Posted on 05/30/2012 7:12:56 AM PDT by marshmallow
Ah, those nasty Catholics, trying to force their beliefs on others by refusing to let the government make them violate their principles and consciences! Here is the first slice of moldy editorial bread:
Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President Obama was violating their religious freedom, by including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air.
And the other thin slice, in conclusion:
This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone.
Everything in between the two is complete bologna, and rotten bologna at that, as Jonathan S. Tobin writes on Commentary's Contentions blog:
The Times argues that the government’s attempt to compel the church to violate its principles was not a violation of its rights and further claims the inadequate “compromise” proposed by the White House should have silenced their concerns. This is an absurd distortion of the facts, but far worse is the way the Times — following the Obama campaign’s playbook — tries to claim that Catholics seek to impose their beliefs on others. Quite the contrary, it is the government fiat that employees at Catholic institutions are provided with free contraception that is the imposition. The point here is not so much to advance the cause of women’s health — the justification advocates of the government’s position seek to use — but to demonize a faith group that has the temerity to stick up for its rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicworldreport.com ...
Freedom is slavery.
When Libs attack, the first victim is the language.
This administration misunderestimated the extent to which Catholics will go to the mat on this. This is a fight to the death. I just hope my fellow Catholics remember all of this in November.
The first Civil War had far less justification than the current attack on our God-given and constitutionally-protected right to Freedom of Religion. I hope and pray that we can stop Obama, Pelosi, and Reid peacefully, while still protecting that fundamental right. There can be no compromise on an issue this basic.
And most Protestants will stand side by side with Catholics on this moral issue. They just don't have a clue on what they have stirred up. We will NOT be a part of the murder of innocents by abortion. Like the film said. Nonnegotiable!
And most Protestants will stand side by side with Catholics on this moral issue. They just don't have a clue on what they have stirred up. We will NOT be a part of the murder of innocents by abortion. Like the film said. Nonnegotiable!
A little more economic pain and Act III gets underway.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of commies, faggots and heathens who populate the editorial and writing staff, not to mention the incompetent, amoral and certifiably whacked-out owner/publisher.
Leni
This Catholic thanks you sincerely.
It is great that such a bastion of free speech and a “supporter” of the constitution has such a unique take on what both stand for and mean to this nation. (sarc)
This country will be such a better place when rags like this are cast into the dust bins of history
I am a Protestant who stands with his fellow CHRISTIAN brothers and sisters. We may have disagreements, but we all love Jesus and the things that are dear to His heart.
What is interesting to me is that the NY Times, along with the mainstream media, have barely covered this story. Consequently, this editorial must really have befuddled the Times’ uninformed readers.
You know, after the bankruptcy, it would be sooooo cool if Rush, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan and the likes would form a consortium and buy the NYT. Talk about such an uproar from the talking heads.......
Just to see the conniption fits would be worth the price of admission!
I don't remember any Catholic bishop in my lifetime ever trying to do that. OTOH, I can see daily reminders of the NYT's attempts at foisting its religion onto the country. A major problem within the editorial offices of NYT is that their copy of the First Amendment has excised everything except "freedom of the press".
You certainly won't have a problem with the Bacon Eating Mandate forced on Muslims, then, right?
The New York Times: Defining The Term 'Dramatic C*nts' Since 1851.
It’s about time that the Catholics created their own version of the Muslim’s Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose purpose would be vaguely similar, to object to anti-Catholic and anti-Christian organizations and activities in the United States.
However, the purpose of such an organization would not be to ban or censor such expression, only to point out to the public when the government, or other organizations, or even prominent individuals make anti-Catholic or beyond that, anti-Christian statements, attacks or persecutions.
The potential value of such an organization could be great, publishing things like lists of what congressmen, senators, bureaucrats, state and local officials do that is offensive to or attacks Catholics and/or Christians as a whole?
Imagine the list just for Teddy Kennedy. Each and every time he would do something anti-Catholic or anti-Christian, it would be annotated next to him. And with such a list, it gets progressively harder to pretend association or even neutrality.
So this great list would point out not just to Catholics, but to all people of faith, who the enemies of Catholicism and Christianity are, so that they make take care having commerce with them, lest they are caught up in their devices and machinations.
There are already many partial listings of such perfidy, but having a central location immune to tampering, attack or government coercion would be invaluable.
resource
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.