, not all Catholic WOMEN are as catholic as the preacher MEN.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

What do you think Obama is doing right now in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

How did he pass the healthcare law through Congress?

Not everybody wants your brand of liberalism. The Catholic Church is upholding their beliefs and you want to force it on everyone else. Just like you did with the Pledge of Allegiance. My kids are in grade school now, and that can't even say it. Boy that's great. Thanks for the progress.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

I believe there is also not supposed to any work on Sunday, yet how many Catholics and christians of other faith are out there? Or how about drunkenness? Or adultry? Or coveting? Or killing? When all the good christians start living what they preach, they can come ask politely to have people take their dogma seriously.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

No, the catholic church is forcing their dogma onto people who just want a job. Business is not church.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

They know they are going to work for a Catholic institution.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

So you are saying they should avoid a place that violates there own values...right? Go work someplace else?

Like ALL the christians who work for any business or organization associated with birth control, weapons that kill, or war should do?

And they should have to set aside their own beliefs to comply with company requirements? Tell that every religious person who has sued for the right to have their religious activities or rules protected from business.

A business associated with a church is still a BUSINESS.

When you let a group with the strictest rules make the rules for everyone, you end with a the taliban. The funamentalist religious right of america wants to be just like them...dictating their morals and doctrine and interpretations onto the rest of us. They cant even follow christ's words to not pray publically, yet they want to make up a rule out of nowhere and make us all follow it.

Yes, it is made up from nothing... God said be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. Done. You can stop now. He gave us brains and free will too! I recommend using them...

They have made me ashamed to call myself christian.... I now just say im spiritual.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

The Catholic Church is not forcing their beliefs on any one. If you don't want to follow the doctrine ot the church you can leave. It's pretty simple.

Of ocurse you adhere to the values of teh business you work for. Companies are different and have different ethos.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts:

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.

The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision,
I respect your opinion.
But please do not cite political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land.
America is a nation of people, not churches.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Thank you, Bensdad. I have been trying to say this to these right wing idiots for two days, and you summed it up very nicely with a single post.

They really don't see that this law, which has existed in 28 states for over a decade and upheld by the courts, is just another manufactured wedge issue drummed up for for the sake of partisan politics leading up to an election. Nobody's rights are being trampled. The rights of working women are being upheld.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

Nonsense. You have completely overstepped. Thanks for calling me an idiot. Can you go a day without calling somebody a name. Chuck Kadlec could run cirlces around you and is a consumate professional. You obviously aren't.

The Catholics didn't drumm this up, your boy Obama did.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Obama drummed up a law that has existed in 28 states for well over a decade and simply applied it the federal regulations? It's called health care. It supposed to be universal.

You have swallowed the right wing cool aid on this one.

[-] 1 points by Kite (79) 6 years ago

If it's supposed to be universal, then let's have a single payer program. There are far more folks unemployed without access to any health insurance at all (who are and contiinue to be treated at Catholic hospitals) than would be affected by this ruling.

HHS picked the wrong fight.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

HHS (headed by a Catholic, btw) did NOT pick this fight. Republtard assholes did. This law has existed for A DECADE in 28 states. But I agree that it really should be Universal single payer/

[-] 1 points by Kite (79) 6 years ago

Could do without the profanity and the name calling. But if you continue to equate Catholicism with Republican, then there is no point engaging further with you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

The ultraconservative Bishops have allied themselves with Republican pricks who are using this simply as a political wedge issue, they - not me - have equated themselves with that party. But I don't equate Catholicism. In fact, did I not just specifically point out that the director of HHS, the one you say picked the fight, is herself a Catholic? HAve I forgotten to mention that several Catholic organizations have endorsed this ruling, strongly? The council of Bishops is NOT Catholicism, and for the most part, has gone against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of ordinary Catholics for many, many years. The fact that 98% of American Catholic women have used the very contraception they and their mendacious, cynical, manipulative friends in the Republitard party are manufacturing a hissy fit about arrests to it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

This is the definitive position.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 6 years ago

Would you support a law, requiring muslim-owned businesses to include payment for non-halal food choices in their employee food allowances? Would this violate their religious freedom?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

there is no "payment for" in this insurance law
it is not for the the use of anything
it forces no one to use birth control
it forces all employers to offer the same insurance
if a Quaker bank guard is required to carry a gun, he cant be forced to use it

on the other hand, the Mormon polygamy IS illegal as the 1878 SCOTUS ruled
If a hardware store is owned by a Jehovah's Witness person, who does not believe in medical care, should their employees be offered the same medical insurance as every other American?
If an Orthodox Jew owns a clothing store, can he discriminate against uncircumcized men? AGAIN-
we are a nation of laws
not a nation of churches

