ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier this week, Pope Francis made some statements on abortion, gay marriage, and birth control regarding how the church should soften it’s approach on social issues. Many within and outside the Catholic Church found this controversial while others may welcome the change in tone.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from the Chicago Tribune:

Pope Francis said the Catholic Church must shake off an obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality and become more merciful or risk the collapse of its entire moral edifice “like a house of cards”.

In a dramatically blunt interview with an Italian Jesuit journal, Francis said the Church had “locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules” and should not be so prone to condemn.

Its priests should be more welcoming and not cold, dogmatic bureaucrats. The confessional, he said, “is not a torture chamber but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better.”

His comments were welcomed by liberal Catholics; but they are likely to be viewed with concern by conservatives who have already expressed concern over Francis’s failure to address publicly the issues stressed by his predecessor, Benedict.

If the Catholic Church softens on social issues, how does this play in 2016? The stock in candidates like Rick Santorum, perhaps even Rick Perry, might go down considerably.

84 COMMENTS

    • Thank-you. I totally agree. I’m a registered Republican and a Catholic, but get out of my personal business and concentrate on National issues…like the budget and defense.

  1. In all due respect, Pope Francis was addressing his followers. The church, he said, should emphasize compassion and mercy instead of “small-minded rules.” ‘He was simply telling priests to go back to being pastors and stop being rule-enforcers. It does mean that Rick Santorum can stop hiding behind religion and remember that church and state are separate causes. I do not believe social issues will soften overnight and for Rick Perry, probably, never.

    • Sadly, I think you are right! I do get so tired of others trying to make their beliefs into law for me. I wish many would just leave me and my morals alone as I think I am fine doing what I believe is right and certainly not doing harm to anyone.

      • Agreed, but it goes even deeper for me. My concern is that people of faith believe they are to follow the teachings and rules/laws of the bible. I am speaking about Christians, Catholics, etc. Those teachings do not change but man’s interpretations do.

        I have a real problem with anyone in a position to influence others regarding those teachings because in time their interpretation changes.

        For instance: If the bible tells un that homosecuality is an abomination to God….man does not have authority to “re-interpret” that teaching…..yet today, society chooses to turn away from that which cannot be changed in favor of a path more comfortable to follow.

        To my mind the Pope has no more right to change of soften tge Catholic Church’s view of God’s law as I do.

        And people wonder why organized religion is losing ground.

        Can it be that once man chooses to bend to social pressures and change God’s word, that God is no longer the center….but has been replaced by man?

        • Ah but there is the rub right in the interpretation. Beings of free will will of course interpret things differently. And some of us only use the parts of the Bible that reinforce what we want to believe. Why so many use the old testament when it fits their needs to get their point but choose to ignore the parts they do not?

          • Absolutely correct….however, my point is that since how I live my life…..I believe. …determines my here after. Therefore I live according to MY interpretation, not someone else’s.

            This is why I dislike church leaders choosing to soften/change interpretations.

            What happens to one who follows God’s law then changes to a different path because the church leadership says so? Which direction was correct? If the first path was proper, is the new path defying God? Or visa versa?

            Uh uh! If my after life is going to be influenced by my today….then it is myself who must choose my today’s path. Not someone else speaking for God. It must come from within me.

            As a Christian I believe Jesus Christ has given me the Kingdom…….but I also believe that how I live today has a powerful impact on how I will enter/occupy that Kingdom. And I also believe that if I defy God badly/often enough that I could lose my spot as it were. I do not believe “once saved, always saved”.

            Therefore, how or even why would I give my potential future over to another’s interpretation?

            Every time some “church leader” changes the recommended path, every follower is put in jeopardy of living in defiance of God’s word.

            If I choose to walk off a cliff….bad on me, but if I do it because you told me to do it….double/triple/expotentially bad on me.

            • I don’t think that Francis is changing interpretation as much as changing attitude toward interpretation…He seems to have more of a HATE the sin but LOVE the sinner attitude.

        • Bill: You’d have to be a Catholic to understand what this is about. According to Catholic belief, Jesus made Peter his voice on earth.

          Each pope is seen as Peter’s successor, and as such, when he speaks “Ex Cathedra,” he is speaking in the voice of God. You have to understand that to understand that observant Catholics DO take what the pope says as “Gospel.”

          You don’t have to believe it, but that’s part of the Catholic package that you either accept, or not. Clearly, you’re not Catholic, so think as you like.

          The last two popes wanted to “cleanse” the church of anyone who was not fully orthodox–to work toward a small group of “true believers.” Yet, the most beloved pope probably of all time was John XXIII, who reached out to others, including those of other faiths. My guess is that Francis will be greatly loved, as well.

          But it’s not like the popes disagree. It’s just a matter of focus. Francis says the Church has been “obsessed” with matters of sex for too many years. He just thinks other things are important, too, such as, you know, spirituality.

