Image 01 Image 03

It’s more than just an assault on our religious freedoms

It’s more than just an assault on our religious freedoms

Government entanglement in our lives is increasing exponentially. Nowhere is this more evident than the recent assault on religious freedoms from varying governmental entities. As Rick Santorum would put it, “It is a top down approach” and it truly is.

From the top, we have the Obama administration’s new health care mandate requiring religious organizations to provide health insurance for certain procedures that are inimical to their core beliefs. Christian groups such as the Catholic Church would be required to cover abortions even though these groups see the medical procedure as a heinous act, a mortal sin. In order to comply with the order, these organizations must abandon their teachings. It would be rank hypocrisy for them to follow the Obamacare mandate.

On the bottom, we have New York City. The City has a policy of renting out empty public schools for use by local groups. It can be used for nearly any purpose but religious services. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal has recently upheld this practice. On first blush, this may seem reasonable as government cannot promote religion. However, the First Amendment also prohibits government from punishing religion. If the government opens up their property for use by non-religious groups, it must afford the same access to religious groups. Think of the legal absurdity of the Second Circuit’s ruling, an atheist group can hold a rally in a NYC public school denouncing god but a religious group cannot hold a service to praise God. The verbal jujitsu used by the Second Circuit to rationalize its decision is breath taking. In upholding the policy, it claims that it is not banning a religious view point but an activity – worship services; but by banning worship services, the government can now dictate how one expresses their religious viewpoint. Why the Supreme Court took a pass on this case is perplexing.

As the above shows, there is a top down approach to marginalize those who practice organized religion and it will not stop with religion as government (on all levels) looks to increase its authority over the populace. The Obama administration will issue more rules under Obamacare affecting other organizations that these entities cannot and will not comply with. The end result will be more and more people uninsured and looking to the government for health coverage. Localities such as NYC will look to ban other groups from public spaces using the circular logic employed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Can a ban of the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts be next?

When traditional groups that we look to for guidance are pushed to the side; all that is left standing is the government. Instead of citizens, we will be wards of the state. Wards have their lives dictated to them instead of living them. Important decisions such as the number of children one can have (China) and end of life decisions (England) will be made for you.

If we are not willing to fight over our religious freedoms, when other rights are under siege, it may be too late.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The main goal of ObamaCare is to rationalize govt. intrusion into the most essential elements of each citizen’s life.

When health is considered a subject of societal cost, there is nothing you or I may chose to do that is not subject to scrutiny and control.

Personally, I repudiate that entire line of thinking, and will resist with everything I have.

I can’t see how this in light of the fact that the framers’ notion of the 1st amendment was nothing like this. The wording was very careful to allow state establishments of religion to continue while prohibiting the federal government from imposing an establishment of religion.

5 states continued to have establishments of religion after the constitution was ratified.

In Virginia, the Episcopalians and Presbyterians alternated meeting in the state capitol committee-room on alternate week-ends.

This is not about the first amendment at all, but it’s opposite; it’s about the Obummer admin forcing its religious opinions, using intimidation to over-rule others’ opinions and control others’ actions.

    Ragspierre in reply to prof8. | February 5, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    An interesting little vignette…

    When I visited Richmond, VA, I found that the Virgina Supreme Court and an old Methodist (I think) church shared a common wall, one backing up on the other.

    I thought that instructive. The whole “wall” BS is a new wrinkle in history.

Indeed, it is not ‘just’ an attack on religious belief.

One could make the case that this is the most significant attack on the American idea since FDR’s court-packing scheme or (arguably) Lincoln’s suspension of certain Constitutional rights during the Civil War.

ObamaCare happened to be the vehicle of convenience, but the entire agenda of the Subversive-in-Chief has been leading up to this. Every day, in every way, Obama has created unprecedented attacks on the Constitutional order.

It is noteworthy ONLY that the attacks have been administrative/regulatory, not through enacted law.

This is a disgrace:

Reported at “Fox News”

NV GOP should be ashamed of itself for asking Jewish (and Seventh Day Adventists) voters to swear an affidavit – what’s next yellow Stars of David?

So is this what what Romney Country looks like? No thanks.

Professor, the story of the Administration’s current ruling against a religious group, the Catholic Church, reminds me of the story of the old woman and the snake.

