Another Obamanation...

@CODYMAC (1357)
San Diego, California
February 9, 2012 8:33pm CST
With what he has done with health care, one would think that he learned his lesson when many of the states went to court over it. But now in a fire storm over forcing Catholics to abandon their beliefs and accept(within a year)what is proposed, I see that he is not a Christian. I also see that he has no regard for the first amendment, or violating the rights of people who hold dear the first amendment. This is an outrage and must be stopped. What will it take to make him open his eyes to the reality that once you fight against the conscious of the Christian community, you will more than likely not be in office long? Does he want to go down in history as the man who made the first amendment bow down to him, and his policies? Ouch! What do you think he should do? I know what I think. He should get out of town while the gettin' is good!
1 person likes this
8 responses
• United States
10 Feb 12
When a Church does religious things like ordain ministers and hold services, the First Amendment applies and they can have regulations like "only men can be Priests" which would be illegal in a secular context. When a Church does secular things like hire secretaries and run schools and hospitals, they are subject to the same secular regulations everyone else is.
2 people like this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
11 Feb 12
By serving food in a hospital the government can force a Muslim to handle pork and serve it to the patients if the government decides that pork is better for them than beef or chicken? By the way the Church is not subject to the same hiring rules as everyone else. the Supreme court ruled 9-0 that they don't have to follow the discrimination laws. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-rules-against-obama-admin-religious-employees-cant-sue-for-job-discrimination/
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
11 Feb 12
Not true. It is not that way at all and you know it. Every church has the right to practice their beliefs in ANY way they want. That INCLUDES, and is NOT limited to, hospitals and schools.
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
13 Feb 12
WOW. Was it a government regulation? Because if it was, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Maybe they should go underground to practice their beliefs? The Christians of Russia did. Some of them were open with it, and paid the price. Or maybe they should do as the Catholics are doing. NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE THEIR RLIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! They should ignore what the government is doing, and go on smoking their peyote. Not that easy? Right. Give me a break.
• Thailand
10 Feb 12
You are getting a bit hysterical here. Your statement that Obama is not a Christian is in direct contradiction to the facts. He is not asking anyone to abandon their beliefs. The United States is a secular nation and the problem here is that if the Catholics want to participate in a government-funded program than they can not modify it to fit their religious beliefs.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Feb 12
Is the Catholics church participating in a government funded program? If they are, does accepting money from the government negate Constitutional rights?
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
11 Feb 12
"He is not asking anyone to abandon their beliefs." I am confused by this statement. If you force someone to do something that is CLEARLY against their beliefs, then I come to the conclusion that he is asking all Catholics to abandon their beliefs. They were tricked in signing the Obama care bill. They had no idea that he would go this far. They are asked to abandon their conscious beliefs, and do something that they believe they should not.
10 Feb 12
I am in the UK so the actions of President Obama while important in the UK are somewhat remote. Having said that I do think that involving principles, decisions, ideas, etc that form part of any system of belief which are based on myth and legend which is of course true for any religious organizations should as far as possible be avoided. Of course decisions made when running a country are made by men and women many of whom will hold religious beliefs instilled in them when they were children and they cannot always prevent those beliefs influencing their decisions but this should be allowed for and the final decisions adjusted to combat any such influences
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Feb 12
I am firm in my belief that religion should have no place in political decisions. The United States government was established on that principle...the Pilgrims left their homes to come here to escape the reach of the church into their daily lives. I think if a government-run healthcare plan is established, the Church really should have no say in what is or is not included in it. I accept that Catholics are firm against contraceptives and they don't want to be forced to pay for it. But to me, making employers include contraceptives and reproductive health measures in their employee health plans is no different than making automobile owners have insurance on that. It's there if you need it but you hope you never do and some people wouldn't have it if it weren't required. As much as the heavily Christian Conservatives hate to accept it, there is no "official" religion in the United States because the founders of the country wanted it that way. There is no place for Christian-based decision making in our government and I applaud Obama for trying to push us back in that direction.
