US Senate Denies Free Exercise of Religion, Tables the Blunt Amendment Comments
In the history of the United States of America, from the beginning, Catholic Hospitals existed to care for the sick. The Catholic Church is currently one of the very largest health care providers in the United States of America. If this Administration persists in its iron handed effort to compel the Church to bend the knee to a new Caesar, that service to the Nation is placed in jeopardy. It appears that the administration wants to remove ... Continue Reading
1 - 10 of 63 Comments
Leave a Comment
Most Popular
Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! Read More
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Receiving the Eucharist: I Have Decided to Kneel For Jesus Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 6:5-17
A kindly turn of speech attracts new friends, a courteous ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 119:12, 16, 18, 27, 34, 35
Blessed are you, Yahweh, teach me your will! Read More
Gospel, Mark 10:1-12
After leaving there, he came into the territory of Judaea and ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. David I of Scotland
May 24: David, the youngest son of Scotland’s virtuous queen, (Saint) ... Read More
Marketplace
Mindgarden Volume III: Love and Life
Mindgarden Volume III is a continuing collection of experiences along ... Read More
Jerusalem Stone Confirmed In Christ Inspirational Scripture Stone Read More
Rob: I don't believe anyone on this board was called a Communist, Marxist or a Socialist personally, or anything else for that matter. I believe the administration was called that. But what do you expect. If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. How is that calling names? If you call someone a conservative, and they ARE a conservative, then it's true.. If you call someone a liberal and they ARE a liberal, then it's true. How come when you call a Marxist a Marxist, or a Communist, a Communist, that's calling them names. The truth is the truth. Name calling to me is calling someone stupid or nuts or rediculous, or more vicious words, etc. simply because they don't agree with you. Am I wrong about this? Enlighten me. What would you call someone that purposely attacks your Faith and has declared war on your Churh? What would you call someone that has nothing but disdain dripping from their mouth regarding Christianity? What would you call someone that has set the State Department on the Vatican insinuating that the Vatican is laudering money? I'm sorry my friend, but I see Europe in the 30's happening all over again. God bless.
Rob, you, Jeff Caperton, Bulbajer, mgm, Everrett and others have well articulated who you guys are and what you represent. I've said all along that this is fine, OK. You guys keep we the faithful on our toes and that's a good thing. Yes, your Dear Leader, Barry Soetoro, is a Saul Alinskyite Communist. We all know that Alinsky dedicated his book, "Rules For Radicals" to Lucifer because he is the ultimate Radical. And yes, your Dear Leader, Barry Soetoro, is dismantling this country before our very eyes. His attack on the Catholic Church is in line with his Marxist predecessors in Cuba, Venezuela, China, Vietnam, and Mexico 1920-1940. The "Ball" is now on the Laps of the Bishops. They were ordered by Barry Soetoro to comply with HHS rules or suffer the consequences. Will the Bishops comply to the dictates of Commissar Sebelius?? We will see what happens. We the faithful do not want your Marxism.
Not calling names? Maybe not directly, but you can't mistake the passive aggressive natureof all these posts. If you tow the line on the conservative ideology = good. If you disagree in any manner you are a communist, marxist trying to overthrow the government. Not sure how you are narrowly defining talking down to someone, but it's pretty apparent on this board.
Vance: Thanks. Jeffrey must have gotten this board confused with one of the liberal sites.. I have not, at any time, seen anyone on this board call anyone any names. Have you? That's a liberal trait. I have seen "war monger" a couple of times, but I believe, that came from the Ron Paul suppoorters. Even the liberals that are here regularly haven't even called anyone any names.. We've had some "intense fellowship" but it's been respectful. Thanks for having my back. I've got yours also, but you seem to hold your own very well. God bless.
Jeffrey Caperton, I haven't been ignoring you. I'm just enjoying JoAnn's responses to your posts.
