Question by : What is this article about?
Protests Continue Over Insurance for Contraception, Abortifacients
US Federal Government Under Increasing Pressure
By Father John Flynn, LC
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 8, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Opposition to the U.S. federal government’s choice to oblige Church affiliated institutions to cover contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in their health plans continues to gather strength.
According to 1 recent count by the Catholic Vote blog, out of the 183 dioceses in the U.S. who have a bishop at the moment serving as its head, 169 of them have issued statements protesting the new regulations issued by the Well being and Human Services department. In a lot of instances these statements have been read out at Sunday Mass.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has also continued to speak out. In a Feb. three press release, the bishops criticized what they termed “a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog,” regarding the regulations.
The press release accused the White Home of twisting the details and of misleading the public. In response to the claim that the Obama Administration is committed to respecting religious beliefs the USCCB stated blankly that this is “false.”
Then, on Feb. 6 the USCCB issued yet another press release, with a series of points concerning the new regulations. It reiterated the point that a lot of Catholic institutions will be affected and that it will force them to spend for issues considered immoral by the Church.
The USCCB pointed out that protests are becoming made by a number of other groups. These contain the National Association of Evangelicals, The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
Losing the fight
An article dated Feb. 9 on the Washington Post Internet internet site listed a number of factors why, in the opinion of the author David Gibson of the Religion News Service, Obama is losing the fight on this problem.
He pointed out that Obama has lost the support of the Catholic allies who backed his election in 2008. Emblematic of this was the really robust criticism of the HHS regulations by Washington Post columnist and extended-time Obama supporter E.J. Dionne, and Michael Sean Winters, a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter.
In truth, one particular of the most prominent Catholic supporters of Obama, Douglas Kmiec, former ambassador to Malta, also decried the new regulations. According to the political Net site “The Hill,” Kmiec not only criticized the decision but also indicated that “till I have an opportunity to speak with the president, I am for now (unhappily) without a candidate.”
As for Jesuit Father Thomas Reese, former director of the Jesuit weekly America he said that: “the Obama campaign and administration appear to be tone deaf in dealing with Catholics.”
Interviewed by the Net internet site “Vatican Insider” on Feb. 2 he mentioned that: “They do not know how to appeal to Catholic voters and they periodically do things that alienate sections of the Catholic community.”
The Republican Party has now taken up the concern, sensing a vital political chance. “In imposing this requirement, the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, encroaching on religious freedom in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our nation’s most crucial institutions,” mentioned Home Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), according to a Feb. 8 report by the Washington Post.
According to press reports, more than 150 members of Congress, from each parties, have sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Health and Human Services department, criticizing the regulations on contraceptives and sterilization.
In his analysis of the circumstance in an write-up on the American Spectator Net site right now, Sam Gregg, director of analysis for the Acton Institute, harkened back to the popular April 2005 homily by the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he warned of the dictatorship of relativism.
“[T]his is all about the absolutization of choice for the sake of option,” Gregg observed.
“In this world, tolerance no longer creates the safety for us to express our views about the nature of excellent and evil and its implications for law and public morality,” he added. “Instead, it serves to banish the truth as the reference point against which all of us should test our tips and beliefs.”
— — —
Answer by Topheh
Erm… its about…
“Protests Continue More than Insurance for Contraception, Abortifacients”
What do you consider? Answer beneath!
Question by : “Let’s Move On” or “Let’s Move Forward” Is code for let’s not dwell on the truth? As in the case Rev. Wright
Or need to I say possibly Rev. Wrong!!! Oboma has a conundrum is he a racist or did just require to be accepted into the Black Community so Rev. Wright was the path to Chicago Black Community acceptance or is there a thing far more sinister lurking around the corner.
My hunch was correct. Barack would turn the tables.
Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements had been “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”
But we ought to recognize the man in full and the black knowledge out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.
Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.
The “white community,” stated Barack, should start off “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black individuals that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while much less overt than in the past — are genuine and should be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”
And what deeds must we carry out to heal ourselves and our country?
The “white community” should invest far more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice method and supply this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that had been “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.
What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s remedy?
Only this. It is the very same old con, the identical old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everyone but the rioters themselves.”
