Sure. And I'm boy-george.
I'm having some trouble distinguishing Boy George from a Sontaran.
in much the same fashion that I have trouble distinguishing Nancy Pelosi from Joan Rivers.
Posted on 02/25/2011 4:06:23 PM PST by marshmallow
We need to be alert: he is not without influence, even on this side of the pond
Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?
I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson).
What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.
As a Senator, he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.
In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:
“Dear Father Jenkins:
“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.
“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.
“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.
“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.
“Sincerely yours,
“The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”
Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.”
The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities: Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it. This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the convolutions of the American legal system. According to the CNS,
“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”
This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:
The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”
“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”
What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.
I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.
Well, this “news alert” needs to be sent along to the towers of academe at Notre Dame and Georgetown.
He’s an enemy to every normal person in this country.
He is an enemy to those who love both Christian, Roman Catholic faiths, and freedom.
Our Arab/Muslim President isn't such a great freind of the Jewish state either.
Like most radical leftists, obama thinks the destruction of any institution that has ever proven of worth to Western Civilization is the proper goal for the President of the United States.
What percentage of those who could hardly wait to vote for him are sorry they ever heard his name?
Obama is not only an enemy of the Catholic church and Christians.
He also has made enemies among our many allies especially Israel.
Obama has no respect for our military.
By his actions, Obama has made an economic and financial mess of this country. Poor and middle class people are getting poorer, more worse off and that includes young people and minorities which have been es[ecially hard hit by his economic and financial policies.
Tell that to “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Nancy Pelosi. She is an “ardent” Catholic. While you are at it, tell it to the priests and bishops who give communion to her.
If "free exercise" has any meaning at all, it should mean that a "Catholic marriage contract" was legal and enforceable.
What!?! Say it ain’t so!!! /s
Catholics and Jews alike voted for him. He hasn’t changed his tune so what’s so enlightening to them now?
JMHO
Regards
I am concerned about Obama on many levels, yet I doubt that I would be able to change him. I an concerned about the damage that he may do to our country and to the people of the world.
As Catholics, we are good at turning our cheek, and we need to live good lives as Catholics and hope to inspire others by the values of Jesus Christ that we live by. It should be our desire to leave the earth a better place, but our true goal is to be with God in Heaven.
I am concerned about some fellow Catholics and how they lead their lives, yet if all Catholics would follow Jesus, we could move mountains with the help of Jesus Christ. I hope that others are able to help me correct my faults and keep me on the right path. I am so thankful for God’s Divine Mercy. I just wish that others could see and understand my experiences so that they will feel the love of God. I would like to see through the Saints and the Blessed Mother the Love Of GOD.
Sure. And I'm boy-george.
The Catholic faith is Christianity.
Sure. And I'm boy-george.
I'm having some trouble distinguishing Boy George from a Sontaran.
in much the same fashion that I have trouble distinguishing Nancy Pelosi from Joan Rivers.
Sure. And I'm boy-george.
I'm having some trouble distinguishing Boy George from a Sontaran
in much the same fashion that I have trouble distinguishing Nancy Pelosi from Joan Rivers.
LOL!!! Funny!
No surprise. The voters wanted the opposite of Bush, the most pro-life president in history.
The Catholic Church in America has made itself a dependent of the federal government, that’s why. The Catholic hospitals need federal funds to stay open now, and so do the Catholic schools, from universities down to the elementary level. I absolutely was speechless when our local Catholic elementary school, having been given a “blue ribbon” by the Dept of Ed (which meant money to the diocese), had the FEDERAL SEAL printed up on the bumper sticker with the school name!!!! Shame shame shame. The Church ought to turn back the federal monies, because now it’s learning, finally, there are strings attached~~~
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.