Sean Hannity calls Barack Obama “The Chosen One.” As it turns out, it’s the perfect characterization.
The current president of the United States is a uniter. He is a healer. I would even go so far as to suggest that he might be a miracle worker. Witness that he got George Weigel, John Paul II’s biographer and a conservative, and E. J. Dionne, a progressive Washington Post columnist, to sit side by side on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown a week ago and agree on something: Both protested the Obama administration’s mandate that Catholic organizations purchase and offer to their employees health-insurance plans that violate their consciences. Later last week, Hardball host Chris Matthews, normally a reliable Obama-booster, rhetorically knocked a reporter’s White House talking point out of his hands in frustration. And ABC’s Jake Tapper has reported that, even within the administration, Catholic aides have argued against the mandate, not just for political reasons but as a matter of policy.
Advertisement
The administration’s overreach has backfired politically. And it has been tremendously instructive.
Even with Friday afternoon’s phony compromise — saying that Catholic employers don’t have to provide contraception coverage, but that the insurance companies that serve them do — this fight has shown us the radicalism of some in the administration, led by the president and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and urged on by Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates. They consider birth control to be a basic health need and pregnancy a disease that needs to be managed, suppressed, and often terminated.
But this fight is not, and has not been, primarily about contraception. It’s about religious liberty. It is about the federal government taking it upon itself to determine what is and what is not an acceptable religious belief. Some public conversations in recent weeks have highlighted this: Many observers have expressed the hope that, as a result of the chipping away at the freedom of religion, what they consider the Catholic Church’s antiquated teachings on sexual morality will have to be brought up to date.
Something else has become clear: Most Americans believe that religion is a good thing, just as our Founders did. And we don’t want the government to infringe upon our practice of it.
As Carl Anderson put it in his 2010 book, Beyond a House Divided: “On basic moral questions, on what they believe at their core, most Americans stand shoulder to shoulder. They agree that morality has a place not only in our families and personal relationships but also in corporate offices and boardrooms on Wall Street, in the country’s newsrooms, and in the halls of political power in Washington.”
Your article fails to mention two of the contenders in the Republican primary. Most readers get that NRO stands for either, depending on context, National Republicans On-line or National Romney On-line.
Your article neglects to point out Romney's pilot testing of the anti-Catholic regulations he imposed on the broken church of New England in MA that Obama now imposes nationally. Romney has been completely silent on Conneticut's regular attempts to make the faith subserviant to the state. This is exactly what Romney care does at the state level - provide a way for government to impose itself and steal liberty from we citizens.
As far as mentioning Santorum - exactly what has he done to advance the argument or identify the problem? He's a toothless social conservative who perpetuated Arlen Specter; denied citizens the right to work with his union support, and he grew our liberty strealing government. Outside of health care savbings accounts, Santorum did nothing with his No. 3 position in the Senate except lose the Senate and become a punching bag in PA.
Contrast those behaviors with Newt's governance and Catholic conversion. In the debates Newt nailed the issue and NRO writers ignore him, yet he's the only candidate who actually shrank government.
He's the only candidate who actually fought against liberalism and won. Santorum exists only because of Newt's House takeover and subseqnt governance.
And Ron Paul talks a good game and then feeds at the trough like everyone else.
Please - be fair - Newt and Ron Paul have both weighed in on this. And unlike our other three candidates, Romney has sided with Barack Obama on this issue in he past - exactly how is that a good thing for the Republican nominee?
In the interest of true compromise, I propose a plan that everyone will love and hate. I will approve to delete the free exercise clause, as the president wants, but only provided *I* am allowed to delete a clause I don't like. I propose the commerce clause.
This only backfires politically if you somehow believe that pundits and whining bishops are the only people who matter.
Out in the real world, polls have consistently shown about a 55% majority supporting the policy. And this was polling done before the compromise.
So please. Continue to harp on this issue. Bring it up constantly. Argue fervently that hospitals, doctors, pharmacists and dog walking businesses should be able to deny use of contraception for their employees.
Perhaps you do not fully understand. This dictate by Obama has nothing to do with “dog walking” businesses. It is unfortunate that people like you do not critically examine what is happening. You blindly support policies such as this which leads to tyranny.
