Published on June 9, 2012 By lulapilgrim In Current Events
In my blog entitled, For Greater Gloryhttp://forums.joeuser.com/426259, I wrote that I think the release of this film is very timely and may help us gain a better understanding of the seriousness of the current Obama administration's attack on our freedom of religion in the form of his HHS mandate.
 
 
 
Denver archbishop: HHS mandate an attempt to remove religion from society
By Hillary Senour

.- Denver's newly-appointed archbishop says the federal contraception mandate is the result of a larger push to remove religion from the public sphere.

“Essentially what people are saying to us is, 'We want you to pretend you're agnostic or atheist like us, and that is the way society should be,'” Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila explained to CNA on May 28, as he assessed the thinking that made the mandate possible.

“Today what is happening is that those who do not want faith in the public square are really saying, 'It's our lack of faith, our unbelief that we want you to follow,'” he said.

Archbishop Aquila, who was announced as the new Archbishop of Denver on May 29, called the federal mandate a direct infringement on the First Amendment that is simply another example of  “the erosion of religious liberties” which has been occurring for some time.

“It's the violation of our consciences and it is the violation of religious liberty,” he said. 

In its current form, the federal contraception mandate would force employers to purchase health insurance to cover birth control, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, announced a narrow “exemption” from the mandate for religious organizations that serve and employ only members of their own faith on Feb. 10.

Since then, 43 Catholic organizations across the country, including dioceses, charities, hospitals and universities, have filed lawsuits against the Obama administration on the grounds of religious liberty.

Bishops from every diocese in the U.S. have spoken out against the mandate, warning that it poses a serious threat to religious liberty and could force such organizations to shut down.

Archbishop Aquila said that he would “continue to speak out” against the mandate and will “ help people to recognize the violation that is taking place.”

Christians, he said, should do the same, even if doing so is unpopular.

“If we become martyrs, so be it,” he said. “It is for the Lord that we do it.”

Although such comments may sound pessimistic, the archbishop said that history has already proved that the Catholic Church is able to withstand such opposition.

Throughout the 2,000 year history of Christianity, “there have been the rise and fall of many governments,” Archbishop Aquila said, “but the Church is still here.”

 


Comments (Page 2)
on Jun 19, 2012

Lula, all that stuff was unnecessary but you have to copy and paste anything semi complicated because you cannot do it yourself in your own words while sitting on your bible. First of all, you know my views on abortion or you should by now. Second I will grant that life begins with fertilization … but it is not a human being for quite some time. If you cannot differentiate a cell cluster from a human being, then put them in a dish and see how human they turn out. That is where they are when experimented on, in dishes. And what do you call the result of a fertilization of an egg with sperm while in a petri dish? And then after it is inserted into another human??? This is all about abortion and your desire to just have your own way all the time because you have an old book that you do not understand yourself. This op was supposed to be freedom of religion and all you can think about is how to deny others their rights to choose what they want while you cry for more for yourself. Abortion has nothing to do with religious freedom; it has to do with your dogmatic first century worldview.

on Jun 19, 2012

GirlFriendTess
Lula, all that stuff was unnecessary but you have to copy and paste anything semi complicated because you cannot do it yourself in your own words

I offered the article because it serves the purpose of providing the whole gamut of facts around the question of when life begins. You may not appreciate it, but perhaps someone else will. 

GirlFriendTess
Second I will grant that life begins with fertilization … but it is not a human being for quite some time.

With this kind of thinking , then what kind of life begins with fertilization of a human ovum and sperm, if not a human life?

The very well documented intrauterine photography proves this is just a distinction without a difference. At 3 weeks, 21 days after fertilization, the heart beats with the baby's own blood. From 5 to 8 weeks gestation, the head becomes erect, the face develops, the eyes, ears, and nose appear, and the digits become demarcated. Both the brain and heart tracings are recordable and readable by eight weeks.  

 

Fertilization is the first stage of life...we were all at this stage at one point in our life.Every characteristic the human being will ever have is contained in the genes of the ovum and sperm as soon as united. From this point the human life undergoes continual development. 

All it needs is time and nutrition. Nurture this stage of human life, and it will grow and develop and a human baby is born. Kill it and the baby dies. Either way, it is human life, a human being. 

