No. Really. Obama’s Actions Make Him an Enemy of God

He has declared war on the conscience of Catholics in a gratuitous and wholly unnecessary attempt to punish them for their views on sex and smash their religious liberty in order to subordinate it to the state.  He has (at the convention) done as much as the head of a non-confessional state can do to establish a Patriotic Church loyal to the regime (hence Sr. Simone’s moral idiocy about abortion).

And, if you are a non-Catholic or non-Christian doesn’t care about religious liberty, he has also declared war on you by unilaterally stripping you of the protection of every civil right back to Magna Carta by claiming the power to arrest and detain you–forever–without trial.  He has further claimed the power to secretly declare you an enemy of the state and have you murdered if it so pleases His Royal Highness.

If you, or any American, vote for this guy, you deserve to live under tyranny.

Update: Obama’s actions also reveal him to be a narcissist of the first order.

"Agreed. I also agree 'the wrong side of history' is not a phrase a Christian ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"Yes, I believe that it is. But I don't take the "cyclical" view of history ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"Isn't a cyclical view of history incompatible with catholic eschatology and salvation history?"

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"This country was founded for the express purpose of creating and furthering a particular direction ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rosemarie


    On Wednesday, New York federal District Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked the NDAA provision that could allow the gov’t to indefinitely detain people.

    • You said you don’t live in the US, correct?

      • No I don’t. But as far as I know, you only have to pay for contraception, birth control, and sterilizations. And an employee doesn’t have to do any of this.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Alejandro would like you to know that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

          • Who has no idea what he is talking about?

            • ivan_the_mad

              Who’s on first?

              • That wouldn’t be the answer I was shooting for. Anyone in particular?

                • victor

                  No, no. Anyone in particular is playing shortstop!

                  • Uh huh. I guess I’m trying to figure out the individual being referred to, since I think Alejandro is trying to make some points and get some information, and the responses are, for the most part, an internet equivalent of ‘stick one’s tongue out’. Which doesn’t really help the case that Alejandro is that far off the mark.

        • Chris

          We need Health and Human Services to provide us with more ex-Catholic radical homosexual trolls on our message boards, that’s what we need.

          • I’m not ex-catholic. Nor homosexual. If you actually went to my blog, you would know that.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Yeah, take that, Chris. If you *actually* went to Alejandro’s blog, you’d know. Oh, you’d know.

    • DWiss

      This is a link to an absurd argument, poorly written and ineffective.

      Mark is correct about Obama. Had Bush attempted any of these shenanigans the media would have gone wild, and rightfully so. Obama has been given a blank check by the media, and the day will come when they will regret their silence.

      • If its so poorly written, why don’t you easily refute it?

        • ivan_the_mad

          Because this has all been laid out ad nauseam elsewhere. Verify your own damned references.

          • All I keep reading is “HHS mandate is crushing religious freedom”, which is no argument against what I’m saying.

        • DWiss

          No institution should be compelled by the government to supply their employees with goods or services believed by the institution to be immoral (sinful). If the employees choose to pay for those goods and services with their own money fairly earned through their employment at the institution, that is another matter entirely. Your argument equates the two, and so it doesn’t work.

          • But as I said, it’s only providing money for something the employee may or may not use. Basically choosing to use the insurance already provided by the Institution however he pleases.
            Also, I want to know, does the HHS mandate force hospitals to perform sterilizations and give condoms, or is it just forcing them to give insurance?

            • And I don’t really see it any different with the salary thing. As I said, the institution is willingly proving money to employees who probably use it to sin, something which violates their conscience.

              • Amy


                Think about it this way. It’s the difference between an individual being able to purchase KKK propaganda materials with their own money and forcing their minority employers to provide it for them.

                • It’s not their “own money”, it’s money that a company provided to them and agreed to provide for them, even if it’s through working. And the KKK comparison, it’s the person himself/herself that chooses whether or not use that insurance to have that type of merchandise. Even if the company is providing the money for it, its the person’s decision in the end. There’s no compliance between the employer and the employee.

                  • Tim in Cleveland

                    Once an employee performs the services for which the money was paid, then it is the employee’s “own money.” The employer can’t then take it back (that would be stealing).

                    I don’t know how it works where you live, but I don’t want to live there.

            • DWiss

              “But as I said, it’s only providing money for something the employee may or may not use.”

