Pres. Obama’s Tax on practicing your religion

The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate could survive as a tax. The penalties imposed are viewed, in the decision, as taxes.

But through the edict of non-elected HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Pres. Obama would force religious institutions against conscience to pay for some services… or face penalties (i.e. taxes).

Question:

Isn’t it now the case that if the Obama Administration punishes St. Ipsidipsy Catholic Hospital in Black Duck for refusing to provide employees their abortifacient pills, then the Federal Government is taxing the exercise of religion?

Thus, the First Gay President is another step closer to another deeply desired goal: the segregation of religion away from the public square … the shifting of religion to the private sphere alone.

The Obama Administration has already tried to move discussion from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship“.

Thus, when you are in church for an hour, the government will allow you – at no charge- to be a Catholic. If you want to be Catholic and faithful in the workplace – even a Catholic institution – you will pay for the privilege through a tax.

We must stand up to this, especially in the voting booth while we still can.

I want to be…

Catholic and Faithful!
American and Free!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Pres. Obama’s Tax on practicing your religion

  1. Scarltherr says:

    Thank you Father Z. This is definitely where we are heading. One of the first proposals made by this administration was to do away with the tax exemption for charitable giving, and charities in general. The push was short-lived, but it may be re-visited if we don’t focus on throwing the bums out.

  2. AnnAsher says:

    I’m going to say I don’t feel optimistic about the near future regardless of who wins the presidency this Fall. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Romney is a faithful Mormon (read non Christian cult). Everyone seems to have forgotten that Romney invented Obamacare. Additionally, he is vague in speech ” I will *work* to do * all I can* to repeal this mandate. That statement says he sees himself as president making limited efforts with no guarantees. So why does everyone talk like Romney is a slam dunk savior to defending our faith? People will attack me for this but it is a sincere, thoughtful, critical question: Are we better off with Romney? Romney is an enemy we do not know. BO is known. Romney is smooth and wealthy and has bought his way to the nomination. BO has fiscal supporters we know are crazy(!) avs he’s a bumbling fool (albeit evil). Romney could continue slow cooking us while we go back to sleep. BO turns the heat up so high so fast we know we’ve got to jump out of the pan! Look around us at the sleeping Catholics. Generations of Cafeteria Catholic Lites. Our Bishops supported Obamacare; while the slumberland was in effect. Now we are awake! If Our Bishops go to jail – what is the impact on the sleepers? If Romney comes in and turns down the heat … But we must admit continues to march us slowly, through pretty pastures, to our death… While our Bishops recede to their individual Diocese and go back to leading the quasi faithful in Cafeteria Catholicism … What is the effect on the sleepers?
    If we’re talking about a battle where the victory is in the next world, which I think we are, then is Romney truly – truly – a good choice? I’m so tired of the game of choosing between evils because Americans will not think critically. We sit by and accept this bizarre reality where we vote for the guy we are told by mass media has a chance at winning against the guy we hate even though he’s not a guy we want either!

  3. AnnAsher says:

    I’m going to say I don’t feel optimistic about the near future regardless of who wins the presidency this Fall. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Romney is a faithful Mormon (read non Christian cult). Everyone seems to have forgotten that Romney invented Obamacare. Additionally, he is vague in speech ” I will *work* to do * all I can* to repeal this mandate. That statement says he sees himself as president making limited efforts with no guarantees. So why does everyone talk like Romney is a slam dunk savior to defending our faith? People will attack me for this but it is a sincere, thoughtful, critical question: Are we better off with Romney? Romney is an enemy we do not know. BO is known. Romney is smooth and wealthy and has bought his way to the nomination. BO has fiscal supporters we know are crazy(!) avs he’s a bumbling fool (albeit evil). Romney could continue slow cooking us while we go back to sleep. BO turns the heat up so high so fast we know we’ve got to jump out of the pan! Look around us at the sleeping Catholics. Generations of Cafeteria Catholic Lites. Our Bishops supported Obamacare; while the slumberland was in effect. Now we are awake! If Our Bishops go to jail – what is the impact on the sleepers? If Romney comes in and turns down the heat … But we must admit continues to march us slowly, through pretty pastures, to our death… While our Bishops recede to their individual Diocese and go back to leading the quasi faithful in Cafeteria Catholicism … What is the effect on the sleepers?
    If we’re talking about a battle where the victory is in the next world, which I think we are, then is Romney truly – truly – a good choice? I’m so tired of the game of choosing between evils because Americans will not think critically. We sit by and accept this bizarre reality where we vote for the guy we are told by mass media has a chance at winning against the guy we hate even though he’s not a guy we want either.

