Republican candidates decry "war on religion"

AP Photo/Elise Amendola

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Taking a brief pause from attacking each other, the Republican presidential candidates took a moment in a Saturday night debate to attack the media and President Obama for what they called anti-Christian bigotry.

After a long exchange between ABC debate moderator George Stephanopoulos and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney regarding the regulation of birth control, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was prompted to chide "media bias."

Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he thinks the Constitution allows a state to ban birth control, but Gingrich said, "You don't hear the opposite question asked."

"Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?" he said. "Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won't give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?"

Gingrich added that "there's a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry jumped in, saying that "this administration's war on religion is what bothers me greatly." As evidence of that "war," he pointed out that the Obama administration has chosen not to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 legal prohibition of federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

"When we see this administration not giving money to Catholic charities for sexually trafficked individuals because they don't agree with the Catholic church on abortion, that is a war against religion," he said. "And it's going to stop under a Perry administration."

As for whether he would oppose a state effort to ban contraception, Romney told Stephanopoulos, "I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception," adding, "there's no state that wants to do so."

[happypagan]

So...let me put this argument in the simplest possible terms. The Christian "Right" claims that holding their religious organizations to the same anti-discrimination standards as the rest of the country constitutes an "attack on religion." On the other hand, ramming their agenda down my throat at the point of a law (read - point of a gun) is A-OK.

Does that about sum it up?

Good. My response to them is simple: keep your superstitious, dark-age dogma out of my life. I don't care a wit about your myopic, irresponsible, murderous religion. What you believe is your own business. Don't make it mine.

[ddequattro]

http://630wpro.com/article.asp?id=2370773 - War on religion

[Atchison1]

The war that is going on right now is a war against democracy, freedom, and equality. It is a war against the basic freedom of our society, the freedom of the individual. Thuglicans make much of freedom in the market place, but have turned their backs on freedom of individuals.

The Catholic Church and other religious organizations are up in arms over gay rights and the proposed regulations which would require Catholic hospitals, universities, schools, and charities to offer health insurance coverage of contraceptives and sterilization to all who work for them. In both cases, the Church presents its options as either being allowed to discriminate against gays in adoptions and to deny contraceptive health insurance coverage OR ending their services. It is a "my way or the highway" view of what their options are. The laws that allow gay marriage and contraceptives in health care don't stop any faith from teaching, preaching, exhorting their people to a particular view. And that is what religious freedom is. It is not the right of institutions to deny equal benefits to gays or women - which is what the Catholic Church is seeking.

As a Catholic, I suggest that Jesus would not abandon the good that is done in Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, or charities over birth control and sterilization, or over civil benefits for gay couples. Jesus would not leave the wounded man lying in the road because he carried birth control pills in his pocket but would ask us to be Good Samaritans and help heal his wounds. As a Catholic, I also will tell you that my Catholic identity is not tied to birth control, the legality of abortions, whether or not gays can be treated equally under the laws of this nation.

[ChuckAnziulewicz]

Newt Gingrich is lying. The Catholic Charities in Illinois and Massachusetts were not "forced" to end their adoption services. They chose to voluntarily end their adoption services rather than placing children with Gay couples as a condition of their public funding.

Here's some perspective on the issue. Catholic Charities of Boston actually USED TO place children with Gay couples. But when Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow Gay couples to legally marry, the Catholic Church spitefully decided to end the practice.

Of course the Catholic Church has every right to run their affairs as they see fit. I normally wouldn't care if they decided not to place kids with adoptive Gay couples .... or Atheist or Jewish couples for that matter. Problem was, Catholic Charities of Boston was being funded by the State of Massachusetts to the tune of $1 million per year. The State of Massachusetts gave them a choice: Either stop discriminating againist legally married Gay couples, or give up your public funding. Catholic Charities chose the latter. Fine by me. You want to feed at the public trough, you'd better be prepared to play by the rules.

As I taxpayer, I refuse to allow MY tax dollars to be used to fund organizations that discriminate against me.

[LeVassn]

I agree, so WHY pray tell must my Tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood? With whom I disagree with vigorusly on both a moral and political scale.

