Obama’s Attack on Religious Liberty
President's actions on contraception controversy shows blatant disregard for our constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
When President Obama mandated that religiously-based organizations violate core tenets of their faith, Americans were rightly outraged. In response, the president announced an “accommodation” policy to these organizations, but the so-called compromise is not a compromise at all because it does not take away the mandate that infringes upon religious liberty.
On Jan. 20, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, affirmed a rule that requires church-affiliated hospitals, agencies and universities to provide contraception and sterilization in the health insurance for their employees. The president later announced a false compromise, mandating that insurance companies offer free coverage of these services directly to the employees of religiously-affiliated institutions.
The announcement merely attempted to alleviate a political problem for the president, after Americans across the political spectrum spoke out against this intrusive government overreach and blatant disregard for our constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
However, the contempt for protecting the right of conscience remains. Religiously-affiliated institutions that have moral objections to contraceptives and abortifacients will still be forced to facilitate a government mandate that goes against their faith.
The new regulation, forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptives to employees, actually increases the power of government to mandate further items through its control of insurance coverage under Obamacare.
And while the directive says that companies must meet the mandate without charging either the employer or the employee, there is no such thing as a free lunch. To say that insurance companies will provide free contraceptives and abortifacients is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. We all know in reality, someone pays. And in this case, religiously-affiliated organizations will foot the bill as the premiums go up to cover all of the government mandates.
Furthermore, religious-based organizations that are self-insured will be forced to buy insurance coverage under this mandate, and they will end up paying indirectly to violate core tenants of their faith, rather than directly.
This country was founded by those who came to these shores seeking relief from religious persecution. And the crafters of our Constitution explicitly protected religious liberty, writing that “Congress shall make no law” that violates freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed that this right includes freedom to practice religion without government interference.
The president’s new regulation still represents a serious threat to religious liberty and erodes our right of conscience.
The only acceptable way to protect religious liberty is for the president to admit that he and his Administration have made a mistake and to withdraw the mandate over religiously-affiliated institutions completely.
Congress can, and should, act to restore the constitutionally-protected right to exercise religion. I will work in the House of Representatives to reverse this policy and restore our constitutionally-protected freedom of religion.
$$andSense
8:11 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Good ole' Jim. One of the biggest attackers of Constitutional Rights backing the passing of none other than the patriot act (note - no caps on acts of treason), now standing up for religious liberty. What a guy!
Thanks massah', I be good now fo' whats yo' given me. We's havin' chicken thats it Sunday and all.
Jimothy
9:49 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
What is this garbage? Ever hear of the Constitutional right to contraception? Griswold v. Connecticut! Stop pushing your religious beliefs on America. President Obama isn't here to please only the Christians.
Mike G.
10:30 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
The slight of hand worked on you. You fell for exactly what you were supposed to fall for. You think it's about contraception don't you? It is about a president TRYING to take rights out of the constitution without anyone noticing. You fell for the slight of hand trick. Will you notice when your rights are taken from you? Probably not.
Say What?
9:58 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
I can't understand this. If an employer supplies health and benefits, why must the person who uses the health and benefits do so on the religious measures the employer lives by. I take serious issue with "christians" who are willing to take the money of a non christian, or someone who chooses to "cherry pick" their beliefs, and then tell them what they will or will not do with the money. It is right up there with not working on the sabbath, but going shopping on the sabbath thereby causing someone else to work on the sabbath. If the hospital has religious affiliations and wishes to carry out their work in alignment with those affiliations, they should not be able to profit or take government money. Now, all I have to do is find me one of those "good catholic" girls who really follows those beliefs for...ya know.
Jay Sykes
6:27 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
@Say What?... It seems like you could be summarized as saying, 'when you receive federal funding, you give up some of your rights'. I find that idea quite troubling.
Say What?
10:53 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Jay,
No, if you except money from the government you have the rights that they give. You are looking at this entirely with two diverging paths. Separation of church and state works two ways. You have your religious freedoms, you don't get public funding. If you get public funding, you don't get religious freedoms. Separation is separation.
Jay Sykes
6:14 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
@Say What?... 'except[sic] money from the government you have the rights that they give'. Looks like you said it again; that the government can abscond with your rights,in this case those of the First Amendment,if the money one receives flows through their coffers.
Mike G.
10:24 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
So what does it mean when a president takes office and vows to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, but then turns around and attacks that same constitution? Impeachable offense?
William Eib
10:59 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: You have made two specious comments regarding attacks on the Constitution without declaring what rights have been attacked. Now it's nice that you have some under supported disappointment with something, but leaving us in the dark to as what those attacks are specifically is very self serving. Please enlighten us if possible. That way we may be able to have a dialogue and quite possibly offer a counter opinion that may be of some help to allay your concerns.
$$andSense
10:24 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
F. James Senselessbrenner. LMAO!! LMAO!! The fools' politician. He exists because the other party can't find a bigger POS to replace him. Keep believing in the system that elections make things right.
Ann Wiley
10:34 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
"religious-based organizations that are self-insured will be forced to buy insurance coverage under this mandate, and they will end up paying indirectly to violate core tenants of their faith, rather than directly."
In 2014, employers with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance to their employees; however Obama exempted 100% of religious organizations that have religious objections. http://tinyurl.com/6r8p3gn
Some of the many sources that say there should be no increase in rates:
Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance
http://tinyurl.com/7evoxuz
Private Insurance Coverage Contraception Cost Effective
http://tinyurl.com/6r8p3gn
Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance
http://tinyurl.com/7vu3xwl
In addition, health insurance companies will be adding millions of customers in 2014 when that mandate employers with 50 or more employees must offer health insurance.
OneTermYesWeCan2012
10:39 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Have any of you ever seen a more despicable, divisive, pure evil Marxist administration like this one in your lifetime? If your answer is no…that’s because we’ve never had one as corrupt and evil as the Obama administration. Many of us Patriots knew what was coming from Obama before he even won the Democrat Party nomination, we just didn’t know what he had in store for us; we sure as heck do now, and there’s more to come unless we stop him this coming November. No matter what, no matter how mad we may all get with who we end up with as the Republican nominee, we must vote for anyone but Barrack Hussein Obama! I can’t wait until we send them packing back to Chicago!
Mike G.
10:51 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
You are right. And we don't even know half of what is still planned for the demise of democracy by this administration. Subvert the truth and take away freedoms, it's all downhill from there. We are already seeing what is true being called a lie, and what is a lie being called true (marriage), and now religious freedoms being chiseled out of the document that gives us our freedoms.
