Back to Home Page

Lars Larson: Obama violates religious beliefs

by In the news Tuesday, February 21. 2012

Lars Larson: Obama violates religious beliefs

by Lars Larson

Would you rather go to jail or violate your most closely held religious beliefs?

The President of the United States has cooked up quite a mess. His Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sibelius, has ordered that religious-based institutions must provide insurance for their workers;insurance that includes contraceptive care and abortion pills. Now that’s just dead wrong and we all know it.

It’s unconstitutional. In fact, it violates a law passed during the Clinton administration, okayed by Congress, and signed off by President Clinton himself. And yet this President thinks he can do it.

Well a group of religious leaders met with the President last week, and you know what they told him? They would sooner go to jail and violate the President’s new edict than violate their most fervently held religious beliefs.

Good for them, and shame on President Obama for setting up this problem up in the first place just to keep his pro-abortion friends happy.

For more Lars Larson, visit Lars’ web site

tt twitter big4 Lars Larson: Obama violates religious beliefs tt digg big4 Lars Larson: Obama violates religious beliefs tt facebook big4 Lars Larson: Obama violates religious beliefs tt reddit big4 Lars Larson: Obama violates religious beliefs

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Health & Human Services, Health Care Reform, President Obama | 15 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
Back to Home Page
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Look, at some point the whole “separation of church and state” thing has to mean a little more than an empowerment of people who like to run around and whine when they see a monument with a cross on it in a city park.

    If the purpose of that nostrum is to avoid entanglement of the church and state a la the Lemon test, then Obamas efforts here clearly violate this longstanding liberal ethos in these matters.

    We make exceptions in this country for matters of religion in time of war. You are exempted from combat duty if your religion doesn’t permit serving in such a role. This has been a longstanding policy. It would seem to me an extremely difficult logical path by which exemption from defense of the country due to religious objection is permissible, but exemption in matters of birth control, which we have been told all along is a private matter, is not.

    This whole thing is a diversion anyway. Our country is facing some pretty serious challenges. Dopey arguments about birth control are not central to any of those challenges. Besides, last time I checked, you could pretty much walk into any planned parenthood, gay community center, or virtually any sex positive event and get condoms virtually thrown at you free of charge.

    • Ramalama

      Rupert,

      If the leaders of the Catholic Church don’t want to use birth control, they are free not to use it.

      However, as a member of society, I am not free from withholding the share of my taxes that pays for war, even though I am opposed to them. 

      If the Catholic Church is so opposed to sex for non-procreative purposes, why aren’t they making a big stink about health care coverage for Viagra and Cialis, or for vasectomies?

      • 3H

        ”
        We make exceptions in this country for matters of religion in time of war. You are exempted from combat duty if your religion doesn’t permit serving in such a role.”

        But, they are not excused from paying their portion of their taxes that go to support the war.  

        There is no provision in the Health Care bill that requires anyone to avail themselves of birth control. It is simply one of many medications/services that are provided by the insurer.  

    • 3H

      This has been a longstanding policy. It would seem to me an extremely difficult logical path by which exemption from defense of the country due to religious objection is permissible, but exemption in matters of birth control, which we have been told all along is a private matter, is not.
      It still is, and there is nothing that requires anyone to use birth control.  Any woman, or man for that matter, is free to not use birth control based upon their religious beliefs. You’re conflating the institutions with the individuals.  

  • Bob Clark

    I suspect Obama made this move, especially as it comes prior to the November election and it could have easily been deferred, to aid Santorum’s GOP campaign.  He wants Santorium as his challenger, and not Romney.  If the economy were to stall this Spring and Summer like it did last year, in part because of rising gasoline prices, Romney probably stands a better chance of defeating Obama than Santorium because of Romney’s business background.

    Obama is an assault on individual liberty, especially the freedom to choose how one serves his/her health needs as well as other wants and needs.  Santorium also insinuates a lack of respect for certain liberties, such as sexual preferences when for instance he goes so far as to suggest gays consider in essence reprogramming their sexual preferences.  Given the choice between these two candidates for president, I guess I’d go with Santorium as Obama’s assault seems more broad based and less with tradition.  But it would not seem a very cheerful choice.