  4. AnnAsher says:

    I’m going to say I don’t feel optimistic about the near future regardless of who wins the presidency this Fall. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Romney is a faithful Mormon (read non Christian cult). Everyone seems to have forgotten that Romney invented Obamacare. Additionally, he is vague in speech ” I will *work* to do * all I can* to repeal this mandate. That statement says he sees himself as president making limited efforts with no guarantees. So why does everyone talk like Romney is a slam dunk savior to defending our faith? People will attack me for this but it is a sincere, thoughtful, critical question: Are we better off with Romney? Romney is an enemy we do not know. BO is known. Romney is smooth and wealthy and has bought his way to the nomination. BO has fiscal supporters we know are crazy(!) avs he’s a bumbling fool (albeit evil). Romney could continue slow cooking us while we go back to sleep. BO turns the heat up so high so fast we know we’ve got to jump out of the pan! Look around us at the sleeping Catholics. Generations of Cafeteria Catholic Lites. Our Bishops supported Obamacare; while the slumberland was in effect. Now we are awake! If Our Bishops go to jail – what is the impact on the sleepers? If Romney comes in and turns down the heat … But we must admit continues to march us slowly, through pretty pastures, to our death… While our Bishops recede to their individual Diocese and go back to leading the quasi faithful in Cafeteria Catholicism … What is the effect on the sleepers?
    If we’re talking about a battle where the victory is in the next world, which I think we are, then is Romney truly – truly – a good choice? I’m so tired of the game of choosing between evils because Americans will not think critically. We sit by and accept this bizarre reality where we vote for the guy we are told by mass media has a chance at winning against the guy we hate even though he’s not a guy we want either. The reality is we are no longer a democracy and haven’t been for a long long time. Any of you know what it takes to get on the ballot in all 50 states today? We get to choose between men of power and wealth and private interests. Romney won’t defend the Church. He won’t defend Life in the womb any more than Bush did.
    Awake oh Sleepers! Arise from death and Christ will give you Life.

  5. Scarltherr says:

    I don’t like Romney either, he’s a weak candidate at best. I’m hoping people will wake up and bring the revolution to the Republican convention before the November election. I’d say both parties, but I think that it is impossible to change the minds of the Democrats t this point.

  6. LisaP. says:

    Anyone with basic literacy and a copy of the Constitution can see that the federal government’s power to tax is very limited, even following the income tax amendment. There’s a reason for that. The power to tax is huge and affects all other areas of life, most of our social engineering by the federal government is done through tax policy. So the Founders put in Constitutional protection of religion specifically, then added Constitutional protection of areas including religion against taxation. And the Supreme Court is specifically tasked with making sure those Constitutional protections are respected. So if that does not happen, our American government is at least 1/3 gone. Just gone.

    @Ann Asher, I agree with much of what you say (although I feel strongly that despite anomalies between LDS theology and other faiths the things that unite us are greater than the things that divide us — in this world, I’d say the same of a Budhist or even a pagan over folks who believe the only Gods are ourselves, or who essentially worship evil — e.g. I’d vote for a Roman over a Carthaginian!). However, if we have a choice between two men with anything distinguishing between them, and if we are still allowed to get up in the morning and cast a ballot, we should. We shouldn’t just do that, but we should do that.

  7. LisaP. says:

    I have wondered, too, about Justice Roberts’ thinking. He has said, to my understanding, that if you can tax someone for having income above a certain level, you can tax someone for not having health insurance. Can you then tax someone for having black skin? Can you tax someone for having a child? Can you tax someone for not having a job? Can you tax someone for not having a practice or for having a practice of going to church on Sunday? Can you tax someone for not having a social security card? Can you tax someone for not carrying a party affiliation card? Can you tax someone for not living in the right neighborhood for his ethnicity? It seems to me that this equivalency is opening a can of worms far greater than anything the health care reform bill or even the mandate could open.