William Eib
11:05 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
OTYWC2012: To answer your question. I have never seen anything as remotely un-clarified as the one in your fiction of a comment. corrupt, evil, we sure as heck know now. Know what? I don't see any of what your trying to say, and why in your comment. It is just a self serving rant, with no content of value whatsoever. When you yell fire, make sure there is a fire and where it is located would help. Please amplify your rage.
Bren
11:19 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
This straw man is old. Republicans have been sponsoring and co-sponsoring bills similar to Obama's proposal since 2000 and they are the law in multiple states. Millions of people use contraceptives for birth control and other medical conditions, and they are not going to vote to foot the bill now. In states where this is not yet the law, it's hard to imagine anyone who wouldn't support a bill to have contraceptives covered.
This straw man is old.
Mike G.
11:28 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
It's not about the contraceptives!
William Eib
11:11 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Bren: The heritage Foundation was involved in the original concept of Mandating Health Insurance. The GOP proposed it in their health plans in the past. John McCain and many other GOPers are on videotape declaring it to be a good thing for the American Health Plan. Same with Cap and Trade, they created that idea, which they now hate. Flipping and flopping their way through history. Can't govern, never have been able to. Taking on Women's Reproductive Rights, they've got to be NUTS!!!
Bren
12:44 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Yes, William, and I suspect Mike G. is correct, it's not about contraceptives (although not for the reasons that Mike G. thinks). It's about Republicans trying to sway their low-information base away from Obama with the old bible-thumping gambit which has worked well for them in the past. Their focus group results must be telling them that economic Republicans are responding to the elimination of Osama bin Laden and news of job growth.
If the goal is pave the way to unfettered corporate growth, and the barrier is the American voter, it's brilliant strategy to identify and exploit the "hot" buttons of large blocks of voters. So for christians the strategy is to manufacture a contraceptive crisis (knowing that this base has short-term memory and very narrow media intake). Have the corporate-owned media outlets clog up the airwaves, have the puppet politicians bloviate about it, and voila, it takes root, lie that it is. We can see it working right here on this thread. It's all about strategic marketing.
It's also sedition. An attempt to destabilize our government, for one of the basest possible reasons--profit.
Randy1949
12:27 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Sensenbrenner, but doesn't the state of Wisconsin currently have the same requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals and universities carry contraceptive coverage for their employees? Where is your Constitutional challenge to Wisconsin's law? After all, it's the same assault on religious freedom that you're decrying in our President.
Or could it be that you're just jumping on this issue because it's this President in an election year?
GPKWH
7:02 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Once again the radical right is attempting to take away our personal liberties, our right to make our own decisions. In the Representatives world he would make all decisions for us without regards to our beliefs, our religion, our our best interest. He would invade our very most personal lives and dictate what we should or should not do. I am embarrassed to call him my US representative since he in no way represents me.
Mike G.
9:40 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Explain how fighting for liberty, as in this article, is "attempting to take away our personal liberties" as you say? Your comment makes no sense and fails to understand the real importance of the First Ammendment of our constitution. When you say personal liberties are you not relying on the same First Ammendment rights that the "Radical Right" is fighting for?
Keith Schmitz
7:06 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
F Jim of course conveniently overlooks the fact that employers offering prescription drugs for their employees have to also offer contraception under EEOC rules, which go back to 2000. This included ALL employers.
Who was president then?
What is particularly sad about the male dominated opposition is that 98% of women have used some form of contraception, which of course would include a vast majority of Catholic women.
Really, if the Church can't preach its way out of this, government shouldn't be there to help them out. That is not freedom of religion. It's coercing religion.
Tell me F Jim. So if someone works for a Jehovah Witness they shouldn't be covered for blood transfusions?
If this whole thing gives you a problem, maybe its time to bring on single payer, where no religion can be bothered by drug coverage, except those that want to control our freedoms.
Randy1949
9:24 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
@Keith -- The Republicans in Congress are going further now and writing bills that will allow ALL employers, not just those with a documented religious affiliation, to refuse to cover any procedure on religious or moral grounds. So there goes that blood transfusion if you work for a Jehovah's Witness, that kidney dialysis if you work for a Christian Scientist, and the obstetrical coverage for your third child's birth if you work for someone who feels it's immoral to overpopulate the planet.
The only solution to a system where you have the right to any procedure -- as long as you can pay for it yourself but most people can't -- is single-payer with the moral judgments taken out of it.
Bob McBride
10:30 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
If single-payer is the only solution, why isn't the guy you put in the White House championing a proposal that offers that solution? Why rail at a guy you know is never going to support something like that and give the one who should be, according to who's supporting him, a pass? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, does it?
It's the same old deal. Things didn't get done when they could have gotten done because there were too many "Blue Dog" Democrats, so complain about the Republicans on that. We don't even have a proposal for single-payer from the party you support, so let's complain about the Republicans again on that. You were all high on fumes from the 2008 election coup, so you missed the boat in 2010 - so let's start a series of recalls to set that straight and claim it's based on Republican "overreaching". What is it about you folks that makes you think the proper response to dropping the ball on this stuff is to blame the competition? Seriously, where does that logic come from?
Keith Schmitz
2:27 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
1) Because everything has to be done in increments. You don't just jerk the brake cord. The Affordable Health Care Act is far better than what we have now, which is the GOP plan -- do nothing.
2) The politics is what it is. All we know is that the GOP is 100% against a government health care plan because they operate under a bizarre idea that government has no positive effect on the economy.
That's what's so wonderful about dumb-assed cynicism. You can do nothing and somehow feel intellectually superior because you feel you did something intellectual.
As for the recalls, government officials are working for us. We're the boss.
If we don't feel they are doing the job, doing the wrong job or conducting malfeasance, we as the collective boss can remove them. Who could be against that?
Bob McBride
2:51 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
You had nearly a year to get anything you wanted done on a national level and you couldn't. That's a fact. The Blue Dogs are your problem, not ours. Whining about lack of cooperation now is the height of idiocy.
Whether or not the healthcare reforms in AHCA are better than what we have now or not remains to be seen. Let's see what happens when mandatory insurance coverage kicks in. You may be longing for what you have now and there's no guarantee you're going to get a chance to implement another "increment" to fix it at that point. Regardless, it's not what you wanted, you had a chance to get what you wanted and you blew it, and now it's our fault. As usual.
We have a system in place for when politicians don't do what the majority wants to them to. They're called regular elections. You sore losers found a loophole to exploit, and you're doing so. How effectively remains to be seen. Obviously we now have to remove that loophole since you can't be trusted not to exploit it again.