              OK, Alejandro, let’s go with that for a moment. Part of Catholic teaching is that we are to avoid the near occasion of sin. In other words, we are to avoid putting ouselves or others into situations that may encourage or enable sin. Providing insurance that pays for contraceptives and abortifacients clearly violates this teaching, and so if the church is forced to do that, its religious freedom is being violated.

              • You put poor people in danger of sinning by giving them money they didn’t work to earn which they can spend in many things like alcohol and other sinful things. The Church doesn’t say anything against this. The same thing with salaries. The institution is giving them a way to sin with the money it provides. Again, this is just absurd.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  “Again, this is just absurd.” Oh, irony, thy name is Alejandro.

                • DWiss

                  Crawl back in your hole, Alejandro.

                  • So that’s your response?

                    • Tim

                      Yes, that’s the only response necessary to you, and is more than deserved. Tomorrow, you will be here on the next post with whatever lame rebuttal the regime has e-mailed to you. Go back to Kos

                • Noah D

                  Alcohol isn’t sinful.

                  In cast that needed to be cleared up.

                  Also, food aid money can’t be used to purchase it.

                  • Getting drunk is, and a poor person can easily spend the money generously given to him on that.

                    • Noah D

                      How drunk are you talking about? Mildly buzzed so that you shouldn’t drive, or blackout-can’t remember what I did last night? One of those is sinful, and one isn’t. They’re both ‘drunk’.

                      And in many states in the US, food aid money is given in the form of a reloadable bank card. Grocery stores won’t let you purchase alcohol with one, and liquor stores don’t accept them at all. Back in the day when ‘food stamps’ meant actual paper coupons used in lieu of cash, they still couldn’t be used to buy booze. Sure, if you give poor people cash, they might spend it on alcohol. That’s why the state doesn’t do that.

            • ivan_the_mad

              “Also, I want to know, does the HHS mandate force hospitals to perform sterilizations and give condoms, or is it just forcing them to give insurance?” Seriously? You’re declaiming left and right on this issue and you can’t answer that question?

              • This is what I meant: as far as I know you can’t buy contraception in hospitals and can’t have sterilization procedures. What I want to know is if the HHS mandate forces hospitals to directly sell condoms inside them or force catholic hospitals to directly perform sterilizations. Not just provide insurance for it so that the person can have an sterilization in a non catholic hospital.

                • Alejandro, this is all in the works for the future. You don’t think the Obama administration is going to go to all the trouble of setting up a new definition of what a religious entity is and to establish who and who doesn’t have religious freedom just to make sure people get contraceptives, do you? The next step, should the courts allow it and should Obama be re-elected, is for the HHS to force all Catholic hospitals not just to pay for contraception but dispense it, not just pay for abortions, but to perform them, and sterilizations too. And let’s not forget euthanasia, the wave of the future. Various politicians are already telling us, “if you Catholics won’t perform abortions in your hospitals, you don’t belong in the medical profession.” That is why we need to nip this whole idea in the bud. And since, as you say, you don’t live in this country, you do need to do a little more research into what is going on.

                  • The problem is, you can’t also let religion to be the predominant freedom in a country, if that was the case, religious entities could do whatever they please without problems. For example, forbidding FGM would be an attack on religious freedom, however FGM goes against the well being of a woman, which the state protects. Which one wins here?

                    • Please. We have had complete religious liberty according to our Constitution since the founding of our country and no sign of theocracy yet, or of religions running amok and “doing whatever they please.'” Drop this mandate and we go back to the same.

                      Yes, FGM (by which I presume you mean female genital mutilation) does seriously injure a woman or girl’s health and well-being. And the state does have a compelling reason in this case to forbid it, even if it is part of a religious ritual. This distinction is part of our laws, which you seriously need to study.

                      All of this is completely different from the case of the contraception mandate. The government has NO compelling interest in forcing insurance companies and employers to provide contraception free at employers’ expense to women who can undoubtedly already afford to buy it. It serves no purpose whatsoever except to further government plans for mass social engineering of the type last seen in Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World* (do read it, it’s very enlightening about today’s society). Of course, it also runs roughshod over religious liberty in the process, which I think is actually part of the grand design for forcing religion out of public square, and marginalizing it until it’s of no significance.

                      Get it now?

