Obama Labors to Sovietize American Culture

Obama Labors to Sovietize American Culture July 26, 2012

DOJ tells family they cannot run their business as Catholics

The separation of Church and everything that our jealous God King particularly demands of Catholics continues apace. Catholics are going to soon have to learn how to nod and smile and appear to comply and then just go right on ignoring the state under the radar.  This is Soviet tyranny.  The trick will be to figure out how to overburden the system and force it to play whack a mole trying to stop us from defiantly continuing to live as Catholics in the public square.  I’m ready for a guerilla war.  I think it could even be fun.

"I just have to say that what you wrote sounds creepy."

Simcha Fisher Has a Great Idea
"I don't expect you to solve the mystery of iniquity --evil.Above my ability to comprehend.(We ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I was referring to the classical problem of evil.I don't follow what you said, or ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"You mean like trump, Maduro, Putin, Assad, Kim Jung, Chavez, Castro, etc, etc, etc,...... I ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Confederate Papist

    They’re soooooooooo tolerant of others, aren’t they?

    These people are desperate and I think they are actually afraid they will lose the election. I don’t know for sure….I don’t trust anything or anybody concerning this year’s election. I think we’ll only be mildly better off if Romney wins the election…at least I know (or I think) he’ll stop the war against the Catholic Church.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Tolerance is a great word for the Left until they’re in power.

      Speaking of which, has the recent fatwa by the Bullies for Love made anyone else really jones for Chick Fil-A?

      • Confederate Papist

        I’ve been crammin’ them Chick Fil A sammiches down my throat, especially since Roseanne Barr said she hopes anyone who eats them gets the cancer….

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    If I owned a business and were forced to subsidize evil in this way, I would conduct mandatory bimonthly meetings in which I addressed my employees about how oral contraceptives are categorized by the World Health Organization as a Class I carcinogen (along with tobacco and asbestos), and also how women using oral contra are twice (TWICE) as likely to contract HIV as women not on contra. And about the evils of abortion, etc.

    If the government will make me pay for it, I will bloody well take advantage of my mini-bully pulpit to say my piece about it.

    Although, ultimately, it would have been better if our Church’s prelates and pastors had used their bully pulpits to hammer home the reality of these evils. Starting in in 1957, or so.

    So now business owners are stuck with the job, instead. And the bill. Lovely.

  • Some questions, Mark.

    Hows does learning to “nod and smile and appear to comply and then just go right on ignoring the state” differ from lying, which you have more than once come out against when the target is Planned Parenthood (and which I agree). Why does this differ when the target is the State (in which the difference between PP and the State is getting more bleary all the time)? Or since “nodding and smiling” does not involve words (but it does actions), is that the difference. I really want to know.

    I think the State is going to use the dual tactics of the Mandate and Gay Marriage as a battering ram to force the churches into silence. Perhaps due “payback” for the days of the religious right (which I think is a big motivation). Christian photographers and caterers have already felt the heat, when gay couples DEMAND that THEY serve their weddings, even if they don’t want to and a lot of alternatives are available.

    We may truly be in a period where one cannot do business unless they have the mark of the beast (and I am being poetic, not eschatological). One should have one’s ducks in a row beforehand–hence my question.

    Finally, it probably won’t be fun. Don’t know too many under Soviet oppression who labelled it “fun.”

    • The “law” has no binding force on the conscience or will. It is unjust, a violation of the natural law. Nobody is bound to obey it or respect it. Indeed, there is an obligation of resistance. What Mark is suggesting is not in any way the utterance of a deliberate falsehood with intent to deceive. He is suggesting passive, or non-violent resistance.

      • Sure, an unjust law is not really a law. But I’m not sure speaking a literally true statement that’s meant to deceive is anything other than lying. It seems very similar to claiming I’m not guilty of adultery because I was just looking.

        • There is no statement intended to deceive. It’s like Rosa Parks nodding and smiling at the bus driver while he tells her to sit in the back of the bus, and all the while she ignores him.

          • ds

            Yeah, except the catholic church is the bus company.

            • Ted Seeber

              From this, it appears that the Catholic Church is Rosa Parks in this example. The DOJ is the bus company.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                Analogies just aren’t some people’s strong suit. That’s why they pulled them from the SAT.

                • Ted Seeber

                  Analogy isn’t in the SAT anymore? But that’s where I got my best scores!

      • Mark Shea

        Yup. I advocate, as much as possible, simply ignoring and subverting unjust laws. Could be quite fun actually. Karol Woytila was a past master at the practice under the dull-witted bureaucrats of Commie Poland. Solidarity!