Ultimately, nothing you put forth counters anything I posted. You're barking up the wrong tree with your complaints. Your national leaders were too busy calling in people for stern talking-tos and taking victory laps during the time they should have been implementing the kinds of policies you elected them to implement. Now you're whining about Jim. Perfectly logical there, Keith.
Sallyfromthealley
8:03 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Wasn't going to comment, since the MAJORITY of the above comments favor OUR PRESIDENT'S DECISION, but thought it worth mentioning that the Constitution was written very long ago in a different time, with different problems, AND BY MEN. Maybe it needs to be updated a bit, to take into consideration a changed world and women's rights.
Mike G.
9:54 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Our constitution was written to address the human condition, not cultural fads that change as ideas change. The human condition has not changed in all of history. Greed is still greed, people still strive for power and desire corruption over truth and honesty. The constitution protects our freedoms from presidents, congresses, and Supreme Court justices who try to take them away from us. We are seeing attempts of our rights being taken away from us today. We don't need to change the constitution, it works well just the way it is. What we need is to enforce it against those who want to change it.
Ron Abalone
10:53 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G. - Not changing the Constitution? It has been amended many times, including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Even ultra-conservatives want to add amendments, such as those dealing with abortion, gay marriage, balancing federal budgets. etc.
Mike G.
3:24 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Ron:
Pardon me, you are right, I should have said "violate" not "change". Of course we ammend the constitution. I meant to say it is not right to pass laws that inherently violate our freedoms.
Anne
9:05 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Jim, stop wasting Patch space with your inane opinions.
Mike G.
9:17 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Those "Inane opinions" are the same ones that gave us Freedom in the form of our constitution.
Randy1949
9:29 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
That one individual's idea of religion and morality gives that person the right to call the shots for other people?
Mike G.
10:01 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Randy, I said "Freedom in the form of our constitution."
Keith Schmitz
2:30 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Hey Mike G., if F Jim was around during the Revolution he would have been a Tory, just like all the other status quo loving baggers.
Nick Poulos
9:42 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
The irony of it all. This issue has been resolved in as satisfactorily a method as possible. Now is the time for the TP / Republicans to admit what they really are all about. Re-elect Obama and guarantee that our democratic republic survives, and flourishes; or, vote for any of the TP or Republicans and become deeper slaves to the plutocrats and their oligarchy.
Randy1949
10:04 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
I really can't understand the position of the Catholic Bishops on this one. Why this President? Why now, when policies like this have been in effect for years at the state level? It would seem to me that of the two parties' positions on social justice, Obama would be more in line the Church's teaching.
CowDung
10:14 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Perhaps the existing policies have included exemptions for religious organizations, and Obama's policy does not...
Randy1949
10:34 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Actually not, CowDung. The 'Obama' policy originally exempted churches and their employees from the requirement (as several states do not) while requiring religiously affiliated institutions like universities and hospitals that both serve the general public and hire non-participants in the religion to provide the sort of coverage other businesses have to.
As other people have pointed out, there is always an exemption -- simply do not provide any prescription drug coverage and then no drug will be singled out. Not fair that your cholesterol lowering drug will no longer be covered? Too bad. You have the freedom to pay for it out of pocket or find another job.
NaiveOne
10:10 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Hey Jim, the word is 'tenets', not 'tenants'. The two words really change the meaning of the sentence.
"Furthermore, religious-based organizations that are self-insured will be forced to buy insurance coverage under this mandate, and they will end up paying indirectly to violate core tenants of their faith, rather than directly."
You tend to lose some of your credibility with this type of thing.
Best of luck!
Ron Abalone
10:24 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Why doesn't religion go their own private way and not take government money and tax exemptions? Then, short of breaking laws like polygamy,child molestation and unlicensed gambling, they would have more moral standing to fight government invasion of their core dogma. Let's add giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and paying property taxes.
CowDung
10:31 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Don't all non-profit organizations get tax exemptions? Why should religious groups be singled out from the others when it comes to 'giving Ceasar what is Caesar's'?
Mike G.
10:32 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
You don't seem to understand that without the religious aspect of society there would be no rights at all. You seem to think that removing the glue that binds our society together would be a good thing. Religion is what promoted the freedom our country thrives on. Take religion out of society and you get the likes of the Soviet Union and North Korea. There is only bondage in a godless society. Is that what you want?
Ron Abalone
11:11 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
CowDung - An interesting and telling choice of usernames you have. Sure, let'em all pay fair taxes, otherwise, private citizens that have no or opposite interests in their agenda are paying their way. Think about it relative to a non-profit you hate, like Planned Parenthood or Freedom from Religion.
Mike G. - Thanks Reverend. I want freedom from bondage also, especially religious groups dictating laws for the rest of us. You can have your own brand of glue, just do not get me stuck with it. And as I recall from the 4th grade, this country was founded on freedom of and FROM religion, like the Church of England and the Church of Rome.
CowDung
12:00 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Ron:
As 'hate' is a pretty strong term, I'm not sure why you assume that I 'hate' any non-profits, but I'll play along for the sake of discussion.
I guess I am able to recognize that most non-profits serve a purpose to provide benefit to at least a portion of society. Just as most people can take tax deductions for charitable contributions, it makes sense to exempt non-profits from taxes as well.
Wanting them taxed out of existence would really serve no benefit for society, but only perhaps satisfy a personal vendetta against groups that are found to be disagreeable by certain individuals.
Ron Abalone
12:17 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Cowdung - I said "fair taxes", and earlier said , "property taxes", not "taxed out of existence!". And I forgot to mention the tax-exempt NAACP and ACLU, just to get you excited.
But let's get back to religous non-profits. Why should I live on Church St. and pay for the streets, sidewalks, fire and police protection, etc. of that lefty Congregationalist Church down the street? So they can propogate their quacky Quakerish pacifist dogma, when I might believe there is no Great Being at all, no matter what the denomination? Multiply that by all the churches in town, and we begin to understand why our property taxes are so high and how the government is assisting religion, not fight it. Then the churches get chutzpah about misperceived federal intervention. Maybe we should just go ahead and get more aggressive about the simmering property tax issue relative to a free pass for religion.
CowDung
12:39 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
OOohhh--the NAACP and the ACLU don't pay taxes. Why should that matter to me?
Considering that most businesses are taxes according to their profits, what could be more fair than not tax non-profits at all? I would argue that making them pay taxes would cause many non-profits to cease to exist. It sure puts a dent in the fund raising efficiency if a big chunk of the donations has to go toward paying taxes...
