Posted on 02/12/2012 4:39:16 PM PST by Nachum
“I was struck looking at this,” Washington Post columnist and former foreign editor David Ignatius expressed on ABC’s This Week in admiring how Barack Obama on Friday adjusted the contraception mandate, hailing “the ability to do a do-over quickly” since the administration was not “done deaf” and “they did make changes and this is now a policy that you can defend.” Unaddressed, how it’s just an accounting gimmick and Catholic institutions would still be required to cover what they morally oppose, to say nothing of what gives the government the right to require private insurers to offer a service for “free.”
(Excerpt) Read more at m.newsbusters.org ...
Why? My guess is that they were truly deceived and never thought they’d ever see such a thing take place in this nation.
Let us pray that their wake-up call brings them FULLY awake.
Compost are all disgusting communists.
“How long before the Post gets sold for $1 like Newsweek?”
Soon as they quadruple in value.
George Will is absolutely right. They wanted ObamaCare but not what was in it. Careful what you ask for.
No, they were not all for it. Let us pray that they will gain wisdom from God in all of this.
E.J. Dionne Jr. fired back: “Barack Obama is a moderate progressive with the emphasis on moderate. Most socialists are insulted when Barack Obama is called a socialist.”
LOL I meant the other "they were all for it", meaning that the Catholic Bishops who were defending and supporting it all over TV and by writing about it wanted it all back then. BEFORE they knew what the truth was.
They are the ones who George Will (and I) were referring to
OK, I understand.
Lots of *practicing* Catholics (unlike the CINO’S) are praying for the clergy and have been doing so for some time. The prayers are requesting that God grant them the light to SEE fully what is taking place....and that He grant them the wisdom, courage and the grace to make the necessary changes.
;-)
There is a certain percentage of the catholic church and clergy that are progressives and do not believe or follow the doctrine of the church. Best you can do is pray that God gives them what they deserve!
0bastard is deliberately focusing on the Churches as a subterfuge to obscure that fact. Firstly he knows he can tap into prejudices against Christianity, especially against the RCC, and secondly he knows the RCC is the biggest organization that will object to this so they become his Alinsky target to freeze and polarize.
Nothing in the 1st Amendment says I have to belong to a government-recognized religious organization in order to qualify for 1st Amendment protections. In fact what it does say is that I don't! But 0bastard is laying down the precedent here that there are government-created standards I must meet to be covered by it.
Once that is accomplished what else can they use to separate a citizen from a BoR's protection? What other actions will they force me to commit or refrain from once I have been deemed unqualified for a given BoR's protection? Will I have to belong to a government approved gun club to own and shoot a firearm? To publish my opinions on the internet? To stand with a group of protesters or sign a petition of grievances about the government?
Nobody loves a bishop but his relatives when you get right down to it and they should have all been used to that feeling. Alas, the Obamistas, drawing on an ancient knowledge substantially older than The Church, played them like a fiddle. Sure, the bishops, in the end, didn't cave as a group, but plenty of them did as individuals.
With the assistance of the Souvrn' Baptists and other like-minded Christians and Jews it is entirely possible religious freedom may be saved from the Abyss in America.
There's no hope for the Democrats. They've given up entirely too much in the Bill of Rights to ever be trusted. It's no surprise to me that after abandoning the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and even broad sections of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the Democrats would also abandon the first clause in the First Amendment.
I fully expect that when they try abandoning "free press" the Editorial Board of the Washington Post, along with other major Leftwingtard publishing empires, will set fire to their own offices and throw sand in the bindery!
Speaking of which has anybody ever seen him shop for a week's worth of groceries?
I think Obama had this 'compromise' set up and ready to to, because he knew what the objections might be. Just shows how manipulative he is.
Will is right about that. Too many of the Bishops are so enamored of 'Social Justice' that they believe health insurance is a right, and it should be provided by the government. They THOUGHT they'd gotten a conscience waiver from the Obama Administration, but they learned that the man lies like a rug, and they can't trust him. That they even trusted him to begin with is sad.
There was NO compromise.
“Despite what President Obama said at his White House press conference, the actual regulations make permanent the “interim final regulations” issued August 3, 2011 — the ones that sparked the furor in the first place.
...The bottom line is this: “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.” [Emphasis added.]
Translation: The Obama administration Friday afternoon put into federal law the very regulation that drew objections from almost 200 Catholic bishops, some 50 religiously affiliated colleges and universities, 65 North American bishops of Orthodox churches, numerous other Jewish, Evangelical and Lutheran leaders, and even some liberals — and without changing so much as a comma.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290859/nothing-squid-ink-ed-haislmaier
He's pushing the issue of contraceptives because he wants to make the Catholic Church look 'anti woman'. That's how he thinks he'll win this argument in today's media saturated culture.
That is his way of deflecting from the real issue which is his intention to destroy individual rights as defined by the DoI, Constitution and BoRs.
I quite agree with you. This is the “new” freedom from religion (Christianity anyhow). The speech and press freedoms are faced with the legal sophistry of freedom from “harmful” and offensive speech. Here too, the ones making the determinations are the progressives.
Back then the intent was anti-Catholic even including the bit about the RCs being anti-woman ~ same stuff about old men in dresses, etc.
There's really nothing new here.
What is most disturbing is that so many Bishops were groveling at the feet of the Leftwingtards on the "social justice" nonsense. Catholics might do the right thing by having the Pope fire those guys (however Pope's fire people ~ gotta' be some way).
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.