Right of Conscience Regarding Obamacare and Repeal

Kathryn Jean Lopez at the Corner:

it, of course, does not solve the problem before us: the erosion of religious liberty in America. We are living right now in a country where Americans are about to be mandated by federal law to violate their consciences or pay up for the privilege to exercise religious liberty. (Which Nebraska congressman Jeff Fortenberry has been warning about for much more than a fortnight.) This, in a country where we used to believe God granted us that freedom and the government existed to protect it, and where congressmen are now trying to protect Americans by any legislative means possible. We’ve found ourselves at an outrageous point.

As the House votes to repeal Obamacare today, the text of the repeal language underscores the manipulation that was at the heart of the health-care legislation’s passage. They told us our consciences would be clear. Maybe, in some cases, if you pay for the privilege:

7) While President Obama promised that nothing in the law would fund elective abortion, the law expands the role of the Federal Government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The law appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides Federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Moreover, the law effectively forces millions of individuals to personally pay a separate abortion premium in violation of their sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

(8) Until enactment of the law, the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers. The law creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover ‘‘essential health benefits’’ and ‘‘preventive services’’, but does not allow stakeholders to opt out of covering items or services to which they have a religious or moral objection, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103–141). By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates jeopardize the ability of institutions and individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

This current Speaker has sought to be a guardian, but the House does not have the power to protect religious liberty on its own. It is now the upper house, and the White House, that remain obstacles. November matters; elections simply do.

Obama FAILS on Contraception Mandate

From CNS News:

A significant majority – 57 percent -- of Americans believe religiously-affiliated employers such as universities or hospitals should be able to opt out of the Obama administration’s mandate to cover the cost of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization for female employees, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday.

Fifty-one percent believe all employers should be able to opt out.

The New York Times/CBS News poll's questions were not exactly accurate because they only mentioned "birth control" in describing the mandate. They did not mention that the mandate also requires coverage for sterilizations and drugs that induce abortions.

Question 73 of the poll asks: “Do you think health insurance plans for all employees [sic] should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should employers be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?”

Fifty-one percent said yes to this question and only 40 percent said employers should be required cover birth control. The remaining 8 percent responded either “don’t know” or “depends.”

Question 74 asked: “What about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university? Do you think their health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should they be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?

Here, 57 percent said religiously-affiliated employers such as a hospital or university should be able to opt out. Only 36 percent said these institutions should be required to cover birth control. The remaining 7 percent either didn’t know or said it depends.

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have sought to take political advantage of the controversy over whether HHS should force people--particularly Catholics--to act against their faith in purchasing or providing insurance coverage for sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions. Democrats and the administration have tried to frame the issue as a question of conservatives and Catholic bishops waging a war on women.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have said the regulation, which would force Catholics to act against the teachings of their faith, is an "unprecedented attack" on religious liberty. Many American Catholic bishops have addressed letters to the Catholics in their dioceses, saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is laughing....and so am I....

Does Obama Hate God in General, or just the Christian One?

Obama seems to like to leave God out of the conversation when discussing the Declaration of Independence, or even flubbing the motto of the US, which is "In God we Trust," not "e pluribus unum", as he said in a speech last week. Some folks in Congress are asking for some rationale and corrections:

Members of Congress on Monday called on President Obama to issue a public correction after he incorrectly labeled E pluribus unum the U.S.'s motto in a speech last month, rather than "In God We Trust."

The lawmakers, members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, also said the president was making "a pattern" of dropping the word "Creator" when he recites the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.

"By misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent you are casting aside an integral part of American society," the representatives said in a stern letter asking for him to correct the speech.

Last month, while speaking at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Mr. Obama was trying to stress the similarity of the U.S. and Indonesia and said "it is a story written into our national mottos."

"In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum — out of many, one," he said, then compared it to the Indonesian motto, "Bhennika Tunggal Ika — unity in diversity."

The official motto of the U.S., designated by a 1956 law, is "In God We Trust." E pluribus unum is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States, and appears on the ribbon held in the beak of the eagle that dominates the obverse side of the seal.

About That Book Burning

I've been trying to get my head in the game on what exactly I think about this preacher in Florida wanting to burn a Koran on 9/11. I have mixed emotions on the subject, but I am opposed to it for several reasons.

First, I think General Petreaus has a point: Islamofascists, (not the cute and cuddly "moderate" Muslims who fart rainbows; but the real, hard core Muslims who like to chop heads and stuff) will use this event as an excuse to lash out at American serving around th globe.

Second, book burning is really anti-American. It just is. Sure, dude has the right to burn his personal property, but if this were really about that he wouldn't have made such a spectacle of himself. I don't like it when Islamofascists burn the American flag and/or shout "Death to America" either.

But...