                    • Tim in Cleveland

                      Fortunately, the Supreme Court uses tests which balance the extremely important freedom of religion (our first freedom, as we like to say) and other interests:

                      “(a) Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876, 110 S. Ct. 1595. However, where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied. Pp. 531-532.”

                      If laws against female genital mutilation were applied to everyone, then the government would not need a “compelling interest.” However, if some groups were exempted, like many are from provisions of Obamacare, then it wouldn’t be a neutral law of general applicability and the government would need a “compelling interest” to burden the religious practice.

                      In the case of the HHS mandate (which is a regulation enacted pursuant to Obamacare), it is not a law of general applicability (though proponents claim it is). Therefore, the government needs a compelling interest to burden Catholic employers’ right to practice their religious beliefs. Providing free contraceptives is in no way a compelling interest. No one was asking for free contraceptives before the mandate as they are pretty cheap as it is.

                    • Tim in Cleveland

                      I should also add that the law needs to be “narrowly tailored.” One way of doing that is granting an exemption to religious employers (as that term has always been defined, not how Obama would like to define it).

                    • “In the case of the HHS mandate (which is a regulation enacted pursuant to Obamacare), it is not a law of general applicability (though proponents claim it is). Therefore, the government needs a compelling interest to burden Catholic employers’ right to practice their religious beliefs. Providing free contraceptives is in no way a compelling interest. No one was asking for free contraceptives before the mandate as they are pretty cheap as it is.”
                      Only that you are continuing to practice your religion freely. It’s not as if the goverment is literally forcing you to hand out condoms in public. You can still choose whether or not use condoms, buy them or whatever else. What you are restricting, however, is a woman’s opportunity to get drugs that may be beneficient to her. Abortifacents and all those kinds of pills can be used for other ailments completley unrelated to sex and abortion. You are restricting them from being able to get this medicamentes more freely. So the one restricting things here is the Church.

                    • Noah D

                      No woman is going to be restricted from getting contraceptives, abortifacients, sterilization or abortions, more’s the pity. They’ll still be there, on the pharmacy shelves and ‘family planning’ racks. Their price will not change. If anything, recent history has shown that the price of medical procedures not covered by insurance will go down – cosmetic surgery and vision enhancement are two examples.

                      What we’re being forced to do is pay the person handing out the condoms in public, in your example. That’s a level of material co-operation with evil that we simply won’t do.

                • Tim

                  The point isn’t what the employee does with it’s wages, it’s what the organization is forced to offer or sell (this is really very simple). Just as the orgnization isn’t required to sell illegal drugs, prostitution or other vices that are against their moral principles, they should not be forced to “sell” contraceptions and abortions, which is what is being forced on them by having these items included in the insurance package they “sell” to the employees (which since you don’t live in the US is how health insurance works here). Hopefully this will end your inane responses to this post.

            • Tim in Cleveland

              “Basically choosing to use the insurance already provided by the Institution however he pleases.”

              I don’t think you understand how insurance works Alejandro. If you would like me to explain, I require a $1000 fee for my services. However, I may do something immoral with that money and you will unfortunately be complicit in that act.

              • No, because again, the person may choose whether or not to use the insurance for contraception, or even to use contraception or ask for sterilizations.

                • ivan_the_mad

                  But the organization may not choose whether or not to insure that procedure. It has no choice, it is compelled to do so by the government. This is what the Church objects to. All these comments of yours and you still don’t correctly grasp the issue.

                  • But, again, that’s saying that the organization may even object to paying their employees because they might use the money for things they don’t agree with. And institutions also pay taxes for things they don’t agree with, so you also have that. This is just arbitrary choosing of what you want to pay for, and what you don’t.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      “But, again, that’s saying that the organization may even object to paying their employees because they might use the money for things they don’t agree with.” No. Not at all. It’s saying that an institution may object to paying for things that institution disagrees with, regardless of whether its employees would use it or not.

                      “This is just arbitrary choosing of what you want to pay for, and what you don’t.” No, it isn’t. Arbitrary means you don’t have a basis for something; the Church does. It has an established history of teaching that these things are immoral.

                      By the way, here in America, we have plenty of laws and legal precedent granting religious exemptions for various things. What *is* new is the HHS mandate’s attempt to redefine what a religious institution is and to compel said religious institutions to pay for these things to which it morally objects.