Granted the cell clusters do not resemble a young boy or girl, but neither does a baby resemble the old man or woman he/she will become. Science has proven that human life is one continuous cellular change, beginning with fertilization and ending with death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 19, 2012

lulapilgrim
Reply #17  lulapilgrim
If this is just going to be another bitch session so you can vent your ‘religious certitudes’,  then have fun. As to your scientific expertise, well you don’t actually seem to have any … for goodness sake, you think the universe is just a few thousand years. Well, if you really want to talk about the term ‘freedom of religion’ and what that actually means … then do so. References work quite well especially for the people who don't want to read them.

on Jun 19, 2012

Jythier
You want me to be legally obligated pay for a woman to be allowed to, for a small copay, legally kill something that I consider human.  Think about that for a minute.  Never mind how you feel about when life begins, or any universal standard, just think of what that means to me for a second.  Consider it. 

Well said. 

GirlFriendTess
I just thought this post was about the 'freedom of religion' ... not the freedom to decide what the world has to believe in.

GirlFriendTess
This op was supposed to be freedom of religion and all you can think about is how to deny others their rights to choose what they want while you cry for more for yourself. Abortion has nothing to do with religious freedom; it has to do with your dogmatic first century worldview.

Obama and his administration toadies see child-killing, inside or outside the womb, as universal Health Care and he has dictated, via his HHS mandate, that we all must see it that way or else. The HHS mandate which is part of Obamacare legislation requires religiously affiliated institutions and organizations, --hospitals, schools, colleges and charities-- to pay for abortion inducing drugs, artificial birth control and services, and sterilization. If a Catholic institution refuses, it faces millions of dollars in fines or may be driven out of existence. 

Freedom of religion is our first and most fundamental liberty and Obama's HHS mandate attacks the Faith and freedom of religion. He's trying to make us pay for actions and services that the Catholic religion has always emphatically condemned as intrinsically evil.  

That's why in the OP I quoted Archbishop Aquila, who called the federal mandate a direct infringement on the First Amendment.

“It's the violation of our consciences and it is the violation of religious liberty,” he said. 

For over 2,000 years the Church has taught that human life begins at conception and that any deliberate participation in the killing of that defenseless life is a sin. CCC 2270-2275. And it's not just the Catholic religion which forbids this evil but rather, the will of God through divine and natural laws. 

 

on Jun 19, 2012

I thought so but I had to ask ... well it is your post so copy and paste to your heart's content and tell the world how much you feel denied and persecuted. And you folks have been wrong for 2,000 years because they didn't have the ability so it wasn't their fault. They just didn't have any science ... but you just reject science by choice and there is no excuse for that.

PS - Good bye Lula, play with someone else. You not only rely on others to explain your beliefs to you … you also rely on others to explain your scientific appeasements for you too.

on Jun 19, 2012

GirlFriendTess
As to your scientific expertise, well you don’t actually seem to have any …

Ha, granted I have no scientific expertise, however, I know that Science has proven that human life begins at conception and is one continuous cellular change until death.  Legally, philosophically, and scientifically this life has always been regarded as human. That is until the diabolical 1973 Supreme Court decision.  

That human life begins at conception is something the Church has known for over 2,000 years. That's why from the earliest times, birth control and abortion was acknowledged to be a terrible evil. Genesis 38:8-10 states that God punished it by death becasue it is "a detestable thing." Aborticide has been condemned throughout history, by law, Medicine, and Judeo-Christian teaching. 

 

on Jun 19, 2012

GirlFriendTess
well it is your post so copy and paste to your heart's content

Ya, sorta like you copy and pasting all those Utube videos in your posts! 

GirlFriendTess
Your opinion of human life is not germane to a discussion on “Freedom of Religion" (neither is mine). We have laws to regulate such things and the idiots who make those decisions don't care either because money is the biggest motivator by far ... for both sides of the debate.

GirlFriendTess
I thought so but I had to ask ...

Just wanted to make sure you understood the connection is all. 

 

on Jun 20, 2012

Also, money runs the world, but your scientists and greatest minds are somehow not above the pull of money and/or making results fit into the preconceived mold they have created for themselves, and that they are paid to maintain?

on Jun 20, 2012

Jythier
Also, money runs the world, but your scientists and greatest minds are somehow not above the pull of money and/or making results fit into the preconceived mold they have created for themselves, and that they are paid to maintain?
All you seem to need is a bible and you have all the information and equipment you need to disavow the best minds in the world just because you know. However the best minds in the world didn’t get there by shopping at yard sales. You and your like never ever vary from your lifelong dementia … EVER … but the scientists are supposed to, just to appease you … why??? If one is a scientist and still believes in a biblical creation, then they are not really scientists after all because they kneel at a magical alter and their priorities are dysfunctional, irrational. How does this silliness play out in your mind? “Top microbiologist in nation has almost enough capital to buy his first microscope to aid his research, all from selling pencils at the religious flea market where they sell fifty cent bibles.” Do you ever think out what your few brash words equates to in the real world? Do you EVER reflect upon yourself when you say such silly things like this? And why is it that everyone who doesn’t believe in your specific flavor of psychosis … is irrational, dysfunctional and hell-bent on destroying just your god because we all the others are just made up … when we well know who really believes in magic and who doesn’t???

