King Obama, the dictator

[woodpecker]

bow to Obama, the great king of the US government. What a scary man, to believe he can ignore the constitution, and to override a religions choice to practice their faith.
-----------

Obama's attack on religious liberty not an issue only for Catholics

Opinions on contraception vary, but the issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Catholic opposition to contraception. The issue is that the administration has violated the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty by forcing religiously affiliated organizations to offer contraception as part of their health care plans

Neither should it make any difference whether or not Americans in general happen to believe that health insurance plans ought to include contraception.

The Bill of Rights was written to safeguard fundamental freedoms. Those liberties are not subject to being denied on a presidential whim.

Republicans in Congress have denounced the Obama administration's attack on religious liberty, and even some Democrats have objected.

Obama's attack on religious liberty not an issue only for Catholics | timesfreepress.com

 

[Archivist]

Similiar claims of "King" have been applied to American Presidents before; The Whigs called President Andrew Jackson "King Andrew the First" The Past isn't Past: The Republicans: The New Whigs?

 

[Lovely Lane]

woodpecker, What can one do to convince your Roman Catholic Church that 98% of catholic women use... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/

It is time for the RCC to jump into the 21st century, and clear the dogma books of some ridiculous social behavior controls. The Church stand against contraceptives is just not a USA concern, it's a global concern. My goodness, the RCC should inform all the Catholic women around the world that contraceptives are ok to use.

This is not what your GOP says it is. It is not about Religious freedom, Bill of Rights, First Amendment? It's about political rhetoric. Hate Obama! Beat Obama! It is about Catholic hierarchy pulling your string.

 

[WinBySurrender]

woodpecker, What can one do to convince your Roman Catholic Church that 98% of catholic women use... PolitiFact | White House official says 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception

It is time for the RCC to jump into the 21st century, and clear the dogma books of some ridiculous social behavior controls. The Church stand against contraceptives is just not a USA concern, it's a global concern. My goodness, the RCC should inform all the Catholic women around the world that contraceptives are ok to use.

This is not what your GOP says it is. It is not about Religious freedom, Bill of Rights, First Amendment? It's about political rhetoric. Hate Obama! Beat Obama! It is about Catholic hierarchy pulling your string.

Lane, that's not the issue, and your own party is abandoning ship. More than likely, that's because over 19 million of the 36 million US Catholics voted for Obama in 2008, but for the moment that's beside the point. And as this report shows, it may be a moot point at that.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1444888436001/fair-and-balanced-debate-on-contraception-mandate

If they don't back down, Obama will be trying to force a US Christian denomination to act against it's teachings. This is an intrusion into the freedom of religion, and the First Amendment specifically forbids Congress from making a rule infringing on that freedom. Apparently Obama believes, as president, he isn't subject to that caveat. I mean, after all, he's not "congress" but the president, right?

The reason the founders didn't write the First Amendment to include presidential decisions is because the founders didn't envision the president having any legislative powers. But Washington and every president since have, by executive order, done exactly that -- written legislation. The past arguments have gone to the Supreme Court, but they have never ruled on the overall efficacy of the executive order, particularly when in conflict of obvious constitutional intent. This issue may change that.

If it doesn't, the president will be able to issue executive orders taxing churches and religious organizations, ban public evangelism, even outlaw religion altogether. You may think that's far-fetched, but if this order is allowed to stand, the others will not be out of bounds for this or future presidents.

 

[tulc]

You're right, it's always a shame when laws have to apply equally to everyone in a country.
tulc(...oh wait...)