You have to treat all non-profits the same. If you don't tax one, you shouldn't tax any of them. While you may see no benefit from the church down the street, a fair percentage of the population does. Those seeing the benefit are not just believers either--churches tend to serve their community through their charitable works. Most commonly, providing food for those who cannot afford to buy groceries...
Keith Schmitz
2:34 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G is one heck of a constitutional scholar. Much of what is in the Constitution is to protect us from the tethers of religion.
The founding fathers were not too far removed from history to not be aware of what religion in government did to freedom and from the Hundred Years War, one of the bloodiest thanks to religion.
Mike G.
3:55 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Keith Schmitz:
It was not what religion in government did that the concerned the Founding Fathers. People did not leave Europe to gain Political Freedom; they left Europe for Religious Freedom. What the Founding Fathers were concerned with was government in religion. Governments controlled religion in Europe and they were setting up a government where religion was free from control. The First Amendment addressed that concern. So, where you say that the constitution is to protect us from the tethers of religion it is the other way around, it is to protect us from the tethers of government.
William Eib
10:50 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
This is hogwash, where pray tell is there an impingement on religious freedom? The is a Jonah sized red herring. This is one of the most unconscionable hoaxes ever foisted on the Faithful. How we got from a contraception debate to a war on religion is way beyond me. Some one enlighten me, please.
Mike G.
10:58 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Not only you is it way beyond but way beyond most people. The constitution requires that the government not tell religious groups what they can and cannot do. They cannot tell people how to practice or how not to practice their religious beliefs through laws. The government is doing just that at this time. It is a big deal.
William Eib
11:22 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
MIKE G: These are your words?? Explain how fighting for liberty, as in this article, is "attempting to take away our personal liberties" as you say? Your comment makes no sense and fails to understand the real importance of the First Ammendment of our constitution. When you say personal liberties are you not relying on the same First Ammendment rights that the "Radical Right" is fighting for?
It's admirable of you to try to define what the First Amendment provides, but it is not there for people, who run into opposition to their opinions, to toss out, as a defense of said opinion, the threat against their 1st Amendment rights. There are no 1st Amendment rights being violated in this contraception argument. Religion freedom was introduced by those disappointed with the situation. The issue is Women's Reproductive Rights which runs counter to some Churches Religious Doctrine, which in not law. It's a statement of belief, not covered any where in the Constitution, unless you want to cite separation of Church and State, something the Founding Fathers were very keen on.
CowDung
11:35 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
I'm not sure how you aren't seeing a First Amendment issue with the government requiring religious organizations to provide something that they believe to be against their beliefs. Doesn't that go along the lines of making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion?
Mike G.
2:10 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
In order for religious institutions to follow their beliefs they will be in violation of the law. If they do not provide the health care that includes birth control in its varied forms they violate the law, if they do provide it they violate their beliefs which runs counter to the First Ammendment.
William Eib
11:38 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: Man you use a mighty broad brush to present your opinions. How did you get from Women's Reproductive Rights to the USSR and Korea? Regarding your statement: "Religion is what promoted the freedom our country thrives on. " That couldn't be any farther from the truth. The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists, not Christians. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. John Adams (Founding Father) said the following: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." They felt that law came from man not divine providence. Read your history before using it as part of your argument.
Mike G.
2:29 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Question is how did you get women's reproductive rights from what I said?
Deists? Hardly! How is it that your deist fellow John Adams said, "And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence." If Adams was a Deist he must have lapsed here. He also had this to say, "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. ... What a utopia, what a paradise, this region would be!" John Adams, Feb. 22, 1756
Keith Schmitz
2:39 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Like all right wingers Mike has a vivid imagination and he bases his decisions on what happens in that imagination.
William Eib
11:47 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G,: Just saw your alarmist unsubstantiated "demise of Democracy" remark. WOW.
That's mighty strong. Where are your indicators other than the fictional ones in your head. You have a classic case of Teahadist Flu. The symptoms are: Paranoia, Negativity, Pessimism, and Hyperbole. Take 2 aspirin, put them between your knees and call your doctor in the morning.
Mike G.
2:39 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Let's put what I said back in context: "And we don't even know half of what is still planned for the demise of democracy by this administration."
Did you catch the key phrase: AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HALF OF WHAT IS STILL PLANNED"? That means it cannot be substantiated until it's too late.
But, I would guess, from their trying to take freedoms away from religions that we will see more of the same.
How are you so confident that it won't happen?
William Eib
12:50 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Ron Aah-Baloney: "Probably those radical Progressives again, trying to toss out the Constitution, which mandates that there should be no government health care programs." No Constitution tossing what so ever. The entire Constitution is being thrown out, WOW! That's a mighty broad statement. How did you arrive at that particular destination? I would love to know. And fill me in on the Constitutional anti health care amendment. Probably right next to the Anti Gay Marriage amendment.
William Eib
1:00 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G.: "Religion is what promoted the freedom our country thrives on. " How do you consistently get it wrong. The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists, not Christians.
John Adams, a prominent Founding Father had this to say about Religion: “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” They strove to keep religion out of politics and government, They even worked on Christmas day. Your anger should be directed at Rick Santorum for dragging Religion into Politics. He is using God to pander for votes. He is really close to crossing the line. A line most American's respect and want to have respected. It's a slippery slope , Ducky.
Mike G.
2:51 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
54 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were listed as Christians. One was athiest and one was not listed.
William Eib
1:14 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COW PATTIE: No 1st Amendment issue. They are not being denied the right to adhere to a Doctrine (Doctrine is Not Law) it's a belief. Slave owners held the belief they were right in their enslavement of other human, and Southern Bus Companies and their communities held the belief that Negroes belonged in the back of the bus, I don't think many American's, other than White Supremacists, hold that belief anymore. Beliefs are not unchallengeable. They are not covered by the 1st Amendment. You can stand anywhere or write anywhere and profess your beliefs, that's a right. But the imposition of that belief counter to the law is not a right. I wish people would stop saying the President is forcing Churches. Hospitals operating under the incorporation laws of the USA, don't get Church protection. They have enter the secular world of business for profit. They must obey the law. Crying Religious Discriminate is a phony baloney reaction, intent on embarrassing the Government of the USA. It's a Shake Down tactic Tony Soprano would be proud of.
CowDung
1:40 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Religious beliefs are very different than the beliefs of secular individuals or groups. When the government challenges the beliefs of an established religion, it is threatening their right to freely practice that religion.
CowDung
1:41 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
For one, religion affiliated hospitals are not for-profit entities. There is no reason to treat them as for-profit corporations.
