Saturday, February 4, 2012

Obama Waging War on Catholics Specifically & Religion Generally

Here is a link to the US Council of Bishops, where you can fill out a letter urging your senators and congressmen to help stop our idiot president's assault on religious freedom.

This isn't just a Catholic thing. This is a calculated attempt to secularize - not pluralize, but secularize - as much of the country as possible. All religious belief is to be checked and walled up in the name of the secular state, in Obama's world.

Caring for the poor and sick is being redefined as a strictly secular activity.
Running a business is being redefined as a strictly secular activity (see my recent post on Capitalism to see why this is not the case.)
Living a public life is being redefined as a strictly secular activity.

I don't care if you disagree with the Church's stance on abortion or contraception. The rights of believers to live according to their beliefs - to live PUBLIC LIVES and perform public roles according to their beliefs - is long-standing and reasonable. Fight them on this. Sign the petition. Do not let us become a nation where religious belief is actively suppressed more than it already is.


The Deuce said...

It's incredible. I keep wondering what new outrage against religious freedom the Obama administration or secularists in general will come up with this week. It just goes to show that, their protests and "No Truth Atheist" arguments notwithstanding, today's secularists are birds of a feather with the Stalinists, Maoists, and so forth. It doesn't matter what it is, they always jump at every new opportunity to squelch religious freedom that they can get, and almost none of them ever object. Their only real limiting factor is what they can get away with at any given point in time.

some kant said...

In other post I told you that I cannot find other explanation for this than malice.

Just look at this video here and have a glimpse of what is inside the minds of the degenerates behind all this.

Crude said...

At least this is an outrage that is stirring up the bishops. Finally.

What I've found goddamn offensive is the argument that 'running a hospital is a secular activity'. The hell it is, in and of itself.

IlĂ­on said...

I agree whith what you've said.

AT THE SAME TIME, I agree with what others, including some Catholics, have said: the US Council of Bishops has been OK with, and indeed has advocated for -- even to the point of equating it to Christianity -- "creeping socialism" and the continuous expansion of government, with the concomitant swallowing of "the private sphere" by "the public sphere". Now, it's their tits caught in the wringer ... and they're finally fining something about which to object.

Crude said...

Ugh. Tits in the wringer? Really? Please, let's use better similes.

Yes, the USCB has absolutely been at fault on a variety of issues, and too many Catholics (I wonder what Prokop thinks of all this) have justified being at the beck and call of the Democrats due to 'social justice'.

Still, I have to hesitantly applaud those of the Catholic left who are standing up to Obama on this one. He should be pounded on this issue.

Syllabus said...

While I concur with the stupidity of the decision, I'm unsure whether the legislation was a direct attack on the RCC or even religion in general. It could be that the attack - perceived or otherwise - is but an indirect result of the Left trying to advance their over-arching agenda. The results are practically the same, but there may be a difference in intent. While some, indeed many, people on the Left are trying to wage their own little war on religion, I think that the primary mindset of the Liberals is not one of destruction, but of reform - though again, unless the reform is tempered the results are indistinguishable.

What I thought was shameless, however, was the attempt by the media to use statistics to say something to the effect of, "Oh, Catholics are actually in favour of this law!" Well yeah, some might be, but you don't ask the janitors in Microsoft's headquarters to give detailed and accurate accounts of policy, do you? No. Because that would be monumentally stupid.

Oh, and as a side note, I think you meant metaphor rather than simile. My membership in the National Socialist Party of the Fatherland of Grammar impels me to notice that, and my slight case of OCD overrides any politeness that might prevent me from doing so. :)

Crude said...

I'm not so sure, especially given the extraordinarily, ridiculously 'shutter it from just about any and all influence in daily life' attitude this administration has towards religious faith. That I was seeing "healing the sick and helping the poor are secular, not religious, activities" as a justification for the move didn't help matters.

I actually get annoyed at those sorts of statistics. I can't recall exactly here, but if I remember the stat was actually something like 'Percentage of sexually active catholics who have used contraception in the past x years'. Putting aside the problem of limiting that to the sexually active, if that was indeed what the stat did... I wonder if people equate 'I engaged in this sin' with 'I approve of this sin' so easily. I've gone to confession before - I need to go more, in fact - but not everything I've confessed to, I endorse. Pretty much the opposite, actually.