          • I was a practicing catholic for many years. I wasn’t born into it as was my wife. Before I made my decision to join I studied for 2 years in group and 2 more years one on one with the man who was the priest of the church I attended. I know more of the nurs and bolts of the church than many of those born into a catholic family. The study was because the priest and others were encouraging me to become a cantor and 40 years ago that required in depth study leading to committment.

            Knowelege of the church is not an issue. The issue is….what happens to people who follow one way then are told to change direction?

            If you believe the pope is infallable and you are good with that, fine. But this change of direction is not confined to just to the catholic church. If affects many other disciplines including Christians. What about those people.

            This is why I commented to begin with. To reason out the many differences in our social beliefs and structures…..and for that reason to shed light on why these continually changing virw points should not be the focus on any election process.

            You think your way, I think mine. We need to vote for who we believe is the best for the country and leave oersonal gain out if it.

            Easy to say. Difficult to to.

            • Bill, I was raised Catholic. I am no longer a member of any organized religion however I did not leave my morals behind when I left. I left mainly because of the changing church such as strict no meat on Fridays and practices on marriage as well as other reasons that I felt were simply minor man made disagreements and have been left behind now.
              That of course is not important but the separation of church from government is important as it is in the CONSTITUTION.

            • Bama, I so agree….but isn’t it all the more difficult to look at social issues as part of the context regarding who to vote for, when those issues are changing such as the pope’s shift in perspective?

              In a perfect world we would leave religion out of the voting process, but that’s not reality. Now the pope is telling his people that these issues are less impirtant.

              How will this affect their vote?

            • Bill, I don’t think that is what the Pope is saying at all. I think what he is conveying it that those issues should not be the only focus as it/they seems to have become.

  2. That’s the problem with Religion – it is someone else’s morals, not the morals born inside you and hopefully CORRECTLY RE-INFORCED by parents or a mentor who raised you.

  3. We seem to be wandering. The question was, is the influence of religion, going to have a greater impact in 2014 and 2016 than in 2008, 2010, and 2012?

    Catholics have been strong in the anti-abortion movement. If the pope convinces them to chill out, that could take abortion off the political table here.

    • Goethe – Actually i wasn’t wandering. More and more informed people are accepting the Libertarian’s viewpoint of leaving social issues out of the campaigning; adhering closer to what the 1st Amendment really says, which is no opinion on abortion, prophylactics, sexual persuasion, choice of religion as long as Government law is independent of it and no opinion pro or con on “Nature’s Creator. Actually, just follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Although written over 200 years ago, generic enough to support a Democratic (states) Republic (Feds) for another two hundred years.

      If a politician adheres to that it should garner the greatest vote ever.,

      I actually think Ron Paul’s Son comes closer than anyone else.

      • Sam: My comment just happened to fall after yours. If I’m replying to someone, I try to make that clear by using their name as a salutation.

        Anyway, I think the clearest declaration of separation of church and state was said by that Jesus guy: “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. . . .”

        But I was trying to get the discussion going on whether religion would have an impact in US politics.

      • samreusser — good post.

        We, the Real Americans, must not be distracted by such silliness.

        1) We all must press on to save our nation by exposing Lil’ Hussein’s GOAL TO DESTROY THE USA (aided by his despicable appointees that do nothing but stroke this narcissist’s maniacal ego — such as John Kerry, Eric Holder, Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the sycophants that surround this Usurper of The White House).

        2) Elevate Rand Paul to the prominence he deserves — since, only he, Rand Paul, can save our Nation and restore back our Liberties and prosperity, from the NATIONAL DISASTER that is Barrack Hussein & Gang!

  4. Goethe Behr…Our presidents are forever asking God to bless America, sending their public prayers to victims of disasters, hosting religious leaders, and extolling religious values on the political trail so it may be some time before they actually begin to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. European leaders do not use religion as a crutch in their addresses. Many young people are disaffiliating from their churches (a third of adults under 30 are religiously unaffiliated) is because they see our churches as mouthpieces for the Religious Right. Young people are disaffiliating with political parties (nearly half of young Millennials are independents) because they see that Republicans and Democrats alike are more likely to quote from the Bible than from Jefferson’s First Inaugural or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

    As a Catholic, I wince and turn my head when I walk by fellow members holding signs on abortion rights, labeling women murderers, denouncing the President of the United States with unsubstantiated claims, or listening to a holy man telling me how to vote.

    September 12, 1960:(Houston, Texas) John Kennedy said this: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

  5. I just realized what the Pope recently said in the interviews about the church being “obsessed” with silly issues.

    He was paraprhasing Jindahl: He wants Catholicism to “top being the stupid [religion].”

  6. No, these are just distractions from what is important — Obama & His Gang going after the complete Destruction of the USA by eliminating the US Constitution and financially bankrupting US!

