It’s Okay, Catholics – The President Just Declared Religious Freedom Day

Well that was close.

For a while there, it seemed like President Obama and Kathleen (“Himmler Was An Amateur”) Sebelius were hell-bent on strangling the free exercise of religion in this country.  At least that’s the way things looked on the surface, what with the HHS mandate requiring Americans to choose between crippling fines or violating their consciences.  But now, thank goodness, it looks like we can relax.  President Obama, once again displaying his unparalleled wisdom and benevolence, has declared…ready?

Religious Freedom Day!

Don’t laugh, it’s true.  So sit back, relax, and don’t you worry your silly Catholic self about a thing.  Be thankful to the President.  In fact, let’s take a stroll through history together and relive other great moments of freedom…

1830 - Native Americans celebrate their forced relocation from their homes during Andrew Jackson's declaration of "National Respect for American Indians Day"

1857 - Slaves celebrating "Racial Equality Day" after the Dred Scott decision

1905 - Children frolicking during festivities for "Freedom from Child Labor Day"

1916 - Women lining up to vote after Woodrow Wilson declares "Universal Suffrage Day"

1942 - Excited camp-goers enjoy their internment after FDR declares "Japanese American Appreciation Day"

1964 - Street revelers celebrate after Governor George Wallace declares "Civil Rights Day" in Alabama

No, of course none of those other official “Days” were declared by past Presidents or governors, because they would never dream that they could pass such hypocrisy off on the American people.  Apparently Obama believes he’s different – or more likely he just believes the American people are different.

Let’s hope he’s wrong.

3,413 views

Categories:Uncategorized

60 thoughts on “It’s Okay, Catholics – The President Just Declared Religious Freedom Day

  1. From a great oldie:

    Be kind to people who
    are inferior to you
    it’s only for a week, so have no fear;
    be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!
    – Tom Lehrer, “National Brotherhood Week”

    There has been an Annual Religious Freedom day since 1996, although I guess no one has noticed (I looked it up). That doesn’t make the little proclamation less bizarre, but President Obama didn’t make it up.

    1. abadilla says:

      “That doesn’t make the little proclamation less bizarre, but President Obama didn’t make it up.” Did John say in his piece Obama made it up? No, he didn’t say that, but at least past Presidents, both Democrat and Republican had not been as hypocritical in proclaiming “religious freedom” while he openly and arrogantly persecutes the Catholic Church.

  2. Can we get a link here to a statement or words of his that amateur bloggers like me can use against him as well?

  3. ARJAY McEwen says:

    Johnny, Johnny, Johnny,
    Luckily I caught this right away. I don’t think you are quite clear on the concept. This “Religious Freedom Day” has had to evolve a bit recently due to the enlightenment of our current administration. It actually should be thought of as “Freedom From Religion Day”. Here is a quote from President Obama’s proclamation: “As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution”. Since the Catholic Church has decided to persecute women by being anti- choice and since the Catholic Church has decided to try to prejudice our minds against the rights of homosexuals and lesbians in their pursuit of marriage, this day has necessarily evolved into a day where we celebrate our freedom from such biases…”Freedom From Religion Day”. So you Catholics better not relax too much, we are on your case.

    JAY (Persecute the Prejudice) Swindler

    1. abadilla says:

      Arjay, Arjay, Arjar, you are dead wrong. “Since the Catholic Church has decided to persecute women by being anti- choice and since the Catholic Church has decided to try to prejudice our minds against the rights of homosexuals and lesbians in their pursuit of marriage, this day has necessarily evolved into a day where we celebrate our freedom from such biases…” The Catholic Church persecutes no one. It teaches a moral teaching which women are free to accept or reject. For two thousand years the Church has taught that homosexual acts are sinful and because modern gays want to change that teaching and make Catholicism into an impotent organization incapable of providing light in a dark world, it does not mean the Catholic Church persecutes homosexuals since it has no problem with a homosexual orientation. If you choose to see the Church’s teachings as “biases” we might also choose to see gay propaganda as anti-Catholic bias and that would not be good, right?

