Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[Grumps 3,704]

My link

Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

Published: 08 February, 2012, 01:50

From the campaign trail last month, GOP contender Newt Gingrich said US President Barack Obama had declared a “war on the Catholic Church.” Some clergy have heard that call and are warning the president: look out, we’re ready to rumble.

Responding to the Obama-mandated health insurance policies, Catholic leaders throughout America are outraged over what is being perceived by some as a serious assault on their religion. Under Obama’s health care plan, Catholic hospitals and universities will be required to offer free birth control to employees. While the law will not include entities with solely religious purposes, such as churches, it will extend to church-affiliated companies that do not exclusively support a religious-minded agenda.

Under the provision put forth last month by the president, health plans provided by Roman Catholic institutions that cover non-Catholics must front the cost of “all FDA approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortion.” Even if the policy is aimed at only a section of the church, Catholic leaders say Obama’s insurance plan is an attempt to take down the church by infiltrating it with God-less ideals on their religion, and according to some, they won’t go down without a fight.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says the move is a milestone in terms of taking on the Church, and tells CBS News that it is “unprecedented in American history …for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church.”

“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” adds Donohue.

Upon announcement of the provision to the health plan last month, former Speaker Newt Gingrich said on NBC that is accentuated “a radical Obama administration imposing secular rules on religion” and signaled “a tremendous infringement of religious liberty” that would spawn “very substantial” political fallout.

“Every time you turn around secular government is closing in on and shrinking the rights of religious America,” said Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2009. At a separate speaking engagement last month, he specifically called out the president for launching a “war on the Catholic Church.”

The White House has defended last month’s decision, however, insisting that providing contraception free of charge will signal a decline in abortions. The Catholic Church still opposes provided contraception and disputes the argument, and some say it doesn’t stop right there.

“It’s not about contraception. It’s about the right of conscience,” Archbishop Timothy Dolan tells reporters. “The government doesn’t have the right to butt into the internal governance and teachings of the church,” he insists.

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience,” adds Dolan. “This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."

Other Catholics are coming out to go after Obama, and the impact could be detrimental to his re-election bid. While Obama won the majority of the votes from American Catholics in 2008, his stance on offering contraception has already attracted mini critics from the church. A grassroots campaign waged against the policy started last year by Archbishop Dolan yielded 57,000 complaints over the plan.

[AURaptor 1,122]

How did they not see this comin' ?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Also note, this is not a situation where federal funds are involved. The requirement applies regardless of federal funding. This is a situation where a religious organization is being told by the Obama Administration to choose between these options, all of which violate or at least conflict with Catholic belief to one degree or another:

1. Purchase health care plans with the Church's money that include things that go against the moral beliefs of the Church, namely sterilization, contraception and abortifacient drugs.

2. Drop health care coverage completely for their employees.

3. Withdraw from serving the community at-large and only serve and employ Catholics.

In other words, we will cram you back into your stained-glass houses of worship where you can't bother us anymore or we'll force you to gut your own teachings and bow to Caesar.

And I don't even oppose contraception or insurance companies covering it. But to force companies to purchase and provide a product that they believe is immoral to provide? What is the Administration smoking? No one is forcing anyone to work in these organizations, hospitals or schools. And no one is preventing them from purchasing their own supplemental insurance with their own money to pay for these drugs if they want them. What non-problem is Obama trying to solve here?

I've been gearing up this entire election season to vote Ron Paul in the primaries to send the GOP a message and then third party in the election for the same reason. This massive overreach by the Obama Administration may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. The stunning ego being employed here is beyond what I can bear and I don't care for any of the main candidates on the other side. But I bet none of them will try to pull this kind of idiocy.

[Grumps 3,704]

The only explanation I can come up with for the Obama administration's attempt to solve this non-problem (I like the way you phrased that, Titan) is sheer arrogance. This seems to be an odd time to pick a fight with organized religion, especially considering that many non-relgious also like to have the freedom to think as they please.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Then maybe they will leave the children alone

[Tigermike 3,026]

Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

Because Obama declared war on the Catholic Church and the Constitution of the U.S.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Then maybe they will leave the children alone

We both know that's a complete red herring, and has zero to do w/ the forcing of O-Care onto religious groups, but for snorts and giggles, could you explain WHY you felt the need to interject that into the discussion ?

It's not ONLY Catholics who are opposed to the idea of abortion, you know. There are other religions who share similar views , and will be affected every bit as much.

[Tigermike 3,026]

Obama runs roughshod over religious freedom

By Kathleen Parker, Published: February 7

Most Americans can hardly believe we’re having a national debate about birth control in the 21st century — more than 50 years after the Pill became available and decades after condoms became as commonplace as, well, balloons.