                      You are wrong and ignorant on many counts. You have been corrected many times in this thread yet you persist in expounding your incorrect assertions. Get a clue.

                    • “No. Not at all. It’s saying that an institution may object to paying for things that institution disagrees with, regardless of whether its employees would use it or not.”
                      But then that becomes arbitrary. An employer may not even agree to provide basic insurances and say that the state is making him violate his conscience.
                      “No, it isn’t. Arbitrary means you don’t have a basis for something; the Church does. It has an established history of teaching that these things are immoral.”
                      It is arbitrary because they church also pays for things that go against catholicism. Again, catholics pay taxes that go for things they disagree with. Should they suddenly oppose taxation?
                      “By the way, here in America, we have plenty of laws and legal precedent granting religious exemptions for various things. What *is* new is the HHS mandate’s attempt to redefine what a religious institution is and to compel said religious institutions to pay for these things to which it morally objects.”
                      Pay for things which the employee may or may not use. No violation here.
                      Again, how is this any different than opposing giving money to the poor on the grounds they could misuse it? The Church is simply not being consistent here. It’s not like catholic hospitals are actually being compelled to repart condoms or abortifacents for free. No, its just making them use part of their money that employees may use it, if they want to, to have contraception and sterilizations. This is no different than you paying taxes and that money going to things the state does you don’t agree with.

                  • Tim

                    Alehandro is not trying and has no desire to understand the issue or engage in honest debate. He is a paid troll and is relaying the rebuttal given to him by the regime

                • c matt

                  It’s not as if the goverment is literally forcing you to hand out condoms in public.

                  That is a disctinction without a difference. In essence, what the government is doing is forcing to hand out “contraceptive coupons”, which in substance is not different from handing out the actual contraceptive itself. The contraceptive coverage cannot be used to “buy” anything but contraceptives. Therefore it is different in kind from simply giving someone money that can be used to buy anything. The coverage can only be used to buy contraceptives – that’s the whole point. If you cannot grasp this distinction, then further discussion is pointless.

        • Ted Seeber

          We do. You just have not been paying attention.

    • Ted Seeber

      *Whoosh*. The whole point went over your head.

      The contraception bit just brought it to our attention. The *real* thing the church is complaining about is that the State gets to define *what is and isn’t legitimate Church activity*. Thus, your local parish won’t be touched by the mandate as long as you hold Mass there- but the Knights of Columbus, which one could argue is EQUALLY religious to many Catholics, is affected.

      Thus starts the slippery slope towards the situation that atheists find themselves in Indonesia- not one of the 6 recognized religions, and mandatory that everybody carry a membership card of one of them.

      • “The *real* thing the church is complaining about is that the State gets to define *what is and isn’t legitimate Church activity*. ”
        But the state can decide when religious freedom and conscience violates others’ fredoms, violates other rights. For example, forbidding FGM would go against the conscience of people who practice it, despite the fact that that affects the health of the girl and could even kill her. So there’s that.
        Then, you have that catholics are paying their taxes that the state uses for things they don’t agree with, does that mean that suddenly catholics can oppose taxation? The insurance provides coverage not just for birth control, but also an array of other things fundamental to the health of the person. Opposing it just for a minor part is ridiculous. And as I’ve explained, there’s nothing violated here anyway, because its the individual who has the decision to use the insurance.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “And as I’ve explained” You’ve explained that you have no clue what you’re talking about, yes.

        • Tim in Cleveland

          I admire your tenacity Alejandro, but not your comprehension.

          • What I admire is the Church suddenly deciding what she wants to pay for, and what she doesn’t.

            • ivan_the_mad

              I don’t admire your wilful ignorance, Alejandro.

            • Tim in Cleveland

              Well, the HHS mandate was pretty sudden. Before that the Church didn’t really contemplate paying for contraceptives. Mainly because it was free not to.

  • Anne Marie

    Alejandro you clearly don’t understand the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

    • Perhaps you could explain?

    • Tim in Cleveland

      It’s actually the Free Exercise Clause at issue. Also at issue is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Here is a good outline of the issues for Alejandro:

      • But religion can’t also overturn certain things for example. For example, imagine a religion that forbids you seeing images, does that mean that the goverment suddenly hast to stop producing images? I don’t think so.

        • Tim in Cleveland

          You are starting to concern me, Alejandro.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          False analogy. If a religion forbids you from seeing images, and the government forces you to see images, that would be analogous.