  4. Paulspr says:

    Hey John. Remember when Catholics were celebrating the “fortnight for freedom” a few months back and staying demonstrations for “religious liberty” while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to deny freedom and liberty to gay and lesbian Americans?

    Before you start complaining about how hypocritical the president is, perhaps you should remove that giant sequoia from your own eye.

    1. This president is attempting to force Catholics to violate their religious teachings, their consciences, and their laws in ways that internally affect Catholic institutions, such as hospitals and schools.

      The Church is doing no such thing to homosexuals. It is merely attempting to preserve the institution of marriage, which is the most public of all institutions; it belongs to us all. Yet it has a nature that none of us can control, and damaging public understanding of it harms all of us, including homosexuals.

      If anybody is being aggressive here, it is the homosexual activists who are trying to force themselves on the Church, forcing it out of public life and diminishing its public role.

      The ‘sequoia’ is not there, it is merely an illusion of those who regrettably cannot make the distinction between what they want and what they are entitled to.

      1. Paulspr says:

        No, Congress passed a law that said employee healthcare plans needed to include minimum levels of care. The Obama administration is implementing the regulations that require companies to provide that minimum level of care.

        Companies have no right to tell their employees what they can and cannot have covered under their healthcare plans. What these few employers are trying to do is to force their employees to comply with their employers religious beliefs. That’s an affront to the rights of the employees.

        And the fact remains that the Catholic Church is making a big stink about their religious freedoms while simultaneously trying to deprive gay and lesbian Americans of their freedoms and liberty. Freedom means freedom for everyone, a fact that the Catholic Church wants to overlook when it suits them.

        1. Phloont has never paid your grocery bills. Not directly, anyway. But I doubt you have gone hungry because of Phloont’s failure to pay for your food.

          Not paying for your employee’s contraception in no way forces anyone to comply with your religious beliefs. But it does allow the Church to comply with its own. The BO administration is doing the forcing, not Catholics.

          And Catholics are depriving no one of their liberty. They are merely taking part in the democratic process. This inevitably causes factionalism and frustration, and often hard feelings.

          Especially among those who cannot distinguish between what is fashionable and what is right.

          Evil is never content to defeat good. It must utterly dominate it or eradicate it. This is why the Church has produced so many martyrs over the centuries.

          1. Paulspr says:

            But medical care is a basic need and if you deprive your employees of their ability to get birth control then you are controlling their lives and denying them freedom.

          2. Medical care, like food, is indeed a basic need. But that does not mean that your employer is obligated to provide it for you, any more than they are required to pay for your groceries.

            But contraceptives are not medical care at all. Neither are abortions. Neither is plastic surgery.

            Do you honestly believe that refusing to purchase contraceptives for your employees forces your religious beliefs on them or controls their lives? Forcing them to not use them would at least come close to this, but just not buying it for them? What Catholic dogmas are they being requried to accept? The Immaculate Conception? Petrine Primacy?

            I do think that you may be getting too wound up in your victim mentality. Sometimes Catholics are the victims of persecution, too. That has happened once or twice in history, and it is happening again.

          3. Joe M says:

            Well said.

          4. abadilla says:

            Since when are abortions and contraceptives basic medical needs? If an employee working for a Catholic institution feels those are basic needs, those “needs” are readily available just about anywhere. What the government does not have the right to do, is to force the Church to violate its own tenets by demanding it practices what it considers clearly immoral.

        2. abadilla says:

          “Companies have no right to tell their employees what they can and cannot have covered under their healthcare plans.” Private companies do and if it a service really needed by employees those services are available just about anywhere. I work for a Catholic institution, and if I needed contraceptives, I certainly would not expect a Catholic institution to pay for them.

          1. Paulspr says:

            No, that’s the point of the healthcare law. All employees deserve to have a minimum level of care in regards to what is covered under a healthcare plan. Congress said birth control and morning after pills is a basic level of medical care for Americans. I get that you don’t agree. Don’t use birth control then, but you can’t force others to live under your religious tyranny.