  8. majuscule says:

    “Thus, when you are in church for an hour, the government will allow you – at no charge- to be a Catholic. If you want to be Catholic and faithful in the workplace – even a Catholic institution – you will pay for the privilege through a tax.”

    Jizya anyone?

  9. mike cliffson says:

    Majuscule
    You’ve got it in one.

  10. AnnAsher says:

    LisaP, those are thought provoking questions on where the taxes end? Frightening thoughts. I’m not decided on how to act. Im sad to say im not certain my vote counts. I’m with Scarlther on praying for the revolution.

  11. Taxed for being a Catholic outside of church — Superb, Father Z.

    “Jizya” — but would this penalty actually go far beyond that, so that it just wouldn’t go into the treasury, but would be earmarked for the abortion insurance fund? Worse.

    Dhimmitude has arrived. Four weeks to enforcement.

  12. AnnAsher, I’m with you on the whole Romney thing….I guess we’ll have special Catholic jail cells :D

  13. Cathy says:

    I’m voting for a third party this coming election, particularly for a man by the name of Thomas Hoefling. He doesn’t have a lot of money, name recognition, corporate sponsorship, media coverage and quite possibly has very little, if any chance to win. He does, however, meet the criteria of the five non-negotiables. Please, before judging my decision to vote for this man as “throwing my vote away”, take a little time, just a few minutes to become familiar with his stands and America’s Party platform. My vote may be a bit like the widows mite, without any seeming impact to the world, it may not be a valiant success in this world, but, I do believe it will be faithful.

  14. mschu528 says:

    Spot on Father, but of course (and Doctrix Pelosi, Obama the Theologian, and St Ted Kennedy surely should know this) “faith too, unless it has works, is dead in itself” (James 2, 17).

    So, being taxed for being Catholics outside of the Church building is of course tantamount to being prevented from being Catholics at all.

    St Isaac Jogues, ora pro nobis.

  15. OrthodoxChick says:

    So given “LisaP’s” coment above about taxing religions being unconstitutional, and since CJ Roberts is a sharp legal-minded Catholic, he knows that the Catholic lawsuits regarding the HHS mandate (which is part of Obamacaretax) will reach his doorstep in the not-too-distant future. Has anyone considered the possibility that CJ Roberts may have ruled Obamacare a tax preceisely so he could give the SCOTUS grounds to rule in favor of the Catholic institutions (and against HHS) when their cases reach his desk?

  16. LisaP. says:

    AnnAsher, I am pretty sure my vote counts not a snit, but I’ll go with Pascal’s Wager on it! ;)

    OrthodoxChick, I’ve considered many scenarios in which Justice Roberts has a long game here — maybe even his take being “guys, you made your bed, I’m going to make you sleep in it, you don’t like it, make another bed.” Told my husband last night that maybe someone sent him a manila envelope full of private eye pictures, or maybe someone whispered that if he overturned the law there’s be war. All sorts of far out maybes! But I can’t get past the fact that no matter what good may come in the long run, the Supreme Court manifestly did not do its job here. The Court is very important to the integrity of the nation, destroying it for any greater good can’t be all right. As a Catholic, he’d also be familiar with the fact that the end does not justify the means! Thanks for trying, but I don’t feel any better. . . .

  17. Pingback: Obamacare places a tax on religious freedom

  18. spock says:

    I am confused. Please help.

    I thought that issues of Contraception, Abortion, and Euthanasia were Natural Law issues, not religious ones. The point being that the right response to these issues are binding on people of all faiths or no faith at all, and not just Catholics.

    If we treat these as religious issues, are we not implicitly sanctioning diversity of opinion based upon ones’ religion ? So if religion X says “Euthanasia is OK”, we have to respect that as a religious belief in a free society ?

    It may be that arguing against these things from the aspect of Natural Law would be ineffective but the way we’re doing it (from religion) seems to me to imply that we have to tolerate contradictory opinions on these issues.

  19. Sissy says:

    Orthodox Chick asked: “Has anyone considered the possibility that CJ Roberts may have ruled Obamacare a tax preceisely so he could give the SCOTUS grounds to rule in favor of the Catholic institutions (and against HHS) when their cases reach his desk?”