    Here is what is TRULY IMPORTANT:

    Impeach Obama NOW — or become his slaves!
    ——————————————————————————————-

    A wife knows about her husband — and Michelle Obama STATES in public that Barack Hussein was born in Kenya!

    What further proof do the American people need that Barrack Hussein Obama is NOT a NATURALLY BORN US CITIZEN — therefore, not eligible by Law to be the US President?!

    Why are we so silent, instead of asking for his IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT?!

    Have we nowdays become the Meek and the Weak — instead of the Free and the Brave…???

    Watch this viral (3.7 million hits) video, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT — contact your Reps and ask them to start an investigation!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M7Rp_Ghv6k

    • Surfisher: I find it amusing that you are still harping on birther BS, while at the same time promoting the election of a Canadian for the ticket. You should go either one way or the other.

      And, of course this time, in addition to being ridiculous. you’re also ridiculously off-topic.

  7. This statement sums up the naivety of those on the left: I resent others telling me what my morals should be and how I live.

    From watching the political conversation over the years between the left and the right, I’ve come to realize that it is actually the ‘left’ who seeks to impose their morals upon others, while the ‘right’ mostly wants to express their viewpoints in the ‘battlefield of ideas’ as Washington put it. The ‘right’ attempts to persuade through conversation, public and private. While the left actually uses legislation to impose their views on the rest.

    The struggles of the past recent decades have been the right resisting the left’s attempt to legislate their morality, or push it through via judicial re-interpretation.

    To be honest, the only place the liberals want absolute freedom is in sexual relationships, everything else, they seek to control and manage.

    Examples:

    Environmentalism/Climate legislation – the left fundamentally believes in man made global warming. There has never been any evidence connecting any behavior of humanity to any of the variations in climate. Yet the left believes this and we have $4/gallon gasoline because of it. The incandescent light bulb is being outlawed (basically). Automobiles difficult for the poor to purchase, because of all the things the manufacturers have to do to meet climate regulations, mpg..etc. Environmentalists beliefs are being imposed on society.

    Endangered species – the left fundamentally believes that endangered animals take precedent over human rights (read the endangered species act for proof). Because of this businesses are limited in where they can build, have building costs increased…etc. Society is impacted negatively by this and the left imposes their moral views on everyone else about endangered species.

    Societal needs outweigh individual rights – the left fundamentally believes in the community’s right over an individual. So if a business can prove it will benefit a community by taking and individuals property, the property will be given to the business.

    Another Societal needs outweigh individual rights – OBAMACARE…with this, citizens are told they have no right to ‘not purchase’ health insurance with certain requirements.

    Rights of selective parenting – the left fundamentally doesn’t believe a child has the right to exist, as long as it is in its mother’s womb. So they have read into the constitution rights to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Imposing their beliefs on the unborn child, and anyone else who would want the child. The right is simply defending the right of the child, yet the left has imposed their view on society here.

    Gay marriage – the dirty little secret of the gay marriage debate is that gay people could always get married. It may not be recognized by the government (ie- licensed), and their neighbors may think their relationship strange, or immoral, but nothing ever stopped gay people from having a formal ceremony to commit their lives to each other, invite friends, family and neighbors to the ceremony, going on a post ceremony vacation…etc. They could designate heirs, power of attorney…etc. They could always get married, just exactly like the polygamists. Sure, maybe the government won’t recognize Wife 2+, but that doesn’t stop them from having the relationship. The gay marriage issue is about forcing society as a whole to accept their viewpoint on this moral debate.

    ‘Social Issues’ as they’re called, will be a hot topic for a while. The only time they’re not is when the candidates deliberately exclude them from the conversations, and the media deliberately doesn’t bring them up.

    • Josh — excellent post. Kudos!

      This part says it all: “To be honest, the only place the liberals want absolute freedom is in sexual relationships, everything else, they seek to control and manage.”

  8. As for the separation of church and state…this is another example of the left attempting to impose their views by attempting to control public discourse.

    Essentially the left says – all people’s opinions should be sought and expressed and represented…except those which are religious….especially those which are Christian. Taxation without representation is OK, as long as the person you are taxing is religious, because to represent their views would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Any views are acceptable – yours, Plato’s, Socrates, Darwin, Lenin, …except Jesus. No, Jesus is not allowed.

    Evidence for this? At a public forum in NYC for 9/11 multiple religious leaders were invited to pray. The Christian was told, not to pray ‘in the name of Jesus.’ A pastor in my home town was invited by the city to pray at a meeting, but on his way up to pray they said…by the way, we don’t want you praying the name of Jesus. Yes, that’s right. Muslims can talk about Allah and Mohammed, Buddhists can speak of Buddha, other religions can speak about the founders of their religion…but for the left, the name of Jesus is divisive. (hence they silence and censor)

    Many are told…just pray in a way we can all agree on…seriously?!?…when have we *ever* *all* agreed on anything?