          2. Anne says:

            As a Catholic business owner, let me try to explain it this way…

            Regardless of your religion I think we can all agree that murdering someone by stabbing them to death is a Sin… yes? and so are the following:
            - knowing someone is going to murder a person and not doing anything about it
            - watching it happen
            - buying the knife knowing the person is going to use it for murder
            - Driving them to the seen of the murder
            - or any any other way helping them commit the murder or obtain the means to commit the murder….

            As a Catholic, I believe the use of birth control to be a sin. (And I’m at liberty to act on that belief since it is protected under the first amendment)

            So having to provide coverage to my employees that gives them access to birth control, makes me party to sin.

            The Church calls it being an Accessory to Another’s Sin. Just like accessory to Murder in the justice system is a crime, accessory to sin is a sin.

            I’m not forcing anyone else to believe that birth control is a sin. I’m simply refusing to participate in that sin.

          3. Paulspr says:

            You aren’t doing any of those things. In fact, the law requires you to do absolutely nothing. You don’t even need to pick up the phone or pay the premiums. The law requires the employee to contact the insurance company and the insurance company has to cover the additional costs.

            And the fact of the matter is that as a society, we don’t all agree that abortion is murder. In fact, the majority of Americans support a woman’s right to an abortion in most or all cases. Contraception is even further lopsided with a gross majority of Americans supporting a woman’s right to use contraception.

          4. abadilla says:

            So, what do you make of the H.H Mandate? We just invented it because we were too busy oppressing homosexuals and had nothing better else to do but to display our bigotry?

          5. Paulspr says:

            Pretty much.

          6. abadilla says:

            Because it isn’t all “healthcare” that simple. Contraception and abortions are not “health care” and neither are homosexual marriages a “right” as much as you would like to preach that distorted view of reality. No government has the right to tell any religious institutions they have to violate their own principles in order to make everyone happy. Folks like Miss Fluke can go to just about any clinic or university in this country and get her contraceptives while telling her parents and the taxpayers of America to keep paying for her extra-curricular activities.
            The nerve you have demanding from us we pay for murder and abortifacients.

          7. Paulspr says:

            Actually, contraception is healthcare for a large majority of women who use the pill, many for reasons other than birth control. This is the problem. You want to ban people from using “the pill” but you don’t know anything about it or why it is being used by most women.

      2. Greg B. says:

        What an incredibly dishonest characterization of your true motivations and intentions. The only thing denying marriage to gay couples preserves is a tradition of bigotry.

        1. You can call biological reality bigoted if you want, sir, but what good will it do you? Marriage only exists because children only come from the joining of men and women. Were it no for this fact, marriage would not be necessary, would it?

          No, Greg, the real bigots here are the homosexualists who wish to force Christians to abandon their thousands-years-old opposition to homosexual acts. The same-sex marriage movement is all about forcing public acceptance of homosexual acts. It has nothing to do with children or families, because children cannot be created by that relationship.

          Homosexuals should not be selfish with their sexual behavior. But I am hardly picking on gays. I would say this to fornicators, adulterers, and contraceptors, too. And those people have done far more damage to marriage and the family than gays have. All gays are doing is continuing the process of making sexual behavior more and more selfish, and less and less life-giving. I fear that this evil will only be abated by the shedding of tremendous amounts of Christian blood, as has happened so many times before, when the persecution began with small things…..

        2. abadilla says:

          Greg, I often ask myself, would I want to be a part or come into a website that I think propagates bigotry and dishonesty? Just because you and Paul make the accusation of bigotry a thousand times does not make it true. The Church has orphanages all over the world, hospitals, and rest homes taking care of the sick, and I might add, the first institution taking care of AIDS patients in this country IS the Catholic Church, yet, all you can say about us is that we preach bigotry. Yeah, the Catholic Church, the KKK, no difference, right?