Religiously affiliated hospitals operate under the belief system of their religion. Creating laws that requiring them to do things that are in conflict with the beliefs required of those adhering to the faith is a violation of their first amendment rights.
William Eib
1:50 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Jay Sykes: Well put . Refreshing to read someone who presents opinion within a substantive comment. I struggle with the notion that the Catholic Institutions have been providing these services all along. Not all, but one would be enough for me to ask the question why Now is it an issue and how did it become a Religious Freedom issue. And a 1st amendment issue, I don't comprehend how a Religious Organization, which operates under the incorporation laws finds it that the government should exempt them from laws that are part of the secular world they do business in. Where does this belief notion stop. Every religious group will be afforded the same exemption. Am I wrong on that point?
Jay Sykes
6:02 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I'll agree, it seems strange that Catholic Institutions just awoke to the fact they were violating a core belief. However, most laws do not immediately get challenged as to their Constitutional validity;one needs to see them 'in practice' to find the chink in the amour.
It is possible that the mission of a particular Catholic *_______* (*hospital/charity/University...) is not tightly enough bound to the core mission and beliefs of the Catholic Church and thus would be held to a different standard than the Church itself. I don't see that the corporate operating structure of a Religious Organization affects its belief and practice of its core values.
William Eib
1:58 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COW PATTIE: Some are venture capitalist funded, non-profit doesn't mean free care all the time to every patient, there is commerce involved and health laws that apply to the operation of the institution, they are not exempt because of belief to run their institutions unaffected by secular law. This is just an other law. They do provide it an some of the institutions, and why should a non-catholic be denied that element of the health care package which is part of their pay package? The Church is playing politics for a reason yet known to those out side of the Church. WHEN YOU MIX RELIGION WITH POLITICS YOU GET POLITICS. And this is smelling more and more like politics, particularly the grand standing the GOP is doing with the fabled Religious Freedom issue.
CowDung
2:18 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Please give me an example of a 'venture capitalist funded' religiously affiliated hospital.
Religious entities must comply with laws that do not infringe on their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.
William Eib
2:05 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COW PATTIE: Slavery and segregation where supported broadly throughout the South, preached from pulpits in every white church in every large and small town. The Bible was used as proof of God condoning the practice. In this country is it becoming hard to separate the secular from the religious when it comes to regulating life in America. 2012 is looking like the hardest ever to disseminate.
CowDung
2:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
While I won't disagree that the Bible may have been used to justify slavery, slavery has never actually been religious belief...
William Eib
2:12 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
TO ALL: There are elements in our country who would like nothing better than to have this election year be a battle of Faith. A religious war fought on the battlefield of Politics, will be the ruin of this nation. The Teahadist theme of Negativity, pessimism, and self loathing has spread like a virus in America. The lack of civility in public conversation, the rudeness, the invective, is saddening. And sadder still is all who are caught up in the morass of incivility are by and large normal, decent people.
CowDung
2:23 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Lack of civility? You mean like when people choose to address others by a name other than their username?
Keith Schmitz
2:43 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
With 98% of women using birth control and most Catholic women using contraception, it appears that the Bishops are at fault for not adequately making their case.
With every dollar spent on contraception saving us from #3.50 in costs from a full term pregnancy, not to mention associated costs of raising the child, it looks like this so called freedom of religion could really cost us.
CowDung
2:49 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
What does your 98% statistic that have to do with anything? It is the religious leaders, not those who claim to be followers who define the beliefs and tenets of a religion...
Ron Abalone
3:02 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
William Eib - Please be civil and address him as CowDung, as he requests.
OneTermYesWeCan2012
2:22 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
@William Eib, you’re correct about the church being used for politics, it needs to stop. Black churches are widely known to disregard the law and promote political candidates from the pulpit. These churches need to be reported to the IRS immediately. I just read on JSOnline a black Pastor in Milwaukee discussing the Voter ID law from the pulpit; I have reported his church to the IRS. The IRS prohibits churches from campaigning, unless they want to pay taxes as other political groups do.
CowDung
2:26 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Are you referring to the church that is taking steps to make sure that everyone in the congregation has a valid photo ID so that they can vote? That's not campaigning...
William Eib
3:11 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Just about every pulpit in just about every Catholic Church is now the bull horn for the Bishop's bogus out cry. Catholic friends of mine were taken aback by the blatant political tenor of the sermon.
CowDung
3:23 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Is it really 'political tenor' to want to stop the government from forcing the church to violate their beliefs?
William Eib
2:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
The Catholic Church considers coitus interruptus as contraception. Folks how do you take this seriously, It appears that sex is solely for the purpose of reproduction. Now let's assume the seriously Religious in this country were to get hold of the reigns of Government. How would all of the Religious freedom folks feel then. No Sex Santorum has that belief. Now where does that fit in if legislature of this nature lands on President Santorums desk, does he listen to the people or his church?
CowDung
2:30 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
How do you reconcile your 'sex is solely for the purpose of reproduction' claim with the fact that the Catholic church teaches 'natural family planning' as a method of having sexual relations while avoiding pregnancy...
Randy1949
2:49 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I get the 'sex is for procreation, not recreation!' directly from a sermon preached to the congregation by a Catholic priest. Natural family planning, or rhythm, involves strategic abstinence, and I've been told by one practicing Catholic that one used to need the permission of a spiritual adviser to engage in it. It is also very ineffective, which fulfills the requirement that every act of intercourse be open to the possibility of conception.
CowDung
3:22 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
While similar, NFP is not the same thing as the rhythm method, and is much more effective than the traditional rhythm method.
Randy1949
3:52 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I am aware of how NFP works. It is still strategic abstinence.
CowDung
3:57 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Correct, and it is encouraged by the Catholic church.
William Eib
2:39 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COW PATTIE: Cerberus Capital Management bought Caritas Christi Health Care, a Catholic health care system in Boston, in November. The private equity firm reportedly agreed to invest $400 million in the six-hospital system and assume $495 million in debt. Catholic doctrine still holds sway over the operation of the company
CowDung
3:19 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Catholic doctrine only holds sway over the operations to the extent of the agreement reached between the parties involved and the Massachusetts AG. The agreement calls for the Catholic identity to be maintained for a specific number of years, but they are no longer run as a branch or extension of the Catholic church. They are no longer a Catholic entity and will be paying taxes and subject to the same laws as any other for-profit organization.
William Eib
3:04 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COW PATTIE: Government has challenged belief many times. Sacrifice is not condoned, Female circumcision is not condoned, State of Illinois threatened to cut off funding to the Catholic Church for a food center, the Church was apparently requesting people to sign a document stating there were no gay, lesbian,cross dressing, transgender members of their family before they could have the box of food. Church knew the law regarding discrimination connected to the funds, but took the money and did what the wanted to do, when the state threatened to stop the funding, what do you think the Church did? Sued the state for Religious discrimination. Now tell me where there is a 1st Amendment crisis here.
