Guest Opinion: The Obama Mandate is the Gravest Threat to Religious Freedom in 226 Years Comments
President Obama doesn't care what you think, so long as you join him in helping to destroy the unborn on demand. And help him by paying for it. The Virginia Statute of 1786 freed citizens from having to pay taxes to churches whose doctrines they disbelieved and whose worship practices they did not share. Continue Reading
11 - 20 of 25 Comments
Leave a Comment
Most Popular
Editorial: Is the Scandal Ridden Obama Administration Becoming a House of Cards? Read More
Did God make junk? Scientists say 98 percent of human genome is junk Read More
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Courageous Cardinal Seán Patrick O'Malley Will Not Attend Boston College Commencement Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Acts 28:16-20, 30-31
On our arrival in Rome Paul was allowed to stay in lodgings of ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 11:4, 5, 7
Yahweh in his holy temple! Yahweh, his throne is in heaven; his ... Read More
Gospel, John 21:20-25
Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Pope John I
May 18: St. John I, Pope and Martyr (Feast day - May 18) A native of ... Read More
Marketplace
Three Cups
Teaching children how to save, spend, and be charitable can be as ... Read More
Confirmation Rosary with Holy Spirit Our Father Beads Read More
Personally, I think the greatest threat to religious freedom is the failure of Christians to live a life that provides a strong, Christian witness. Not a whole lot of difference between the non-believers and believers in this country.
Rob, I agree with some of what you say, particularly the focus that we are in fact talking about human life. But I also see that you are making declarative judgments on the topic of personhood. I guess I'd just like to ask why it is important to you that a blastocyst be identified as a person? Cheers! ~Mike
Mike, the human person begins at conception. Once that moment happens then the process of human development begins. At all times from the moment of conception the product of life is human. There is no point biologically when it is not. We don't call sperm and ova human and rightly so, because they are not. We don't call a fuel injection system a car but only when put together with all the component parts do we have a car. Poor example I know, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
Rob, I wouldn't place the definition of life into the obvious category. The obvious category includes statements such as: Olympic swimmers can't collapse their lungs like sperm whales when diving deeply and Catholic nuns are not iPhones. Rob, for starters, we really aren't talking about when life begins but rather when a human person begins. And that's because life is already there before the relatively long process of conception takes place: sperm and ova are alive for instance. It would not surprise me if someday it is discovered that we've been asking the wrong questions about this topic all along. That discovery, imho, would likely place the candidate before the world's most prestigious scientific awards precisely because it wasn't obvious until then. But make no mistake Rob, I have no reason to conclude that this answer, if it comes at all, will come from theology where the "answer" is already fixed in marble. -Cheers! Mike
C'mon mike, that's old science already. Pick up your basic OBGYN book...it's all there. And last time I checked they aren't handing out Nobel Prizes for the obvious.
How can an atheist DENY his own existence? Was he hatched in a lab somewhere? The stupidity drips from his logic like sap from a tree. Blackwell is correct and the fact that there is a heartbeat at less than 3 weeks and an ultra-sound SHOWS life GROWING slowly in the womb. Unfortunately liberals and other evil people have turned the womb into a dangerous place where a baby cannot slumber and grow in peace. Imagine how the tiny person feels when abortion drugs or instruments are forced into the womb?? This barbaric procedure is straight out of the Middle Ages; yet we somehow satisfy ourselves that it's 'choice' of some kind and scientifically sound and safe. It's certainly NOT safe or humane for the child!!! Murder is murder--plain and simple. Expectant mothers ALWAYS have an option that DOES NOT include abortion. Naturally it's an inconvenience on their busy lives; which is WHY many of them are pregnant in the first place. Abortion is PAINFUL BARBARISM as well as MURDER and EVIL. We must pray for these misguided idiots who think their 'choice' is NOT a child. Educated morons indeed!
Blackwell/Morrison claim certainty with statements like, "science knows," and "we know when life begins." And yet neither possesses the Nobel Prize for this discovery (actually, the Crafoord Prize since there is no Nobel for biology). I strongly suggest Blackwell/Morrison submit their evidence to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. What's stopping them? Cheers! ~Mike, friendly atheist.
I think disfranchisement of certain peoples voting rights is the bigger threat.
When voicing my opposition to the Obama mandate, it becomes difficult as many know I am a Catholic and they think I am against the mandate for only that reason. Christians and non Christians don't seem to be very concerned either. (At least to me anyway) I try to tell them it is not just a Catholic issue, but an assault on religious liberties of all of us. I try to use an example of how just this one act could lead to another disregard of religious rights that they could identify with. Then again, there are those I speak to that have no religious affiliation or belief at all, so they don't seem to care. It doesn't apply to them.
Where I live, gun rights are strongly supported. I ask them how they would react if the government would start restricting those rights. Religious rights don't concern them, but gun rights do. Many people are against guns and want to amend the gun laws, and whenever that comes up, all heck breaks out. How do I convince them that it is about freedom and liberties and the governments interference in that, and by preserving one of them, you preserve them all. That it is not just about birth control or abortion or woman's health.
There are those who feel just as strongly in favor of the mandate, with little concession to religious conscience or liberties. VP Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius are all Catholics. Nancy Pelosi, regarding the objection to the mandate, snapped "They just need to get over it. It's a woman's health issue, not a religious issue." I think most of the mandate for woman's health is a good thing. But I do not see it as an "all or nothing" choice.
I am a Catholic, an American, and a woman in that order. I pray we all can agree on a solution that can preserve our religious liberties and at the same time, ensure that women's health concerns and issues are satisfactorily and adequately met.
I hope with a new administration, this might be possible. I am afraid with the current administration it won't, and will end up in the courts, as it already is, with differing and contradictory rulings and prolong the arguing.
Catholics should not only read the Bible but also the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) if they really want to understand the true Catholic teachings. If they don't have the CCC book, CCC is available in the Vatican website (www.vatican.va).