    The left are the ones imposing their morality on society. Its a classic case of Freudian projection. The left is projecting their own desire and need to control on those who do not seek to be controlled, and/or have a different opinion.

    Separation of Church and State is about preventing a one national religion, it is not about views. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury baptists was a letter *agreeing* with them that biblical text should not be considered legislative authority. He was *not* saying that the bible was not allowed as an information source, and neither is the constitution.

    • Josh: It’s not a left-right issue. It’s an individualism-versus-an authority figure/institution/peer pressure making the rules to live by in your private life.

      • Goethe – authority figure/institution/peer pressure making the rules to live by in your private life is close to a description of Socialism, which is the extreme “left”. And individualism exists in both the right and the left. But the Bill of Rights and Separation of Powers is to prevent Socialism from becoming the laws of the land or even setting laws for social issues or religious beliefs.

      • Goethe Behr — “It’s an individualism-versus-an authority figure/institution/peer pressure making the rules to live by in your private life.”

        What an idiotic statement — did you get it from ‘Mein Kampf’ or ‘Das Kapital’, sciolistic kid?!

        Read J.S. Mill’s treatise ‘On Liberty’ — which defines what our nation is all about. In short:

        The individual’s right is supreme (as long as his actions do not hurt others directly) and Society’s prerogative is secondary!

        • Surfisher. You’re so obnoxious that you don’t even know what you’re saying anymore.

          My point was that individuals/independents/libertarians should think for themselves and not buy into the amalgam of church-state that fundamentalists are always trying to impose on us.

      • My point is, as born out by history, and the national debates today, that while it is an ‘individualism-versus-an authority figure/institution/peer pressure making the rules to live by in your private life,’ the greatest violators of individual liberty are the leftists.

        Look at who wants gun control? Leftist or right wingers? Is this not using government to control individuals?

        Since the ‘age of reason’ it is the leftists who have been the greatest violators of individual liberty in the western world. Why? Leftists fundamentally have an atheistic philosophy/worldview. With an atheistic worldview nobody has any inherent rights, and the end way of valuing someone is based on what they can ‘contribute to society.’

        Reagan said it accurately years ago – ‘our struggle is against materialism.’ Materialism is the root of communism. The left has a fundamentally materialistic point of view, while the right has a fundamentally spiritual point of view.

        …on a side note – I found it amazing that the bible (text completed around 2000 years ago) when describing Jesus judgment on the world, judged those on his ‘left’ and blessed those on his ‘right.’ Now, one could say it all depends on which way your facing which left is left and right is right, but still funny how something written 2000 years ago mentions how the ‘left’ side is against God. And today it is the ‘left’ who wants to exclude God from things.

        …oh, crap…I think I may be imposing my views…violation of church state separation…violation of church state separation!!

        • Josh: That’s pretty twisted, dude. You can rant about leftists, upists, downists, rightists, backists, frontists, or whoever, but that’s irrelevant.

          The discussion was about imposing churchism on individuals through state power. And that’s a bad idea.

          • This discussion is about ‘Will social issues be on the back burner in 2016’ since the pope is encouraging his priests to be more kind (but not change stance) on social issues.

            I am pointing to the fact that its not churchism being imposed on people through state power, it is the leftists imposing their view. Well, not all leftist, maybe its best to call them ‘imperial leftists’

            i see the imperial leftists like children on the play ground. When everyone is playing baseball, and they want to play football, they go crying to the teacher about how its unfair that they don’t get their way. ‘Everyone else is playing and having fun, but not me.’

            used to be, we’d tell the kid…johnny, you need to grow up and realize the world doesn’t revolve around you. But now, johnny holds a ‘minority’ viewpoint, and the ‘majority’ is oppressing him by not playing his game. So now, everyone must play football so that we don’t oppress the ‘minority.’

            Minority has changed definition, too. Used to be it applied to races. Now it has been broadened to ‘views’ and ‘morals.’

            That’s what I’m pointing to. Church isn’t using state, that’s a red herring. Those who claim as such either just don’t like the church in general, so they object to anything that comes from it.
            Or, they projecting onto the church the controlling desires they have within themselves.

            • Josh – you do make some good points about the “Imperialist” left. Unfortunately, the hard right of the Tea Party is similarly guilty using the Church to impose social and religious views. If the Tea party would morph to Libertarian and let the Social Issues just lie there not discussed, the political venue could change dramatically. Some Libertarians even feel like Tea Partiers and some are more like Deists or even Atheists. The key is they believe social issues should be left to personal choice and not controlled by the Republic.

            • Sam: In reference to your Sept 24 12:27am comment about the Tea Party, you’re confusing a few nutcases with the rank-and-file. If you’ll look at the Tea Party Platform, there’s no reference to God, Jesus, or Church. It’s not that Tea Partiers are atheists, it’s just that your personal religious beliefs are IRRELEVANT to the movement.