    Boy, when I think of presidents during my life time, the two that stand out the most are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.  Reagan really respected individual liberty and belief in the specialness of America.  Clinton had a charm that made you laugh eventhough you knew you might be being had; but also was more willing to move to the middle ground and not be as divisive as Obama.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I tend to agree with you in regard to Santorum. He has a tone of antagonism to sexual preferences that is disturbing. I think people on both sides of the aisle can perceive this.

      Nevertheless I would vote for Santorum in a heartbeat over Obama, and for this I am roundly criticized by more than a few of my friends.

      The criticism tends to be – “how can you vote for someone as openly antagonistic to gay people, I am gay, and that really bothers me that you would vote for him.”
       
      This is totally understandable, and in fact somewhat logical. However it is only really logical in the sense of identity politics, which is illogical on some levels.

      My response is generally to ask if they would think it fair for my to apply the same judgment to them? Obama clearly is anti small business and clearly has fostered such a climate. Therefore should I express hand wringing concern over whether they are a hater or not?

      If someone who is antagonistic to gay people is elected, it doesn’t really have much legislative or official consequence, other than he might veto a gay marriage bill. If someone who is antagonistic to small business is elected, it has far more official consequence, as we have seen under BO.

      So therefore, since an anti small business candidate affects my life far more than an anti gay candidate realistically could affect a homosexuals life, why should I not be more concerned with someone who votes for a small business hater than someone who votes for a gay hater?

      • valley person

         ”I think people on both sides of the aisle can perceive this.”

        Perceive? Since he shoves your face in it at every opportunity, if one didn’t “perceive” this one would have to be deaf & blind.

         ”Nevertheless I would vote for Santorum in a heartbeat over Obama”

        Well that just goes to show you are not the civil libertarian you try to present yourself as.

        “So therefore, since an anti small business candidate affects my life far
        more than an anti gay candidate realistically could affect a
        homosexuals life, why should I not be more concerned with someone who
        votes for a small business hater than someone who votes for a gay hater?”

        Besides the fact that Obama is not a “small business hater,” and nor is Santorum a “gay hater,” you seem to want to make national politics all about yourself and nothing else. Broaden your horizons a bit.

        • Rupert in Springfield

           >Well that just goes to show you are not the civil libertarian you try to present yourself as.

          I’m not sure how judging one person to be a greater threat to liberties than the other means I don’t believe in those liberties at all.

          Perhaps you could explain the logic by which you arrive at that conclusion?

          >Besides the fact that Obama is not a “small business hater,”

          Obama would be considered a hater were the same standards applied to him as Santorum. 

          >and nor is Santorum a “gay hater,”

          And this squares with your statement about one having to be blind not to see Santorums antagonism towards gay people how?

          Basically you have two very inconsistent statements here and you got into that inconsistency because you were more interested in simply being antagonistic and insulting than actually contributing to a discussion.

          >you seem to want to make national politics all about yourself and nothing else.

          Giving my feelings about a candidate in direct response to someone giving theirs is not making things all about me. Its called continuing a discussion about a topic raised.

          You would be aware of this if you had read what you are replying to. You didn’t and that’s fine, no one really expects much of you in that regard.

          • valley person

            ” Perhaps you could explain the logic by which you arrive at that conclusion?”

            Sure Rupert. Civil liberties include issues like sexual relations between consenting adults. Obama is not interested in interfering on these matters. Santorum clearly is.

            Assuming your conclusion, that Obama is somehow a greater threat to the liberties of running a small business than Santorum, then you are raising “economic” liberty over “civil liberty” in your calculation of who to vote for.

            “And this squares with your statement about one having to be blind not to see Santorums antagonism towards gay people how?”

            Because “antagonism” and “hatred” are not the same thing.  I am antagonistic towards your politics. But I don’t hate you Rupert. Santorum is antagonistic regarding gays, women who use birth control, and women who get abortions (among many others), but he probably does not hate all these people. At least I hope not.