I saw this article on Rasmussen that I think sums up part of why I hestitate to totally condemn the whole exercise:

It may well be that I'm giving Jones too much credit, but I think he and others have been driven mad by a media-elite double standard that requires the Christian religious right to be sensitive, but not Muslims.

When the controversy involves the ground zero mosque, the elites cite the First Amendment; when the controversy draws on the free-speech rights of the devout, editorial page editors switch to the issue of tolerance.
...
There is no sense of proportion. The left portrays the religious right as extremists, if they oppose, say, abortion or same-sex marriage, while it ignores Islamic cultures' unequal and at times violent treatment of women and gays.

At some point, we have to stop tolerating the violence that Muslims perpetrate on humanity. I'm not a real "eye for an eye" kind of guy, but I do think that symbolic gestures of friendship are only seen as weakness by the Islamofascists.

I guess I'd be more supportive if this preacher man had announced his intention to burn a Koran as a response to some other event much like the Islamofascists do as standard procedure.

Just seems like a really bad idea to me though...

A Stupid Poll That is Kinda Fun

Over at BizzyBlog, Tom has highlighted a Gallup poll that is worth taking another look at here...

Of course, everybody is going to notice the Congress vs. Bush numbers. And some noise was made about how Congress gets trounced by the military. But look at these numbers again and see what other things pop out at you...



Unless Gallup is referring to Sting's old rock group, The Police outperform all other government services (except the military).

Note that SCOTUS is the highest ranked branch of the government, but that the criminal justice system takes a beating.

No wonder media attacks religion and the military, both Television News and Newspapers get their butts kicked.

Banks fare better than Organized Labor which does better than Big Business...but Small Business ranks just behind the military.

And isn't funny hearing Democrats talk about how the government should take over healthcare when even the HMO's score higher (okay, so it's only by a point) than Congress does?

OBL Says Pope Benny Responsible for Cartoon Crusade

al Reuters reports on OBL's latest ravings including this bit:

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the European Union with grave punishment on Wednesday over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet, Bin Laden said the cartoons were part of a "crusade" in which he said the Catholic Pope Benedict was involved.

I think OBL ought to put the Religion o' Peace pipe down...Pope Benny is on OBL's side...at least when it comes to Iraq...

While I think Pope Benny is wrong when it comes to his views on Iraq, he has been a strong advocate for the Catholic faith. And that represents a real threat to OBL and his Islamofascist thugs all over the world. Now, if Pope Benny would only see Islamofascism for the threat that it is maybe his views on Iraq would make a little more sense.

Now before the usual suspects call me anti-Catholic for saying it like it is...I'm entitled, having been born and raised in the faith.

ORP Rebukes Marc Dann for Religious Insensitivity

Statement from the Deputy Chairman of the Ohio Republican Party regarding Democrat Attorney General Marc Dann's repulsive comments in emails brought to light by a recent article in the Dayton Daily News:

“Marc Dann has managed to offend millions of Ohioans with a single comment. His remark comparing a bad press day to the crucifixion of Christ is outrageous and inappropriate from anyone, much less an elected official. Dann has demonstrated some profound religious insensitivity, and he owes a public apology to the people of this state who understand that Good Friday is not a joke.

“If comedians and talk show hosts can be fired and publicly scorned for a single racist remark, Marc Dann should be held no less accountable.

“I expect Ted Strickland will join me in demanding an apology from Marc Dann. Certainly the governor and ordained minister would not tolerate these comments from a statewide office holder.”

Will Democrats distance themselves from Dann and his horrible rhetoric or will they continue to embrace their superstar?

UPDATE: Here is what the Dayton Daily News reported that is at the center of this controversy:

• Dann, who is Jewish, e-mailed Jennings on April 6 about an editorial that ran in his hometown paper, The (Youngstown) Vindicator: "Bentley said there are six nasty posts after the Vindy editorial. All about you," he wrote. "Jesus had it better on good friday."

Asked last week about the Good Friday line, Dann said, "Did I say that? ... I really stay away from religious jokes. So I would be really surprised about that, if I said that. That's not my sense of humor."

Dann would have done better to start apologizing right then and there...

If you read the article, you will find even more of the Marc Dann literary standard (also known as vulgar language)... Ohio deserves better from its public servants than this...

UPDATE 2: King's Right Site published the statement from DeWine as well, but his first post on the subject is worth a read as well.

UPDATE 3: Justin Higgins weighs in...

Pope Benedict XVI to Visit United States and United Nations

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --- Pope Benedict XVI will come to the United States with visits to Washington and New York City on a six-day trip which includes an address at the United Nations.

The visit is slated for April 15-20.

Among venues during the visit will be the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where Pope Benedict will meet with the Bishops of the United States.

"This is a blessed moment for our nation," said Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). "Pope Benedict is not just the leader of Catholics, he is also a man of inspiration for all those who work for peace."