[hattmann]

Many of the comments here sounds like it came from members of the Know Nothing movement. Anti-Christian bigotry, the last acceptable bigotry in liberal America

[happypagan]

You ever hear of Fred Phelps?

[Dogger807]

Talk about a load of crying wolf. Catholic institutions are not being forced to close , they are being denied public funds for their illegal discrimination. No one is even forcing them to bend to secular thinking, although they seem to think they should be exempt from following the rules of society.

For too long the churches have been given too many passes and exclusions from laws that bind everyone else.

[LeVassn]

Catholic institutions that do not provide its employees with birth control services will be forced to pay fines. As many of the institutions are non-profit, they will no longer be able to function, and will therefore, be forced to close. It's called an economic trap.

[BOB-C]

@ JV1970

Your vision is so warped, like a stick in a stream.

[JV1970]

by tiredofeverything January 8, 2012 2:31 AM EST


So calling out christians for being ignorant, hypocritical, selfish, racist, fascist morons is anti-Christian bigotry?

Isn't that like the Ku Klux Klan crying because 'everyone is picking on them'?


_______________________


by JV1970 January 8, 2012 3:16 AM EST


What the candidates were talking about is Obama is doing nothing to help Christianity and is therefore in effect attacking it.


________________________________


.by 88Ronin January 8, 2012 3:59 AM EST


Where in the foundation of American government do you "think" there is anything said about helping Christianity.

Good grief! Have you no knowledge of you own government?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The establishment clause is "the First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.

Go back to grammar school, JV1970, you have a lot to learn.


______________________________


.by saturn05 January 8, 2012 4:16 AM EST


Christians bring this on just like tiredofeverything says. They want to hurt people by their actions thus creating the problem. Obama does not need to help Christianity. That is not a function of a politician. One of the functions though is to make sure that religion is not using government funds to support bigotry and hatred.


_____________________________


.by antoniof123 January 8, 2012 6:53 AM EST


JV1970 are you living on the same planet as the rest of us or do you use only the part of the constitution that suits you just like the bible right?

This country will not fall by the might of the sword but by someone carring the constitution in one hand and the bible in the other.

God have mercy on that person or persons soul because if someone brings down my country well you can guess the rest.


______________________________


.by AttentionDeficit January 8, 2012 7:44 AM EST


JV: It is not his responsibility to "help" Christianity.

[JV1970]

This is to all of you on this thread that disagree with my comment. Yes, it is Obama's responsibility to help Christianity! He should have the courage to stand up and clearly announce to the world that he's a Christian and that he will not stand for any more errosion of our Christian rights.

I know that you have no respect for them but Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum have all clearly announced their stand for Christianity. Obama should man up and do the same and take whatever the atheist groups want to throw at him! Instead he's skirting around it like a coward.

Also Gingrich, Perry and Santorum, being longtime politicians and college graduates, know the constitution as well as anyone, including any of you, and better than most people. They know what is constitutional and what is not and they still had the guts to take their stands for the Lord. I repeat that Obama should do the same!

[BOB-C]

@ JV1970 January 8, 2012 2:56 PM EST

"Yes, it is Obama's responsibility to help Christianity!

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I am, for once speechless, not an easy accomplishment. Could you accept a non-Christian President, say John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, who were Atheists?

"Gingrich, Perry and Santorum, being longtime politicians and college graduates, know the constitution as well as anyone," and are deliberately attempting to trump and subvert it. They may have gone to college but where did YOU get all this hogwash? Were you home-schooled?

[P0STING_AWAY]

by RobAla January 8, 2012 9:32 AM EST
thechooch1: 1965 was almost a half century ago. I am talking about current events. Do you know of any current effort my any state to ban contraceptives? I have not heard of any. Maybe you have.
=========================================================
Robster:
There are a bunch of cockroaches in the Repug party trying
to impose their MoronGelical christian views on the rest of
the world. It is time to step on them. We do not need our
own version of the Taliban here in the USA.

[happypagan]

Right on Robster!

[bossboy31]

I doubt churches want politicians in the pulpits.
In turn, keep the preachers out of politics.