          1. Paulspr says:

            Running a few charities does not give one license to promote bigotry and prejudice against a minority. Jesus taught us to care for others, not to come onto websites and hurl proverbial stones at them and their families.

            When you could be caring for others, here you are, arguing that our civil laws should harm them.

    2. Lenny says:

      The church never said that gays couldn’t get married. I know several gays who have been married, some even in a church. No freedoms or liberties have been denied. Rather the desire to redefine marriage to suit homosexuals ends up depriving us who know that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s like saying “I want to play baseball but since I can’t hit such a small ball we all need to start pitching basketballs instead.” No one said you couldn’t play baseball, just play by the rules. No one said you couldn’t get married either.

      1. Marvin Derks says:

        How are you deprived? Deprived of what? If two men are allowed to get married, what do you lose? What is taken away from you? You’re still allowed to believe whatever you want to. That can’t be taken away.

        1. Joe M says:

          Could you work at an adoption agency that adopts children to people who are married according to your beliefs?

          1. Paulspr says:

            So can you. Even when there is gay marriage. You can’t work for an adoption agency that accepts government funding and then refuses to service a part of the population out of prejudice. Do you understand the difference?

          2. Joe M says:

            The Catholic Church teaches that under no circumstances can gay relationships be approved. Removing funding from an adoption agency for acting on a religious belief is an act of religious discrimination. Religious discrimination is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Furthermore, you are mischaracterizing the motives of the Church on this issue. Those motives are clearly spelled out for anyone interested in learning in the Catechism. The Church teaches that gay relationships are harmful to the people involved in them. There’s a lot more detail for the reasons why. I suggest you read it.

            In any case, please stop misrepresenting what the Church stands for.

          3. Greg B. says:

            Wrong. Religious freedom doesn’t mean getting to do business with the government while picking and choosing which laws you want to follow.

          4. Joe M says:

            Wait. I thought that changing the definition of marriage doesn’t affect religious institutions or change what anyone else can do?

            Thank you for helping me debunk that idea. In this case, the change in law will be hurting foster children by shutting down the largest network of adoption agencies in the country.

          5. Paulspr says:

            Nope. If my church believed that black people were bad parents (I’ve lived in Mississippi, trust me when I say there are plenty of churches that still teach this), then that church could not refuse to service black people if they ran a business like offering adoption services.

            Now change black to gay. Same thing.

            P.S. Joe, I used to agree with you on this point, but then I found out that Catholic Charities gets 75% of its funding from the federal government and people like you continue to want to marriage as a way to punish gay people. This straight married man has quickly learned how much prejudice and discrimination that gay people face. So please, continue advocating for laws to exclude gay people from legal rights. More and more people are convinced by your arguments everyday. Too bad for you that they begin to support full equality for gay people. FULL EQUALITY.

          6. Joe M says:

            Thank you for helping me debunk the notion that changing the definition of marriage doesn’t ask anything of religious institutions.

            As I have pointed out to you before, gay people already do have “FULL EQUALITY.” They can live together, call each other married, wear rings, have a ceremony, etc. The only thing that gay people are excluded from is forcing other people to accept their relationships. It is not a civil right to force other people to agree with what you do. To compare wanting that ability with the discrimination of black people is offensive.

          7. abadilla says:

            Paul, don’t play the race card the way you have played the “equality” card because Black people can’t change their skin color and it is wrong to discriminate against them. On the other hand, gay people can choose to act on their sexual orientation or not.

          8. Marc C says:

            I’m new to this site, and already I am finding word associations are fun! Let me try: I think heterosexual, gay, and pedophile are words that are similar, because they define a type of sexual orientation or preference. I think that words like black, white, and American Indian are similar, because we tend to call those “races”. I admit I am a simple-minded fellow, not an intellectual like some of you. So to keep it simple and understandable to me and people like me, I suggest we keep similar words together for discussion. For example, we can change “gay” to “heterosexual”. Heterosexual rights. That sounds OK. Now let’s go the other way and change “gay” to “pedophile”. Sounds different now. What I see is that the Church has figured out pedophiles can be very harmful. What if the US government decided that pedophiles are a protected “class” who should enjoy “equal rights”, and that the Church could not deny employment to a pedophile who wanted to be a priest or a teacher? What if the US Government decided that convicted felons should enjoy “equal rights”. Would we let them out of jail (freedom) and give them back their guns (rights available to non-convicted felons). Pardon me if I am getting some of this wrong, I am a simple-minded person.