 

[pgp_protector]

1) Obama isn't a King or Dictator.
2) It wasn't just Obama that passed this bill.
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1]
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43]
Brian Baird
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2]
Melissa Bean
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1]
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28]
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3]
John Boccieri
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3]
Allen Boyd
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3]
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1]
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18]
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3]
Christopher Carney
Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11]
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5]
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9]
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11]
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28]
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7]
Kathleen Dahlkemper
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53]
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1]
William Delahunt
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6]
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14]
Steve Driehaus
Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4]
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5]
Brad Ellsworth
Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
Bob Etheridge
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Bill Foster
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4]
Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11]
Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20]
Barton Gordon
Alan Grayson
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D, IL-4]
John Hall
Deborah Halvorson
Phil Hare
Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23]
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
Baron Hill
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2]
Paul Hodes
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5]
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1]
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4]
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30]
Steve Kagen
Paul Kanjorski
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
Patrick Kennedy
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5]
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Mary Jo Kilroy
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3]
Ann Kirkpatrick
Ron Klein
Suzanne Kosmas
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2]
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12]
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5]
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18]
Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3]
Daniel Maffei
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14]
Betsy Markey
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3]
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11]
Kendrick Meek
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13]
Harry Mitchell
Alan Mollohan
Dennis Moore
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4]
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
Scott Murphy
Patrick Murphy
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38]
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2]
James Oberstar
David Obey
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1]
Solomon Ortiz
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4]
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10]
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7]
Thomas Perriello
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9]
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1]
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2]
Earl Pomeroy
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4]
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15]
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16]
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37]
Ciro Rodriguez
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