    He has more than sufficient grounds in the 1st Amendment. A week ago, I would have had great confidence in the outcome of that case. Now? Not so much.

  20. Cathy says:

    spock, while I agree with you completely, that all arguments are within the Natural Law, there is little, if any common knowledge left in the Natural Law among politicians and, most obviously, judges. The Natural Law has been exceedingly replaced by the new biology and the new normal. That being said, what is happening today in our country is evidence of profound and popular dissent against the Natural Law, electing representatives perfectly willing to drop the Natural Law for thirty pieces of silver for themselves, for their state, or for whoever is willing to spend money to keep them in power. We are currently suffering the consequences of this, as we are now the new abnormal.

  21. Sissy says:

    Cathy and spock: it goes even further than Cathy has stated. Legal education does not acknowledge that there is a such thing as “Natural Law”. I once cited to Natural Law in the late John Ely’s con law class, and he nearly fell in the floor laughing. He stated “Madame, NO ONE believes in Natural Law”. I’m afraid that positive law is the only view of law held by the vast majority of legislators, judges, legal thinkers, etc. Would that it were not so.

  22. Clinton R. says:

    Freedom of the Catholic Church comes from her Divine founder. It does not come from monarchs, dictators, emperors and it surely does not come from a US president with a god complex. Her freedom also does not rest on the whims of any political party or court. Vivo Cristo Rey! May Our Blessed Mother pray for the Bride of Christ. +JMJ+

  23. spock says:

    Cathy and Sissy: I’m inclined to agree, unfortunately. This means we have to treat of them as religious beliefs with little practical difference than belief in the Trinity, Assumption of the BVM, etc. Well then, in the future I hope there’s more of “us” than there are of “them”, so we have the freedom to do the right thing.

  24. Sissy says:

    spock: We are not the first to live through a period of persecution; may we all look to the saints for inspiration as we each try to figure out the best way to stay true to the Church and spread the Gospel.

  25. joan ellen says:

    Cathy…re: voting…in the last day I have been thinking of writing in Rick Santorum’s name. But perhaps we need to get ‘united’ on the political front also, with a candidate who can maybe help us with our ‘conscience protection’ problem.
    Spock…”Well then, in the future I hope there’s more of “us” than there are of “them”, so we have the freedom to do the right thing.” I like these words. When I was young I used to watch the cowboy/cowgirl shows and the ‘good’ guys always won. There is safety in numbers and one Natural Law is that ‘for an event to occur a certain critical mass is necessary.’ If enough people prayed an Our Father everyday, even until the election, there might be some conversions due to the critical mass of the same prayer for the same intention…’pray for the conversion of poor souls everywhere’ Our Lady said. She knew the value of critical mass, maybe?
    Thanks, Sissy…it is all right here: spock: We are not the first to live through a period of persecution; may we all look to the saints for inspiration as we each try to figure out the best way to stay true to the Church and spread the Gospel.

  26. Indulgentiam says:

    It strikes me as providential that “For Greater Glory” should hit theaters, against all odds, precisely before this decision was handed down. We have been told whats coming.

    Viva Cristo Rey! y Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe!

  27. LisaP. says:

    Sissy, just finished “How the Irish Saved Civilization” with home school, and if you ignore Cahill’s obsession with women being priests and bishops, it’s got a lot of good to say on that point towards the end.

    His last paragraph I like parts of:

    “Perhaps history is always divided into Romans and Catholics — or, better, catholics [by which he means those with a Catholic sensibility, not pseudo-Catholics]. The Romans are the rich and powerful who run things their way and must always accrue more because they instinctively believe that there will never be enough to go around; the catholics, as their name implies, are universalists who instinctively believe that all humanity makes one family, that eery human being is an equal child of God, and that God will provide. . . . .If our civilization is to be saved. . . . if we are to be saved, it will not be by Romans but by saints.”

  28. Sissy says:

    Cathy, I understand you desire to for someone who shares your values. I’d like to be able to do that myself. But I’ve decide that this fall the best thing I can do for my family, my Church, and my country is to vote Obama out of office. I’m only going to vote for the person with the best chance of replacing him. Voting against someone who poses unfathomable danger to us all is more important to me this year than voting for someone whom I like and admire.