  • NoahLuck

    Personally, I think war should involve weapons and dying. There’s no war declaration here. Just us spoiled Americans overreacting to infringements of religious liberty that are so totally precedented, both here and many other places.

  • David Agnew

    Clearly, the problem with the “violation of religious liberty” claim is that the mandate doesn’t force Catholics to do something which has been fundamentally rejected by the Catholic Church. It tells people to buy insurance with a policy which can be used to fund contraceptives. It doesn’t say one is forced to use them. At most, it gives a remote material cooperation with contraception, which is also being done in many other ways with tax money (including funding roads which are used to ship them to and fro). Yet, the Catholic Church has never told people: “You can’t buy insurance policies which include contraceptives in them.” Since it has never made this demand, then nothing is being demanded by the HHS mandate which runs contrary to Catholic obligations, which would be necessary for it to be a violation of Catholic religious liberty. Moreover, how many Catholics complaining about the mandate have policies which already do this? Or how many of them buy insurance from companies which also fund contraceptive policies (remember, money is fungible). Have they been told they can’t have such insurance? No? Again, until that requirement is made, complaining about the mandate is just politics, and has nothing to do with religious liberty. Until the church tells Catholics to give up their insurance if they have any connection to contraception, there is a double standard going on, and why this so-called “war on the Church” rhetoric only hurts the Church.

    • Oh my God, I thought I was the only one here.

      • David Agnew

        It’s amazing, isn’t it? There are many who see the problem. The Church allows people to have such insurance policies. So the criticism is: the mandate is forcing Catholics to buy a kind of policy which the Church has not prevented Catholics from buying. And somehow that’s anti-Catholic: telling someone to do what the Church allows. Sure, I don’t think the mandate is the best, wisest decision, but as long as the Church does not speak out to all the Catholics who already own such policies and tell them they can’t, it’s hard to read this as some sort of attack on the Church.

        • YachovBenYachov

          Cardinal Dolen already said we cannot obey this law.

          Did ya forget about that?

          Buy your own sin pill ya freakin moche!

        • David

          Many Catholic institutions, such as EWTN and a number of Catholic universities are self insured, so passing the buck to the insurance company doesn’t apply here. Furthermore, a conscientious Catholic employer used to be able to pick and choose among insurance companies and select one that does not provide coverage for such services.

          Regular employees, who have little if any say about what insurance their employer provides, or what public tax funds are used for, have at most remote material cooperation with evil in my estimation.

          • Tim

            But even if they are self insured, they have insurance companies manage the “insurance” for them, which would make them fall under Obamacare

    • David

      Thank you Pope Agnew for telling Catholics what does and does not violate their religious beliefs. Do you not see a problem with estalbishing that as a precedent for what does and does not violate someone’s religious beliefs? Obama could certainly find someone (maybe you) that would say that abortion does not actually go against Catholic moral obligations, then add surgical abortion to the Mandate. Or assisted suicide.

    • Chris

      That’s a hollow argument. The issue is religious liberty. The violation is the gov’t MANDATING the CHURCH and her adherents to directly or indirectly subsidize the murder of unborn children. In other words, regardless of who does or does not choose to carry such plan, the freedom NOT to soak our hands in the blood of the unborn is taken away.

    • YachovBenYachov

      So the government can mandate I buy a Cable TV package for someone else that contains Adult Sex Channels & it’s not a problem because I don’t have to watch them and they might not watch them?

      This is freedom too you fascist liberal dirt bags?

    • DWiss

      You ignore the fact that it is the Catholic church that is being forced to buy the insurance that covers goods and services that violate catholic teaching. That is not remote cooperation, it is direct cooperation.

      • YachovBenYachov

        Well said and Bishop agree and they speak for the Church not Agnew and his anti-first amendment fascist buddies.

      • As far as I know, the only thing that would “kill” are abortifacents, but not condoms, birth control pills and sterilizations. And abortifacents are also used for other health reasons unrelated to abortion the church doesn’t condemn.

        • Confederate Papist

          They stop the natural life giving process which is against God’s law. There are other, more Church-endorsed ways that don’t close off the life giving functions of the body.

          • But that’s not killing. Stopping life through condoms simply isn’t. You have to be kidding me. For example, sperms die in your scrotum all the time. Also, NFP also stops tha natural process of giving life. But the Church aproves it. I’d seriously like the Church to actually be consistent.