PS - If Christians actually reflected Jesus in their thoughts and actions … there would be no problem here at all.

PSS - I still wouldn’t mind talking about ‘freedom of religion’ though if you can stop playing games.

PSSS – I really did know better …

on Jun 20, 2012

When the dating processes used by your 'scientists' dates 100 year-old rocks at millions to billions of years old, don't you think there might be a problem with those processes?  And, if there's a problem with that process, how can we rely on data from those processes to date other things?  And if we rely on that broken process to get to the billions of years you say there have been, how is that scientifically proven?  All science has done is prove that the dating process relied upon is inaccurate - now that's some science there.

on Jun 20, 2012

Jythier
Reply #25  Jythier
They are our scientists not mine … and they use other methods when one doesn’t work. I am sure you didn't read any of the disclosures the scientists made because I am sure you never read any of their scientific papers and I am also sure they were absent from your religious hate mail. This is not my OP so if you just want to play games, I will accommodate you … until the OP’es complains. You just have to play with matches don’t you … Science is not found in your book of wonders … and it seems there in little to be found in you either, go figure.

PS - Lulapilgrim ... is this nonsense where you want this post to go?

on Jun 20, 2012

 

 

GirlFriendTess
And you folks have been wrong for 2,000 years because they didn't have the ability so it wasn't their fault. They just didn't have any science ... but you just reject science by choice and there is no excuse for that.

That's not true. Didn't I just hold up Science by acknowledging that Science has proven that life begins at fertilization? There is a difference between Science and pseudo or junk science. It's the latter that I reject.  

Jythier
Also, money runs the world, but your scientists and greatest minds are somehow not above the pull of money and/or making results fit into the preconceived mold they have created for themselves, and that they are paid to maintain?

Got to agree with you. The preconceived mold is Evolution and evolutionary scientists will not accept any findings that refute it. Take the recent findings of blood tissue in a T-Rex. Here's the story. It makes our point.

Evolution falsified, once again.....

T-rex

R. Sungenis: In this article, field researcher Mary H. Schweitzer writes in the most prestigious science magazine today, Scientific American, about her discovery of soft tissue and blood cells in the bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur that, according to modern evolutionary dating techniques, is about 70 million years old. If it hasn’t struck you already, science tells us that organic tissue could barely last 7,000 years, much less 10,000 times 7,000 years. So what does science do with this anomaly? It pleads ignorance, and it does so while it tries to find a way to dismiss the evidence. When Ms. Schweitzer brought her evidence to Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the museum and one of the world’s foremost dinosaur authorities, after a long look under the microscope at the nucleated blood cells of the T-Rex, he said to Ms. Schweitzer: “So prove to me they aren’t.” That about sums up the history of the bias and deliberate attempts to twist the evidence in favor of evolution that occurs on a daily basis in our high school and college classrooms. Whereas Ms. Schweitzer’s find should have been hailed as one of the most astounding discoveries in history since Darwin wrote his book on the evolutionary hypothesis in 1879, she is basically assigned the impossible task of finding a way to dismiss the blood cell’s prima faciedenial of evolution, and implied in that “request” is the fact that she will lose her job if she doesn’t seek an alternative answer. What does Ms. Schweitzer decide to do? The next sentence in her story tells us loud and clear. She capitulates to the reigning paradigm of modern science, without question: “It was an irresistible challenge, and one that has helped frame how I ask my research questions, even now.” So Ms. Schweitzer, in order to continue to be a member of the status quo and receive her pay check from the powers-that-be, remains an ardent evolutionist, seeking to deny the common sense knowledge her heart and mind scream at her about what it means to see blood cells in dinosaur remains.