The whole concept of Christianity was to pass on the teachings of Christ; care for the elderly, cure the sick and help the less fortunate. Charity, a voluntary action, was encouraged as part of the Christian doctrine. But if you think that the complete encroachment by the federal government against American churches was not forwarned long ago, you are wrong.

As American churches, the Catholic Church in particular, jumped into the bed with the Marxists, did they not think that would eventually come back to bite them? And now the Bishops think that writing a letter that is read to parishioners this Sunday is going to do the trick? Where were they decades ago when the SCOTUS ruled, on a penumbra, that it violated a woman’s right to privacy (not mentioned in the Constitution) to deny her the ability to kill her unborn child?

Where were the ministers and priests that took to their pulpits warning of the socialism that would follow FDR’s Social Security bill? Or those to come after them, who also took to their pulpits to warn that LBJ’s Great Society was simple more of the Marxist “social justice” philosphy and must be fought? Did they warn parishioners that the very people they were voting for on the Democrat ticket were the very people supporting everything they rejected as Christians? No. They were missing in action.

You see, FDR relieved the churches of the responsibility of taking care of the elderly. LBJ absolved them from taking care of the sick and the poor. Problem solved. Now the churches could spend more money on not the elderly, the sick and the poor. They could build more churches, but not the artistic edifaces that they were once known for that were a testament to the glory of God and the talents of man, but built like to look like super markets and then, if the parish could no longer sustain itself financially, the church can be sold to be used as a community center, or if need be, with the simple addition of a minaret, a mosque.

I have been a Catholic my entire life. Never, not once, have I heard a priest speak against the actions of the Democrats that violated Church doctrine. NEVER. And I can only remember one Archbishop, the Archbishop of the St. Louis diocese, who upon hearing that John Kerry was going to attend Mass at the Old Cathedral, ordered that no priest in St. Louis could give Kerry Communion. Where were those Bishops when they should have been giving excommunication orders against those like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi? Again, missing in action.

All this was done under the guise of making the Church more modern to appeal to those on the fence and those who had left the Church because, to be honest, being a good Catholic was just too hard. Get rid of the decades old litany, and replace it with one that is more Kumbaya and make parishioners shake hands with people next to them saying “Peace be with you” although you know the creep you are shaking hands with beats his kids or the woman behind you cheats on her husband with his best friend. I don’t want those people to have peace, I want them to suffer repentance. And yeah, take away that silly alter railing that is so, so Catholic and add deacons so we resemble the Episcopalians and will be more like them. Hello? Vatican II?

Now the snake that they climed in bed with has biten them, and they are shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you. Sorry, they got what they asked for. They climbed into bed with the devil, and the devil finally got the best of them. And I fear, 70 years too late.

    PaterNovem in reply to retire05. | February 5, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    I have been arguing this for years with my fellow Catholics. That the democrats pull the majority of Catholic and Jewish votes is jut a mystery to me. Any assault upon personal liberty is also an assault on religious freedom. The social engineering the progressives pushed with the active support of numerous denominations is now finally getting around to having a direct impact upon religious freedom.

    Well, the Catholic Church always has its greatest triumphs during times of persecution. They are now sandwiched between the secular world on one side and islam on the other. We live in interesting times…

    Uncle Samuel in reply to retire05. | February 6, 2012 at 8:01 am


    This introduction of Newt Gingrich by the Rev. Jim Garlow, a pastor and longtime counselor and friend at a church in Nevada might give you some encouragement.

    It seems at least 700 pastors have decided to challenge the ‘no political talk from Christian pulpits’ and the liberal left’s attempt to silence preachers from speaking out against legislative assaults against Scripture. So far. they have sent 700 sermons with political content to the IRS with no repurcussions. (Perhaps they are winning some converts to Christ)

    Pastor Garlow also makes some good points about the history of the relationship between church and state, and about the significance and importance of this election and Newt. We are dealing with a spiritual, ideological and moral battle as well as a political and economic one…a battle for the very life and continuation of the US. It is a battle within each soul/spirit as well as cities, states and country…. may we all repent in time for God to save the nation He inspired and we have laid waste with our individual and national sin.

    A nation (individuals, groups, states) become like the Laws and standards that govern its actions and values. (This is a Biblical and spiritual principle as well as a psychological and social principle). The laws form and produce fruit in the character of its people. A nation’s laws are only good if they are congruent with God’s commandments – and I have heard both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum articulate this precept.