  29. Sissy says:

    sorry….”your desire”, not “you desire”

  30. Sissy says:

    Lisa P: Great quote! I liked that book as well; better still is another in the same series, The Desire of the Everlasting Hills.

  31. mightyduk says:

    Cathy,

    My vote may be a bit like the widows mite, without any seeming impact to the world, it may not be a valiant success in this world, but, I do believe it will be faithful.

    everybody’s vote is like a widow’s mite, the difference is yours is being tossed into the wishing well, mine is going to defeat the most anti-Human and anti-Catholic man to lead the country EVER. To defeat the man who is trying to destroy our nation, and our Faith within it, is a worthy way to spend that mite, not throwing it away.

  32. Cathy says:

    mightyduk, are you speaking of the man who, at the state level, effectively did what Obama is doing at the national level. I am seriously concerned that people are painting Mr. Romney as a blank slate who will do what we hope will be done while disregarding his entire political record. Of course, many did this four years ago with Obama claiming he would end the wars, reverse the Patriot Act, not force the Church politically to do what is offensive morally, etc., etc., etc. We complain about bad leaders, RINOS, whatever, then we elect them and cry victory. The last delusion was beheld when I saw people replacing pro-life avatars with “Vote for Scott Brown” and proclaiming his election a pro-life victory. I’m not voting for a “leader”, I’m voting for a representative, a human being who actually is determining his run for office based on the same concerns that I have for this country in the present and in the future. I can deal with a sworn enemy being elected, but I cannot deal with excuses for electing them on either side.

  33. mightyduk says:

    Cathy,
    are you speaking of the man who, at the state level, effectively did what Obama is doing at the national level

    No, I was speaking of the one who is trying to force the Catholic Church and the Faithful to fund abortion and contraception directly. THe one who couldn’t bring himself to require medical treatment to born infants….

    Why don’t you respond to my point? Obama is the most anti-Human and ant-Catholic president this country has ever had, if you agree with that, and you KNOW to a moral certainty that the only way for him to be defeated is to elect the very flawed, yet quite obviously lesser evil, Romney then your preference is to toss your vote, what does that mean?

    To all those pushing a 3rd party, or a “revolution” at the convention, listen, it takes about 10% of the electorate to select a presidential candidate, if you can’t muster that many people to select your own candidate at the primaries, what in the world makes you think you can muster the numbers to win in a general election??? It is NOT possible.

  34. LisaP. says:

    I wouldn’t make Cathy’s decision, but I won’t argue with her for making it.

    This election should be an incredible landslide. There should be a small sliver of Americans voting to reelect a man who wants to bring both fascism (nationalizing industry) and socialism (socialized medicine) to America, who won’t protect newly born babies from death essentially by exposure, who has enslaved us and generations after us to Communist China, who is dismantling the Constitution and the institutes that support separation of powers, the list goes on forever. There should be, like, two Americans foolish enough or driven enough by evil to vote for him. We should be able to lose tons of votes to third party candidates and still see Romney win hands down, because Americans don’t vote to enslave themselves and destroy human life. Now, if we have a nation so thoroughly enamored with evil that this isn’t true, I’d still rather have the lesser than the greater evil as president. But it’s not going to be that big a deal in the long run. Lesser evil as president and a nation where 49% of the people are good with baby killing? We got problems no election will solve.

  35. q7swallows says:

    Fr. Z and Holy Souls Hermitage,

    “Dhimmitude has arrived. Four weeks to enforcement.”

    You have nailed it!!! Dhimmitude is EXACTLY what this is!

  36. MarkJ says:

    Unless Obama figures out a way to definitively win the November election, he will figure out a way to cancel the election. In my gut I feel that Obama is here to stay until, ultimately, the Church triumphs…

  37. Kerry says:

    May I recommend to readers here John Yoo’s WSJ editorial? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496520011395292.html
    His comparison of Roberts to Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in @1935 is instructive.
    I continue to believe that until abortion remains the entrenched evil it has become, (see Michael Stokes Paulsen’s article about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5772), the moral order will not return to its upright and locked position. I think as individuals we must police ourselves scrupulously, and pray vigorously. I also think the onrushing wave of world wide financial catastrophe will catch the notice of those least attentive among us. Viva Christo Rey!