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
10 Feb 12
Hello crimson... So I take it that you do not know the first amendment? Let me let you in on a little secret. "I am a firm believer that religion should have no place in political decisions." That is a bad opinion seeing that a large portion of our leaders are Christian. Trust me when I say that you need not give me a history lesson. I have with me at all times my constitution bundled up in a little package called the "Citizens Rule Book". (You should pick one up.) Then you would see the error of your thinking. This IS a Christian nation based on BIBLICAL principles. Like it or not, that is the way it is. I will quote from the book. "the TEN COMMANDMENTS represent GOD'S GOVERNMENT OVER MAN!..." and " the Constitution and Bill of Rights are built on this foundation, which provides for punitive justice." "The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests". This was said by Andrew Jackson, the seventh president. Andrew Jackson was a Christian. Andrew Jackson was a president. No president has ever boldly trampled on the constitution like him. No person should be ignorant in thinking that Christians will "bow down" to this. Yes, Christians. Not just Catholics, because he will go on with this thinking, "if we can make them do this, then we can force other christians to do the same". Dont kid yourself.
• United States
10 Feb 12
"the TEN COMMANDMENTS represent GOD'S GOVERNMENT OVER MAN!..." and " the Constitution and Bill of Rights are built on this foundation, which provides for punitive justice." I don't know what you're quoting, but it's not the Constitution. The consent of the people is the Constitution's one and only foundation, and the First Amendment expressly rejects the Ten Commandments as a foundation for the country. The First Amendment directly violates the First Commandment. There were Christians who wanted to have the Constitution say that this is a Christian country, and they were voted down. Andrew Jackson was an unrepentant genocide who violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. I wouldn't go relying on him for his theories on pretty much anything, especially in the face of the Treaty of Malta, ratified by Congress, that expressly says the U.S. is in no way a Christian nation.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
11 Feb 12
Metallion, The only Treaty of Malta I can find has to do with taxes. Could you post for us, the treaty you're talking about?
• United States
10 Feb 12
I don't know what you are talking about. But what I do know is there is the separation of church and state and Any idiot move to take it away will be shot down, if not at the local level then at the Supreme Court Level. no one is forced to be Catholic so No government agency can force the Church to change. will Obama leave town ? No But this idea will.
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
11 Feb 12
Nowhere in the constitution does it ever state the seperation of church and state. It states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You are right about no government agencys ability to force the church to change. But they do their best to try.
• United States
13 Feb 12
The phrase indeed does not appear in the Constitution. Rather, it was the phrase that Thomas Jefferson chose to explain the purpose of the First Amendment: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_-_January_1,_1802) We are therefore on solid ground saying that there is "separation between church and State," and that this is the intended function of the First Amendment.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Feb 12
Cody, they can try but it will not work. The one thing us Americans do and do well is protest to preserve our rights.
@JohnRok1 (2051)
10 Feb 12
It's just been pointed out in the British Church Newspaper No 226, 2nd February, 2012, that "a few years ago the British Roman Catholic bishops" complained "that their young people simply ignore their Church's rules about contraception". The editor goes on to write "The same presumably applies to abortion. We assume that this is why President Obama is rightly insisting that Roman Catholics pay for these things through their insurance". I suppose it might be possible to allow Roman Catholics to have cheaper insurance policies that don't cover these procedures, but then there would have to be effective measures to make sure that no Roman Catholic nor their dependents, whether practising or not, can ever access such services without paying the full whack at the time. Is this feasible without an even bigger can of worms? I'm not saying Obama is a Christian. The deception over his place of birth, for instance ...
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
11 Feb 12
So because church followers do not listen to their church leaders, that is grounds to make churches give out these services? The editor needs to come back to reality.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
10 Feb 12
If the President is allowed to do this then what is stopping another President saying that all hospitals have to serve pork to patients because pork is better than beef. What is next will he declare Politically Incorrect speech not protected by the first amendment and they can be prosecuted. Where will it stop?
@CODYMAC (1357)
• San Diego, California
11 Feb 12
It will not stop. I encourage you to visit ACLJ.org about this issue. It is amazing to see that there are many people who think like you and I.
@jazzyrae (1747)
• United States
10 Feb 12
I know he says he is granting more rights but really he is taking rights away. Sorry we cant all be the same as him. Deffinitly the worst president every by far