            • ivan_the_mad

              Your ignorance is impressive. Why don’t you educate yourself rather than waste everyone’s time begging to be corrected?

              • What’s so different about a “natural” method of stopping conception, and an “artificial” way?

                • For a diet, what’s the difference between eating food and then vomiting it up, compared to not eating?

                  • False analogy. Try again.

                    • False accusation of a false analogy. Try again.

                    • SteveD

                      What does ‘sin comentario’ mean? It seems to be a feature of your blog. Perhaps you’re here to change that unfortunate situation.

                • Cinlef

                  The former involves abstaining from sex at certain times, the latter involves engaging in sex while frustrating it’s essential purpose and is for that reason

                  • NFP involves having sex in periods when the woman is infertile. How is this any different than sex with contraception?

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      Oh, good Lord. Please at least learn the tenets of your own faith. I know you think our Church is stupid and evil, but stop parading your ignorance around and pretending that it’s everyone else that’s clueless.

                • Mark Shea

                  Since you asked:

                  What’s the difference between refraining from eating and eating a huge meal and them barfing it all back up?

        • ivan_the_mad

          “As far as I know” Which is evidently a distance measured in yoctometers.

          • I had to look it up. Ivan, you’ve outdone yourself with this one. ::slow clap::

        • David

          I don’t know that condoms are really included here- can you show your insurance card to the clerk at a convenience store and get them for free?

        • Birth control pills, IUDs etc are abortifacients.
          Birth control pills are also carcinogens. I know this is straying from the original argument, but I think if you start open-mindedly doing research on the subject, you may grasp perspective on Church teaching.

    • Ted Seeber

      And a WHOOSH for you too, for the point going entirely over your head. The religious freedom issue has nothing to do with contraception- and everything to do with the radical new definition of *what is a Church*.

      • Well, not so much “what is a Church” as “what is a religious organization,” and a radical limiting of an individual’s religious freedom in the act of owning and/or operating a business.

    • The issue isn’t on the buying side. It’s on the selling side. The government is attempting to force the Church to sell/fund/provide a policy which includes coverage for gravely immoral acts.

      It may well be fine for a Catholic individual to BUY an insurance plan which includes coverage for contraceptives and abortion, if they have no other reasonable option, as long as they do not take advantage of that portion of the policy.

      But, it is not licit for the Church, nor, according to their consciences, religious individuals to sell/fund/provide a policy covering gravely immoral acts. They are then facilitating easy access to those immoral acts.

  • Ashley

    It is not a violation of religious liberty to require employers to obey generally applicable laws. The alternative is anarchy, because then you have to allow anyone to ignore any law they choose as long as they have a “religious” excuse. JW employers don’t have to cover blood transfusions and Scientologists don’t have to cover psychiatric care. Don’t like paying taxes? Found a church that opposes them.

    What devout Catholics are demanding is the right to ignore civil society and the rule of the law anytime it conveniences them to do so.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “What devout Catholics are demanding is the right to ignore civil society and the rule of the law anytime it conveniences them to do so.”

      Citation please?

      • Tim in Cleveland

        Does count?

        • ivan_the_mad

          Of course! If it’s on the Intarwebz, it must be true!

    • DWiss

      Ashley, many businesses were given waivers to ignore Obamacare. Most of them are supporters of Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the Stinking Rose restaurant in San Francisco, for example), so the precedent is already there. For whatever reason, the administration has drawn the line with the Catholic church. Could the reason be that the church is opposed to Obama’s unbridled support of abortion and contraception? (Please research Obama’s voting record on abortion. He even voted against regulations that would have mandated care for babies that survive a botched abortion. He voted to let them die.)

    • YachovBenYachov

      >JW employers don’t have to cover blood transfusions and Scientologists don’t have to cover psychiatric care.

      Works for me I don’t have to work for them or I can use my own money to buy my own riders for those services.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      Not many years ago, the rule of law provided that “colored” bus riders were required to give up their seats to white riders. One colored lady demanded to ignore the rule of law and refused to comply. Her action on that day were witnessed and helped to spark a movement.