    • Looks like this State bullying is happening even sooner than I imagined. Just heard that Boston banned Chik-Fil-a from the City (and Chicago is considering the same) because they contribute to “pro-family” causes and mention they are against “Gay Marriage.” Note: Chik-fil-a SERVES gay people and treats them with the courtesy as they do their straight customers (how would they tell the difference anyway). It is a punishment for the company owners’ opinions and where there contributions go.

      Guess we are in the nod and agree stage already… or they will forbid you to do business and do all they can to shut you down.

      They said this may be our last election as a free people. I think we are no longer a free people.

  • Samson

    The trick will be to figure out how to overburden the system and force it to play whack a mole trying to stop us from defiantly continuing to live as Catholics in the public square.

    Exactly, Mark. Play the chess game, folks – don’t be discouraged!

  • Since all of this is while Obama has to worry about reelection, I imagine when he is reelected, it will only get worse.

    • Rachel K

      It may not be quite as bad. This whole HHS mandate nonsense was a misguided attempt to whip up the women’s rights vote, because he figured that he’d get more of a positive reaction from women than a negative reaction from Catholics. Didn’t so much work. But we may actually be better off if he isn’t trying to shore up his base in his second term.

  • Ted Seeber

    This suddenly suggests to me an interesting solution to the problem. They want to force businesses with more than 50 employees into this? Why not split the business up into *employee owned units* of *less than 50 employees*? Subsidiarity in action, and it drops each unit *below* the threshhold.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)


      Good idea. You would need to split your company into several: one is Company A, the actual manufacturer of widgets, holding all the equipment, buildings, offices, etc., all capital assets. And most of management works for that Company A. Companies B – N would not be in the manufacturing business at all; they would be personnel staffing firms, each with under 50 employees, and they would employ the rank and file workers who staff Company A. So: Same people, same equipment, same jobs, more headaches, more paperwork for the owners.

      Also, Companies A-N might be incorporated offshore, and so be subject to many U.S. laws, but not to others.

      Hell, I’d incorporate in the Bahamas if it meant I didn’t have to cooperate with evil.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        This, if legal, sounds like a very good method.

        However, I can’t help but think that the gov’t would find a way to tax the ever loving crap out of 4 businesses instead of one.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Yeah, but how much profit would a straw personnel staffing company expect to make? It’s only client would likely negotiate very harsh terms, forcing it to get by on the slimmest of margins. And it would like it that way.

          ” Once payroll was made, we were in the red $1. Honest.”

          • Marion (Mael Muire)

            I suppose my idea of spinning off one capital asset and umpteen staffing companies from the original would only work if the original owners held a controlling share of at least one of the spin-offs and also a controlling share in each of the holding companies in which was held the staffing companies.

            • Ted Seeber

              Depends on how much they trust their employees. Each unit of Mondragon Corporation in Spain is 100% worker owned- and managed democratically- yet they still manage to cooperate between units to get a job done.

  • As far as legal tactics/wranglings go, the DOJ’s argument is thus:

    “The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” said the Justice Department. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”

    “By definition,” said the Justice Department, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.'”

    It seems a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, one that most of us loathed, might come to the rescue here. If “Corporations are people”, why are they limited in nature to either being “for profit” AND “secular”… or “religious”? Why must a “for-profit” company give up their 1st amendment religious rights. They don’t have to give up their 1st amendment free-speech rights, as the SCOTUS made perfectly clear last year. That seems to me to pretty clearly indicate that a “for-profit” company does not give up their right to have a religious belief and freely exercise it. Mandating they be “secular” because they are “for profit” takes away their rights just as much as saying a person can only be “religious” when they are physically in their house of worship.

    All of a sudden this “corporations are people” thing doesn’t seem so bad.

    • ds

      Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.

      I agree with this. Thus they have no right to deny coverage to their employees based on religious beliefs their employees may not hold. They should have to conform to the same regulations that other secular for-profit employers do.

      • Ted Seeber

        So, basically, it’s an extension of the problem we face in government where all government employees are expected to live dishonest lives and separate their religion and ethics from how they serve.

        I see the natural end to this- they’re trying to force the secular public to be as immoral as an atheist.

        • ds

          I have no idea what you’re talking about with dishonest lives of government employees. Maybe you could clarify.

          If being a government employees conflicted with your religion or ethics couldn’t you just not take the job?