..................

little jack horner lying in his corner about C-14 and the T-Rex tissue

http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/evolution/653-little-jack-horner-lying-in-his-corner-about-c-14-and-the-t-rex-tissue

 

 

 

on Jun 20, 2012

GirlFriendTess
PS - Lulapilgrim ... is this nonsense where you want this post to go?

Not exactly and that's why I deleted some comments that swerved too far off topic.

Discussing Science is fine by me. I was the first to bring up the Science of Embryology.

GirlFriendTess
They are our scientists not mine … and they use other methods when one doesn’t work. I am sure you didn't read any of the disclosures the scientists made because I am sure you never read any of their scientific papers

The link above proves this isn't true in the case of Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner. It's evolution ideology over integrity isn't it?

 

on Jun 21, 2012

lulapilgrim
The Corruption of The Science of Human Embryology
How did the basic fact of when human life begins, and other facts about human development become so parsed, changed and corrupted? For the answer to that we have to look at what actually happened within the Supreme Court of The United States in 1973.

The Supreme Court:
Roe v. Wade

The modern day assault on Human Embryology began in 1973 in the oral arguments of Roe v. Wade, and in the majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun4. He wrote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins". He referred to the "disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology" as being "unable to arrive at any consensus". It appeared he was talking about biological life by inferring that "medicine" could define its beginning. But, then, Blackmun said the following: "There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." This was as if to say that science had not progressed since 300 B.C.

Speaking of scientific integrity on the topic of the beginning of human life.....

The following is part of an article written by James Larson, Christian Order, Oct. 2009 entitled, THE FINAL DECAY? 

The inability to view life in its supernatural essence is rooted in the false philosophies which gave rise to "reductive science", the mindset informing our present culture of death.   

On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order on stem cells, and also a Presidential Memorandum on scientific integrity. In commenting of the nature of the Presidential Memorandum, Obama said, "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, and not ideology."

The President's demand that scientific data be "never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda" is, of course a manifest impossibility. Science has always been the concubine of the State, receiving the vast majority of its funding from the State, and pursuing the ends and "political agenda" of whatever person or party is in power in the State. The clearly documented historical fact is that the vast majority of scientific "advances" have in fact been financed by rulers in pursuit of military goals (which largely amounted to finding more efficient ways of killing human beings), and that "concealment" and "distortion" have always been handmaidens to the technological game of "oneupmanship" which is demanded by such military and political competition on the world stage. 

The notion, therefore, that under the Obama administration, or any other administration, science will not be subservient to a particular political agenda is simply a lie.

Similiarly, it is also a total falsehood that scientific decisions can be based exclusively on facts, and not upon ideologgy and the moral perspective which directly derives from this "ideology". Scientific "decisions" always involve whether, when, how, and where to employ the science and technology which has been developed. .....Furthermore the very employment of the scientific method itslef is fraught with moral meaning and consequences, and therefore its conduct is necessarily subject ot ideological considerations. The Nazi doctors who place a concentration camp slave in a chamber and then compressed it until the victim died in screaming agony, were practicing a form of "pure" science. And in their warped minds, they had very good reasons to do so--to determine the effects of decompression upon pilots during high-altitude flights and to discover a way to overcome these adverse effects. 

In order not to permit such an experiment upon a human being, a government would have to be proufoundly steeped in an ideology which absolutely views such science as morally wrong and not permissible. President Obama lifted the restrictions placed upon embryonic stem-cell research becasue such restrictions, in his own words, "forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values." He could only do so by denying the "moral value" of an unborn child, just as it was required of the Nazi doctors that they deny the moral value of their concentrattion camp victims. There is, in other words, always an ideology involved in the practice of science. 

The wrong Ideology

No, the "problem" which Barack Obama seeks to remedy in regard to science is not the presence of an ideology per se. It is the presence of what he believes is the wrong ideology. The PResident wishes to entirely eliminate CHristian ideology from American life. He seems fully to understand that the primary means to accomplishing this purging is showhow to be identified with a final unleashing of the scientific enterprise. 

This should not be surprising to us. The symbols of Freemasonry are the compass and the square; of Communism, the hammer and sickle. These are symbols of man's becoming --of his industry, science and accumulated evolutionary knowledge--in triumph over Christian revelation and dogma. They represent the current litmus test of the world-symbols of movement, change, adaption, dialogue, diplomacy and willingness to compromise--which seek to determine if we are worthy to enter into a New World Order, and which demand erasure of any unbending adherence to moral principles or religious truth.

on Jun 21, 2012

Apparently only Lula and GFTess can discuss science here.