I hope Santorum sticks to a simple message - Freedom and Overturn Obamacare. The Marxist Media Complex is pulling out all the stops to keep him on the phoney issue of Birth Control. Santorum should keep the focus on Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party's trampling on the 1st Amendment. Romney is out their with millions of dollars smearing Santorum and Gingrich but yet he is only getting 37% of the vote. Obama and the Communist Democrat Party are salivating over a Romney nomination because they have another loser McCain and a Bob Dole. Do you ever notice that Ron Paul beats his con artist drum that he is mister Constitution, yet he never has anything to say about Obamacare?? His mantra is get out of Afghanistan and legalize vise but that's it. What a fraud.
Jeffrey Caperton: You are way off base, my friend. What christian did I call an atheist or communist. I did not and never have called anyone on this board either one. Are you sure you are reading MY posts? What's the matter, did I hit a nerve? I believe, what I said that started this whole conversation is that we have a choice. Are we going to live in communisim or are we going to fight to save the Republic. And, if you have been reading the articles, especially the one about the persecution of the Church, it seems to me that I have been right on all along. God bless.
Pete Brady, you are right. The Bill of Rights were amended to the U.S. Constitution as a means to "PREVENT the 50% plus 1 from 'ruling' over the 50% minus one". However, the constitution also set up elections of representatives who enact laws and the president, also elected, who approves and enforces laws, so, as long as the law passes constitutional muster, "50% plus 1" can pretty much run roughshod over the "50% minus one" when it comes to legislative and economic priorities. And, since McCulloch v. Maryland ("Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."), it has been, I should not say simple, but reasonably efficacious, to cite the "necessary and proper" clause to defend enacted federal law (It is not so efficacious for the states). You and I can disagree with government, pray or call each other expletives and Congress cannot tell us we cannot. Other than that,the "majority rules". I agree with you that we need to evaluate at a very fundamental level the purpose of law and the purpose of government, and perhaps, even more useful, come up with a definition of liberty that is more than simply doing what we bloody well please, but, in the end, who do you think will decide what is the purpose of law or government? 50% plus 1.
Forgive me JoAnn, but that has very little to do with communism. The closest word I can find that fits your definition is totalitarianism and that can originate from the left or the right. There are a number of long and short definitions of communism, but Wikipedia has a reasonably concise definition as "a hypothetical stage of historical development posited as classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order", making communism, at best, an extremely flawed working economic hypothesis. Regardless of the definition, the problem I have with the word is that communism is often associated with atheism (Marx's ideas of religion was that it is nothing more than a means to make the masses more docile in order to facilitate economic exploitation). While I think name-calling is childish at best, if we insist upon engaging in name-calling (Which it seems that Americans, Christian or otherwise, are determined to continue), we should first know what we are calling people and, second, consider whether or not it is fair (I do not mention "kind" because name-calling is, by definition, unkind), and suggesting to a Christian that he or she is an atheist merely because he or she does not share your partisan political views is, in my estimation, a very serious charge. Perhaps we should choose our words more carefully.
@ Jeffrey Caperton: Our Constitution was constructed to PREVENT the 50% plus 1 from "ruling" over the 50% minus one. We must ask ourselves "what is the purpose of law; what is the purpose of government?" It is not what we have become all to accustomed to thinking it should do. It is not about preventing, improving, or protecting us from ourselves. An honest evaluation of much that is given as "law" can be recognized as simply someone else's desire to RULE over others. Frederic Bastiat described it well. "This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world - legislators, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. ...//... My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks - armed with rings, hooks, and cords - surrounded it. One said: 'This child will never smell the perfume of the peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.' Another said: 'He will never be able to hear unless I draw his earlobes down to his shoulders.' A third said: 'He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes.' Another said: 'He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs.' A fifth said: 'He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.' 'Stop,' cried the traveler. 'What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." The question, then, is this: Are we to be "ruled" or did we not, instead, establish a Constitution dedicated to securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?"