The reason for the incredulity is because we’re actually not having a debate about birth control. To repeat: The debate is about freedom of conscience. It ain’t about the Pill.

This particular episode is significant because the Obama administration has provided the narrowest conscience protection in our nation’s history, according to legal experts who are challenging the administration’s rule. We have a long tradition in this country of working around religious differences so that people are not forced to violate their faith to satisfy a secular mandate. This is the essence of the debate.

To women who merely want help paying for birth control, this may seem an obnoxiously silly discussion. Noted. But the larger issue is worth paying attention to even at personal inconvenience. That inconvenience, by the way, needn’t be permanent. The immediate problem of providing birth control to those who can’t afford it can be massaged — for instance, the government can hand out contraceptives to the poor, as is already the case in some states. But the issue of religious liberty is one of those foundational principles that isn’t really up for revision.

As to the separation of church and state argument that church critics keep raising, keep in mind that this separation was also intended to protect religious believers from state interference. When the state insists that one’s religious beliefs be supplanted by another’s, in this case by secularism, then might one argue that the state is establishing a religion in contravention of the Constitution’s intent?

The new health-care reform act’s mandate that Catholic institutions pay for insurance to cover birth control and even abortifacient drugs (a.k.a. “morning-after” pills) runs deeply contrary to fundamental Catholic teaching. The argument that many Catholic women ignore this particular church commandment is a non sequitur. The church has consistently stood by this teaching. Catholics commit adultery and lie, too, but they don’t want or expect the church to condone those actions.

Although Catholic churches and their direct employees are exempt from the new rule, all those other Catholic-sponsored entities, from schools to hospitals to charities that employ non-Catholics, have to comply or pay prohibitive fines. Estimates are that Notre Dame University, which hosted President Obama as commencement speaker in 2009 against howls of protest, would have to pay $10 million in annual fines. That’s some expensive birth control, baby.

And we’re talking billions of dollars’ worth of lost services to the poor if Catholic charities shut down, as well as educational chaos, especially in inner cities where Catholic schools often provide the only stability in poor children’s lives.

Whatever the odds are that the church may change its position on contraception someday, it won’t be soon. For now the bishops are promising a fight to the end. It’s that important to them, a fact of which Obama was well aware. Catholic leaders are justified in their outrage, especially those who helped Obama with health-care reform and now feel betrayed.

Exhibit A: Sister Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association, who supported the health-care act with assurances from Obama that Catholics’ rights of conscience would be protected, despite criticism from many other Catholic leaders. She has now met the crowded underside of Obama’s bus.

Exhibit B: Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who had a private meeting with Obama in November, after which he said he was hopeful about the final rule. Headlines to that effect unleashed Planned Parenthood’s public relations whirlwind, prompting blog headlines such as “Will Obama cave to Catholic bishops?” Apparently not.

Obama’s calculation must have been that there are more women who want insurance coverage for birth control than there are obedient Catholics. Although Obama won with 54 percent of the Catholic vote last time, he may have miscalculated. Women are not a monolithic vote, and even though some Catholic women may disagree with the church, they still love and respect it and how it serves the poor. They may like Obama, birth control and Democrats, but they don’t want to see their church beaten up.

These are tough, emotional issues, to be sure. But consider that we allow even Nazis to march because we believe so fervently in freedom of expression. We should believe at least as strongly in freedom of conscience, not only for Catholics’ sake but also for our own

link

[Grumps 3,704]

Then maybe they will leave the children alone

We both know that's a complete red herring, and has zero to do w/ the forcing of O-Care onto religious groups, but for snorts and giggles, could you explain WHY you felt the need to interject that into the discussion ?

It's not ONLY Catholics who are opposed to the idea of abortion, you know. There are other religions who share similar views , and will be affected every bit as much.

My guess is that he was talking about Catholic priests molesting young boys. It is still obviously a red herring and a typical arnaldo response.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Then maybe they will leave the children alone

Tell that to public school teachers, since they have the highest percentage of "not leaving the children alone" of any profession.

[AURaptor 1,122]

My guess is that he was talking about Catholic priests molesting young boys. It is still obviously a red herring and a typical arnaldo response.

Oh, absolutely. But arnie's intent was to completely dismiss the Catholics entirely from any credibility , what so ever, because they were at odds w/ his lord and master, Obama. Even though this has ZERO to do w/ the priests, or what they have done in the past, arnie's comment is meant to vilify and shame anyone who sides w/ the Catholics, least they be accused of siding w/ child molesters.

Standard Saul Alinksy, left wing tactics, actually. Pretty pathetic.

[RunInRed 16,406]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

[Tigermike 3,026]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

By the church or by Obama?