William Eib
3:14 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
cow dung - cow pattie synonymous. If I wanted to be cast out civility I could use Cow Crap.
Keith Schmitz
4:50 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Kind of like the yahoos naming themselves Tea Baggers and then whining about liberals finding out what the term meant.
William Eib
3:17 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COWDUNG: I would have liked to have seen you making the point Slavery was not a Religious belief to the Southern Slave Owners. How does tar and feathering sound.
CowDung
3:26 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Being a response to an unpopular opinion doesn't mean that the tar and feathering is truly justified by religious doctrine...
William Eib
3:19 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COWDUNG: We talking The Rhythm Method? Where you check the calendar, then have sex and pretend you're procreating. It's a crap shoot, but the the couple are not betting on pregnancy.
CowDung
3:24 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
No, as I stated above, Natural Family Planning is not the same as the Rhythm Method you are describing.
Ron Abalone
3:37 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Churches bite the government hand that feeds them with tax exemptions and contributions to faith based education and charitable programs. Religion based politicians really stepped in the cowdung on this one. Their strategy is backfiring, with a renewed examination through the country on why we have these political bully pulpits with tax exemptions and subsidies. Tax them now, they have gone too far. Lift the tax burden off the common man.
OneTermYesWeCan2012
3:41 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I’m not a fan of Rick Santorum (not yet at least) but I love what he’s doing. I think what he said about Obama's “theology” was well thought out and planned. I knew what he was talking about...and it got everybody focused in on him. Brilliant move. A true Conservative can beat Obama.
William Eib
3:42 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
COWDUNG: 100 years from now someone of my ilk will look to the current issue as an example of misuse of Religious Belief and someone of you ilk will respond: "Being a response to an unpopular opinion doesn't mean that law suits and constitutional challenges (the tar and feathering) is truly justified by religious doctrine...
William Eib
3:48 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
ONE TERM: "But I love what he is doing." Do you have any idea what he is doing? And what did he mean by Obama's theology? I agree it was well thought out and planned. It was a slab of Red Meat blessed with holy water. You don't have a true Conservative. You have no idea what a true conservative is. William F. Buckley was the model of Conservatism (a Catholic, as well) he would found Santorum repulsive and blasphemous.
William Eib
4:03 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
MIKE G.: It's a bogus headline to go with the bogus article. We are where we are because of Women's Reproductive Rights. The issue started out with birth control being offered through health plans. The Roman Catholic Bishops did not like the idea. When pushed on the issue, they proclaimed religious rights impingement. The GOP/Teahadists jumped on that horse and are running it into the ground. Now as I follow the events:
1. birth control for free through health plan
2. Bishops say no
3. Bishops proclaim freedom of Religion
4. Obama offers solution
5. Bishops change mind, joined by Religious Right
6. GOP hold hearings shifting the issue to Freedom of Religion
7. Teahadist proclaim Religious Freedom a Wedge Issue
Did I miss anything?
Mike G.
6:40 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
You are absolutely right, what you say is an important issue. What did you miss? It is not THIS issue. This issue is about religious freedom. The issue of reproductive rights is also an issue, but it is an issue that leads in a much different direction. The reproductive issue is a moral one whereas the main issue in the article is a freedom issue. They are related but they are not the same. The outcomes will be much different.
I don't see why it cannot be solved simply by offering the package to people independent of their employer. Not through their employer at no cost to the employer, but directly to the employee having nothing in the world to do with the employer at all.
Mike G.
4:07 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I don’t know whether I should be amused or appalled by what historical and governmental nonsense is being uttered in these posts. I might even laugh if it wasn’t serious. History is not a matter of someone’s opinions; history is a collection of facts. Why do I pay taxes only to find that no one is teaching history or government anymore? It has turned into a relativistic, revisionist free-for-all where the facts don’t count. I hear that the Founders of our nation did it the way ignorant people of today want to think that they did things. Please research the facts before you state your opinions only because that is how you would have done things if you lived back then.
William Eib
4:43 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
MIKE G: May I suggest a community service on your part if you have the time, when you see an revisionist historical remark, why not correct it, starting with yourself.
Keith Schmitz
4:49 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Then you would be stunned to learn Mike that the Constitution was a document drafted by our founding fathers in response to an uprising of gun-toting, tax avoiding yahoos.
If you want to see history written the way you want it, then write it yourself.
Ron Abalone
4:15 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
OneTerm - We can only hope it is Santorum v. Obama. Not just hope, let us pray. Here is just one Santorum's many divinely inspired messages to us, this one regarding contraception, which takes care of the whole issue in this blog (if elected and with the right edict from him as President and a subservient Congress):
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." - Santorum
Amen, brother
William Eib
5:07 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Abalone: I am terrified by what you are saying, it would be okay for a President of the USA, one of Roman Catholic Faith to determine the social and political path through the Tenets of the Papacy? Divine inspiration is a mental illness. Not much good has come form it. Can we say Inqusition? And how does he arrive at something he knows nothing about, the man is practically celibate. Why not set up a pulpit in the White House and we can have live Sanrorum Sunday Sermons on FOX. This is insanity, we have escaped this danger for over 200 years, and the very thing the FFs were trying to avoid is being suggested by Ron Abalone, a 21st Century citizen of the USA. Your words scare me, Santorum is a light weight politician, as his sermons get more and more radical, common sense Americans will see the Ressurection of Jerry Falwell when they look and listen to Santorum. His shiny attention getting revival caravan is going to run out of grace. Plus he has not been thourghly vetted by the Lame Stream Media. Pennsylvania is a mob state. They rule the southeast and north central and southwestern parts of the state. The man does not believe in the right to privacy. Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America." It seems every thing he disagrees with causes great harm to the country, he would cause great harm to the country.
William Eib
4:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
MIKE G: Wrong again. They did not want religion involved in Government they grated religious freedom, but at the same time declared the government free from religion. They were quite schooled in the role religion played in British governance. Roger Williams, a great puritan theologian saw the problem 400 years ago in The Massachusetts Bay Colony when he said: Mix Religion with Politics and you get Politics. You see even 400 years ago people understood the separation of Church and State not State and Church. They saw laws as a human concern, with no need for Divine Providence. I think I may have mentioned that before. Those crazy FFs.