John Salazar
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9]
Mark Schauer
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13]
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13]
Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3]
Rep. José Serrano [D, NY-16]
Joe Sestak
Carol Shea-Porter
Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27]
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Victor Snyder
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12]
John Spratt
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Bart Stupak
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
Dina Titus
Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8]
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D, NY-12]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Diane Watson
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D, NY-9]
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0]
Charles Wilson
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6]
Rep. David Wu [D, OR-1]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]
NAME
ACKERMAN, GARY
ANDREWS, ROB
BACA, JOE
BAIRD, BRIAN
BALDWIN, TAMMY
BEAN, MELISSA
BECERRA, XAVIER
BERKLEY, SHELLEY
BERMAN, HOWARD
BISHOP, SANFORD
BISHOP, TIM
BLUMENAUER, EARL
BOCCIERI, JOHN
BOSWELL, LEONARD
BOYD, ALLEN
BRADY, BOB
BRALEY, BRUCE
BROWN, CORRINE
BUTTERFIELD, G. K.
CAPPS, LOIS
CAPUANO, MIKE
CARDOZA, DENNIS
CARNAHAN, RUSS
CARNEY, CHRIS
CARSON, ANDRÉ
CASTOR, KATHY
CHU, JUDY
CLARKE, YVETTE
CLEAVER, EMANUEL
CLYBURN, JIM
COHEN, STEVE
CONNOLLY, GERRY
CONYERS, JOHN
COOPER, JIM
COSTA, JIM
COSTELLO, JERRY
COURTNEY, JOE
CROWLEY, JOSEPH
CUELLAR, HENRY
CUMMINGS, ELIJAH
DAVIS, DANNY
DAVIS, SUSAN
DEFAZIO, PETER
DEGETTE, DIANA
DELAHUNT, BILL
DELAURO, ROSA
DICKS, NORM
DINGELL, JOHN
DOGGETT, LLOYD
DONNELLY, JOE
DOYLE, MIKE
DRIEHAUS, STEVE
EDWARDS, DONNA
ELLISON, KEITH
ELLSWORTH, BRAD
ENGEL, ELIOT
ESHOO, ANNA
ETHERIDGE, BOB
FARR, SAM
FATTAH, CHAKA
FILNER, BOB
FOSTER, BILL
FRANK, BARNEY
FUDGE, MARCIA
GARAMENDI, JOHN
GIFFORDS, GABRIELLE
GONZALEZ, CHARLIE
GORDON, BART
GRAYSON, ALAN
GREEN, AL
GREEN, GENE
GRIJALVA, RAÚL
GUTIÉRREZ, LUIS
HALL, JOHN
HALVORSON, DEBBIE
HARE, PHIL
HARMAN, JANE
HASTINGS, ALCEE
HEINRICH, MARTIN
HIGGINS, BRIAN
HILL, BARON
HIMES, JIM
HINCHEY, MAURICE
HINOJOSA, RUBÉN
HIRONO, MAZIE
HODES, PAUL
HOLLEN, CHRIS VAN
HOLT JR., RUSH
HONDA, MIKE
HOYER, STENY
INSLEE, JAY
ISRAEL, STEVE
JACKSON JR., JESSE
JACKSON-LEE, SHEILA
JOHNSON, EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON, HANK
KAGEN, STEVE
KANJORSKI, PAUL
KAPTUR, MARCY
KENNEDY, PATRICK
KILDEE, DALE
KILPATRICK, CAROLYN CHEEKS
KILROY, MARY JO
KIND, RON
KIRKPATRICK, ANN
KLEIN, RON
KOSMAS, SUZANNE
KUCINICH, DENNIS
LANGEVIN, JIM
LARSEN, RICK
LARSON, JOHN B.
LEE, BARBARA
LEVIN, SANDER
LEWIS, JOHN
LOEBSACK, DAVID
LOFGREN, ZOE
LOWEY, NITA
LUJÁN, BEN R.
MAFFEI, DAN
MALONEY, CAROLYN
MARKEY, BETSY
MARKEY, ED
MATSUI, DORIS
MCCARTHY, CAROLYN
MCCOLLUM, BETTY
MCDERMOTT, JIM
MCGOVERN, JIM
MCNERNEY, JERRY
MEEK, KENDRICK
MEEKS, GREGORY
MICHAUD, MIKE
MILLER, BRAD
MILLER, GEORGE
MITCHELL, HARRY
MOLLOHAN, ALAN
MOORE, DENNIS
MOORE, GWEN
MORAN, JIM
MURPHY, CHRIS
MURPHY, PATRICK
MURPHY, SCOTT
NADLER, JERROLD
NAPOLITANO, GRACE
NEAL, RICHARD
OBERSTAR, JIM
OBEY, DAVE
OLVER, JOHN
ORTIZ, SOLOMON
OWENS, BILL
PALLONE, FRANK
PASCRELL, BILL
PASTOR, ED
PAYNE, DONALD
PELOSI, NANCY
PERLMUTTER, ED
PERRIELLO, TOM
PETERS, GARY
PINGREE, CHELLIE
POLIS, JARED
POMEROY, EARL
PRICE, DAVID
QUIGLEY, MIKE
RAHALL, NICK
RANGEL, CHARLES
REYES, SILVESTRE
RICHARDSON, LAURA
RODRIGUEZ, CIRO
ROTHMAN, STEVE
ROYBAL-ALLARD, LUCILLE
RUPPERSBERGER, DUTCH
RUSH, BOBBY
RYAN, TIM
SALAZAR, JOHN
SANCHEZ, LINDA
SANCHEZ, LORETTA
SARBANES, JOHN
SCHAKOWSKY, JAN
SCHAUER, MARK
SCHIFF, ADAM
SCHRADER, KURT
SCHWARTZ, ALLYSON
SCOTT, DAVID
SCOTT, ROBERT
SERRANO, JOSÉ
SESTAK, JOE
SHEA-PORTER, CAROL
SHERMAN, BRAD
SIRES, ALBIO
SLAUGHTER, LOUISE
SMITH, ADAM
SNYDER, VIC
SPEIER, JACKIE
SPRATT, JOHN
STARK, PETE
STUPAK, BART
SUTTON, BETTY
THOMPSON, BENNIE
THOMPSON, MIKE
TIERNEY, JOHN
TITUS, DINA
TONKO, PAUL
TOWNS, ED
TSONGAS, NIKI
VELÁZQUEZ, NYDIA
VISCLOSKY, PETE
WALZ, TIM
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, DEBBIE
WATERS, MAXINE
WATSON, DIANE
WATT, MEL
WAXMAN, HENRY
WEINER, ANTHONY
WELCH, PETER
WILSON, CHARLIE
WOOLSEY, LYNN
WU, DAVID
YARMUTH, JOHN