          • ivan_the_mad

            ds – Honesty here likely means personal integrity, the consistent application of your convictions to your situation. I think Ted is saying that the government expects its employees to not be honest – that is, to do, accept, etc things that conflict with their beliefs.

            Considering that government consumes something like a fourth or more of the economy, it’s difficult to avoid even working with them, let alone for them. Every private company I’ve worked with has generally had at least municipal and state contracts.

          • Ted Seeber

            Sometimes you have to take a job to feed your family. But that’s not what I’m truly talking about. I’m talking about the philosophical separation and cognitive dissonance created internal to the mind when you are forced to act one way, but every part of your worldview is screaming for you to act another way.

            I solved that problem when I was a government employee by getting myself fired.

        • Yeah, since I know some folks who work for the government, I missed where they mention a loyalty to dishonesty oath.

          • Andy, Bad Person

            I think he’s making a broad statement about how many Catholic politicians try to separate their “personal faith” from the actions they take while in office. The “I’m a devout Catholic, but…” argument that JFK made popular.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              No, he’s making a personal statement based on his own experience. He’s been plain about that.

            • Ted Seeber

              Not just politicians. Minor bureaucrats have to as well to some extent.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        That’s alright, Ds. We always knew you didn’t care about human liberty, much less human flourishing.

        But that was almost an adult-sounding post, and I mean to give you credit for that.

        • ds

          Hezekiah you are a doo-doo head. But thanks.

        • ds

          And for what it’s worth, I don’t see this as a religious liberty issue. It’s an employer and employee issue, and some catholics (certainly not all, maybe not even a majority) want the government to limit the benefits employers are required give to their employees based on the employers’ religious beliefs.

          • Ted Seeber

            As a libertarian friend of mine would say, the keyword there is “required”

  • Chris

    Forget about fighting for the right to be a Catholic employer. We’re quickly moving to fighting for the right to be a Catholic employee. Makes Facebook almost unusable if you have professional colleagues who are “friends”. Failure to comply with a North Korean-esque jubilation in “diversity” in the workplace will be grounds for termination in the near future…

    • Ted Seeber

      I have already hit that point at three jobs. The last time, to even get unemployment, I needed to call in the ADA and claim my behaviors as part of my Asperger’s.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Calling all Catholic Autists! Do your part for the Church! Use the ADA to tie up resources and waste government time! Blame Christ on your atypical neurology!

        Right now, I honestly don’t think He would mind at all.

        • Ted Seeber

          I used the ADA to take care of my family- and was able to because I had enough personal integrity to be *up front and honest with them* every step of the way (as in, they were well aware of my disagreements with policy, and my reasons for disagreeing, and still failed to accommodate). No different than a man in a wheelchair fighting to not be assigned to an office that can only be gotten to up four flights of stairs.

        • Peggy Hagen

          We don’t all feel a need to mention it all the time…but sometimes. 🙂

    • Rose

      Diversity is about making people feel safe and included, I think.

  • dpt

    “The trick will be to figure out how to overburden the system and force it to play whack a mole trying to stop us from defiantly continuing to live as Catholics in the public square.”

    One small way is for those who itemize their taxes is to increase their charitable contributions thus reducing their tax payment to Caesar. Start squeezing Caeser were it hurts.

  • Ted Seeber

    The real problem, as I see it, is that there is absolutely no difference between the alliance between New York’s financial industry and Washington DC, when compared with the alliance between the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB.

  • Hezekiah Garrett


    I was being serious not sarcastic. I agree with what you say. Im just saying now that state is taking on Church, you could use ADA to do more than just protect ypu and yours. By clogging the system.

    • Ted Seeber

      Interesting idea. “My scupulosity from my autism means I am mentally INCAPABLE of following your stupid immoral law”. Somehow, while I think that would work for arbitration, I don’t think it would fly in the court system.

  • Liz

    It never fails: Catholics must feel oppressed. It is their deepest darkest desire to be oppressed at all costs. This has been brilliantly exploited by the church clergy, who are willing to do anything to keep American Catholics from talking about (1) the illogic of anti contraception dogma and (2) the church hiding and shuffling pedophiles in it’s clergy. Well played, bishops. Well played. Laity, you are being used.

    • Chris M

      Yep, boy, we sure never ever talk about contraception or child abuse as Catholics! Nope.. first time hearing about it! Especially from a non-Catholic! Thanks for shedding some light there!

    • Ted Seeber

      Except for, it is contraception that is illogical given an axiom of the basic drive of all DNA to reproduce.