As mentioned, this has nothing so do with dog walking businesses. What this is about is people who are employed by religious institutions. These employees who work there typically agree with the belief system. They neither ask for nor desire such “benefits.” Nevertheless, the government invades and says you will provide, even though it is a violation of both the employer and the employees conscience.
Let me repeat: the government is mandating a policy for a religious institution that violates the conscience of both employer and employee. By common definition, this policy is called “Tyranny.”
I suggest you wake up and see the tyranny before you. If you do not, you may some day be persecuted for your beliefs.
Then please explain the bill currently being drafted by people such as Mark Rubio that would allow any and all businesses to refuse contraceptive requirements.
Commenting on the morality of the the birth control issue completely misses the point. This is about how much power and control Obama can grab while trashing the Constitution. If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it's very clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to limit the power of the federal government.
President Obama knew from the outset that he would incur the ire of religious leaders with both the mandate and the so-called compromise, but he has never cared one whit about their objections. If Obama can get the mainstream media to repeat whatever he says and convince the average citizen that he has offered a compromise solution, then his chances of re-election—and his power—will both increase dramatically.
In his first term in office, President Obama has demonstrated masterful skill at talking as though he supports the poor and the middle class, while doing the exact opposite. If he wins a second term, he will consolidate his power even further. His perennial lack of a true budget, the overspending, the dictatorial policies, and most importantly, Obama’s dishonest messages to the public are all a means to an end--total power for Obama and total tyranny for us little people.
Commenting in the morality or practices of Catholics completely misses the point. The HHS mandate is about how much power and control Obama can grab while trashing the Constitution. If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it's very clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to limit the power of the federal government.
President Obama knew from the outset that he would incur the ire of religious leaders with both the mandate and the so-called compromise, but he has never cared one whit about their objections. If Obama can get the mainstream media to repeat whatever he says and convince the average citizen that he has offered a compromise solution, then his chances of re-election—and his power—will both increase dramatically.
In his first term in office, President Obama has demonstrated masterful skill at talking as though he supports the poor and the middle class, while doing the exact opposite. If he wins a second term, he will consolidate his power even further. His lack of a budget, the overspending, the dictatorial policies, and most importantly, Obama’s dishonest messages to the public are all a means to an end--total power for Obama and total tyranny for us little people.
"should be able to deny use of contraception for their employees." Ugh! You are so backward on this. No Catholic institution is "denying" their employees the ability to use contraception. Every employee of any Catholic institution is free to use whatever birth control they want. They are NOT free to insist their employer pay for it if the employer finds it morally objectionable.
If I work for a Jewish organization, I am not free to demand they provide me free ham sandwiches. I am free however to walk across the street and buy one for myself.
If what is between man and a woman in a private act of intimacy is closer than a thread between them, why should the public pay for a contraceptive used in that private act that is not morally or legally permissible in the “public?” That is, there is nothing public about the act that the “public” is obligated to pay for. Should the government and the Church subsidize private intimacy? Why should a conscience believing sex to primarily be a procreative intimacy within the Natural Law be mandated to publicly pay for such “private” devices that inhibit the procreation? What moral or ethic is that? People outside the faith can follow whatever moral latitude Caesar has provided for them, but, to mandate that those having another value system must subsidize through being coerced a breach of their value system mandates only one thing: tyranny.
Failing to see the crisis in religious liberty over the contraceptive issue will make your November uncomfortable. When the law faculties of Notre Dame and Georgetown Universities see the main issue as religious tyranny, and say so publicly, the straw man “55%” means nothing.
What is between a man and a woman in a private act of intimacy is closer than a thread, why should the public pay for a contraceptive used in that private act that is not morally or legally permissible in the “public?” There is nothing public. That is, there is nothing public about the act that the “public” is obligated to pay for. Should the government and the Church subsidize this privacy? Why should a conscience believing sex to be a procreative intimacy within the Natural Law be mandated to publicly pay for such “private” devices that inhibit the procreation of other people? What moral or ethic is that? People outside the faith can follow whatever moral latitude Caesar has provided for them, but, to mandate that those having another value system must subsidize through being coerced into a breach of their value system mandates only one thing: tyranny.
Failing to see the crisis in religious liberty over the contraceptive issue will make November uncomfortable for those who miss this point. When the law faculties of Notre Dame and Georgetown Universities see the main issue as religious tyranny, and say so publicly, the straw man “55%” means nothing.