    Our nation, and all its political framework and laws, were built on the foundation of God’s Commandments. That is why America was blessed and thrived. Yet, now we have allowed laws to be passed that enable us to break all of God’s Commandments (the Ten and the Two) and recently, some that would force us to do so.

    Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte and other political figures are speaking out and taking a stand, along with Catholic bishops, the writers of the Manhattan Declaration, and the pastors mentioned in the introduction by Rev. Garlow. We must join them.

    For further encouragement, here is Rubio’s speech again:

    And another by Eric Metaxas, whose wife runs a Pregnancy Support clinic in NYC, who shares the Gospel of Love, Truth and Life fearlessly with President and Mrs. Obama.

… we have the Obama administration’s new health care mandate requiring religious organizations to provide health insurance for certain procedures that are inimical to their core beliefs

Just so. In his news conference last night, Mr. Gingrich was asked a question related to that matter and came back with probably the best … and strongest … answer as to why, as a religious freedoms issue, the defeat of Obamacare was so very important that I have heard extemporaneously voiced so far. IIRC, the C-SPAN site has a tape of that entire news conference available on it’s web site.

StrangernFiction | February 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm

To be honest, I don’t have a lot of hope for this country at this point. But I take solace in the fact that though the Left can destroy America, they can never extinguish from the heart of man that thing which made this country great. As long as men live they will want to be free.

God Bless my fellow patriots, one and all!

    Hope Change in reply to StrangernFiction. | February 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    StrangernFiction, “… they can never extinguish from the heart of man that thing which made this country great. As long as men live they will want to be free. God Bless my fellow patriots, one and all!”

    Beautifully said, StrangernFiction. (Truth!) I wholeheartedly agree.

    I also would say that from my perspective, they are very far from destroying America — if the American People team up. I wish I could successfully communicate to you how much I feel that this is a corner that we can turn, a battle we can win. Together.

    There is no reason to let the weasels win. (Pace weasels.)

    Remember, we’re WE THE PEOPLE. We’re supposed to be running this place.

    All my best to you. Thank you for the beautiful way you expressed that.

All sin is mortal, Louis. Big sin, little sin, unrepented before God, will kill you.

Banning the Girl Scouts wouldn’t be so bad; they’re the junior wing of Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List.

Obama is a thug, and Bloomberg the same. Yet, the GOPE that is foisting Romney on us keeps talking about a Bloomberg presidency. The GOPE is as Communist as the Democrats.

    starburst in reply to Juba Doobai!. | February 5, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Regarding your comment on mortal sin – it might be your belief that all sin is mortal. And of course you are entitled to your belief. But that is not Catholic teaching. In Catholicism, there is mortal sin and venial sin. Just an FYI.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to starburst. | February 6, 2012 at 2:50 am

      No need for an FYI. I grew up in a staunchly Roman Catholic family. Then, my grandpa made sure his grandkids gathered to read the Bible every Friday night at his bedside. That sure changed things. When you can point to the Scriptural proof for there being a doctrine other than all sin is sin, unrepented sin kills, and the wages of sin is death, then you can tell me whether the Church of Rome is correct about its jesuitical distinction between venal sin and mortal sin. Until such time, since it’s an absolute point of Christian doctrine and there’s no room for “agree to disagree” on doctrines as found in Scripture–unless you wish to engage in a hermeneutical study and exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their grammar as pertaining to sin, let’s not talk about this. That’s where I stand.

        starburst in reply to Juba Doobai!. | February 6, 2012 at 6:16 am

        I have no desire to have a theological argument with you. The author made a statement about something that the Catholic Church considers to be a mortal sin and you felt the need to issue a “correction.” Whether or not you agree with Catholic doctrine is not the issue and I don’t care to argue it with you.

For leftists, government is G*d. They cannot have any citizens professing allegiance to another higher power. In many ways, it is like what early Christians experienced in the Roman Empire where all Roman Citizens were required to proclaim “Caesar curios” or “Caesar is Lord.” And Christians were executed if they wouldn’t do so. Of course, Christians can’t proclaim another “lord” other than Christ.

And it could lead to that here if we don’t restore our limited constitutional government.

What do progressives think about the role of religion in politics and government? Perhaps this link will help
Remember Mitt Romney says that he is a progressive.

I’ve heard Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich speak out strongly on this issue of government squashing religious liberty especially with the Obamacare ruling. Has Mitt Romney?