      When an unjust law is enacted, it is the right, it is the duty of people of good will to demand to refuse to comply. A tyrannical government such as we see in Communist China, in North Korea, or other such places will crack down ruthlessly upon such refusals, fining, imprisoning, torturing, exiling, repressing. In contrast, a government of the people, by the people, for the people (such as the United States once was and we hope will be again) will recognize that there is indeed a higher authority than the positive law, and that each of us is here to seek that higher law and to cleave to it; that that seeking itself – when sincerely undertaken – is sacred and not to be interfered with lightly except for reasons of gravest public exigency.

      The desire of certain employees to be provided free contraception by their employer does not rise to the standard of gravest public exigency (whereas, I believe it can be respectably argued that for the sake of the welfare of dependent minor children, civil laws against the polygamy advocated by adherents of certain sects, meet the standard of grave public exigency.

      If the government wants free birth control made available to the people, then let the government arrange to make it so. There is no need to involve Catholic businesses and organizations in such an undertaking. None whatsoever.

    • Either anarchy, or asking for a theocracy or ceasaropapist state.

      • Marion (Mael Muire)

        Neither anarchy nor a theocracy – false dichotomy.

        A republic with majority rule and the rule of law that is made up of a free people will always and everywhere operate in such a way that adherence to the law is required, but that provision is made for the reality that a higher law and a higher authority exist, and that it is the right and duty of a free people to seek it and follow it, and that their legislators in their enactions, will avoid violating the conscience rights of a free people.

        A totalitarian and tyrannical atheist society, such as we see in Communist China and North Korea, allows for no such recognition of conscience of a free people.

        It would appear that some Americans think Kim Jong Il had it right, and that Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Monroe did not.

        Well. Free country. (Or was.)

    • Ted Seeber

      “What devout Catholics are demanding is the right to ignore civil society and the rule of the law anytime it conveniences them to do so.”

      What part of Congress Shall Make No Law regarding ….. the free exercise of religion do you NOT understand?

      • If that was the case, then the state cannot forbid FGM or killing on religious grounds. Analize better what you say. This law will literally benefit millions, you just can’t overturn it because of the whim of one religious entity.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          “the state cannot forbid FGM or killing on religious grounds.”

          Not so: the good of public order is one compelling and grave reason that the state has always reserved the right to use lethal force to itself, and forbids its exercise to private citizens, even on religious grounds.

          The state, however, has always recognized the right of individual citizens whose consciences compel them to refuse to kill even in defense of their country, to be excused from armed military service.

          Your arguments ignore realities that have always existed, since pre-Colonial times, and dating back to the Magna Carta.

          The United States has always operated under a rule of law, but our governments have always recognized that we are a free people, pursuing the right and the good, and doing this on a higher law than even the State can set forth. A theocracy would codify the specifics of what this higher law require. The United States – not a theocracy – has never done that, but has left the specifics of this higher law to the various churches and to the consciences of the individual citizens. Decent and civil Americans have always been respectful toward the religious beliefs and practices of their religiously diverse neighbors, without, however, subscribing to them. In turn, those of their neighbors who are decent and civil, have always appreciated this respect, and reciprocated.

          Leaving others alone to do what they have always done in peace, is one of the most respectful things a person – or a government – can do.

        • Ted Seeber

          Heck, the state outright ENCOURAGES killing on religious grounds- that’s what the pro-choice movement is all about.

  • Yes! Way to give it to him Shea! If I am to be ruled by a tyrannical overlord, may it be the emperor Mark Shea and his generals including Lucy the Cuteness in a fascist theocracy! Shame though that Benedict isn’t the one to make this condemnation and that it comes from but a simple Catholic Layman. Go Shea!

    • Ted Seeber

      I think I’m going to write in Lucy the Cuteness on my ballot.

  • YachovBenYachov

    Remote cooperation is paying your employee money you lawfully and morally owe him for services rendered & he uses that money to buy sinful things. You are not responsible for your employee wasting his money on hooker and stripper. But it is unjust to be forced by the government to pay your employee by buying on his behalf the services of hookers and stippers. Especially if they are cheap in the monetary sense.

  • YachovBenYachov

    Rosemarie you talk some sense into these anti-first amendment clowns.

    This blog gives me ajeda. I’m out of here.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    The several films based upon Anna and the King of Siam contain themes that illustrate well the difference between the views on the proper exercise of government power by secularists vs. by people of faith.