Hopefully one big thing to come out of all this is that Obama has provided a rare monment of clarity as to who he really is. As he attempts to film-flam us again about any sort of "compromise" his MO is becoming obvious to many. He misleads, confuses, misdirects, obfuscates, and seeks to ultimately to wear down our interest and outlast our attention span until we are so tired of it all and unsure of what is actually happening that we acquiesce out of sheer frustration and boredom to the same tired old argument presented in so many and varied ways so as to overwhelm and bewilder! Like Bill Clinton he is a deciever worthy of the Great Deciever himself. This rare moment of clarity can be the final example to many as to who president Pol Pot really is.
Obama, scary as are his views as they are revealed to us in the fullness of time, will brook no opposition. "Compromise" and "bipartisanship" have come to mean "this is the word from on high" as in Obamacare, entitlements, tax increases, the budget, and on and on. If he and his disciples decree that you should kill your brother and you object on moral and religious grounds, his compromise solution will be, Hire a hitman so you don't have to do it yourself. If you still object, you are just using an excuse (Nancy Pelosi's reference to the first amendment objections), and our administration with this new compromise has achieved the perfect balance between religious liberty and the dictates of Obamacare and that's the way the rule will be issued and that ends discussion (Chief of Staff Jack Lew yesterday in his Fox News interview).
This policy has been in place since before Bush and was enforced by Bush. What is the big deal now?
Further, the "compromise" shifts the cost away from the organization to the carrier. That means the dissenting administrator of the organization no longer is paying (or authorizing payment) for the coverage.
Why should that person or group of people be able to DENY the ability of someone to receive coverage that in most other places would be available because of his/her religious preference? The employee may not share that religious preference or, even if they do, may not follow that teaching (most Catholics, for example, do NOT).
This whole argument is saying a religious person in management should be able to block coverage within health plans for contraception for all employees regardless of the employees' preferences, religions, etc. In essence, these people from this one religious perspective should have priority over the religious choices of many others. If anything is allowing the inhibition of free expression of religion, it's that.
The thing is this does not force contraception on anyone and now with the compromise it doesn't force paying for the coverage on anyone. Therefore everyone receiving coverage is free to choose whether to use contraception or not based upon their personal beliefs, medical advice, and religious concerns. That's what it's all about. Nobody should be cheering on people whose narrow anachronistic views compel them to restrict others.
And let's not go down the road of "they can get another job". In an economy where jobs are scarce we shouldn't encourage that -- and if you say "too bad, if they can't get another job they should take what they can get" understand down that road there be monsters. That argument was used for all sorts of labor abuses.
The leaders of religious left are now showing indignation when they enabled and supported Obamacare. They have been duped and their credibility is in decline.
And now we see the secular left and the religious left moving into different camps. So how will the “followers” of the religious left leadership vote in the next Presidential election? If they follower the secular left, they will shrug, and Obama will be vindicated. Let us trust they vote AGAINST Obama.
Regardless, one thing is clear: the credibility leadership of the religious left has been irreparably harmed and they have shown themselves unfit for leadership. Obama is laughing at them.
It's almost as if God figured out a way to be an issue in this race. I guess that makes Obama God's tool .... but not in the same way he is for Nancy Pelosi.
Socialism makes sense ... on paper. I love the idea of a national primary care network as an answer to the misuse of the hospital emergency room. But this garbage Obama is pulling tells me exactly why Socialism and my plan will not work. Where is the focus? What problem is he solving?
So many of you are saying, "Obama is bad. Obama wants to destroy religion. Obama wants to force everyone to be a secularist."
BUT if you all could calm yourselves and reduce the defensive reaction, it would become clear that Obama, in his own clumsy way, is trying to set up a Government that helps all religions, without favoring your religion. His guidance will come from The Enlightenment, science, and religion.
The science says that we will have a healthier progeny if we allow women to control their pregnancies. Becoming a mother is more than giving birth -- social maturity, physical ability to raise the babe, community support for the new family, criminal impregnation, cost to society and the health care system, and so forth have an influence.
The science is not religious or anti-religious. If you disagree with the science, please don't do it under the broad banner of "religion." It is not fair to several other "religions." It is selfish and short sighted if you want the human race to survive another 2,000 years.
God blesses us everyday. He gave us intelligence and rational thought to take care of human kind. We are more than stewards of the Earth. We are stewards of all humans.
Follow
