July 4: Still About Resisting Tyrants

July 4: Still About Resisting Tyrants July 4, 2012

The most important message Americans can hear this July 4. It doesn’t matter if you are a believer or an atheist. If the state can stick a gun in a Catholic’s ribs and force him to deny one of his deepest beliefs today, it will stick a gun in your ribs and force you to deny one of your deepest beliefs tomorrow. Resist this tyrannical act for your sake, if not for the sake of Catholic conscience. Because you are next.

"It is great website, thanks for pointing it out."

Ignatius: A Brief Introduction to the ..."
"Ok, I misunderstood you. I apologise. You said that Catholics did not worship a God ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The references may be clear to you. My point, obvious, is that English-speaking readers are ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • martin

    no one is forcing Catholics to use birth control so this is just pretty silly.

    • john

      They are *forcing* me to buy insurance. They are *forcing* all insurers to provide contraception, sterilization and other various means of preventative measures against pregnancy. When they force us to do something against our conscience they are dancing in tyrannical territory.

      • Brudder

        To provide, yes; to take, no. No one is being forced to use contraceptives and no one is being forcibly sterilized. It is only being made available to everyone. It is still in every conceivable way (pun intended) your choice so what exactly are you complaining about?

        • Hezekiah Garret

          You wouldn’t object to being made to pay for the racist and misogynistic reading material I have every right to consume? You wouldn’t have to read it, just pay for the printing, shipping and handling.

          Whats to object to?

          • Brudder

            So it’s your right to discriminate against others? I guess that makes sense coming from someone who seems to think and entire country should be governed by their religious beliefs.

            • Bill

              and you just missed the point entirely

            • Hezekiah Garret

              I submit it is my right, absolutely, to discriminate against others. If I shan’t discriminate in such a way, how am I to even know you exist? If I can’t discriminate that I am me and you are not, well, that rather reduces your role in our discussion, making it just me.

              But yeah, you missed the point, thanks for playing.

    • ivan_the_mad

      No one is forcing Catholics to labor for our alien overlords from Omicron Persei 8. And much like what you wrote, martin, no one is arguing that either.

      Learn what the debate is about before you post something that shows you don’t have a clue.

    • What is being forced is a contract negotiation to buy services the Church finds immoral. Catholics who do not enter in these organizations, sign a contract, and send a check for these services, (that they also have to partially pay for and partially collect from their employees) will suffer the consequence that the government will impose a tax (if you believe the US Supreme Court) or a penalty (if you believe the President of the US) that will escalate over time and could lead to jail time if that money is not forthcoming.

    • Kristen inDallas

      I see a big thred about contraceptives full of comments from only men (and a few boys), so I’ll bite…

      Dear Martin/Brudder,
      I wish I could link for you a study that gives the percentage of women who (wear make-up/starve themselves/take contraceptives) because they “like” doing so, vs the number who do those things because they feel obligated to do so. Unfortunately, when I look for those studies all I can find are reports of the differences in how women who (don’t wear make-up/don’t engage in casual sex/etc) are percieved by others. I find that pretty unfortunate in and of itself, but my gut and my knowledge of my female friends tell me the split is 30/70 at best.

      It’s called a market shift, and it sucks. The mandate, by making contraceptives so easy to come by, makes men similarly see sex as easy to come by. (Now this is not new, but let’s be frank contraceptives weren’t all that unaccessible in the first place). The policy objectifies all women, not just catholic ones. It puts women and girls who choose to be virtuous at a financial disadvantage now in addition to the disadvatage they already have within our over-sexed porn-dominated culture. Just ask yourself how you’d feel if your favorite baseball team were the only ones opting not to take the steroids the league decided to give away for free in order to drive up interest.

      So I’ll make you a deal, Brudder and Martin, you find me a nice man, who’s willing to give me a fair shake even though I’ve decided to practice chastity before marriage. One who won’t nettle me or pressure me or downright physically force me to sleep with him. Then go find one for every other girl in the country that wants the same thing (the ones who haven’t given up hope for finding one as well as the ones that have). Then figure out what you would say to the child who is a product of rape, to counteract a lifetime of people who can’t comprehend a thought other than to ask why she wasn’t on the pill and why she didn’t have an abortion. When you’re done… then you get to talk about who’s forcing who to do what. Until then please STFU and realize that you know next to nothing about this supossed “right” of women that you are trying to defend.

      • Kristen inDallas

        Sorry for the venom on your site Mark. These guys just got under my skin today.
        I’ll try to counteract myself with a prayer:
        Dear Heavenly Father, please walk with Martin and Brudder on their journey to become full, grown men. If it please you, bless them with beautiful, loving and docile 13 year old daughters, that they may learn more dirrectly of the truth and wisdom in God’s teaching.