              See here:
              http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

            • Goethe – I refer U 2:
              samreusser September 24, 2013 at 9:16 pm
              Josh – You are either missing my point or Mis-interpreting my statement. The Tea Party its self is non-religious and its 15 non-negotiable core beliefs do not discuss “Church” and welcome all, religions or non-religious. I am a member, have been since 2010 and donate to the Tea Party movement. However there are several prominent politicians (and i shouldn’t have to name them) who let their Christian beliefs influence their stands on social issues.I’m not saying they are right or wrong. They especially take the opposite view of the three you mention that the left harps on. If they would just say these are personal issues and “we subscribe to the original founding documents.” – the Tea Party and Libertarians could combine and would scoop up a whole lot of Independents.

            • Sam: You’re right. I have been trying to catch up with some of these posts. I was not as far as your clarification.

            • Sam said, “the hard right of the Tea Party is similarly guilty using the Church to impose social and religious views”

              examples, please. If I make statements, I usually try to back them up with some kind of evidence, or example.

              The ‘social issues’ mentioned in the original line here were: abortion and gay marriage and birth control

              These are issues where the left are the imposers, not the right.

              Abortion – as previously mentioned, this is a demand of the right of parents to end the life of their child in utero. Leftist have pushed this in place via judicial ‘amendment’ by reading into the constitution something that wasn’t there. Previous to Roe v. Wade the states all across the USA had a lot of restrictions. This is about the few imposing their views on the many. The right is simply standing up for the rights of children.

              Gay marriage – in short, gays could already get married, but they could not stand that the public did not accept them. So they are trying to use the court system to impose this across America. Again, leftists imposing, right is just resisting.

              Birth Control – the leftists are demanding that every health insurance provider, provide birth control, regardless of their personal beliefs. This is again the left imposing their view and the right is resisting.

              If you have any examples of ‘social issues’ where the church is broadly trying to impose a view, please provide.

              When the church has gotten involved in social issues in the USA, the history has been pretty good. The churches were one of the main centers where republicanism was preached leading up to the revolution. The church was also one of the main drivers for ending slavery. Civil rights have always been led by pastors (Reverend Martin Luther King (JR, and SR), Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton…and many more not known publically).

              I really would like to see examples of the right ‘imposing’

            • Josh – You are either missing my point or Mis-interpreting my statement. The Tea Party its self is non-religious and its 15 non-negotiable core beliefs do not discuss “Church” and welcome all, religions or non-religious. I am a member, have been since 2010 and donate to the Tea Party movement. However there are several prominent politicians (and i shouldn’t have to name them) who let their Christian beliefs influence their stands on social issues.I’m not saying they are right or wrong. They especially take the opposite view of the three you mention that the left harps on. If they would just say these are personal issues and “we subscribe to the original founding documents.” – the Tea Party and Libertarians could combine and would scoop up a whole lot of Independents.

            • Sam: You’re absolutely right. If the Tea Party had gone to the Libertarian Party, they would have had a lot more power, and the Republicans would have had to change or dissolve, as the Whigs did.

              I also think there could have been a way to bring in the anti-corporate people from 99%. When you’re fighting the establishment, you want to look for as many allies as possible. You don’t have to agree on everything to work together.

            • Goethe – Actually i think I think the Tea Party / Libertarian Party could benefit from using Big Biz. Too bad CBS is worth so much, I would love to see Koch Industries buy it and even out the political ideologies of the four networks. But even so Koch et al could put together some serious ads about Libertarian and T.P. values and ideas on righting the U.S. vessel that has lost Steerage-way and is damn near adrift. Pick appropriate candidates or even put behind FreedomWorks or Freedom Partners.

              all the lefties & Dems in the U.S. are not going spend what Kochs can spend if the so desire, Kochs could buy Gates and Buffett and have bucks left over.

              tell the Rino’s get in line or get lost Tea Party and Libertarians are moving all ahead full for the people not backing down for the Democrats.

            • Sam: I often disagree with you, but thanks so much for posting. It’s such a relief after having to read the drivel that drizzles from Surfisher.

              Anyway, I don’t know. The good thing about the Tea Party is its grass roots. I’m afraid if the multinationals get overly involved that the movement will be perverted to be ONLY for their benefit. The real problem with Obamacare is that it’s a welfare program for insurance companies. Give BigBiz an inch and they’ll take a mile, and your privacy, and your job, and your home, and your rights. . . .

            • Josh: You’re really using 1984 logic. First, you have this unhealthy hatred for someone you’re calling “leftists.” You want to bring this hatred into every discussion, whether relevant or not.