 

[Lovely Lane]

If Obama backs down and appeases the RCC I hope it makes you guy's happy. Matter of fact, go join up for catechism classes.

This is not about religious freedom no matter how many times it is said. What BUSINESSES has the right to decide of which laws it will follow, or which ones it will not? We are not speaking about CHURCH.

Using the Freedom of Religion explanation is bunk, that's like telling the local under budget Sheriff that he must provide kosher meals to his Jewish prisoners, because their rabbi says so!

Bull! You all can cow down to the RCC and GOP political rhetoric if you want, I'm not. Just don't call it Religious Freedom, that is a lie.

 

[drjean]

No I won't bow or give in to Mr Obama, nor his socialist followers.

This is not "just" about separation of church and state, but about 1st Amendment rights. You see, the government also ordered the Bishops to not give out the required information (within the RCC) saying it was seditious ...and forced them to change the narrative... the Bishop Chaplains in the military. That's unconstitutional in itself.

His attack on our Judeo-Christian foundation is continual:

This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to “deter” some speech in the name of human rights.

Criminalizing Intolerance: Obama Administration Moves Forward On United Nations Resolution Targeting Anti-Religious Speech « JONATHAN TURLEY

Remember Mr Obama also removed (!) Rev Franklin Graham-- preventing him from attending -- who at the time was the Speaker for --the National Day of Prayer? He didn't like Bro Graham's words about radical Islam and again bowed to the Muslim complaints.

The list goes on. I'm tickled that God allowed this administration's arrogance to allow them to truly put their feet in their mouths with this latest attack... and we must stand with the RCC on this as it's a reproach for all those who are not muslim.

Mr Obama has suggested a "grace" period of one year for them to comply and compromise. HUH? He gave the church a year before they have to give in to mortal sin? How's that work? No, it's so that it will be after the election.

We must defeat Obama and those who think like he does (Romney) (Pelosi) (Reid) ...

Don't be blinded by what Romney truly believes and how they acted prior to running this time for President. He's been running for a long time now, and keeps changing his back story to try and win over Americans. Don't fall for it. George Soros loves Romney or Obama to further his goal of destroying the USA!


LATE BREAKING NEWS (yeah right): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nounce-accommodation-on-contraceptive-policy/

No, I'm sorry that isn't back peddling...as requiring the insurance company to pay for this just means we all pay for it instead of directly, but by increased insurance premiums!

 

[God's Fighter]

I agree the president should let this go. You shouldn't force a religious denomination to go against their beliefs, it's unconstitutional.

However, I understand there is an elections and the republicans are going to try and capitalize on this so they can win. But I feel they are blowing it way out of proportion (and i pretty much vote republican) and demonizing the current president a little too much. I disagree with our current president and i'd be vocal about that, but I wouldn't blow out of proportion the things he does to point of accusing him of things he hasn't done yet. I mean I watch news channels that clearly have a republican bias and they are nearly acting like cocaine addicted monkeys. It's embarrassing frankly.

I agree it's wrong, I agree the president is wrong. I also agree his supporters are avoiding the issue and calling it something else. And I'm not making light of the constitution being infringed on. But I disapprove of the way the republicans are publicly displaying themselves on the issue. They're not handling it well and that isn't smart with an upcoming election we need to win.

 

[WinBySurrender]

This is not about religious freedom no matter how many times it is said. What BUSINESSES has the right to decide of which laws it will follow, or which ones it will not? We are not speaking about CHURCH.

What your are calling "businesses" are not actually businesses. They are not-for-profit service organizations that supply much needed help for the poor, homeless and addicted. In my line of work, Catholic Charities and the Missouri Baptist Convention are just about the only such organizations to whom we can turn to find jobs, housing, transportation, health care and other services for ex-felons. If that goes away, half my caseload will be back in prison for technical violations of their parole. That's what Obama is creating, whether he knows it or not. Tulsa Catholic Charities has already chosen to forego government funding, but as a result are cutting back services.