          9. abadilla says:

            Yes, Joe, but to Paul and company what the Church teaches is “bigotry” and the government goons are supposed to make it all right by attacking religious freedom, but, of course, to the government is not not attacking religious freedom. To the governement, it means to make a path for total equality.

          10. abadilla says:

            Paul,

            “out of prejudice.”

            Of course, there is no other possible reason the Church would deny gays adoptions, right?

        2. Lenny says:

          Yes it can be taken away. My children will not be allowed to be raised with my beliefs. How else am I deprived? By the further degradation of what society believes of marriage. I’m sure there is something that you hold dear that upsets you when people mock it. A sports team maybe? How much more important and sacred should marriage be?

          1. Paulspr says:

            Your children are allowed to be raised by your beliefs. You can tell then that you believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Allowing gay couples to get a marriage license doesn’t take away your ability to teach your children what your beliefs are.

            What about the millions of people in America that believe that gay couples can and should get married? Banning gay marriage negatively impacts their beliefs far more than allowing it could ever impact yours. What you are saying when you say that gay couples should be banished from marriage is that your beliefs are far superior to the beliefs of those that disagree with you.

          2. Greg B. says:

            Your ability to teach your children about your personal beliefs is not dependent upon those personal beliefs being codified into law. How incredibly self-centered of you.

          3. Lenny says:

            How incredibly naive of you to believe that beliefs codified into law are not thrust upon all those who live under that law. And I thank you for your condescending remark.

          4. abadilla says:

            “And I thank you for your condescending remark.” Well, that’s the only one Greg B,and Paul, and Marvin use. They see us as perfect idiots who dare to believe the moral teachings of our Church. If we were just to have a brain, we would see the light of day.

          5. Marvin Derks says:

            You have a wonderful way of putting down those who disagree with you and pretending that you’re not condescending. By the way, what exactly is a perfect idiot?

        3. Paulspr says:

          Amen. The beauty of freedom. Extending it to others doesn’t take it away from yourself.

    3. abadilla says:

      Paul,

      You have repeatedly written this, “…while simultaneously spending millions of dollars to deny freedom and liberty to gay and lesbian Americans?.” Yet, you have never presented a credible source to tell us where the Church has gotten those millions to spend on “hating” gays?

        1. chris scanlan says:

          abadilla asked for a credible source…

          1. Paulspr says:

            I gave him one.

          2. abadilla says:

            Chris,

            And I didn’t get it. Go in there and if you believe that version of events, you won’t be able to love the Church. There is no difference on that website between the KKK and the Catholic Church.

        2. abadilla says:

          Paul,

          I went to the source and the headline is this, “The Roman Catholic Hierarchy’s Devotion to Fighting Marriage Equality’ I asked for a credible source and instead I get the most hateful propaganda I have ever read about Catholicism and an-all-out-attack on the Knights of Columbus because they dare follow church teaching. No wonder “dialogue” between the R.C.C. and the homosexual lobby is nearly impossible.

          1. chris scanlan says:

            Those were my thoughts exactly, except not quite so elegant. I stopped reading after the 1st two sentences because it was quite obvious that there was an agenda. It is written to be propaganda, not an objective report…which would have been preferred and much more credible.

    4. abadilla says:

      If you think John is so wrong, why do you read him. You already concluded long ago we are nothing but bigots, so why bother with us?

  5. Chris R says:

    This president is as phony as they come.

  6. abadilla says:

    “Religious Freedom Day!” Amazing! And this from the very President who has done more than any other President to attack religious freedom. This is why, at least in my mind, the man has zero credibility!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.