Obama Versus Freedom Of Religion.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-act-supremacy-ag...

Obama's 'Act of Supremacy' Against the Catholic Church Just the Beginning

..
COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama's attempt to go all Henry VIII on the Roman Catholic Church took a predictable but strange turn when he offered what he called a compromise concerning his edict that the Church renounce its opposition to birth control and abortion.

According to the Huffington Post, Catholic Church run hospitals, schools and charities will no longer be required to provide insurance to its employees that include birth control, including the morning after bill, and sterilization. Instead all insurance companies will be required to offer these services. Of course it is a difference that makes no difference, as Catholic Church run organizations will still have to provide that insurance with no alternatives allowed.

Oddly enough, the American Catholic bishops are not buying the deal, according to the Wall Street Journal. They prefer to bitterly cling to their religious doctrine.

Obama surrogates like Jack Lew are casting the argument as one about the right of women to have birth control and other services. That is not just the right to access such things, but to have them given for "free." That itself is a pernicious principle that if taken to its logical conclusion would have the government mandating all sorts of things it feels that the people should have, whether they want them or not, to be paid for by other people.

Obama's version of the "Act of Supremacy" is a little different than that of Henry VIII. King Henry used his need to divorce his wife to seize control of the Church, taking its assets, and making himself religious as well as temporal leader in England. Obama is not about to make himself Supreme Head of the Church in America. His approach is not to seize ownership of the Catholic Church. Instead he proposes that it be required to use its resources and to, in effect, believe things according to his desires.

It is an approach that he would extend to every aspect of American society. Technically, under Obama's vision, private property will still exist, but only if it is used for the purposes the government mandates.

Even more pernicious, private belief that runs contrary to the government will not be allowed. There will be no loyalty but to the state. The road leads to fascism and should not be gone down, if America is to remain America.

While Obama tries to fool the people of this country by claiming he is a Christian, he is a Muslim and devoted to destroying any semblance of Christianity in this country.

Hagar wrote:

, he is a Muslim and devoted to destroying any semblance of Christianity in this country.

moronic thread and posts.

another wrote:

<quoted text>
moronic thread and posts.

So you don't like religious freedom or freedom of conscience?

another wrote:

<quoted text>
moronic thread and posts.

Just another Santa Fe kook posting unnecessary trash.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
So you don't like religious freedom or freedom of conscience?

I have no problem than that. I don't like liars hiding behind religion.

Hagar wrote:

<quoted text>Just
.

You lied. I agree that it should not be necessary to point out the trash you post. But it seems like you never catch on.

nope wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no problem than that. I don't like liars hiding behind religion.

Or liars hiding behind politics...

Or liars using religion to play politics.

nope wrote:

Or liars using religion to play politics.

So you think the government has the right to tell religious organizations how to run their schools, hospitals and stuff?

nope wrote:

Or liars using religion to play politics.

So, you admit Obama is using religion to play politics with his edict which violates many christian ethics. You, don't like liars, and neither do I, which is why I resent your lies.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
So you think the government has the right to tell religious organizations how to run their schools, hospitals and stuff?

YES if hiring for those entities is open to anyone regardless of faith. YES, if the entity is receiving any public tax dollars. No if they only hire members of their particular faith and not receiving public tax dollars.

ZIAmouth585 wrote:

<quoted text>
YES if hiring for those entities is open to anyone regardless of faith. YES, if the entity is receiving any public tax dollars. No if they only hire members of their particular faith and not receiving public tax dollars.

Now you are mixing up the separation of church and state. Wow...

Maybe I just don't understand the Reich Wing RepubliKlan Kuntservatives.
They hate abortions.
They can't stand more people being on welfre. I get that.
Yet they are against a chance for people to get birth control in order to avoid getting pregnant so there would be less abortions or unwanted kids to poor people who'll need more welfare money.

Why are they against preventative measures? In the long run, it'll cost less than the alternatives.
Funny how they are also against abortions, yet I dont see them stepping up and adopting these unwanted kis or foster kids. Especially minority ones.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you are mixing up the separation of church and state. Wow...

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Ex Marine Grill Sargeant wrote:

Maybe I just don't understand the Reich Wing RepubliKlan Kuntservatives.
They hate abortions.
They can't stand more people being on welfre. I get that.
Yet they are against a chance for people to get birth control in order to avoid getting pregnant so there would be less abortions or unwanted kids to poor people who'll need more welfare money.
Why are they against preventative measures? In the long run, it'll cost less than the alternatives.
Funny how they are also against abortions, yet I dont see them stepping up and adopting these unwanted kis or foster kids. Especially minority ones.

I just haven't been in the mood to spar with people but you must really have some of your facts skewed. There are many who adopt and foster kids. Even minority ones {intriguing that you imply racism here which is unfounded}.

I can understand birth control but abortion pills? Really? So we went from abortion being necessary to save the moms life to using abortion as birth control?

And there wouldn't be a need for welfare if EVERYONE stepped up to help their neighbor.

ZIAmouth585 wrote:

<quoted text>
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

A strict interpretation of the language would lend toward #1. Now I'm starting to see a little more clearly what has been happening.#2 is used as an excuse to allow government to interfere in religious matters but then they switch to #1 to keep religious matters out of the goverment. Nice. Quite deceptive and highly unConstitutional. That last aspect is akin to sending a peacekeeping force to keep peace...at the point of a gun and tanks. Yeah...real effective.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
A strict interpretation of the language would lend toward #1. Now I'm starting to see a little more clearly what has been happening.#2 is used as an excuse to allow government to interfere in religious matters but then they switch to #1 to keep religious matters out of the goverment. Nice. Quite deceptive and highly unConstitutional. That last aspect is akin to sending a peacekeeping force to keep peace...at the point of a gun and tanks. Yeah...real effective.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

A church that takes on activities of a secular nature, accepts secular monies and hires people of any religious denomination to include atheists is not a religious organization, its a business masquerading as one.

Obama is not prohibiting any church from exercising their right to practice their religion. The issue deals with churches operating businesses that are primarily secular in nature but carry a church affiliated label.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
I just haven't been in the mood to spar with people

why do you post this distorted hate piece?

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
And there wouldn't be a need for welfare if EVERYONE stepped up to help their neighbor.

The only neighbors of 1%ers are other 1%ers.
To them welfare is tipping the landscaper or pool boy.

The world is vastly overpopulated. Need to cull about half of Asia and Africa. Technology is great but its negative effect is when machinery and computers do the work of hundreds. We need to kick out the illegals, and get manufacturing jobs back in the US to help lower unemployment. The US doesnt need anymore people, we dont need 3rd world growth rate of 22%. Most westernized countries have very low or negative growth rates.