Catholic Charities forgoes government funding, stays true to values | Tulsa World

In that article, you will find that Catholic Charities in other states have already shut down services such as adoption assistance and medical aid do to government regulation regarding their ability to operate as a Christian organization.

In the long run, I believe churches do a much better, much more efficient job of providing services that are currently under the purview of entitlement programs. But until every church in America is ready to adopt two families as need arises -- a plan I've long endorsed and encouraged -- only a handful of churches and charities are actually providing the spectrum of programs required to meet a community's needs. Catholic Charities is one of them. If they have to withdraw from charitable activity in order to preserve their ability to uphold their doctrine, the calamity that results will be devastating to communities and the nation.

Using the Freedom of Religion explanation is bunk, that's like telling the local under budget Sheriff that he must provide kosher meals to his Jewish prisoners, because their rabbi says so!

Actually, that's federal law. Accomodations must be made in jails and prisons for kosher and halil (Muslim) meals for the inmates. It's not absurd, it's right and proper.

Bull! You all can cow down to the RCC and GOP political rhetoric if you want, I'm not. Just don't call it Religious Freedom, that is a lie.

Your political views are getting in the way of your ability to see things in their proper light, Lane.

 

[Lovely Lane]

What your are calling "businesses" are not actually businesses. They are not-for-profit service organizations that supply much needed help for the poor, homeless and addicted. In my line of work, Catholic Charities and the Missouri Baptist Convention are just about the only such organizations to whom we can turn to find jobs, housing, transportation, health care and other services for ex-felons. If that goes away, half my caseload will be back in prison for technical violations of their parole. That's what Obama is creating, whether he knows it or not. Tulsa Catholic Charities has already chosen to forego government funding, but as a result are cutting back services.

Catholic Charities forgoes government funding, stays true to values | Tulsa World

In that article, you will find that Catholic Charities in other states have already shut down services such as adoption assistance and medical aid do to government regulation regarding their ability to operate as a Christian organization.

In the long run, I believe churches do a much better, much more efficient job of providing services that are currently under the purview of entitlement programs. But until every church in America is ready to adopt two families as need arises -- a plan I've long endorsed and encouraged -- only a handful of churches and charities are actually providing the spectrum of programs required to meet a community's needs. Catholic Charities is one of them. If they have to withdraw from charitable activity in order to preserve their ability to uphold their doctrine, the calamity that results will be devastating to communities and the nation.Actually, that's federal law. Accomodations must be made in jails and prisons for kosher and halil (Muslim) meals for the inmates. It's not absurd, it's right and proper.Your political views are getting in the way of your ability to see things in their proper light, Lane.

no, it's not my political views getting in the way, it my citizenship. As a citizen I expect all businesses, profit or non-profit, to abide by the law.

Your link speaks about government contracts, often as much as 80 percent, that is not separation of church and state, that's a conjoined partnership. And when these organizations are required to pay up, they scream Religious Freedom exemptions.

Meal Accommodations, maybe in Federal prison, but don't believe for a county jail.

 

[WinBySurrender]

no, it's not my political views getting in the way, it my citizenship. As a citizen I expect all businesses, profit or non-profit, to abide by the law.

Lane, the First Amendment is the law.

Your link speaks about government contracts, often as much as 80 percent, that is not separation of church and state, that's a conjoined partnership. And when these organizations are required to pay up, they scream Religious Freedom exemptions.

For over 150 years, dating back to Lincoln, Congress and the presidents have respected the unique aspects of Christian charities doing work that is funded by state or federal funds. The Salvation Army, for example, has run addiction treatment centers since 1908, and states and the feds have been more than willing to help fund their activities with little to no restrictions on the way they operate. They were simply happy they had a success rate nearly twice as high as secular treatment facilities. About the only thing they've required of the Army is that if a client says he doesn't want to hear about Jesus, they honor that request, and that hasn't been a problem for anyone.