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 6 years ago

...if PETA holds a convention, should they be allowed to violate the wishes of non-vegetarians by serving only vegetarian dishes? Yes. Should muslims be forced to serve pork at their cafeterias? No. Should Planned Parenthood be forced to provide abstinence education as part of their services? No. People have the right to negotiate the terms of their agreements amongst each other. No interference necessary.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Should the government force everyone - including catholics to have a driver's licence before they drive ? AGAIN - this whole issue requires NO ONE to buy or use BIRTH CONTROL If a school gives out condoms - NO ONE is forced to use them
And of course you know that statistics show the students in the abstenence only programs have much higher rates of oral STDs

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 6 years ago

People who don't believe in driving don't generally drive. This is akin to making everyone get a driver's license, whether they drive or not. It is more akin to making amish businesses put in a drive-through window when they only serve people who ride horses in. I never said anything about schools giving out birth control, but now that you mention it, it would still force other people to pay for it. Principaled people on the left often say correctly that others should not have to pay for people's poor choices, necessitating soft drink taxes and the like. Why should my health care premium go up to cover the cost of my co-worker's poor self control?

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 6 years ago

It requires the Catholic institution to buy birth control for employees who wish to use it.

It absolutely DOES require the payment for something the church considers abhorrent.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

you are not informed or you are lying
look it up
the institution provides INSURNACE did you get this BS from the bishop or the fox If the Jehovah's Witnesses own a bakery, must they, by law, provide health insurance for their employees - even though JW does not believe in health care?

[-] 1 points by Kite (79) 6 years ago

You are misguided about beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Whitnesses.

And you probably aren't aware that a significant number of employers with over 200 employees are self insured. They use an insurance company to administer the plan, but all expenses are borne by those employers.


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

I think it is clear and I have been described as human.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

We are a nation of laws, not people. Religious freedom was one of the primary drivers of the founding of this country. This is a complete overreach by the Obama administration to force their will on a group that doesn't believe in contraception and abortion.

He wants the power and control sent to DC just like he has done with the other "czars" he has appointed. Employees who work for the Catholic institutions don't need to work for them. It is their choice. They are not being forced.

[-] 0 points by joethefarmer (21) 6 years ago

There isn't anything in the constitution that grants the government the power to force a person or group of people to do anything that in any way goes against their belief system.

The government cannot force a Hindu school/employer to provide meat on their lunch menu because it is one of the four food groups.

The Supreme Court was wrong and polygamy should be legal. There is no scientific or biological reason that polygamy should be illegal. This is called legislating from the bench and it is something that the founders wanted to prevent. They tried to severely limit the courts power because of all the abuse the courts inflicted in Europe.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

You may believe polygamy should be legal - BUT it is not.
I believe televangilist liars should be in prison but they are not
I believe all church officials who contributed to the pedophile mess should be in jail
But under our system of laws, Obama is upholding the law - equal protection

  • and the bishops are lying and are involved in politics - illegal for a non- profit.
[-] 0 points by joethefarmer (21) 6 years ago

Equal protection from what?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

equal protection- all employees must have equal protection - as in equal healthcare
could a hospital, for example give its employes a health insurance policy that requires them to use their hospital only - NO

[-] 2 points by joethefarmer (21) 6 years ago

That makes no sense.

There is no right to safe sex. Buy a condom. they are only $0.56

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 6 years ago

Word. Not a single policy for secular or religious employers covers prophylactics. Not that I think they should, as that's the surest way to turn a $0.56 item into a $5.60 item.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Ditto the church, Catholic especially.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

No law shall be created respecting an establishment of religion.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

You make such a leap in your discussion, it goes completely off the rails. Christians have been whining that their religion is under attack for years, but what they are sensing is actually just removing their unconstitutional forays beyond the boundries defined by the constitution. I would say that the right further breaks constitutional law because they are openly demanding evidence of the faith of choice of their candidates, as well as using faith based arguments against candidates of other parties.
I think obama was too concillatory in regard to the birth control option. If you want to do business in this country, you abide by the rules established for businesses. I dont care what your personal religious dogma is: if you dont like the rules, dont get in the game.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

Sorry, this country was based on liberty and freedom especially religious. This is a direct attack on that especially after the way Obama pushed this contraception rule through. We all don;t have to adhere to your brand of liberalism. Go ruin your own neighborhoods. Oh you already have. And now you are realizng that you need more money to fund your projects.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

No, this is a rule for business... If the church doesnt want to comply, they should not be running a business. Perhaps now that perry is out of the race, he'll go back to talking about making texas its own country...maybe they'd let you emigrate there...

