Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

The Audacity of Power:

Rate this topic

11 posts in this topic

This article lays out the tactics of the left to eleminate religious freedom and make it an organ of the State. It is a map of Obama's stradgey and the single option left open to the Religions in this nation to defeat this bold move by Obama to change the basic tennents of our Constition.


I hope you read and understand the importance of resistance to Obama's plans. This is serious stuff.


The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church


Forbes Magizine


Charles Kadlec, Contributor


“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis


In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States, President Barack Obama is on the brink of successfully rendering moot the very first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). If he forces the Catholic Church to comply with the Health and Human Services ruling to provide its employees with insurance that covers activities the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives — then the precedent is clear: when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.


The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.


President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.


The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:


Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.

Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.


The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.


President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.


Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.


He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.


Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.


Before our very eyes, President Obama is on the verge of establishing the principle that the right to religious freedom comes not from our Creator, but from those who rule us. A government endowed right granted to women now trumps our unalienable right to act in accordance with our religious beliefs and conscience. Not only does this overturn the First Amendment, it also tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence. Such an achievement would be the true audacity of power.

The fundamental question is whether the Catholic Church, and by extension, individual Americans have to engage in activities according to the rulings of this and future Presidents, or are we free to live our lives as we choose as long as we do not harm another.


Are we free to engage in long standing religious practices that have never before been deemed unlawful, or has the federal government established a de facto state “religion” that it is prepared to enforce through the full coercive power of its financial resources and the imposition of financial penalties.


If the Catholic Church and the American people choose the face saving “Option A” instead of “Option C,” then President Obama will have transformed America. We may be allowed the illusion of exercising our freedom, but in truth, we will be subjects in ObamaLand, required to do the bidding of this and future Presidents in the name of some higher, collective good.


However, the Catholic Church can turn the tables on the President by taking Option A off the table with a humble statement of principal that in the matters of religious practices and conscience, there is a higher authority than government Who it chooses to obey.


If President Obama prevails and unleashes the full force of the federal government against the Church, the cost will be the closing of Catholic schools, hospitals and the loss of social services that play a vital part in communities across the nation. Such a stand would make clear to the American people that the alternative to religious freedom would be a mortal wound to our civil liberties and a complete disruption of civil society.


I am not a Catholic, nor do I believe in the Church’s opposition to contraception. But I pray that the leadership of the Catholic Church will have the faith and courage to stand for its core beliefs and use all of its moral power and political influence to defeat the President’s edict.


I pray they will reach out across the political spectrum to people of all faiths, agnostics and atheists in the name of religious freedom and individual liberty. By so doing, they, and the institution of the Catholic Church, will have my love and respect for the rest of my life.



Amen, Brother

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'doctrine' of 'Separation of Church & State' has been twisted from its originally interpretation of no State sponsorship of one religion over another, to a carte blanche suppression, and rejection, of all religion, period. This is insane. :kook:


I'm with the author on this one. I support contraception, but the State's heavy boots on the throat of the Church, is the worse of the two positions. I, too, hope & pray the Church prevails.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is a Salon Magazine blurb begining the MSM counter punching for the Obama First Amendment. Ms. Walsh plants a lie that the Bishops released a statement that supposedly read "The new Health and Human Services regulations were “a step in the right direction,” their statement read. Then, with total contemt she asserts that the vast majority of voters and of Catholics, support Obama's Stand."




Monday, Feb 13, 2012 5:43 PM 11:09:23 EST


Joan Walsh, Contributing Editor Salon Magazine


The bishops go off the deep end


Rejecting the Obama contraception compromise, they display their irrelevance to moral and political dialogue.


Just as I was publishing my post about Catholic tribalism on Friday, predicting that the brilliant White House “accommodation” on contraception wouldn’t mollify the U.S. Conference of Bishops, the bishops released a statement that made them seem, well, mollified, at least a little. The new Health and Human Services regulations were “a step in the right direction,” their statement read, and so I softened an assertion that the bishops would continue to wage war against the compromise.


I needn’t have soft-pedaled. Only a few hours later the bishops came out, guns blazing, insisting the only solution they would accept would be for “HHS to rescind the mandate for those objectionable services.” By any employer, for any employee in the entire country — a country where the vast majority of voters, and of Catholics, support Obama’s stand.


And at Sunday Mass, bishops and parish priests throughout the nation read aloud the stunningly political letters about the controversy they already had planned. Now, with the bishops’ blessing, Republican are hard at work on legislation that would force HHS to strip the contraceptive coverage requirement for all employers, not just religious employers. Sen. Roy Blunt would allow employers to decline to cover any service they deem objectionable; Sen. Marco Rubio would restrict the legislation to contraception coverage.



I will follow the MSM attacks on the efforts of not just Catholic's but the other religions as well. I believe the Obama tactic will be to try to islolate the Catholic Church in an attempt to divide the religions and pick them off as a bonus if the Catholic Church loses the match.


This, in my opinion will be the most importaqnt fight in the Presidential Campaign. ABO and R&R

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
And here is a Salon Magazine blurb begining the MSM counter punching for the Obama First Amendment. Ms. Walsh plants a lie that the Bishops released a statement that supposedly read "The new Health and Human Services regulations were “a step in the right direction,” their statement read. Then, with total contempt she asserts that the vast majority of voters and of Catholics, support Obama's Stand."



"Ms. Walsh Plants a lie" -- No, the Bishops updated their statement later. The initial press release from the USCCB web site said exactly that. I could have told you that the second statement later on Feb. 10 would be less accepting but the first one was accurately reported.

February 10, 2012




New opportunity to dialogue with executive branch

Too soon to tell whether and how much improvement on core concerns

Commitment to religious liberty for all means legislation still necessary


WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.


“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.


“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith
is a first step in the right direction
,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”










"Contempt" of what? As posted in other threads, 98% of sexually active Catholic women report use birth control not condoned officially. From that, some have inferred that they secretly support birth control or at least that they would benefit from it. I disputed that conclusion about Catholic women in another thread, but it does not seem like an extrapolation which is unreasonable on its face.



Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed. A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general. "In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones. She said most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the intrauterine device (IUD). "This is true for Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants, and it is true for Catholics, despite the Catholic hierarchy's strenuous opposition to contraception," Jones said. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research. The numbers are slightly higher among women who identify as Evangelicals or Mainline Protestants, research showed. The latest data is from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The findings nearly match previous NSFG data from 2002, which showed that 97 percent of Catholic women were using birth control, and are consistent with a trend tracked over the last decade by Catholics for Choice.







Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is the church is anti birth control but i'l lbet dollars to donuts you can get Viagra on thier medical plan. Women don't stand a chance.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
What gets me is the church is anti birth control but i'l lbet dollars to donuts you can get Viagra on thier medical plan. Women don't stand a chance.


apples and oranges. i have no doubt they would pay for viagra because, in theory, it would increase the chances of more children being born. time and again, this is a constitutional issue, not a woman's health issue, not a birth control issue, not a dick growing issue.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.