            So I don’t have an inconsistent statement. You have simply conflated terms and assumed I agree with you that two very different words mean the same thing. They don’t. Look them up.

            You expressed your preference entirely in terms of the impact on you. Not in the impact on others or the nation or world as a whole.

  • Justasking

    It is crazy. These fools only want choice when it is murder. Idiots.

  • Ramalama

    Should I be able to withhold taxes that are used to pay for war, since war violates my most closely held religious beliefs?

    Should an employer be able to withhold payment for coverage of Viagra and Cialis? How about for vasectomies? Why aren’t these religious institutions clamoring about their coverage of sexual health that benefits men, even though those would seem to also violate their “most closely held religious beliefs”?

    Didn’t that same institution engage in a widespread coverup of activities that seem to violate those same “most closely held religious beliefs”?

  • Ramalama

    Oh, another thing. I can’t believe that Oregon Catalyst puts up with Lars’ sloppiness. 

    Lars makes a claim regarding a federal law, yet he doesn’t cite the actual law, either by name or bill number. This triggers the sensors on my BS detector. If Lars knows what he’s talking about, why doesn’t he just cite the law?

    Also, Lars makes the claim that the Obama administration’s actions are unconstitutional. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it exempt religious organizations from following employment law?

    If a religious institution believes that women shouldn’t work outside the home, do we exempt them from laws that require equal employment opportunity? Even for non-religious activities?

  • crabman34

    Is this guy paid for this schlock?  Someone please give me a job where I can write 150 word long diatribes full of pure stupidity and best suited for Facebook posts.

    Here’s a recipe for a winning article:  Obama did this thing.  This thing is unconstitutional, I swear it!  Doesn’t every one just FEEL how bad Obama is and how unconstitutional everything he does is?  I know!  I think he even knows secretly, but he wants to bring this socialist takeover to the country, so he’s doing it anyway.  It’s common sense!  It’s logical, that thing I just said.  But here, I’ll mention that I know this guy/this law/this survey/this book I read that also proves it (but I’m not going to actually tell you where to find this information on your own, you’ll have to trust me and tune in next week for another of my horrid posts).  There, now let’s discuss how Rick Santorum will save the world.

    This is a stretch, but hey, let’s have some fun.  The bible says something about not being let into church if you don’t have testicles, right?  (Deuteronmy 23:1).  But what about medically necessary procedures that remove them for, say, cancer?  What if you get in an accident or get cancer and need to have your testes removed and you happen to work for, say, Georgetown or DePaul?

    Oh my god, the big bad horrible socialists in Obama’s big government are FORCING religiously-affiliated organizations (not churches) to violate their consciences and pay for procedures that GOD himself says will keep the patients out of church.  I’m guessing vasectomies would fall under the same prohibition.  Can’t be forced to pay for those now either!

    Ugh, this has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.  No one is being prevented from freely practicing their religion.  What you are being asked to do is if you want to live in a pluralistic society and run an institution that benefits greatly from government’s existence (favorable tax rates, land deals, building roads for you and your employees to get to work) and employ people who are not of your religion (see large hospitals, universities, NOT churches), then you have to play by society’s rules.  Your employees would like to have full health care, including birth control.  You have to give them a way of getting it.  

  • Ardbeg

    O.k. so Lars is happier having the church make decisions for other people instead the government.  You go Lars.  Let the church run your life and tell you what to do, how to think and who to vote for.  I prefer having options and thinking for myself.  How the heck can conservatives scream and shout “don’t let the government control your life” but then say it’s ok for the church to do the same thing?  Weird.  Check that-Stupid.  Religion is not a ‘get out of jail free card’, meaning they can’t shout religious freedom every time they don’t like something.  Otherwise Sharia law would have to be recognized or allowing your own child to die because your religion only believes in faith-healing.  Sorry, religion isn’t a get out of jail free card!

  • guest

    The population bomb is everybody’s baby – so KPIP, sheltering right minded whilst reconsigning all dose left of US wangers, mooselims and golden calf occupiers, eat al, to an Orwellian animal farm to fodder each udder until they can no longer Jane Cease and desist.   

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)