[Grumps 3,704]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

It will be interesting to see if Obama is too arrogant to admit that the provision was a mistake. If he reverses course I hope it is not before there is a whole lot more controversy.

Seriously, this could be one of the biggest political mistakes in history.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

Shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Obama has shown on more than one occasion that his religion is the liberal agenda. And that he doesn't really "get" why religious folks actually want to adhere to their own beliefs as it relates to many of their foundational teachings.

He strikes me as a man who claims to be religious, but completely dismisses major tenets of the very religion he claims. Much like John Kerry. "I'm a staunch catholic. I'm very pro-choice."

Disclaimer: I'm not saying democrats are the only ones who do this. Many politicians on both sides claim affiliation with a given religion because it is politically expedient.

[autigeremt 6,601]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

I don't think so, RIR. The Obama Administration is betting on 1. Women will go against the church and 2. Polling done by a group in D.C. suggests that 52% of people (not catholics only) support the provision.

The majority of those who oppose it were White Evangelicals, who by the way, sought freedome from the monarchy and the church when crossing the pond to the new world. The poll is a small sampling, but that's all they need to feel good about what they knew would happen all along.

Either Obama and his administration is lost in the woods (which they are on some things) on this issue, or they knew it was coming and support it 100%! I think it's the later.

[autigeremt 6,601]

I'd be willing to bet you'll see a reversal on this sooner rather than later.

Shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Obama has shown on more than one occasion that his religion is the liberal agenda. And that he doesn't really "get" why religious folks actually want to adhere to their own beliefs as it relates to many of their foundational teachings.

He strikes me as a man who claims to be religious, but completely dismisses major tenets of the very religion he claims. Much like John Kerry. "I'm a staunch catholic. I'm very pro-choice."

Disclaimer: I'm not saying democrats are the only ones who do this. Many politicians on both sides claim affiliation with a given religion because it is politically expedient.

Problem with this....is simple. The government is telling a religious institution that it must go against it's doctrine to follow the law. This is partly what we fought a war over in 1776. It's been a trend and another example of the liberal ideology.

[Tigermike 3,026]

Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of male voters are against the government requiring contraceptive coverage in a case like this. Female voters are almost evenly divided on the question. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Catholic voters oppose this requirement, as do 62% of Evangelical Christians, and 50% of other Protestants. Most non-Christians (56%) support the Obama Administration ruling.

link

What about separation of church and state? Never mind that is just the drum the dems beat when there is a christian running for office on the Republican ticket.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Maybe they could just hand out condoms?

[arnaldoabru 11]

My guess is that he was talking about Catholic priests molesting young boys. It is still obviously a red herring and a typical arnaldo response.

Oh, absolutely. But arnie's intent was to completely dismiss the Catholics entirely from any credibility , what so ever, because they were at odds w/ his lord and master, Obama. Even though this has ZERO to do w/ the priests, or what they have done in the past, arnie's comment is meant to vilify and shame anyone who sides w/ the Catholics, least they be accused of siding w/ child molesters.

Standard Sal Alinksy, left wing tactics, actually. Pretty pathetic.

No silly, Sal was Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

[autigeremt 6,601]

Alinsky was a communist. Plain and simple.

[AURaptor 1,122]

No silly, Sal was Jewish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

What's ' no ' for ?

He was a community agitator, like our current resident in the White House, and author of 'Rules for Radicals'.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alinsky was a communist. Plain and simple.

Alinsky wasn't a communist, and you two had never even heard of the guy until an adulteror mentioned him.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Alinsky was a communist. Plain and simple.

Alinsky wasn't a communist, and you two had never even heard of the guy until an adulteror mentioned him.

Sean Hannity is an adulterer ?

How do you know where/ when he or anyone heard of Saul Alinksy ? I knew of this 'Rules for Radicals' author well before the '08 election. And what difference does it make ?

[autigeremt 6,601]

Alinsky was a communist. Plain and simple.

Alinsky wasn't a communist, and you two had never even heard of the guy until an adulteror mentioned him.

He's a communist/socialist with views of government leveling the playing field by a heavy hand, and his means to an end was to organize a movement and brainwash people into thinking like himself and infiltrating the leadership of government until it has the power to transform the country into a communist/socialist state. I'm quite familiar. I read about the fool over 20 years ago so don't even try to assume anything. The man was an organizational genius, no doubt. But he hid behind the cloak of socialism by painting a picture that he was some kind of patriot. In fact, his involvement in the labor movement solidifies, in my opinion, his socialist cause and uncovers his "cloak" of deception through his writings. He WAS a socialist with a communist tilt. Sure, he did some good things with civil rights, but a snake in the grass is still a snake in the grass. I don't care if he was jewish or not.

Maybe Marxist is a better term for Alinsky, but the end justifies the means. lol