  38. Supertradmum says:

    MarkJ, set-up riots, a war, martial law….

  39. Gail F says:

    Holy Souls Hermitage is right: This is Dhimmitude, unless we act very quickly. We will be permitted to be Catholic, but we’ll pay for the privilege. There will be no public or governmental patience for out-of-wedlock pregnancies (when steriliztion and contraception and morning after pills are free, which they are about to be, and abortion is free, which it will be), for having too many children (when the HHS tells you the optimal number for every family), for staying alive when you are old and sick (when the ACA Board decides when is “too sick.”) It will be difficult to get a job, because no one will want to hire one of “those Catholics” who live too long and take up too many resources with their big families. You want to get ahead? All you have to do is believe whatever you want privately, but don’t say a word publicly and don’t oppose men marrying other men and write your $1 a month check to the abortion pool (one of the most overtly diabolical things to come around in a long time). And if you have that child with Down Syndrome, don’t expect anyone else to pay your bills. Oh yeah, Dhimmitude.

  40. Supertradmum says:

    In Czechoslovakia, under the Soviets, I personally know of two academics, a man and his wife, who were fired from their academic positions in Bratislava just for being Catholic…to add to the list above.

    And I have my story of being pressured by the British Health Service many years ago, when I was covered, to have an amniocentesis, which I refused, and was yelled at by not one, not two, but five doctors, who descended upon me in the clinic room, for daring to have a baby who could be a drain on the system-Down’s Syndrome- as I was almost 40. I refused, I stood firm., I walked out and cried all the way home. My husband at the time was at work, so I had to face this ordeal alone. Of course, my son was born not only normal, but with an extremely high IQ. This type of pressure will happen, mark my words. And, some women, not as strong as myself in the face of evil, will succumb, poor things.

  41. wanda says:

    I understand that Mitt Romney is far from perfect, but a vote cast for anyone besides Romney is a vote for Barak Obama.

  42. Cathy says:

    Thank you, Lisa, and, Wanda, that is wrong. I cannot tell you how many people I encounter who say they simply want to sit this vote out because they can’t stand either candidate. Honestly, and, I’m not telling anyone who to vote for, I’m simply saying don’t give up your right to vote because you find both candidates evil. Please vote, and consider candidates other than the two choices that many consider aren’t choices. If you must, write yourself in, write the corpse of Millard Filmore in, or vote for someone you may find, surprisingly, holds the same principles you hold dear, and is a candidate. That is my most simple proposal, do not give up your vote to despair.

  43. wanda says:

    Cathy, 100% agree with ‘don’t give up your right to vote’! Absolutely. My point is the only way to save our country, it’s on life support right now, is to vote obama out of office. My other point is do not waste your precious vote. Every vote must be for Romney – otherwise it counts for Obama.

  44. Supertradmum says:

    People who sit out votes are not practicing the minor virtue of patriotism. What is the sense of wasting a vote? It is purely selfish and prideful not to vote for someone one thinks is imperfect. I cannot imagine some people who are so fussy encouraging their sons to go into politics. This is the duty of the layperson, to be involved and not be quietists.

  45. Johnno says:

    wanda

    You should consider the worrying facts that Romney is a lot like Obama in many ways. So you’re only trading one for the other who would possibly carry on the damage of the former. In other words, at best America sends a message that they don’t like a man like Obama, but realistically nothing changes, as both parties are one and the same serving another master who wants these evil things to come about. You might be caught in a trap that is slowly squeezing in on you little by little under the illusion that your votes mean anything. I’m not telling you not to vote. Nor am I saying your concerns that voting third party will hurt chances to get Obama out of office, or that it is not a strategic method to buy your country a little more time. But one must also be aware that the scope of the problem is a lot larger than just which party is in control. There’s a reason the devil is the prince of this world.

  46. Random Friar says:

    Read these most surprising comments from the First Lady: http://www.speroforum.com/a/IRHTDLKLHS1/72931-Michelle-Obama-gives-green-light-to-politicization-of-religion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+speroforum%2Fnroq+%28Spero+News%29

    Isn’t this what the Church had been arguing all along? A real headscratcher. One can only assume that churches can do as they like and call it “Freedom of Worship,” so long as it does not conflict with political agenda.