              And now, you’re trying to say that your adamant demand to control the personal behavior of others is somehow NOT control. To hear you say it, someone is trying to force you to marry some guy, sit on your bed and put a condom on your dick, and then reach in and yank out your sister’s fetus. NOBODY is forcing you to do anything. YOU are the one who is trying to force other people to live by YOUR rules.

            • Josh: It’s WAY off topic, but even if it weren’t your baseball/football delusion never happened. You make up fictitious wrongs and rant against them.

              And your promotion of religious influence in every facet of our lives and government puts you exactly opposed to Libertarian thought. THAT is what I meant by individualism versus institutional control. Look at the Libertarian platform:

              [Headline] Church and state should be completely separate:

              [Copy:] We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We oppose the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service.

              Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

        • Josh — this one was a let down.

          Sorry, but you should have left the other posts stand on their own excellence (this one did not help, but did the reverse).

    • Josh — another excellent post.

      Let me add the TRUE REASON the Left is attacking Christianity — because these Liberal wackos want to portray the original builders of the USA (the European Christians that emigrated and risked their lives to create and make our nation great) as “baddies”.

      To these Liberal Scum being WHITE is a “sin” — and since more than 80% of American Whites are Christians, attacking Christianity in general is a way to get rid of the Whites.

      Liberals are the most racist people on the planet — they’ll accept anyone, as long as they are not white people.

  9. I guess this fits this thread, since it’s a social issue. But it may also deserve a thread of its own, since it is dramatic:

    Rand Paul was in Michigan over the weekend, and he said we should stop passing resolutions to totally defund Obamacare, especially tying it to a government shutdown.

    That puts him in direct conflict with Cruz, who is going to try to push the house bill in the senate.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/rand-paul-gop-defund-obamacare-97161.html

    I have always said that Rand is a politician, as opposed to his father, who is a citizen-representative. As soon as Rand endorsed Romney while his father was still claiming a chance to win the election, I figured, this boy will do anything to win.

    But of course, the ART of politics is compromise. The trick is getting as much as you can in the negotiation, and it’s easier to win if you don’t begin by poking the opposition in the eye.

    So far, I think Rand Paul is the only viable Republican candidate for 2016, despite being a “politician,” which I think finally answers the question Nate posed weeks ago. No other libertarian darling is willing to listen to anyone else, And someone like Christie is not going to get libertarian support.

    • Worth noting this excerpt.
      ———————————–

      Late Saturday, [Rand] Paul said in a statement that he still fully supports defunding and repealing Obamacare.

      “I will continue to lead the fight until we win,” he said. “I will not vote for any CR that funds Obamacare and if there is one penny for Obamacare I will vote no.”

      Congress must pass a funding bill by Oct. 1 to avoid a government shutdown.

      The House’s continuing resolution, passed Friday, defunds President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. As the bill goes before the Democratic-controlled Senate next week, it faces essentially no chance of keeping the Obamacare measure intact.

  10. Since 2011, the House of Representatives has spent approximately $53.8 million dollars of taxpayers money attempting to repeal The Affordable Health Care Act. This translates to approximately $1.45 million per vote. This is a staggering amount of taxpayer monies wasted by elected officals who ran for office on a platform of cutting or eliminating taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that repeal would add $109 billion to deficits over the next decade. I believe that Rand Paul is an astute politician who will gradually withdraw his opposition, without acknowledging the fact, and soften many of his present political views. He desperately wants to become president To do so, he will need to present himself as a leader of all the peoples, not just one segment.

    • One of the things I’ve learned is that in politics (both left and right) will use the truth to tell a lie. These numbers are meaningless without looking at the source of information and how the data was collected, and what the basis is for determine that the House of Representatives paid $58.3 million dollars to someone(s).

      Here’s an easy example of a numbers trick:

      A company says, everyone’s salary will be doubled starting next month. The next month person A (whose current take home is 25K/year) is changed to $50K/year. Person B (whose current salary is 50K/year) is changed to $100K/year. The company kept its promise right? In political numbers, no they didn’t…. Person A was increased by 25K, person B was 50K increase…

      Person B got twice as much as Person A, this is evidence that the company lied and did not increase everyone the same…

      This is using the truth to tell a lie, liberals/leftists use it foundationally…because their policies don’t work, and people don’t really like their ideas…so they have to package them in a way to make it sound like there saying one thing, when really their meaning something else.

      Perfect example is the bogus $109 Billion. Only in using the truth to tell a lie can someone say that not spending will increase a deficit. I’d like to see the details behind the $109 Billion.

      • Well, Josh, it goes like this…The information I posted comes from The Congressional Budget Office, a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides economic data to Congress. This branch was created under Richard Nixon’s presidency. I do not believe their findings are bogus, nor do I believe this group is concerned with who is leftist, rightist, or whatever name you chose to label people. I will admit, however, I do not understand your shell game example or how you suggest using the truth to tell a lie.