Obama's EO ignores not only tradition, which is a poor basis for determining policy I agree, but it ignores the First Amendment, and while I respect you for your well-reasoned views most of the time, I must express the opinion that denying that is not the issue here misses the point. It appears, also, that someone in the administration has agreed with that POV, as the new thread I started here on this segment of the Forum indicates.

Meal Accommodations, maybe in Federal prison, but don't believe for a county jail.

Yes, for the county jail. It is because of a Supreme Court decision. State prisons, too. Remember what line of work I'm in? Remember where I've been? Too true.

 

[Lovely Lane]

The First Amendment is a amendment to the constitution, this law in somewhere in HHS. And as of yet, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled it being unconstitutional.

And again today, I can't stand to listen to Christian Radio do to all the chatter of liberal this and that, unconstitutional, freedom of religion jargon. I tell you what! take the government if you want it, but at least give me some good Christian Radio.

 

[WinBySurrender]

The First Amendment is a amendment to the constitution, this law in somewhere in HHS. And as of yet, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled it being unconstitutional.

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

The phrase " ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." has always been broadly interpreted -- and properly so -- by the courts at all levels as regards the right of religious organizations, charities, churches to exempt themselves from public policy that does not agree with the doctrines of those entities. There is no way Obama's EO is constitutionally correct, and if he hadn't already announced he was stepping back from that order, he would lose in court. But as I said earlier, it's a moot point.

And again today, I can't stand to listen to Christian Radio do to all the chatter of liberal this and that, unconstitutional, freedom of religion jargon. I tell you what! take the government if you want it, but at least give me some good Christian Radio.

88.5 KLJC - Listen Online

 

[Lovely Lane]

ok, I like 88.5,

 

[Yarddog]

woodpecker, What can one do to convince your Roman Catholic Church that 98% of catholic women use... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/

As the site shows. 98% is not correct.

It is time for the RCC to jump into the 21st century, and clear the dogma books of some ridiculous social behavior controls.

Would you ask Jesus to do the same? Did Jesus bow to the thinking of what we call the 1st century? Did Paul bow to the thinking of the pagan religions?

No, the Catholic Church should remain the Catholic Church and hold to the Doctrines which the Holy Spirit has revealed for it to hold to.

The Church stand against contraceptives is just not a USA concern, it's a global concern.

The concern of the Catholic Church is the sheep which God has given them to tend to. To turn away from those sheep and leave them to the wolves, is unthinkable. Even those sheep which wonder off, the Catholic Church will try to find and bring back as the Good Shepherd has called for them to do.

My goodness, the RCC should inform all the Catholic women around the world that contraceptives are ok to use.

Why should the Church tell them a lie?

This is not what your GOP says it is. It is not about Religious freedom, Bill of Rights, First Amendment? It's about political rhetoric. Hate Obama! Beat Obama! It is about Catholic hierarchy pulling your string.

The Catholic Church does not beat down all of those women that choose to use contraceptives. The Church is not about bringing harm to anyone. It is about helping those women and all people to understand the relationship that we have with our Creator. Our Father in heaven.

There is and path, a Lane, Lovely, which leads to Jesus. The Catholic Church wants the sheep to stay on the path but realizes that we can and will stray from time to time. The way to that path is not blocked because of this, but the Church cannot change what has been revealed and those of the present time cannot see.

The Church does not turn away from women who choose to use contraceptives. It does not hound women who approach the altar that they reveal their choices. The Church stands there with their arms open for all who want to know the love of Christ, regardless of what the sheep choose to do.

God Bless,
YD

 

[woodpecker]

I am not Catholic, I am a Christian who can see with the eyes of the Spirit the gnarly hands of the government creeping into all aspects of my life and religion.

that is how evil works, it is sneaky, it tries to look good, saying 'oh this poor women can't get birth control from the religious organization she works for, she cheated so unfairly, evil Christians'....condoms are sooo expensive, (sarcasm)

now Obama is dictating to insurance companies that they must provide contraception insurance, so now all our insurance cost go up.