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. Imagine him running for office today!!! The Founding Fathers did not like or trust the adverse effect (their words) religion had on society. John Adams: Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
Mike G.
5:57 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Jefferson's words: "to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?"
How will you get word to TJ that he was wrong and you were right all along?
Mike G.
6:01 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Even TJ, though he was not fully on board with any religion stated the importance of the role of religion in the life of the country. A lesson we need to learn from one of the men who guaranteed that religion would prosper and would not fall prey to any government.
Mike G.
6:09 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
William Eib:
You said, "They did not want religion involved in Government". Did you wrongly assume that I said theocracy? Jefferson knew that when religious people go to work in the government they do so knowing the difference between right and wrong and they make decisions reflecting that knowledge. I have my doubts that today's politicians have any sense or form of morals.
Mike G.
6:22 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
By your definition Thomas Jefferson was a religious zealot. By the way, he was not a Deist, everyone knows that. If he was a Deist he would not call on the Almighty, Providence as he called God, and say, "that it [God] delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings." Deists believe that God created the universe and then left it alone. TJ calls on him now and into the future, the hereafter, that God will grant blessings here and in the hereafter. That is not the talk of a Deist.
Craig
5:01 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Holy Cow!
35 posts in a single day.
Someone thinks they are a know it all.
Don't you have any assignments to correct?
Craig
5:14 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Tomorrow will you school us all on the mating habits of the tsi tsi fly?
William Eib
5:17 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
TO ALL: We do not need a Religious Zealot holding the reins of power in the USA. God forbid. The only saving grace is the fact that the guy is an intellectual lightweight.
He found a shiny object (Religion) to hold up to the crowd, but it is beginning to tarnish, and will inevitably rust as time passes. I keep hearing the ghost of Jerry Falwell speaking haunting the air around Santorum, Ricky is starting to get very close to the line where he will start railing against women's bathing suits as incitement to sin. How about Amish clothing for women? The guy is obsessed with other people private lives and the sex he denies him self. If he can't get any neither should anyone else. Scary man.
Wisconsin Sucks
6:41 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Poll Question ; Whose more obnoxious?? Senlessbrenner the Nazi OR The typical Wisconsin Cheesehead
Tulsa
7:33 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
You missed one ::: People who post BS like you and your other 99 % friends.
William Eib
7:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
MIKE G: The Conversation is about Religious freedom, but we got to this point through the Bishops rejection of something they have been doing for years, providing contraception through health insurance and they still do. Realizing the hypocrisy of their argument, they had no choice but to shift the issue to Religious discrimination, they are off the hook, and we are still wasting time over a non issue. The conversation continues because there are people who wish for it to do so. Therefore they can incredulously call the President of the United States of America anti- religious freedom. A totally specious argument. Just because you wish to talk about inaccurately, doesn't make it so. You have failed, up to now, to point out the infraction, other than just using the name you prefer to give it.
William Eib
7:36 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: I spend half my time educating you. Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment — especially in America among intellectuals raised as Christians who found they could not believe in supernatural miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity, but who did believe in one God. Deistic ideas influenced several leaders of the American Revolution.
A few prominent Deists: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen (not the Furniture store)
Mike G.
8:43 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I am not buying fairtales in place of history. Deists of the day were the equivilent of today's average church going Christian, not too hot and not too cold. Jefferson was on the membership rolls of two Christian churches at the same time, Franklin, one. I don't know much about Paine except that he was a propagandist, same as you.
It is a waste of your time dumping garbage my way thinking I will take it in as true. I prefer facts to your BS.
Christian ethics were more prevalent among the Founding Fathers than you claim. They were interested in keeping government out of religious affairs such as was the case in the colonies where the church was run by the colonial government. The government picked pastors and bishops. That was okay when the colony was one religion. That would not work with a united state government with many religions coming together under one banner, who would decide the affairs of the churches? Jefferson and others came up with a new plan to let the churches govern themselves. It was a "government stay out of religon" policy.
Do your homework and see that what I say is true. Find the source documents and read them. Try to disprove me if you can.
William Eib
7:47 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Chris Davis: By the way I assume you are a 1% by your dig at the rest of America, 99%. If you are, what the hell are you doing on a Patch thread?
William Eib
7:49 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Chris Davis: Thanks for reading my comment. I think you may have missed the point I was making. There was nothing argumentative in it as I recall. I was trying to track how we got to Religious freedom as the issue. Care to give us your explanation. I am asking; how we got from the initial issue, provide birth control, to the Religious Freedom conversation we are having. I am aware that this thread is about Religious freedom, I am just interested as to where it was incubated.
William Eib
7:51 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: Q: Would you call a Presidential Candidate, who lives through scripture, and professes a point of view based on Religious text to the letter, bringing Religious text into government as law. If so, then your suggesting that the US would be okay with it's own brand of Sharia Law.
Mike G.
7:59 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
A: Who was the last president that fit that description?
This is not something new, having a president who was deeply religious. Calling it Sharia is simply a scare tactic that doen't work. Our country is not geared to having theocratic rule by a dictator president. That's why we have three branches of government, three oppose the one that is off track.
William Eib
7:53 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: ...bringing Religious text into government as law okay with you?
Mike G.
8:06 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Explain how you see that working in real life.
Nick Poulos
8:12 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
I think the Aristotelian way would be the best: truth, beauty, goodness, and unity. Think earlier than JC. As to Deism, it is a direct outgrowth of Goethe, Schilling, The Schlegel Bros., Hoederlin, and then over to Wordsworth and so on: the Romantics.
Today we see it at Waldorf Schools in the form of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposphy, which also has done much to change the practice of medicine, banking, and agriculture (the growing and producing, not the business). It hurts to be republican.
Bob McBride
8:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
That's exactly what I was thinking Nick.
William Eib
9:13 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Nick & Bob: I grew up in a Republican house hold, I loved to watch Bill Buckley on Firing Line, I thought he was a pompous ass, and always rooted for the guest. I never heard an invective towards the Democrats come from my Mom and Dad. When I was in High School, JFK campaigned in our neighborhood, he was great, said just what a teenager interested in politics wanted to hear, plus I was raised Catholic.
I brought home a JFK poster, my mom told me not to let the neighbors see it, we being Republicans and all, they were okay with my fascination w/ JFK. They didn't much care for Karl Marx, who at the time was my other favorite, they went bonkers when I announced I was a socialist. Use to read the Socialist Workers Newspaper.