    • Tess Lieheart (the Obama paid shill posting here)— googleing again for “knowledge”…and passing it on as “fact”…?

      Decent try this time around with your patented subterfuge — you’ve earned your 30 pieces of Obama dollars for propaganda.

      Too bad for you, and your boss — Lil’ Hussein — that Josh nailed you to the wall and exposed you for the Sciolistic Liberal Shill that you are… LOL!

  11. If it comes from the CBO, surely you can provide the links? I did a little digging on the CBO site myself, and found an article with this title:

    “Federal Spending on the Government’s Major Health Care Programs Is Projected to Rise Substantially Relative to GDP” Sept 18, 2013

    Here’s the link:
    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44582

    Starts by saying:
    “CBO projects that budget deficits, although projected to decline over the next few years, would gradually rise again under current law, mainly because of increasing interest costs and growing spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the subsidies that will be provided starting in 2014 through the newly established health insurance exchanges.”

    The article digs into some details, but the final conclusion of the CBO is “federal spending for health care will be pushed up in the future” for 2 reasons:

    1. Aging population will put more people on Medicare
    2. “expansion of federal support for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act”

    So the $109 Billion can’t be the *whole* truth.

    Here’s what else i found on the CBO site:
    “CBO Releases Two Analyses Related to the Affordable Care Act” – July 2012 http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43473

    This 2nd link mentions the $109 Billion. But it is $109 Billion with a twist. Here’s the bottom line: in order to get the $109 Billion they must raise taxes (revenues) by $1 Trillion over 10 years. Here’s the full comment:

    “Assuming that H.R. 6079 [this is the House’s ‘Repeal Obamacare’ deal] is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.”

    So basically Obamacare projects $890 Billion in ‘additional’ spending with $1 Trillion in ‘additional’ taxes. Follow the logic? If repealing will reduce spending by $890, then leaving it will cost $890. If repealing will decrease revenues by $1 trillion, then leaving it will increase revenues (taxes) by $1 trillion.

    Summary – yes – we will save $109 Billion over 10 years, if we increase our spending by $890 Billion, and increase our taxes by $1 Trillion.

    So it is using the truth to tell a lie. The lie is found in what this statement implies:

    “The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that repeal would add $109 billion to deficits over the next decade.”

    This statement implies that Obamacare somehow decreases federal spending (which is a lie) and uses the $109 Billion truth to do it. Obamacare increases federal spending and increases taxes. It just happens to increase taxes more than it increases spending.

    The CBO is not innaccurate, is just that their data has been used deceptively (at worst), or innaccurately (at best). I’m not sure where you saw the $109 Billion originally, but it seems whoever it was wasn’t being completely honest, or maybe didn’t understand what they were reading.

  12. Evidently you misread. I was not writing about the pros and cons of the actual cost of Affordable Health Care. My post was about the cost to taxpayers for the repeated attempts to repeal this law.

    • Which part did you miss…silly sciolist…?!

      Tess Lieheart (the Obama paid shill posting here)— googleing again for “knowledge”…and passing it on as “fact”…?

      Decent try this time around with your patented subterfuge — you’ve earned your 30 pieces of Obama dollars for propaganda.

      Too bad for you, and your boss — Lil’ Hussein — that Josh nailed you to the wall and exposed you for the Sciolistic Liberal Shill that you are… LOL!

    • I assume you are referring to this comment: “Since 2011, the House of Representatives has spent approximately $53.8 million dollars of taxpayers money attempting to repeal The Affordable Health Care Act. ”

      What is the source of information for the $53.8 Million statement? CBO had the $109 Billion.

      Here’s one place i found it: (won’t post the link since its a non-government site, but it was something called ‘The Progressive Cynic’)

      “According to accounting done by CBS Miami, the first 33 ACA repeal bills proposed in the House have took up over 80 hours of our legislature’s time and cost taxpayers over $53.8 million dollars in legislative costs.”

      Evidently every hour of legislature time costs – $672,500.00.

      This also seems to be using a truth to tell a lie. The implication is that there is some additional cost to taxpayers for what they are doing (this is not true), when the truth is its really just the cost of having a House of Representatives. And they are just doing their job….writing a bill the American people want.

      The American people do not want Obamacare, never have. The H. of Reps is working to repeal it.

      I will say though, if the congressional republicans succeed…shoot, even if they spend as much as $100 million of legislative time, if it results in a cut to spending of $890 billion and an elimination of a future $1 Trillion tax burden….I call that well worth the money.

      • Josh — it is good that you have the patience to respond to what is a Gubbermint Shill: Tess Liehard (the proper name for this Obama loving anti-American)!

        I have no tolerance for such obvious human trash!

        Keep up the good work, all Real Americans appreciate it!

        • Well, similar to my stance on abortion, i believe there is no such thing as human trash. Everyone has inherent value and is important…that’s the American way.