      • Ted Seeber

        Kristen- May God reduce your time in purgatory for being so honest.

    • Ted Seeber

      That’s a side issue. What’s really the problem is the definition of what is a “religious organization” and what is acceptable behavior for a religious organization, limiting it’s access to just the people who believe the same. Obama may just want Catholic Hospitals and Soup Kitchens to pay for contraception of their employees and volunteers; Romney may well want all organizations dealing with the public to attest to and affirm all 138 Doctrines and Covenants of the Later Day Saints. Give the politicians an inch and they WILL take a mile, eventually.

  • Michael

    So Martin if vegan groceries were required to sell chicken would that be ok because “no one is forcing them to eat it”?

  • Bill

    It is a show of force by the government against the moral fiber of my faith.

    As I read here once by another commentatorI will say again. Keep your ovaries off my Rosaries.

    • Brudder

      The moral fiber of your faith? You can’t be seriously holding up the Catholic Church as a positive example of morality? They are the leading example of what is wrong with religious institutions.

      • Hezekiah Garret

        In other words, my religious freedom is subject to your approval? And definitely not vice-versa?

        Since I have no rights for you to respect, why should I respect yours? I’d stay anonymous too.

        • Brudder

          Where did I say you should not have religious freedom? Good job avoiding the morality issue.

          • Bill

            and your argumentation is the definition of specious reasoning

            Nobody is avoiding any morality issue… mandating contraception IS AGAINST WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE. Regardless of how many Catholic priests did bad things against kids, or if you hate the Catholic Church for not supporting homosexual marriage, or whatever the case might be… this mandate is against the beliefs of the Church of which I am an adherent

            Your deflection is just a waste of time.

            • Hezekiah Garret

              I think you meant Fecious Reasoning.

              • ivan_the_mad

                LOL! I see what you did there!

          • Ted Seeber

            Paying for contraception is immoral. Using contraception in marriage for the purposes of avoiding children is a form of rape.

      • I seriously hold the Catholic Church up as positive example of morality. It has had failures and at times the failures have been grievous. Those failures do not negate it as a positive example of morality

        If you look at the time between when Simon was renamed Peter in the garden of Gethsemene and Jesus said get behind me satan, it was whiplash short. That should tell you something. It doesn’t seem to have sunk in. Imperfect humans who absolutely screw up can be a positive example of morality, especially when they make a recovery and reform.

      • Ted Seeber

        Yes, I do hold the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to not only be a positive example of morality, but the ONLY positive example of morality. EVERYTHING you can say against the church, is against actions of individuals who are already ignoring the teachings of the Church. A grand example is the entire sex abuse scandal- if the priests who raped children had merely had the moral fortitude to abide by the vows they took at ordination, there would not have been a sex abuse scandal to begin with. If the Bishops had the moral fortitude to take the scandal head on and denounce *any* priest breaking the vow of celibacy like the teachings of the Church require, then not a single cent would have gone out in lawsuits.

        It is the IGNORANCE of Church Teaching that allows for sin, not the positive attempt to live Church Teaching.

  • Kevin

    When anti-Catholic bigots self select to say “shut up Catholics everybody hates you so shut up shut up shut up” despite being faced by precisely the same tyranny threatening Catholics’ rights under the constitution, you can clearly see where their priorities lie.

    • Bill


      we could become the Soviet Union circa 1933 and it wouldn’t matter to these folks because all that matters is that the Church is crushed

      Nobody bitches more than the overgrown adolescent who is told his or her behavior is not perfect

  • Kevin

    Everyone is forced to pay for everyone’s abortions including from abortifacient contraceptives. No option permitted to prevent your hard earned dollars from paying for others’ abortions. If you previously enjoyed the privilege of arranging your affairs to avoid funding abortions, the health care plan you are using or the tax will ensure your money pays for abortions. People who don’t want ever to fund abortions are denied that privilege by the state. Freedom of religion consists in permitting all reasonable actions as a free exercise of will including to accomplish religiously motivated ends. If you want to accomplish the religiously motivated end of never paying to have anyone murdered inside the womb, the law now denies you that guarantee specifically if you disagree with abortion. I view that as an egregious abuse of power by a tyrant. Tyrants first gain control, then they start a program. The program is now underway.