Cardinal Edward Egan of New York voiced the delight of the people of New York.

"When our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, told me last July that he would be visiting New York this coming April, I was delighted with the news and shared it with the People of God of the Archdiocese of New York and the entire community of greater New York. The response of all was both rejoicing and thanksgiving to the Lord for the great grace of the presence of the successor of St. Peter in our midst. I have assured the Holy Father of a warm and prayerful welcome. We all look forward to his visit with pleasure and anticipation."

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington spoke of "faith-filled joy and enormous enthusiasm" in the Archdiocese of Washington.

"Personally, and in the name of all of the clergy, religious and faithful of the archdiocese, I express our warmest welcome while renewing our sentiments of love and loyalty to our Holy Father. We all look forward to his visit as a time of renewal of our faith and pastoral ministry and an opportunity to confirm our solidarity with the Church universal made visible among us by the successor to Peter, Pope Benedict XVI," Archbishop Wuerl said.

"It is an enormous privilege for the Church of Washington to host our Holy Father. We pledge to do all that we can to make his presence among us a moment of true spiritual renewal and a vibrant manifestation of God's kingdom at work among us."

Msgr. Walter Rossi, rector of the national Shrine, noted the Shrine's importance in the nation.

"The Shrine was established by the Bishops of the United States as our nation's tribute to Mary Immaculate and so it is appropriate that the Bishops of our country meet with the successor of Peter in the house they established to honor the Mother of God," he said.

11/13 UPDATE: The Washington Post has a story on the vist that can be read here.

Coming Soon to Schools In the US????

Fox Contributor Father Jon Tells us About this Travesty in the Name of Diversity:

Children at the Rufford primary school in Lye, England are the most recent victims of a pernicious movement of global reach that is sapping local communities of their cultural identity. All under the saintly guise of diversity and multi-culturalism!

According to multiple reports out of England, officials in this West Midlands school have required teachers and students to don Muslim dress for a belated celebration of Eid, the end of Ramadan. The school’s program also seeks to involve parents in its celebration of diversity by hosting an afternoon mothers-only gathering, keeping in Muslim tradition that married women should not mix with other men.

Just two members of the school staff — a part-time teacher and a teaching assistant — are Muslim. The students are predominantly Christian.

The Daily Mail reported that all 41 teachers and 257 students complied with the dress code.

Gosh, the Muslims haven't even officially raised the flag in England and already Christians are forced into Dhimmitude! This is a crock....what about the freedom to express the Christian's religion? It is ok to force people to observe a religion that they don't believe in???? How is that tolerant or pluralistic????

Not all were happy. A relative of one of the staff members told the Sun newspaper, “Staff have got to go along with it — or let’s face it, they would be branded racist. Who would put their job on the line? They have been told they have to embrace the day to show their diversity. But they are not all happy.”

You say I am being extreme by calling this Dhimmitude? When you are forced to do something to save your livelihood that goes against your beliefs, then it is akin to the Dhimmitude practiced by the Moors and Muslims during their domination of Spain and North Africa, and which resulted in torture and devastation that makes the Crusades look like child's play. Why aren't the media reporting this forced practice of religion???? It would harm their paradigm of diversity and pluralism, revealing it for the sham that it is:

This story will not get much play in the United States because the mainstream media instinctively recoils from stories that may call into question the can-do-no-wrong tags of diversity, pluralism, and multi-culturalism. In these turbulent times, they would argue, anything that promotes tolerance has got to be good.

And I would agree. But I would add that there is nothing tolerant about imposing a minority group’s traditions and beliefs on the majority. There is nothing tolerant about glorifying all expressions of culture except one’s own. There is nothing tolerant about cowing Christians into acting like Muslims, intimidating Jews into acting like Christians, scaring Muslims into acting like Westerners, or even worse, suggesting that we should all be nothing.

This, I would say, is a sign of a dictatorship of cultural relativism. Such absurdity has nothing to do with tolerance.

What will become of the United States, as the world continues to get smaller, and we come face to face with peoples who refuse to let go of their cultural identity and simultaneously don’t respect ours? If we continue to buy into the ideology of cultural relativism, the question itself will be mute, because America as we know it will cease to exist.
The happier alternative involves unabashedly promoting and celebrating our nation’s cultural and religious heritage, respecting minority expressions in as much as they promote the common good for society, and demanding the same rights for Americans abroad as we provide to foreigners at home.

Amen, Father Jon, Amen.

You better vote before we are all forced into Dhimmitude...Time is running out, and we don't want to be last. Go vote now!

Univ. of Dayton's ("Catholic" College) Opens Spiffy New Muslim Prayer Room

And the kicker is that the university announced this super-fantastic piece of information in an email to the campus community on...wait for it...September 11th.

NICE! Those crazy Christianists are just EVERYWHERE, man...