Thursday, February 9, 2012

More on the Democrat War Against Religion - UPDATE

Female Democratic Senators Shaheen, Boxer and Murray signed an op-ed in yesterday's WSJ that gives the rationale for forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraception coverage to their employees against their consciences of their leaders and members. After babbling for most of the article about the benefits of covering contraception, which is wholly beside the point we get to the key paragraph.

Catholic hospitals and charities are woven into the fabric of our broader society. They serve the public, receive government funds, and get special tax benefits. We have a long history of asking these institutions to play by the same rules as all our other public institutions.

There you have it in black and white from Democrat politicians, the underlying fascist mentality of their war on religion. If you want to participate in the "fabric of our broader society" you have to check your principles and knuckle under to the state's version of morality. Any effort by a group to ameliorate the difficulties of the less fortunate is subject to the imposition of government standards of religion. The authors have the gall to call this outcome freedom of religion in the article.

I have seen nothing more revealing of the lack of understanding of what freedom of conscious or indeed freedom of any type means to progressives than that quote. Read it carefully if you value your freedom.


I removed some inflammatory language from the post. You can read Calivancouver's comment to see why.


  1. For someone whose opinions I have come to respectfully disagree with, I am saddened to find this deeply offensive blather about the 'fascist under currents of progressive thought.'

    While I happen to agree that catholic hospitals should not be forced to provide such services, to attribute such positions to fascism and thereby conflate the argument that publicly funded institutions should play by public rules with murderous totalitarian dictatorships is needlessly offensive, and telling of an ignorance about progressives and fascism

  2. Calivancouver, probably correct that I went to far.

  3. Instead of removing the offensive language, how about defining fascism instead (a merger of state and coporation with total sublimation of the individual) and showing how that's exactly what we're marching towards, with both Democratic and Republican support.