a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site
Please stand with us in opposing the Government's attempt to force religious affiliated institutions to provide free contraceptive and abortive services as part of their health care coverage when providing such coverage is clearly against the moral teachings of the organization.
This is a clear violation of the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion and all people of faith need to let the government know that such intrusions are unacceptable.
Thank you for reading this and for standing with us.
Yes - in a compromise both sides need to give something...Which is why we, as God fearing Christians as well as patriotic Americans, cannot compromise on this. There is nothing we can give here. The rule is an attack on our freedom of conscience and freedom of religious practice.
What is needed is not "compromise" but rather "consensus".
For our part, the Catholic Church understands the Presidents efforts to provide health care. However, the President needs to come to understand the depth and importance of this matter to people of faith, and in particular the Catholic Church and her teachings.
So - compromise is not really an option. Consensus is - but it requires a desire and ability on the part of the administration to understand and to work with...so far, this administration has not shown that desire.
Over at CAF someone posted a fairly brief article about the Amish and their fight to be exempted from the Social security system on religious grounds. I thought folks here might find it interesting too...
Now that is funny. Not in a Ha Ha way though. Of course they would still support it. It DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING! In a compromise, shouldn't BOTH sides give up something?
Ryan said:Did anyone else get the Whitehouse response to the petition? They try to encourage us by saying NARAL and Planned Parenthood were supportive of the "compromise". O my. How clueless can this administration get about this?
I'm no suggesting that Christian compromise on their principles. I'm saying that the LABEL that this is some kind of compromise is invalid as neither side gave up anything and nothing really changed. A rose by any other name...
I'm no suggesting that Christian compromise on their principles. I'm saying that the LABEL that this is some kind of compromise is invalid as neither side gave up anything and nothing really changed.
Amen to that my friend.
A rose by any other name...
Or in this case a bit of "Bovine Scat" by any other name will still smell like "Bovine Scat"......
I can't remember - who was that General that led teh troop in first Desert storm and referred to comments by Saddam Hussein as "Bovine Scatology..." Oh Yea - General Shwartzcoff (sp?) Was that it??
The administration is digging in their heels.
I'm not "political" so I don't know how much of this posturing might be an attempt to create or control campaign issues...Or maybe he intends to wait until closer to the election to announce a change and so come off as being "tolerant" and "amenable"....Blah blah blah....
However, if there is not political and electoral machinations going on then all I can say is...it's going to wind up in court and religious groups from a wide spectrum are beginning to come together in this fight, so it will be more difficult to paint this in some narrow way...It is truly a matter of religious freedoms.
If you think it's political now, just wait and see what happens after the election. Win or loose, he won't be worrying about re-election any more and his true colors are going to come out.