This is how communism begins, the evil disguised as "for the people", lie, and deceive, it is how Hitler did it, Stalin did it, think of any evil dictator, they always claimed it was for the 'good' of the people.

This country is headed in a very bad direction, because so many are blind to the intentions of the elite, the career politicians, the UN, the big banks, the federal reserve,.........enough said, I am so upset, may God have mercy.

 

[Lovely Lane]

As the site shows. 98% is not correct.

Would you ask Jesus to do the same? Did Jesus bow to the thinking of what we call the 1st century? Did Paul bow to the thinking of the pagan religions?

No, the Catholic Church should remain the Catholic Church and hold to the Doctrines which the Holy Spirit has revealed for it to hold to.


The concern of the Catholic Church is the sheep which God has given them to tend to. To turn away from those sheep and leave them to the wolves, is unthinkable. Even those sheep which wonder off, the Catholic Church will try to find and bring back as the Good Shepherd has called for them to do.


Why should the Church tell them a lie?

The Catholic Church does not beat down all of those women that choose to use contraceptives. The Church is not about bringing harm to anyone. It is about helping those women and all people to understand the relationship that we have with our Creator. Our Father in heaven.

There is and path, a Lane, Lovely, which leads to Jesus. The Catholic Church wants the sheep to stay on the path but realizes that we can and will stray from time to time. The way to that path is not blocked because of this, but the Church cannot change what has been revealed and those of the present time cannot see.

The Church does not turn away from women who choose to use contraceptives. It does not hound women who approach the altar that they reveal their choices. The Church stands there with their arms open for all who want to know the love of Christ, regardless of what the sheep choose to do.

God Bless,
YD

YardDog, I expect you to be 100% plus behind the Church. That is no surprise, but to force your belief on others is contrary to what you state. I think that there are employees of Catholic organizations who would like to have there insurance provide for contraception, not all employees are Catholic and if they were, many Catholic women use contraception. It is the Church telling them NO, not because it is unsafe, but because your Doctrine says so.

 

[Yarddog]

YardDog, I expect you to be 100% plus behind the Church.

Being behind the Church on what the Church does does not mean that I follow that. No Catholic does, because we all sin.

That is no surprise, but to force your belief on others is contrary to what you state.

The Catholic Church does not force anyone to do anything. People make the choice of what they do, the Church does not decide for them. God does not decide for us either. He allows us to obey or to make mistakes. When we obey, he pats us on the back, when he fall, he picks us up and pats us on the bottom and tells us to try again.

I think that there are employees of Catholic organizations who would like to have there insurance provide for contraception, not all employees are Catholic and if they were, many Catholic women use contraception.

I would like my insurance to pay for everything. No co-pay, no deductible, no life time limits, but every insurance company puts limits on what they will cover. Obama is not going to stop that.

What is going on here is the government telling a religious institutute that they may have to provide coverage for their employees which that institute teaches is a sin. It doesn't matter how many Catholic women use contraceptives, it is telling a Church that they must support sin. Fundamentally there is very little difference between this and killing another person, "if" we look to scripture and how James tells us that if you violate one command you are guilty of violating them all.


James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point], he is become guilty of all.

It is the Church telling them NO, not because it is unsafe, but because your Doctrine says so.

No, because it is sin. You may not agree with that but that is what the Church has taught. Do you want anyone telling your Church that they must change what they believe? Do you want someone telling you that you must not teach that Jesus is the Son of God? That may sound drastic but that is very little different when someone wants a Church to violate their doctrine of faith.

The Catholic Church is not against women any more than Paul was against the men and women of the Churches which he helped to found. He told them that they needed to stop doing what they had thought was perfectly natural, because that may not be what belongs in the nature of God's children.

 

[Lovely Lane]

ok yarddog, sounds great to me. Just wait for the day class action law suits begin.