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

You folks don't know how to run a business, you couldn't even run your boy scout camps when you had the chance.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

I personally do not know how to run a business, but that is a gross generalization to try to apply to everyone in ows. But perhaps you have accidentally found a point on which we could agree: the tax laws plus local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations make running small businesses exceedingly difficult, and serve to protect existing large businesses that can afford a small army of lawers and accountants. I would support removing the burdens on clearly defined small businesses (excluding the LLCs created by mega corporations to protect their core units).

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

There is no limit on religion in the Constitution, there is only a limit on government regulation and demands of religion...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 6 years ago

I fail to see how requiring a business to carry insurance for its employees either "establishes a religion" or "prohibits the free exercise thereof." If it is because the insurance company used will then provide birth control to employees who are not Catholic, I do not understand how that differs from non-Catholic employees using their salary to do precisely the same thing -- buy birth control pills. Would you have these businesses not pay their employees in U.S. currency?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

Because the Catholic Church fundamentally disagrees with the use of birth control and would prefer the women not have access to it provided by their hand. If they want birth control, they can go out and get it on their own, they do not have to take it from the church.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 6 years ago

They are not taking it from the church; they are taking it from an insurance company directly, which insurance company provides other coverage for employees of the Church. My point is, the Church provides them with a salary which also would give them access to birth control through an insurance company. To simply not want to make it affordable is not a religious issue.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

An insurance company paid for by the church for its' employees. The church wishes not to purchase that particular coverage for its' employees.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 6 years ago

They are not purchasing it. It is a separate deal made directly by the insurance company with the employee, to avoid more costly problems in the future. If providing insurance coverage for contraception is so egregious, why no argument by the Church with respect to the 28 states that already have such insurance for religious groups, with NO exemption at all in some cases. It is hard to fathom why some are okay and others are not.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 6 years ago

They are being forced to provide insurance that pays for contraception. You can parse it any way you want, the government is interfering with the work arrangement between the church and the employee of the church.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

The catholic church, is by its very nature, almost genetically akin to the KKK and the Nazis and radical islam -

They all preach that there way is the only way
The "other" is inferior
If the "other" does not become "us" we can kill him
Their book is always right
Their leader is the true leader
They lie without reservation to foster their religion

specifically, how may Jews did the pro-life catholics torture and burn alive in 1492?
How many wars have been fought over the rights of a pope?
How many people were executed or imprisoned for saying the earth is not the center of the world.?

Whats a religious fanatic?
.....He knows his beliefs are truth
What is a man of religion
.....He believes that he knows the truth

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 6 years ago

So now it comes out, this is really an anti-Catholic move?

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 6 years ago

It is the Catholic Church against Obama. Obama is not against this sexist antiquated religion.

[-] 0 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 6 years ago

A cynic believes that Catholic dogma, as it concerns birth control was put forth for the purpose of creating more Catholics, thus insuring the future of the church.

[-] 0 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

It isnt cynical, it is a known tactic.

[-] 0 points by joethefarmer (21) 6 years ago

There isn't anything in the constitution that grants the government the power to force a person or group of people to do anything that in any way goes against their belief system.

The government cannot force a Hindu school/employer to provide meat on their lunch menu because it is one of the four food groups.

The Supreme Court was wrong and polygamy should be legal. There is no scientific or biological reason that polygamy should be illegal. This is called legislating from the bench and it is something that the founders wanted to prevent. They tried to severely limit the courts power because of all the abuse the courts inflicted in Europe.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

We do have laws that prohibit or interfere with religions that believe in animal or human sacrifice. So there is a precedent for limiting the reach of a religious organization. And to limit something that helps stop unwanted pregnancies, provides some health benefit to women, helps stop childbirth related deaths, helps prevent risky pregnancies, is morally correct. The catholic church has such a long history of abuses and atrocities I cant understand why people still elect to support them and arent ashamed to be called catholic. I started learning about them in 5th grade and refused to go to mass with my parents. I would sit in the bathroom, wander outside, get restriction for my behavior, but I had my eyes opened, and I made a choice.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

Should the Amish be allowed to drive on our roads without electric lights on the back of their buggies endangering my life and their children's? The use of electricity is against their religious beliefs.

Just another example of why religious practices should not and are not protected by the constitution.

I agree with you on the polygamy thing but I believe those laws are mainly there to protect women from an over-patriarchal household that inherently limits their rights and liberties. And seeing as how that practice is not protected by the constitution the law fits.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

The amish still have to obey rules established for them on the roads, just like bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians, and even antique cars must.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

I know they do. That was my point.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 6 years ago

My bad :)

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

Tyranny - pure and simple. What else can the force on us?