    This 02/03 article from The Boston Globe, Romney’s contraception stance has changed since 2005, indicates that Romney mentioned it in his Florida victory speech. The column also points out Romney’s very mixed record on religious liberty. Read on in to page two to see how Romney went back and forth during 2005.

    “The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’

      retire05 in reply to INC. | February 5, 2012 at 8:33 pm

      Really? You want to quote C. J. Doyle who has supported every Democrat that ever ran for office in Massachusetts? Doyle is not the solution, he’s the problem. The problem with Catholics like him who turn their back on the true meaning of the Church to pander to the very party that destroys the Church.

      You want to know where Doyle stands politically?

      “The conventional story of James Michael Curley is a tale of vivid personalities, heartrending tragedies (seven of his nine children predeceased him), vexing scandals (he went to jail twice), and turbulent bare-knuckle politics. Lost in all of this drama, however, is Curley’s substantive and striking progressive record on a host of social justice issues including the rights of labor, access to healthcare, and equal pay for women.”

      If you don’t know who Michael J. Curley was, he was one of the most corrupt Democrats in our nations history, ranking right up there with Huey Long.

      I highlighted the words that you need to pay attention to; progressive and social justice. That, INC, is the snake the Catholics climbed in bed with for the last 70 years, and now, to their surprise, the snake, being a snake, bit them.

      In a rightous world, the Catholic Church would replace every Bishop and Archbishop that has stood by and allowed religious freedom to be usurpted for decades with ones that would actually adhere to Catholic doctrine from its beginnings with St. Peter.

        I’m not Catholic, but I meant no offense. If he was undercutting Romney’s record for the purposes of his own agenda, I did not realize that. I quoted the statement about Romney’s record as governor as a summary of the details which the article goes into on the next pages.

        I’ve read of Romney’s back and forth on this elsewhere. I think the McCain Oppo files was one of the sources. See pages 20 and 21:

        Before I made my comment I knew I’d read something about Romney’s actions, and I tried to find a source. My main focus was on what Romney did. I do try to doublecheck, and I do look at people’s bios if I think it seems necessary. I missed on this guy. Again, I had no intention to offend.

          retire05 in reply to INC. | February 5, 2012 at 9:55 pm

          INC, no offense taken. I just think it is hypocritical of someone who claims to be such a dedicated Catholic seems to have no problems supporting Democrats.

          Again, no offense taken.

          ldwaddell in reply to INC. | February 5, 2012 at 10:29 pm

          dont worry about it, retire05 is just a grumpy old man, I think he has irritable bowel syndrome.

          retire05 in reply to INC. | February 5, 2012 at 11:05 pm

          ldwaddle, obviously you own a crystal ball that allows you to determine a) a person’s gender and b) a person’s age with knowing only their moniker.

          Can you tell us where to get one of those crystal balls so we can all be as informed as you?

          Juba Doobai! in reply to INC. | February 6, 2012 at 2:58 am

          Rule of thumb: punch back twice as hard. You didn’t say anything wrong and retire05 attack of the messenger doesn’t alter Romney’s history.

Another issue regarding Romney during his term as governor, 2003—2007, and religious liberty was the cascading effect on adoption from MA’s instigation of same-sex “marriage.” Banned in Boston by Maggie Gallagher was published in May 2006.

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. “We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples.”

…Cardinal O’Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.

To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption….

Given Romney’s vacillation on numerous issues, it’s my opinion that this was another instance of Romney keeping his head down and going along the path of least resistance as he tried to avoid the responsibilities and flak of making a decision.

    Banned in Boston is worth reading for its discussion of religious liberty. It’s the first place in which I heard of Chai Feldblum. Feldblulm may have disavowed some of the opinions she offered here at some point during the process of being appointed by Obama an EEOC commissioner. (You may remember she became a recess appointment and was later confirmed by the Senate).

Newt does a good job of speaking up for religious freedom in this video:
Newt Gingrich also took a firm stand for religious liberty on Meet the Press this morning:

And don’t miss this powerfl masterpiece speech by Marco Rubio on abortion here:

Very encouraging. Thanks be to God for such men.

“Why the Supreme Court took a pass on this case is perplexing.”

I read somewhere that the country is divided into regions and each justice has a region where he/she is makes the initial decision on what cases are forwarded to all justices for consideration to be heard. If so, the above case may never be forwarded by the applicable justice.

Maybe someone can elaborate?