Obama Force Religious Groups To Pick Faith Or Funding [Happy Friday Dump]

The Daily Caller ^ | 7/18/2014 | Neil Munro

[markomalley]

President Barack Obama is replaying his turnout-boosting 2012 contraception fight against Christian groups by staging a pre-election fight over religion and new legal rights for gays.

He’s expected to sign a regulation on July 21 that would force religious contractors to give up federal funding if they don’t submit to progressive claims that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent, and that there’s no connection between biology and good sexual behavior.

The regulation creates that fight by banning grants to groups that are reluctant to hire gay, lesbian and cross-dressing or transgender people who contradict the groups’ religious beliefs about sex.

The regulation doesn’t apply to companies and non-profits that don’t accept government contracts.

The pending regulation was announced in the New York Times.

Gay and lesbian groups cheered the decision, but many religious groups will fight the regulation as a violation of the constitution’s “wall of separation” that protects religious groups from government dictates.

But that’s a fight Obama wants, because it creates a media-magnified emotional conflict that will help spur midterm turnout by gays, lesbians and progressives, and likely spike donations from wealthy gays.

Gays and lesbians comprise less than 3 percent of the population, but usually provide roughly 4 percent of voters. More than three in four vote Democratic.

“We are elated at the announcement by the White House that on Monday the President will sign an Executive Order barring discrimination in employment by federal contractors,” said Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian rights. “For far too long, LGBT employees have been subject to open bigotry and negative job actions based on factors that have nothing to do with our ability to do the job.”

Obama’s regulation imposes a tough choice on religious groups.

Many religious groups, such as Catholic Charities, seek and accept federal funding because it helps them carry out charitable missions that are sought by government and their own religion.

Unless they abandon their religious beliefs relating to homosexuality, they be forced to give up some of their charitable efforts

Those efforts include activities such as arranging adoptions, running food kitchens and helping illegal immigrants settle in the United States.

Obama will sign the regulation despite a protest campaign by centrist and left-of-center religious groups, according to the New York Times.

The protesting clerics included Rev. Larry Snyder, the chief executive of Catholic Charities, Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church — who Obama invited to speek at his 2009 inauguration, and Stephan Bauman, president of World Relief, an evangelical charity.

That campaign was countered by a progressive coalition that denounced any exemption for religious groups.

Once Obama signs the regulation July 21, the religious groups likely will sue in courts for a reversal.

They’ll sue because an existing law — the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act — bars regulators from imposing unnecessary burdens on religious groups.

Obama created a similar fight in the run-up to the 2012 election.

He directed his Obamacare deputies to issue a regulation that forced churches to provide most of their employee with health insurance covering abortion-related services.

That was anathema to Catholic employers, who didn’t want to get involved in funding abortion services.

The resulting fight helped Obama win the November election, because the fight helped boost among single women who support abortion, and resented opposition from employers and religious groups.

On June 30, the church groups won a temporary victory, when the Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 to strike down regulations. The court ruled that the regulations contradicted the law, because there are less-burdensome ways to achieve the goals sought by regulators.

The court’s decision, however, said the regulators could try to find an alternative regulation that would accomplish their goal of ensuring that nearly all employees of religious groups receive health-related insurance covering abortion-related services.

The Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores decision, however, was met by howls of protest from progressive groups, who claimed it would allow corporations to ignore federal laws.

But that’s good for the White House because it is likely to stoke Democratic donations and turnout during the next few months.

[markomalley]

One clarification from the article. Neil Munro stated: Many religious groups, such as Catholic Charities, seek and accept federal funding…

The clarification: there is an overall nationwide organization, Catholic Charities USA, and then each diocese has its own Catholic Charities organization.

Catholic Charities USA takes federal funding, many diocesan CC take federal funding. But many do not.

For example (all information from Charity Navigator):

Archdiocese of Baltimore:

Archdiocese of San Francisco:

Catholic Relief Services (they do work overseas):

---

On the other hand, there are some that don't take Federal money. For example:

Archdiocese of St Paul Minneapolis (believe it or not):

Galveston:

St Louis:

COMMENT:

It will be telling to see which ones cave to this demand and how they attempt to justify themselves. And they will.

[cripplecreek]

“Religious” groups who accept the 30 pieces of silver have earned their consequences.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Hey Kenyan boy. Does this go for the “churches” who have joined with the government and drug cartels in their human trafficking enterprise? So far, most seemed to have taken the funding over their faith.

[Iron Munro]

Keep those hate groups stirred up, Obama.

Pit one American against another so they don’t have time to think about the screwing you are giving them.

That’s all you have going for you - fomenting hate dissension, resentment, envy, intolerance.

[JSDude1]

Let’s hope that Obama pissed off so many people that his Democrat allies have to live in little holes in the ground after the November elections.

[Bratch]

[rockrr]

The phaggetization of America continues unabated.

[jsanders2001]

> “Religious” groups who accept the 30 pieces of silver have earned their consequences.

Those that caved are killed first once the Caliphate is enacted because they showed cowardice. The idiots don’t have any idea what they dealing with.

[tanknetter]

Um, aren’t these the very same religious groups Obama is turning to for help with the illegal immigrant tsunami?

[silverleaf]

when you take mammon’s money you do what mammon tells you to do. Churches have gotten complacent because mammon has had lax agents - before obama

[markomalley]

Um, aren’t these the very same religious groups Obama is turning to for help with the illegal immigrant tsunami?

Gee, coincidence, huh?

[molson209]

Religious Groups selling their Souls to the Devil or Just Blackmail ?

[Alberta's Child]

That's exactly right. This item caught my eye:

Many religious groups, such as Catholic Charities, seek and accept federal funding because it helps them carry out charitable missions that are sought by government and their own religion.

An organization that holds out its hand to Caesar to finance its operations isn't engaged in "charity" at all. It's a commercial enterprise that pries its funding from taxpayers at the point of Caesar's spear.

[greatvikingone]

Get rid of all government grants.

[xzins]

When Bush pushed the faith based initiatives, everyone was warned against letting the Federal foot inside the door. That warning still holds. Don’t accept Federal money. It always comes with strings attached. In this era, it comes with Obama attached.

[cripplecreek]

When Bush pushed the faith based initiatives, everyone was warned against letting the Federal foot inside the door.

It was my concern at the time.

[xzins]

If acceptance of federal money by churches becomes widespread, then I think it can be made into an argument supporting the federal taxation of church offering money. That is, if the Fed “helps” create the resource, then it should have some benefit from the resource.

And if the churches accept the Fed helping create the resource, then they’ve effectively dropped any objection to the Fed’s involvement in their organizations.

[cripplecreek]

I personally think Churches should speak openly on political issues like the churches of our founders did and they should begin by using that speech to oppose the taxation of it.

Left wing churches are routinely given a break on political speech while true Christian churches avoid the speech to avoid the tax. Its a great disservice to God and Christians when churches don’t openly oppose abortion, gay marriage, and any number of other things.

[tbw2]

This might be another reason that the Obama administration was seeking out churches to house illegal immigrants. It disperses the illegals among different communities instead of storing them in easy to process and ship home detention centers, as well as gives the administration a lever over a lot of non-profits around the country.
Want all this money? Follow these rules. You already took the money? You have to follow these rules.

[Patriotic1]

I was thinking about the fate of our country this morning and thought of Moses when he plead with God to spare Sodom if there were 10 just men. I thought - surely he could find 10 faithful bishops here. Worst case - he might have to expand out to priests but that should give more than 10. I hope.