Perhaps he’s fantasizing about having an underground house-church like the persecuted early Christians had. Obama is the Roman Emperor/Beast, etc.
Moved to Elections from Great Debates.
I think it pretty much comes from the same place as the idea that Obama is a Muslim.
In other words: they made it up.
The contraception mandate is certainly the biggest issue, but it’s not the only one. For instance, last year the Obama Administration argued that the federal government has the right to meddle in individual hiring and firing decisions by religious institutions regarding employees hired for religious duties. The administration all but asserted that religious freedom doesn’t apply to decisions of hiring and firing; the Supreme Court struck down the argument 9-0 in Hosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC. (Incredibly, this means that even the two justices appointed by Obama rejected his argument.) There’s a good summary of the case here.
You may personally feel that these two issues, contraception and employment law, are minor, but not everyone is obligated to share that opinion. Anyone familiar with constitutional law understands the concept of precedent. Once there’s a standing law saying that government bureaucrats can force religious institutions to take actions violating their beliefs, that sets a precedent for further violations down the road.
Well … yeah. I can’t name any, but it’s not at all a stretch to believe there are sects that believe even having a dedicated building for worship is too much bureaucracy.
(I mean, leaving aside that the guy wasn’t actually arrested for praying in his house)
It’s all in the definitions:
[QUOTE=L. Sprague deCamp, Lest Darkness Fall]
“You don’t like the Goths?”
“No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
“Persecution?”
“Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
“I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
“That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”
[/QUOTE]
This precedent has already been set. If you’re a member of a sect that requires a virgin to be sacrificed every month under the full moon, can you legally murder a virgin? No, you cannot.
Uh-oh! The government has just violated someone’s religious beliefs! Whatever shall we do! Religious freedom is now dead in this country! People aren’t free to worship as they please!
:rolleyes:
If your preferred form of worship involves violating the law of the land, you’re generally not permitted to do it. This shouldn’t be news to anyone.
And you know? People who feel that their sophisticated educations are being held in contempt by the religious elites who seem to hold the power in this country? Maybe they’re even less wrong.
If you have any of my brothers-in-law on your email list, you’ve probably gotten the bit about how Obama cancelled the National Day of Prayer but OMG he prayed all day with THE MUSLIMS!!! Refuted here.
Love that line about how Obama said he “didn’t want to offend anyone”. Seriously, has ANYONE, be they a public official, corporation, or candidate, EVER said they were doing something or not doing something because they “didn’t want to offend anyone”? That same line was also in the silly Pepsi can glurge among many other chain emails.
It’s also part of the never-give-an-inch and never-compromise mentality. A tiny little molehill (like family planning being part of health care) is seen as a huge mountain in the destruction of religion. The US was founded on the notion of compromise, but today, any compromise or agreement on any point with the “opposition” is seen as the apocalypse.
I figure if anyone could have a story regarding the perceived Attack on Religion™ it would be that paragon of journalistic integrity, Fox News. Sure enough, the top trending sports story - with the Giant’s winning the pennant a distant second - is LSU officials [digitally altering]([URL="Holy Photoshop! LSU erased Christian football fans' crosses | Fox News"digitally altering) press photos sent out that removes crosses painted on some student fans. The aggrieved students response to this apocalyptic event is to:
While I consider this pretty trivial there are those so infused with their religion that something like this can get them worked up, and they see it as an attack.
Yes, which lead to my question about what makes him think he needs this. Apparently, our spiritual/religious rights are being threatened.
Gang, this idea didn’t just arise spontaneously; it is the result of a specific campaign championed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The above was written in October of 2011. Soon after:
November 15th, 2011: U.S. Catholic bishops say religious freedom waning, pledge to fight
December 28th, 2011: Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion
April 11th 2012: Catholic Bishops Urge Campaign for Religious Freedom
If you think this just makes the US Conference of Catholic Bishops just another partisan PAC, you’d be right.
I see it more as an excuse for proselytizing, given the students’ over-the-top request to have everyone wear “large crosses”, their stated goal of seeing a “campus of crosses”, and the fact that the original symbols were IMO quite small and discrete.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they were aware of the policy beforehand and were hoping for the school to do something like this in order to score a public relations win. LSU was foolish to get trapped like this.
[QUOTE=Iggy’s linked article]
When Salman hosted a Passover dinner in the shed already in his backyard, one neighbor called the Fire Department, noting that the shed didn’t have a certificate of occupancy or such safety measures as sprinklers. When the Fire Department checked it out, they determined the building wasn’t overcrowded and left, records show.
So the neighbor called again. Again, firefighters were dispatched to the scene, and Salman agreed that his guests would leave.
One month later, when 28 church members gathered in the shed for Bible study, the Fire Department showed up and handed them a letter from City Hall. Until the new church was built, it said, they were not permitted to hold meetings on the site.
[/quote]
Well, of course this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with some of Salman’s neighbors having a problem with his church-building, and the local authorities who finally decided that said neighbors had a point. But this is exactly the kind of story that FOX News, for example, would play up, much like their now annual “War on Christmas”. I’d say that stories like this, where there is no basis in reality for blaming the President for religious persecution, but which get heavy media play from certain “fair and balanced” networks, that are anything but, are a major source of the ridiculous attacks on Obama.
So, um, is firing an employee comparable to murder?
If not, I don’t see any relevance here.
I’m sure you can see the broad principle behind **MsWhatsit’s **point, ITR, even if you’d prefer to fight the hypothetical.
Not defending DOMA.
Is there anyone here who agrees with the claim that Obama is either actively restricting freedom of religion or doing nothing while it happens on his watch?
If so, what events are you referring to?
I can’t promise I won’t argue but I’m willing to believe that you believe it. I’m really just wondering if we differ on interpretation of facts or on what the facts actually are.
I know you’re being witty, but, if you think about it, that is exactly the whole point.