I think I was motivated to be a Socialist by listening to Wm. F Buckley. The socialists he interviewed always seemed to match up with him, and their point of view sounded so Christian and Jesus-ish. Long story short, I miss the Republicans like Bill Buckley. There isn't a true conservative left. Today's GOP/Teahadists make me cringe. Always with the invectives, negativity and pessimism. The Teahadist Flu has infected the Grand Old Party. Old guard politicians are bailing out. To much divisiveness. The old Republicans would have worked with Obama, and made sure they got credit for getting the job done. It gave them Gravitas. They were statesmen.
Keith Schmitz
7:12 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
What makes you think a classy guy like Buckley or people like Ev Dirksen for that matter would want to hang out with these ignorant yahoos?
William Eib
9:21 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: I don't give a rat's butt. I don't care for Religion in politics, I didn't like Jerry Falwell, who Santorum is channeling, don't like Pat Robertson, and now the Roman Catholic Bishops are on my poop list. The whole idea that we are discussing Religious Freedom is ludicrous. Why there is always this uproar over religious freedom, I'll never know. It's all politics to me. Everyone is working an angle in the name of God. The leaders of the Faithful are shaking down the Federal Government for money. Then go out and preach against big government. It's all shameful. And very un-Christ like.
Keith Schmitz
7:11 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
We had a time when religion ruled. It was called the Dark Ages.
William Eib
9:23 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Mike G: It's been fun. Take care. Assama Alaikim
Mike G.
9:45 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
wa `alaykumu s-salāmu wa rahmatu l-lāhi wa barakātuh. (May peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you).
Brian Carlson
10:16 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
The religious freedom and the Christian ethics of the founding fathers were no doubt lost upon the slaves and the indigenous peoples of this country. I think George Washington had his breakfast made by slaves. And of course women were not free...all men were created equal...meaning all white Christian men of course.
As far as the great concern from political Christians goes for the unborn, I wish they were kinder to the living. No doubt the 200,000 plus Iraqis that have died in this stupid war would have liked some more pro-life stance from them. But I imagine many supported that war.
I am all for ethics...but situational ethics and straw men, touted as deep religious conviction at election time, makes me sick.
$$andSense
8:48 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Brian, paragraph two of your post. I couldn't agree more even though I rarely agree with you. I am no abortion clinic bomber, nor an exclusive pro-life voter. But I consider myself a Judeo-Christian adherent (actually Roman Catholic) that believes all human life has value and should never be held hostage to politics.
Stephanie Purvis
12:37 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
136 commets so far, 4 of them seemingly from women. Enough said
William Eib
7:51 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
This silliness is a blast for men. It's like arguing over sports. It's a form of penis measuring. I can understand why more woman don't engage. They probably have better things to do. Guys always have time for an argument.
BassGreat
7:23 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
I didn't recall the outrage or protest when they charged the parents of Kara Neumann of Wausau for reckless endangerment when they prayed for her healing instead of getting their daughter to a hospital for untreated juvenile diabetes. Ultimately, Kara died. Proponents of religious freedom, are ye? Or, just the same ole hypocrits who'll jump on any bandwagon just as long as it's against the current president? You're so predictable. I've lost no rights and nor have you. Unless, of course, we're talking about bargaining rights.
Born Free
7:03 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Democrates wanting more tax dollars is the jist of Obama's plan here, folks. Religious organizations enjoy tax breaks.
Soon the democrates will come directly after the church for tax revenue too but there's a problem that needs to be worked out. The church has to decide if it wants to preach politics overtly from the pulpit or remain silent while enjoying it's tax breaks. Anyone in bed with the government will get screwed, for example, government school mandates.
SOVIET UNIONISM IS UNAMERICAN
William Eib
7:43 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The Democrats can't come after the churches for taxes. Where did you dig up that dumb idea. Let me guess, had to be one of the following: FOX-BECK or FATTY. Am I correct. If so take a break. Man I didn't realize that putting a person of color would bring out all of these closet government experts. Please stop spreading FOX-BECK & FATTY propaganda, without checking if it's correct. You sound like a fool.
Born Free
10:57 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Playing the race card? Whoa...you are shallow.
Actually, if Alan West were running for president I'd vote for him in a heart beat. You do know who Alan West is, yes? He's a person of color who despises Obummer's socialist agenda so be careful of what you say about West. I'd also vote for Mark Rubio too who despises Obummer's socialist agenda who's also a man of color so be careful of what you say about Rubio too. What goes around comes around.
SOVIET UNIONISM IS UNAMERICAN
William Eib
7:47 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Keith Schmitz: Wow are you ever asking for it. Watch out for Mike G. he has a sharp mind. Solid on his beliefs.
William Eib
11:50 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
What is it with you wing nuts and you nervousness about your racism. All I mention
what your fear of a man of color. Alan West got kick out of the Military, I don'tthink he would be able to hold office as commander and chief. I know he resigned. He resigned rather than face court martial for torturing a prisoner. Rubio is a liar, he falsified his family history, He didn't just hide it he used it to run for office. Rubio's family members were not "exiles," nor were they "forced" to leave Cuba. They voluntarily emigrated to America in order to seek better fortunes. Even though he has claimed that his family fled "the thug" Fidel Castro, records prove that the emigration occurred years before Castro took power. You guys can't find any one who isn't divorced, separated, gay, having an affair, or a liar
William Eib
11:53 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
So you're suggesting a man who would not follow orders and a man who lied to improve his chances of winning an election. Plus he ran as a republican because they would buy his story hook line and sinker. Wow guys, look we have our Cuban!!!
Kathy
7:54 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Hmmm Let's see if I understand this. So pretend I'm a nurse who is atheist and hired at Wheaton Franciscan Hospital. Does the employer have to disclose that my insurance will no cover birth control or will I just find out on my own? When I am alerted that because of religious reasons birth control and other sorted services for women the Church believes sinful are not covered, does this not open the employer up for discrimination suits? OH wait - that bill was passed that prevents discrimination suits from "wimmins folks!" Hoy boy you tricky little GOP devils bringing morals back to the people! *sarcasm*
vanidia mula
6:34 am on Sunday, March 4, 2012
with tyme every thing will come to be known
Brian Carlson
9:27 am on Sunday, March 4, 2012
Mr.S's logic, that the government forces people to violate core religious teachings, might well be made against the tax laws at large. Nowhere does Judaeo-Christian teaching sanction or advise raising armies, let alone spending billions to attack countries full of people who are just as much God's children as is Mr. S. Religious right to lifers ignore,by and large, the right to life of anyone this country determines is our enemy du journey... The right to life of the unborn AND the born! Why is this not passionately defended? Its complete hypocrisy to my mind.
Brian Carlson
9:28 am on Sunday, March 4, 2012
Enemy du jour....