2012 Presidential Campaign Issues : #4 : The War on Religion
67Motivation: Due to both the passage of time and the sheer number of issues at stake during the 2012 Presidential election campaign, it's all too easy to "forget stuff". In this series, we hope to provide a set of reminder pages for handy reference in the runup to Election Day.
On the religious front, the greatest danger presented by Barack Obama's Presidency is not his choice of faith. Rather, it's his determination to suppress religious freedom under the bootheel of secular government.
===================================================
The war on Christianity that we see in the news today
Goes back with Barack Obama to at least 2008
The majority of the voters ignored all the warning signs
Like Jeremiah Wright "God damning" America right out in the broad daylight
There's something wrong with anyone who sits in that reverend's pew
And claims he does not remember the theology to which the good reverend hews
But I can tell you one thing, people, though I'm not of the Christian faith
If you can find where Jesus "God damned" anything, I'll eat my hat today
====================================================
There are plenty of stories out there about the National Day of Prayer
In truth, my fact checking research did not lead to that much of a scare
"We are no longer a Christian nation..." did not stand up to scrutiny
That had been taken right out of context, at least as far as I can see
If we're to beat that campaigning rounder at the polls come Election Day
We need to get it right, and in this fight, there's plenty of truth to say
It's not just what's out in the open, but what they tucked in that Healthcare Cow
That's got the Catholics and all thinking people up in arms in the news right now
Now, if you're a confirmed atheist or maybe just dislike religion
You might be thinking Obama's take on this is your favorite kind of pigeon
But then, you want to be careful; it's a slippery kind of slope
Let government dictate your conscience--soon you're hung with your own dang rope
The burr under the saddle that rubbed so many raw
Is Obama's crew insisting that under the Health Care Law
Some religious hospitals must offer copay-free birth control
If you're a practicing Catholic, does that make your fury roll?
====================================================
Church leaders declare most vehemently, they will not ever comply
With an unjust law of this nature; it's war of the religious kind
I'm not a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but he called it perfectly
"The most outrageous assault on religious freedom in American history"
I don't care what faith you follow, or if you follow none at all
This kind of governmental encroachment could cause our nation's fall
Which is why despite my being at least a little bit pro choice
I stand with the Catholics on this issue so that we speak with one voice
Remember in November!
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (5)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (5)
CommentsLoading...
I'd forgotten about the RH Bill in the Philippines. Thanks for the reminder.
The Atheists need to watch out or they will be praying on the front lawn of the White House with the other Muslims. If we allow him to tell us what we have to do when our religion and conscience says no, that could be the next step. We need to retain all of our religious freedoms. The choice to believe or not, the choice of which religion we believe is the correct one.
Iran is not allowing people the choice, if you do not believe in the right religion there, you could be dead.
Oh, you can safely believe whatever you like in Iran--in perfect safety. You just have to fake it really well and lie a lot.
I'm willing to bet there are more than a few Iranians who clearly understand that there really is such a thing as too much honesty. Goes right along with the idea that no good deed goes unpunished.
Ghost
Here we go again, for many many previous elections the voters got side tracked by making abortion an election issue. The problem with abortion is that it is a social issue, and none of the elections resolved the issue.
There are many more important issues for the current election. The basic question is whether you think that Barrack Obama can run as an incumbent president solely on his record of over three years of work in that office.
My opinion is that incumbents should run on their record. Did Senator Obama meet the goals that he promised the voters in order to get elected.
If you are happy with the economy and the expansive scope of the federal government, and the fifteen trillion dollar debt, then by all means reward Obama for doing his best to get us where we are today.
If you are not happy, then consider the Republican candidates, and or any of the other parties.
But don't get sucked into another social moral issue. Electing candidates to office has never solved these kinds of issues, while some candidates have made them worse.
Fred - The Obama Justice Department has tried anyway, and every way, it can to assault the First Amendment. The SCOTUS in recent rulings has beaten back the assaults with usually unanimous verdicts to support the freedom of religion that was one of the corner stones of founding this nation.
Obama likes to talk the talk but walk the walk? His actions speak louder than his words. Now he is into WWJT speak concerning taxes. WWJT = What Would Jesus Tax? Jesus would tax no one IMHO.
Great perspective.
The Frog
Fred, It's sad but true -- or not -- this issue could be the staw that breaks the "we'll put up with it" camel's back as one's religion is a personal thing and this is absolutely an in-your-face attack. I'm siding with the Catholics, too -- this could be the showdown. Super informative Hub and so cleverly done. Best, Sis
Once again another clever report on the schemes these politicians have used to put their agenda into play.
I object to requiring health insurance and I sure don't think our country needs that particular "yoke"
I think they ( politicians in DC )have crossed the line with the majority of things they are trying to put into law, our country suffers for their greed.
gov;t at work
ib radmasters: Your point is valid, but you missed mine. I'm not getting "sucked into" anything whatsoever. Rather, this series (of which this is, as you can see, #4) is being created to provide the general voting population with quick looks at ALL of the issues (social, economic, moral, or hyperspace). I hope to have 100 of these published by mid-August. The idea is that any last-minute research by a voter who's thinking, "Hm, I should check on--(fill in the blank)--"...well, said person can Google and find one or more of these pages tailored to his or her particular concern(s).
And for some people, abortion IS the make-or-break issue. We all have our own priorities.
Frog: LOL! Love the "WWJT" summary of the Taxer in Chief's latest approach, Jim. You never miss.
Sis: Thanks--and please do keep patting me on the back. Makes me work harder on those nights when Writer's Block thinks it's going to get a crack at me. :)
Mary: Absolutely. I did several anti-Obamacare Hubs shortly after that was rammed through...and have actually read the entire 2300+ pages of the Bill (now Law). One of my analyses discovered that the bulk of the individual mandate tax burden falls on--you guessed it--the ever-suffering, so-called middle class.