As for my grammar, that's fine. Ilion once corrected me on tact v tack - I actually looked up the definition of simile when I posted this, but I was in a hurry. I'll try to be more proper with its usage.

Syllabus said...

I get the feeling that the people in the current administration responsible for these decisions are just against any religion that they see as really or potentially theocratic - which is odd, seeing how much they seem to like Islam. It seems they're still adherents of the secularization agenda, which is also odd, seeing how poorly it has worked in the past. Hence their distrust of any religion that works very intimately in the public sphere.

As to the other point... well, this just proves that you can use statistics to prove anything.

Me, I'm a bit distrustful of any institution that takes such an active - some, not I, might say intrusive - role in the lives of its members. But hey, you can't complain of these things if you're voluntarily a member of said organization. Which is why, though I'm not myself a Catholic, I can't help but think that Secretary Sibelius is an absolute quisling.

Crude said...

I'm not sure it's even 'theocratic' so much as 'endorses positions they dislike'. The same bishops are often on board with amnesty for illegal immigrants or universal health care - there's little "be quiet, religion shouldn't play a role in public life" when that happens.

I wonder if quisling is the right word, since from what I hear Sibelius was openly pushing for the original rule. Some people are Catholics not so much because they believe but because they think they can do more damage, or control more, from the inside than the outside. Same with just about any organization, I suppose.

I'm not sure it's rightly called being intrusive though. Sadly, that's one place the statistics can shore up the point - clearly no one's stopping them from using it when they want to. Well, aside from being reminded that it's immoral to do so, but if advocating a moral position is intrusive, who's not intrusive?

Syllabus said...

Though different people would define intrusive in different ways and to varying degrees, I agree with you. I'm just distrustful of institutionalized anythings, be they governments, medical practices or religious associations. I'm incorrigibly independent on that one, though not fully libertarian in my ideology. Probably a product of my Protestant upbringing. :)

As to Sebelius: whether she's confused or subversive is between her and God. I tend to represent the opinions and positions of people with whom I disagree in the best possible light until proven otherwise; hence my characterization of her as an appeaser. I'm also not really on the inside of that debate, so to speak, so it probably hits me in a different way than it does you.

Crude said...

No problem. I'm distrustful of institutions as well, but obviously I make an exception with the Church. Well, no I don't. I'm distrustful there too, but it's still a case of my still having the intellectual commitment.

Fair enough on Sebelius. I can only comment on what I read, which apparently involved Sebelius actively courting Obama to make this move. Part of the problems of institutions. (I recall reading that the majority of orthodox bishops in some east european state were revealed to have been cold war collaborators with the soviets.)

Syllabus said...

I find much in Catholic theology that I like, and indeed agree with. I used to be quite anti-Catholic, but after I read and listened to Kreeft's work, I found myself mellowing somewhat, and even agreeing. I don't think I'll be swimming the Tiber quite yet, though.

And I cannot believe that I first spelled that woman's name in the same way as the name of that unimpeachable Scandinavian Romantic composer. The guilt from that one will probably stay with me for a long time.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

For me, Syllabus, the two things that won me over to the Church were 1) seeing JUST HOW MANY biblical citations there are in the new (1994) Catechism, and 2) "getting" the Eucharist.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

"…Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times said that in its decision to amend the original HHS mandate, the Obama administration was 'never really driven by a desire to mollify Roman Catholic bishops, who were strongly opposed to the plan.' She explained:

"Rather, the fight was for Sister Carol Keehan--head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health care law--and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left. Sister Keehan had told the White House that the new rule, part of the health care law, went too far."

Syllabus said...


I find much in many Catholic Catechism - that of Baltimore could be taken as an example - that I like. I'm just suspicious of churches - the institution of churches, not individual churches or the Church (the Bride of Christ as a whole) -, and indeed any rigid institution, as I stated previously. I'm also obsessively ecumenical, even when it comes to our dear, dear Reformed brethren. :)

As to what you say about "'getting' the Eucharist", do you mean understanding it, and if so, could you elaborate? I'm always interested when people explain the inner workings of their particular religious tradition.