    Whereas in his native culture the 19th century king of Siam was lord of all he surveyed and his people bowed down to him, remained silent and motionless in his presence, and might be sentenced to be whipped or put to death on a mere whim of his, the English diplomats and consultants, who also revered their Queen, were very much more on terms of equality with both the king of Siam as well as with their own Queen. They did not bow and scrape. They did not expect to be bullied or brow-beaten, and if the king (or the Queen) ever tried doing so, the English diplomats and consultants would reply, “Pardon, Your Majesty, but I’m afraid I must reply no.” And they would give their reasons, politely and respectfully. If one of his Siamese subjects refused the king, he or she would be instantly beheaded. But in the English milieu, a certain leeway, certain personal freedoms were expected of a civilized Court, on both sides.

    I believe the legal positivists view “The Rule of Law” in much the way that the King of Siam viewed his own wishes: So let it be written; so let it be done.”

    But America was founded on principles very different from those of the King of Siam. And many of us continue to carry that tradition forward into our country’s future.

  • J. H. M. Ortiz

    “YachovBenYachov’s” virulent name-calling has been such that I seriously suspect that he himself may be a PRO-Obama stooge pretending to be in the anti-Mandate camp in order to make the latter look mean and unreasonable. (“DWiss” and a couple of other anti-Mandate commenters have indeed been reasonable.)
    ¶ If “Alejandro”, “David Agnew”, or anyone else cares to see a reasoned (I don’t say a perfectly calm) argument against the HHS Mandate, may I suggest an older post in Egregious Twaddle titled “It’s March and I’m mad, Mr. President.”
    ¶ In defense of Mark Shea’s harshness in his present post, I remind readers that it’s not about the Mandate only, but also about the President’s claiming alarming rights to detain indefinitely without trail, torture (as at Gitmo), and/or kill, absolutely any other human being on this planet.

    • YachovBenYachov

      I don’t believe in showing any mercy to jerks who want to abolish the first amendment.

      I am proud of what I said to those who support the HHS mandate & I won’t apologize for it either.

      The only thing I might apologize for is calling the pro-HHS mandate fascists “liberals”. The Liberals Professors I had in college a long time ago taught me to be a civil libertarian. A true liberal has to be one. If you support the HHS mandate you are not a liberal. You are in fact a fascist. A liberal by definition can’t support segregation on buses nor the HHS.

  • victor

    “They told me if I voted for McCain, the White House would try to suppress free speech. And they were right!”

    (Makes Debbie Downer face into the camera)

    • ivan_the_mad

      I’m totally stealing that. Just call me THIEF BAGGINS!

  • Ivan K

    Let’s suppose that we lived in a country in which people could legally buy and sell slaves. Let’s also suppose that the state required employers to subsidize the purchase of a slave by each employee, should that employee choose to have one. If the bishops objected to catholic institutions being forced to pay for employees’ slaves, Alejandro could comfort them with the argument that they’re not really being forced to subsidize slavery because the employees aren’t being forced to purchase a slave.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)


      And the bishops’ refusal to be comforted by this argument would be a sure indication of their intent to try to establish “a theocracy.”

      • Tim

        Guys, if you haven’t figured it out by now, Alejandro has no intention of understanding the issue or engaging in honest debate. He is a paid troll, repeating the rebuttals provided to him by the regime. It’s useless to try to respond to his post. He has unfortunately, derailed and controlled the discussion, which has been his intent all along. You’ll see him again on the next post

        • tmrbeste

          yep. that’s the ticket. LOL.

  • obpoet

    Birth control pills are also abortifacient. They prevent implantation of the living and growing embryo if they fail to prevent ovulation, which they do on a regular basis now that the estrogen content has been lowered so much. It a shocker to many, but the Pill kills. Not all the time, not most of the time, but some of the time.

  • Raul De La Garza III

    Please forgive my hispanic brother in Christ, Alejandro. Being that he hails from Guatemala, he hasn’t a clue concerning American-style democracy.
    Alejandro, please take care and study up on the history of the United States and of the genesis of her Constitution before making any further embarrassing comments.

    Peace be to you.

  • LadyBird

    There may be an upside to all of this. Right now most employers match employees contributions as part of the benefits package. The HHS mandate will cause Catholic employers to opt out of carrying health insurance for their employees and apply the savings from not carrying insurance to competitive salaries. Then employees can do what they damn well please. Win/Win!