  47. Pingback: WyBlog - Now more than ever we must continue praying for religious freedom

  48. If all may condescend to read a foreigner’s vague thoughts on the matter, even supposing (quod Deus advertat!) your Constitution did read “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion”, how could that be legally understood as merely “freedom to visit (or not) your chosen providers of religious experience on your one chosen day of the week”? My point is, for goodness’ sake, why even concede to Obama or anyone else his chosen sense of the word “worship”? Why let anyone think that Catholic “worship” is confined to Sunday Mass? Every prayer, every act of sacrifice, every choice informed by faith should be an act of worship; and conversely, “freedom of worship” cannot sensibly exclude freedom to not worship what is not worshipful — particularly, we who acknowledge what we know as truth will not worship Satan with the blood of innocents or with incense before Caesar’s effigy. It seems to me that if Obama continues to push “freedom of worship”, you all ought to run with that, saying “thanks! we’ll take that one, too”, and keep the constitutional freedom of religion all the while.

  49. Sissy says:

    Rest assured that no one is conceding that point to Obama.

  50. Pingback: Now more than ever we must continue praying for religious freedom | Right Wing News

  51. oakdiocesegirl says:

    Food for thought from a Bay Area blog: At least no one with cancer will have to die pregnant, with all those free contraceptives available! Everyone will be screened for cancer, so we’ll know when we are gonna die and of what. But with so many pharmaceutical resources devoted to cranking out more, new, & better methods of birth control, there are already dangerous shortages of cancer chemontherapeutic agents, which will only worsen under Obamacare. Not to mention the aggressive tactics of Obama’s DEA curtailing production of oxycontin & other cancer pain control agents so those scofflaw Kentucky hillbillies don’t get their hands on ‘em! Life & death with cancer under Obamacare sounds so much better, doesn’t it?

  52. oakdiocesegirl says:

    I read the approximately the first & last 50 pages of the SCOTUS decision; i.e. Roberts affirmation & the carefully considered dissent. Terry Moran[ABC] said Roberts actually wrote the 1st 12 pages of the Dissent, then changed his mind?! Roberts seems to me to have made an error in saying the worst that can happen if you object is that you have to pay a tax. But if you don’t [or can’t] pay the IRS, don’t they tack on Interest & Penalties ad infinitem? This could get very expensive. And didn’t Al Capone go to Alcatraz only because of Tax Evasion? Seems to me the worst that can happen is still Federal Prison. Maybe I just don’t understand our Benevolent Leader, Obama. I just don’t think Romney is that malevolent, so I’m voting for him.

  53. LisaP. says:

    I liked this from guy on the street:

    Every prayer, every act of sacrifice, every choice informed by faith should be an act of worship

    oakdiocesegirl, I think you’re right to point out how much of the health care system is already corrupted. This is kind of just icing on the cake, there is so much going on both politically and just culturally that already perverts our society’s access to and understanding of good health. Euthanasia is widely practiced already.

    I also agree about the taxes, there is no debtors jail (I’m sure that can be fixed with the next Supreme Court session) but your assets can be taken and while you can’t be imprisoned for not paying your taxes you can be imprisoned for not filing them, that sort of thing.

    I remember Dorothy Day remarking that the only way to avoid paying taxes that would be spent on a cause she found immoral was to be so poor you didn’t pay taxes (I think Emerson said something similar). What I find really interesting about this law is that you are required to have health insurance, so if you evade paying into the system by being too poor to do so, you will then have to pull out of the system by being on Medicaid. You no longer have the option in America to avoid the system altogether. Which, to me, seems very much the point.

  54. HeatherPA says:

    Sharia-esque. Catholics treated as second class citizens and taxed for their beliefs.

  55. wanda says:

    My vote will be for Mitt Romney. The death knell sounded for America this past Thursday morning, did you hear it?

  56. Jael says:

    A tax on being a Christian is part of sharia law. At various times in the history of the Middle East, Christians have had to pay special taxes for the privilege of not being forced to convert to the religion of the conquerors. We are being made into dhimmis by our culturally Muslim president.