Was “white racism” actually responsible for those black guys looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their personal communities, as Otto Kerner stated — that liberal icon till the feds put him away for bribery.
Barack says we want to have a conversation about race in America.
Fair sufficient. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America wants to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority requirements to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And amongst them are these:
Initial, America has been the greatest country on earth for black folks. It was right here that 600,000 black individuals, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, had been introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever identified.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no men and women anyplace has completed a lot more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs created to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, companies and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants more than white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and men and women all over America have donated time and income to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing houses for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how a lot of had been visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white children.
Is white America actually responsible for the truth that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven instances those of white America? Is it truly white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, initial and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and specially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that even though white criminals choose black victims three percent of the time, black criminals pick white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more frequent than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 instances as common in the first 3 years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are genuine, we hear absolutely nothing.
Answer by misterchipotle, esquire
yes, Obama is a racist. he hates white folks. even though his mom is white and his grandparents who raised him. yeah, he hates white folks.
do men and women like you think at all?
What do you think? Answer beneath!
Question by Einstino: Students reject Harvard ?
Last year at my school, there had been many brilliant children (of the senior class of 2011). Of course one of them ended up becoming Valedictorian, and an additional one Salutatorian. The Valedictorian kid could effortlessly get into an Ivy League school because he was enrolled in sports, and had the highest GPA and ACT/SAT score. But he decided to go to BYU.
There was yet an additional intelligent high school senior who, even although he just dedicated himself to studies and by no means played a sport or did any extracurriculars or community service, got an acceptance letter from Harvard with a full-ride. But he rejected it and decided to go to the University of Wyoming.
So my question is, “why would anybody reject such a excellent opportunity?”
(By the way, I didn’t personally know those youngsters. Some teachers told me their story. So, please, do not reply saying I must ask them.)
Thank you in advance!
Very best answer:
Answer by Mikaila Cox
I am not so sure….I would picture that maybe they just dont like the ivy league schools, they are actually insecure and believe that they wont make it, they want to have a calm/reasonably stress totally free college life, they want to stay close to house (if they pick a hometown school), they like their chosen school a lot more (the men and women, the life, the professors), their selected school is better at their career than the ivy league ones………numerous factors, truly. Also, just since they go to an ivy league school, it doesnt guarantee them a job…a very good job. I have known folks that have graduated from top colleges and they work at starbucks….its heartbreaking.
Give your answer to this question beneath!
Question by Maricopa County: So a lot of of them send significantly/most of the cash they make here back “home How are they going to pay for the fines?
“Obama Backs Senators’ Immigration Overhaul Outline”
Obama mentioned operate on an immigration bill ought to move forward based on an outline released Thursday by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
“A vital subsequent step will be to translate their framework into a legislative proposal, and for Congress to act at the earliest feasible chance,” Obama said.
The outline calls for illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law, spend a fine and back taxes, and perform community service if they want to get on a pathway to legal status. They would also be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English.”http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10141151
So a lot of of them send considerably/most of the cash they make here back “house.” How are they going to pay for the “fines and back taxes?” Will they be given a pass (of course they will).
Who in the heck is going to spend for those “background checks” and administration of the tests to prove proficiency in English? And to what level of proficiency? Who’s going to pay for the enforcement of this?
Answer by Muerto Mujados
Come on, you know that the la raza nazi hispanic congress members will ultimately wave those fines by calling them “unreasonable” and “racist.” Even although the la raza nazi hispanic congress members put these fines in location. By then you stupid Americans with the MTV attention span, will have long considering that forgotten any of these facts. At least that’s what they think.
How’s that “Adjust” that BO, that actual bad smell coming out of the White Residence, working out for you?
What do you think? Answer below!
Question by peter: When is the “American Chance” tax credit community service supposed to take impact?
I was just watching the news and I was informed about the new community service plan for college students. I’m pretty upset simply because I’m usually provided with economic aid both of my parents are unemployed. I do not have time to do 100 hours a semester worth of community service. I have other bills to pay for besides school, for example, RENT. How am I going to have time to perform 30 hours a week, go to school 15 hours a week, and do 100 hours of community service? I’m pissed. When is this supposed to take impact? Is monetary aid becoming taken away?
Answer by neuroticwilly
when the “other” messiah returns!
Give your answer to this question beneath!