Bottom line, the poor get subsidies and the well to do pay a penalty that is basically chump change to them...but NOT chump change by ANY means to the guy or gal earning, say, $50,000 per.
Ghost
I apologize for not making it clear that I was not addressing you or your message.
My sole point was to equate the obamacare distraction with the abortion distraction.
Thanks
I agree, your hub was great. Abortion is important to me, but at this point, if its Obama VS. Romney, there is no good choice..... its trading one parasite for another that takes more from the people, than he will ever give back....I am pro-life and will never vote pro-choice, BUT I think many people don't realize that I, like many are not so much after taking women's choice, as we are about destroying Planned Parenthood's ethnic cleansing agenda. The founder also is responsible for the forced sterilization back in the 60's and when it was outlawed, abortion became legal... Margaret Sanger wanted to have ethnic purity IE white folks, and our political leaders know it, including Obama, and a real leader needs to quit funding them period.
ib radmasters: Ah. Got it.
angel: Glad you liked the Hub. As for Obama vs. Romney: It may not be a "good" choice, but Romney would still be light years better than Obama. What many may not realize is that if Obama gets a second term, he'll crank his radicalism up full blast. The horrors we've seen so far will be spit in the ocean compared to what he'll throw at us then.
Yes, we need to defund Planned Parenthood.
I can't base my vote on the abortion issue or gay marriage. Our nation is in grave peril and we must look at the larger picture. Having said that, whatever happened to the separation between church and state?
I understand that you are creating a chronicle of the issues for future reference back. However, I'd just like to throw my "two cents" into the pot. :) Regardless of the issues, one needs to look at who is involved in writing the legislation, who is in the oversight committees, etc. For instance, when Obama first made mention of his intentions with the Healthcare Bill, our "esteemed" leaders rushed to cash in on the inside information...they bought up stocks in the healthcare industry and made sure they protected their personal areas of interest, then pushed it through. (Earning them huge rewards) Crony capitalism is alive and well in both parties! Because of this, it's not about Republican or Democrat agendas, anymore. It's now about how much personal wealth can be amassed while in public office through manipulation of legislation. The onslaught of destroying our liberties and freedoms is simply the method/s being used to ensure that we can not rise up against them in protest. It is being cloaked in words and messages designed to instill fear for our safety if we do NOT go along with their legislative proposals. No matter how it's spun, we will lose more freedoms come election time. The whole lot of them need thrown out of office. You or I would do a better job because we would truly be interested in bettering the lives of our fellow Americans, rather than trying to find a way to line our pockets off of their blood.
BPop and Terri: Agreed and agreed...up to a point. I do NOT necessarily agree that,
"No matter how it's spun, we will lose more freedoms come election time. The whole lot of them need to be thrown out of office."
I believe to the core of me that we have an extremely good shot at REGAINING some "freedom ground" come Election Day. And there are any number of incumbent legislators I very much want to see stay in office. For example (just a few):
--Michelle Bachmann
--Ron Paul (I wouldn't want to see him President because of his foreign policy positions--but don't want to see him gone from the Hill, either.)
--Colonel West
--Jim DeMint
--Darrell Issa
For that matter, despite my working to help unseat her in 2010, Gabrielle Giffords has my respect for the following:
1. When she decided to run for a suddenly open House seat in 2006, she resigned her position as a state Senator to do so--DESPITE the fact that if she'd "phoned it in" for just ONE MORE MONTH", she'd have qualified for a state pension. But she knew she wouldn't be giving the (state) job her full attention, it wasn't right, and so she actually did the "right thing". Not a penny of pension.
2. Not long before the tragedy in Tucson (mere months, if memory serves), she introduced a bill that would have actually CUT Congressional salaries. Not by a lot--5% or so--but if it had passed (which it most certainly did not), it would have been the first time Congress voted itself a pay cut in pretty much "forever".
She wasn't doing that for political reasons, either; she really believed it was a good idea and fought for it on the House floor. Unsuccessfully, obviously, but hey.
There are some GOOD people serving.
On the other hand, I'll be writing on a number of House and Senate races before the year is out. But if we don't get rid of Obama, the rest doesn't count. He's already shown himself both willing and able to circumvent Congress endlessly.
OOOH , Ghost, Michelle Bachaman, is scary I think militant religious right, her opinion comes in at 3rd place, 2nd place goes to her husband (what happened to equal partners?) whom she appears subservient to, and numer 1 is her God. If her God and her husband want an office let them run, I will never trust that she has her own opinion and is nothing more than a mouth piece afer hearing that out of her mouth.
Well...Mary, I get your point. From my perspective, though, I'd personally hate to knowingly go up against what I believed to be in accord with the will of the Creator, and what my redheaded wife wants, she usually gets. I may not use the word "subservient", but the results are in many cases the same regardless of semantics.
What I like about Michelle, and why I'd like to see her remain in the legislature, is her willingness to stand up and say NO to most of what Congress tries to pass. Since most of what they propose is "stuff" I don't like, that works for me.
But I'm not "pitching" Bachmann to you (or to anybody else). That's just my preference.
Thank you for this terrific and pithy report. I agree with you 100 percent. This is an outrage!
I agree, James. Thanks for checking in.
jpcmc Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
There's a separation of state and church for a reason. Being able to choose what you believe is a right that people want to exercise. Obama's health care law is similar to the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines. The RH Bill went under so much scrutiny from the Catholoc Church and its followers.
Yes, I agree, this type of encrouchment is detestable.