  • Kevin

    There seems no point in attempting discussion with such a reductionist logician as this “Brudder” person. He states that desiring to retain the individual’s privilege to pay for no murder of anyone, ever, by abortion or abortifacient contraceptives (to name just the two most directly deadly objections) is identical to “think and entire country should be governed by their religious beliefs”

    I don’t know how not being coerced by law into funding murder despite any objection is identical in all respects to the overall governance of a nation, but it does provide a particularly vivid example of the logic sacrificed by reductionistic thinking.

    So for that illustration, thanks, “Brudder”

  • Kevin

    On the other hand, maybe Brudder thinks the constitution’s and three-branch system’s time has come and gone and the US should be governed by his dogmatic faith, whatever it is.

    Maybe Brudder wants the establishment clause struck down. That would explain a lot.

  • Kevin

    “Conscience has rights because it has duties.” – St. John Cardinal Newman

  • Kevin

    Notice the picking and abandoning of with an ad hominem attack, once you’ve gutted out the nonsense inside their “argument.”

    Their problem is that they don’t realize why it’s nonsense — even if you draw a picture.

    I think once you’ve decided conscience is a type of Disney cartoon cricket that can sing, rather than being one of well-formed, malformed, or dead, it becomes infinitely easier to interchange the concepts of freedom and license.

    The secular dogmatic religion of moral relativism, blindly devoted to their sacred cartoon image depicting “one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling” becomes a ridiculous slapstick farce under the influence of gravity.

    • Ted Seeber

      Malformed. I like that. My conscience is malformed, that’s why I read encyclicals in an attempt to combat it. Fits right in with my self image of having Asperger’s and being one of Margaret Sanger’s Unfit. Thank you

  • Kevin

    As in, deserving by merits alone only of a flush?

  • Kevin

    More seriously, there is a generalized conflation of the individual with the act, a refusal to separate sin from sinner, and essentially a command to tolerate error in principles but to never tolerate persons who “think different.”

    “You. Shall. Obey.”

  • On a Catholic radio station, I heard someone asking about a Bishop’s view of the mandate to buy insurance. The answer was, at best, vague. I didn’t get if the bishops support, don’t support, or what, the mandate to buy insurance. I would like to know a little more of their opinions there. There are plenty of folks who think that mandate is also a violation of our rights. Do the bishops agree? I haven’t found an actual statement that makes it clear, and if anyone has a link that I’ve missed, I would appreciate it.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Dave, have a look at http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm It doesn’t list the mandate to be insured per se, so we can probably assume that the bishops are neutral on that point (although what they think of the mandate personally may be something else altogether).

      • Thanks, I’ll take a look.

      • Yeah, nothing specific. I’ve heard some grumbling that the Bishops don’t really care one way or another, and the interview I heard on our Catholic radio didn’t help. Neither did the article (though thanks again for the link). I can see where that could seem, at least to some, as if the bishops don’t care if any [else’s] rights are trampled, just so long as the issues that the Church cares about aren’t. And that could break up some of the unity that has existed. I’ll keep looking to see, but I’ve heard a few now bring that up, and I want to find a solid answer, one way or another.

    • Ted Seeber

      I’ve done research into this. The Bishops are actually neutral on the subject of being “forced into the system”, as long as the system itself isn’t immoral and contains the positive benefit of upholding the duty of the government and society to provide for the health care of the poor.

      The Bishops have been solidarity activists on the “needs” of basic food, clothing, shelter and health care since Rerum Novarum. They have NOT been socialists on this however- a basic level of the bare minimum human beings need to survive is NOT “stealing from the rich to give to the poor”, it is “the rich doing their basic Christian duty to give the poor their due”.

      • ivan_the_mad

        Exactly – it’s a duty, meaning not voluntary.

  • Kevin

    I would guess the bishops (anywhere) would claim no competency in insurance, only in faith and morals. If the only choice is between insurance that pays for murders, or a tax that pays for murders, they’re going to be totally against all murdering, and against forcing everyone by raw executive fiat to pay for murders.

    It could be that they are stumped about how it can be that Washington DC is about to become the American people’s central planning committee.

    • Ted Seeber

      They may be stumped, but I’m not- because under Obamacare, Washington DC just handled central planning rights over to Wall Street, who bought and paid for them.

  • “Because you are next.”
    I’ve been saying this for many years regarding abortion. And now look at how they are treating the elderly and handicapped. Remember the famous quote, “…and then they came for me and no one did anything.”

  • Petros

    Let’s try this hypothetical: Congress passes a law that says all insured organizations must provide transportation to a medical facility, including abortion clinics. Martin’s reply: No one is FORCING you to have an abortion. You’re just providing the transportation. The woman is still free to have the abortion or not have the abortion. So this is pretty silly. Or let’s try this one: they have to provide the abortionist’s instruments.