          • Josh — your goodness is to be applauded, but their perfidy exceeds it since evil has no bounds.

            Tess Liehard “has inherent value and is important” as you state.

            The only importance is this Obama shill’s prevarications are an exposure of the Marxists destruction the BO has perpetrated against the USA — for those that can see it.

            Tess Liehard’s “inherent value” is no different than Goebbels — PROPAGANDA for the new Führer, Lil’ Hussein (that wants to rule the US) and nothing else!

            • Surfisher…the above post proves character assassination is your way of life. You vilify without substance. Unable to debate with reason, you create lies, repeat lies, and use them to repeatedly abuse others. The lies that you have posted about me alone, should have been a red flag to Nate. So, again I say to you “curb your insanity”.

            • Tess Liehard — still clutching at imaginable straws to create propaganda in favor of your boss: Lil’ Hussein, the wannabe Dictator of US?

              LOL, what a good little Obama shill you are….

              You are lucky Nate has not banned YOU — since Government Mouthpieces are not welcomed here.

      • Josh: It’s not really true that the American people “never wanted” Obamacare. During the 2008 election, the people wanted change, and health-care reform was a very popular concept.

        It would have been smart to pull Hillarycare off the shelf and just passed it. In addition to having already gone over it all, he would have soothed some of the hostility with the Hillary people left over from the campaign. It would have been a good tactical move.

        The greatest mistake that Obama made was in letting it dawdle for two years. What Americans REALLY hate is hearing about the same thing over and over–for two years before passage, and then four years before implementation. Just like we hate any war that lasts more than a few months.

        And that’s what pushed down the Obamacare numbers. We don’t understand it, and we hate anything we don’t understand. And, after all the talk, we are at the crossroads of bored-to-death and scared-to-death, as we are sick of hearing about it, but we also know that big changes are coming, and we don’t know what they are–regardless of the benefits and shortcomings, that we don’t understand, anyway.

  13. *The Chronic Deadline Crisis – America’s New Style of Government*

    http://www.learcapital.com/articles/42.html

    “We are on the doorstep of more “do or die” economic deadlines. It’s as if Washington loves the drama. There are actually three impending budgetary “end dates” hanging over the halls of the US Congress in a fog of discord and disagreement…” — read it in full (short article and to the point)!
    ——————————————————————————————–

    Great article to read (you can discard the Lear Capital plugs if you chose, since it is published on their site — even though Gold is the only secure form of liquid asset that assures ones security in an insecure world).

    • Pay attention to this:

      “While the House and Senate play with public monies and public opinion, without an approved budget all funding for the Federal Government runs out on Monday, September 30th. Short of another temporary fix or “Continuing Resolution” all non-essential government services will stop due to a lack of funding. Does this sound familiar? It should. We were at this point just two years ago when Congress passed another temporary spending measure in mid-November of 2011 to keep the government open for business through mid-December.”

    • And this:

      “…Treasury Secretary Jack Lew says the government will hit its borrowing limit around mid-October. With the US at its debt limit … we are once again flirting with default.

      The White House has clearly stated that it will not negotiate on the Debt Ceiling (meaning Obama will keep on trying to RAISE IT), but if lawmakers fail to come together, the economic fallout could be severe. The government would essentially be unable to cover its expenses triggering a cash balance crisis that would throw Wall Street into chaos. Default on any level could decimate America’s credit rating, punish bond holders, and threaten Social Security payments, veteran’s benefits, military pay, and a variety of federal programs. In addition, the loss of borrowing power would most likely send interest rates dramatically higher.”

    • And finally this:

      “Deadline Three: Obamacare Exchanges and Notifications. As if the first two deadlines aren’t enough of a strain on the economy, there are some impending requirements of the Affordable Care Act that are causing added trepidation. Under Obamacare, employers with 50+ employees must provide full-time workers with health insurance. While the “Employer Mandate” and the cap on “Out of Pocket Limits” have been delayed, the new insurance exchanges go live October 1st. By that date, employers must notify workers of the new health care options, provide a summary of benefits, and open-enrollment materials. Failure to do so will result in penalties. In addition, employer-provided insurance coverage must comply with the new regulations or again be subject to sizable fines.”

    • What is the only SANE Conclusion to all of this — Remove Obama from office by any legal means possible (arrest warrants could be issued for his FAKE Birth Certificate; start Impeachment proceedings for his continuous attacks on the US Constitution (which is contrary to what he swore to defend)!

      Even if impeaching Lil’ Hussein is not politically possible (because it would be a racial issue to stop it, and not factual), at least THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS would halt this wannabe US Dictator from doing further damage to our nation (what happened to Clinton — stopped him from meddling in the USA to save his personal skin)!

      Are there no two Honest Americans left in either House to do what’s right?!

Comments are closed.