Religious Tolerance: Policy of Obama and Progressives

Rarely will you see anything written concerning politics here at Veritas et Theologium; however, when government intervenes upon religious rights and the First Amendment – it is another matter.

In January of 2012, Barack Obama's Department of Health and Human Services announcement requirement of all employers to offer insurance coverage of sterilization, abortifacients and contraceptives without deductible or co-pays in their employee plans by August 1^st, 2012.

Churches are exempt; however, Catholic-funded hospitals, schools or other charity organizations are not exempt.

Archbishop, soon Cardinal Timothy Dolan, New York, leader of the US Council of Catholic Bishops stated:

The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs. Historically, this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.

The mainstream media – ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC ignored this outrage while NPR, TownHall, and other such media covered it immediately.

NewsBuster busted Brian Williams, NBC/Washington Post ignores that Obama made this an issue, and instead focuses blame upon the GOP – you know, like Obama still blames Bush for everything despite being in office for over three years.

This action prompted a flurry of protest against President Obama and his administration, furthering the dissent against his reelection.

The whole idea of government controlling health care has only demonstrated that government causes prices to consumers to rise with their “mean well” intervention. However, it is NOT a good “intention” if it grows government bureaucracy larger than it is – and defies the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

President Obama inserted himself into the Sandra Fluke argument over contraceptives being paid for by American taxpayers, which means catholic schools will be required to do the same – an outrage voiced by many, including Rush Limbaugh, who has been lambasted for what he said about Sandra Fluke. 

According to The Spectator (George Neumayr):

Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit

Naturally, Georgetown, yet another phony "Catholic" university in the tank for Obama (its faculty outranked all other faculties, religious and non-religious, in campaign donations to the openly anti-Catholic candidate in 2008), sided with Sandra Fluke. In recent days, a law student of Georgetown, Sandra Fluke, offered her testimony regarding the proposed regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services before a group of members of Congress. She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position -- including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels -- responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student. In other words, the flaky modern Jesuits DeGioia represents stand ready to give Fluke an allowance for her pre-marital sex. Somehow I can't imagine the Jesuit founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola, describing a demand from one of his students for subsidized sin as an "expression of conscience." After Obama's bogus HHS mandate "compromise," several Jesuit colleges and universities praised it loudly, even though the issue is moot for them, since they already furnish their students with condoms, contraceptive jellies, and an assortment of pills. Nor are some of the Jesuits themselves above nibbling at the crumbs that fall from the table of this sexual revolution. Several years back, a progressive California Jesuit who decided to quit the order successfully demanded that his provincial pay for his vasectomy on the way out.

The type of “Change” is not what Obama supporters and groupie fans believed back in 2008 when they rushed down to the voting booths to vote for “the first black President of the United States”. It was because they overlooked his background, both personal and political, and never questioned what the details were when he spoke of “Change”. Everyone assumed that it was change from GW Bush policies.

Barack Obama and his progressive counterparts represent Americans that believe that Europe and other national policies and political ideologies are to be followed instead of that which was created by the founders of the United States of America; insisting that our democratic-republic is outdated. Yet, they do not consider that it was designed to be changed according to the requirements of the future – flexible in that amendments could be changed, rescinded and replaced.

Those that follow the progressive-socialist culture wish to replace the self-reliance with that of national dependence upon government, religious liberty with intolerance (if it has to do with Christianity), and the American Dream has been flushed down the toilet by the greed and corruption within the seat of our government and its special interest lobbyists gone a muck.

Obama and those like him, constantly preach about “fairness” - when indeed it is the furthest from their minds and agenda.

US Representative Tim Huelskamp, Kansas, (published by Bob Weeks, Red State) wrote:

By forcing Catholic employers to pay for or provide contraception and abortion drugs, demanding health care providers and medical students to take part in activities that violate their consciences, or censoring military chaplains to preach sermons or perform ceremonies contrary to the tenets of their faiths, the Obama Administration has signaled its willingness to trample on religious liberty. It means bureaucrats have a greater grip on the American people than churches, synagogues, and mosques. It turns an “appeal to a higher power” from a prayer to God to a call to a Washington theocracy.

Past history of the Catholic Church and past/present history of Islam has demonstrated that theocracy, like dictatorships, do not work and oppresses the people's liberties, discouraging open thought and discussions.

Just as he does in matters of history, Barack Obama interprets his own brand of religion and culture, ignoring that which has been the major religion of Americans – Christianity; while at the same time pampering other religions, specifically Islam, either in fear of retribution or its intolerance of Christianity, are bias and hypocritical in their policies and ideology- which includes their powerful tool of bias media. 

There are Muslims who are American citizens and who do not preach the doctrine of hate - Christians should be wise in their critical views of Islam. 

Christianity is not a threat to permeate our system. Indeed, the Founders were Christians of varied doctrinal views and beliefs, but saw that religious tolerance is a good thing and theocracy is not. Thus, the First Amendment was included, and was the first written – the one that followed was also important to ensure that Americans could keep and bear arms for its defense. Even with modern law enforcement they cannot be everywhere to prevent crimes – they show up after the crime has been committed.

Rep. Huelskamp:

… America’s success story is and will continue to be the result of limited government answering the views, ideas, and priorities of its people, not the result of government telling the American people what they need. It is the result of individuals being allowed to thrive, success being rewarded, and the spirit of charity and community responding to the immediate needs of those around us. And, it is the result of generation after generation leaving things better than they found them for the next not because government says to do so, but because God so instructs.

Tolerance towards Muslims while persecuting Christians is only a helpful way of fundamental Islam's goal of world domination, that is buried in its doctrine; which would not be a bad thing, in terms of comparison of missionary and evangelistic Christians, but the latter does not use force to convince others to join their fold. 

Those who are of the Democratic Party are hypocrites when they call themselves "liberal".  Originally liberals were more tolerant than conservatives. Today, the "new" Democratic Party is made up of progressive socialists who have come out of the closet and openly push to subvert our Constitution and reasons why it had become great as well as place of freedom and liberty for ALL, as well as a land of opportunity for those willing to work for it.