Obama Administration

Obama's Betrayal of Believers

It's been a rough eight years for Americans of faith.

|

On June 26, 2006, then–Sen. Barack Obama took the stage at a conference hosted by the Christian social justice organization Sojourners and gave what would become the defining speech on religion of his young career. With Americans increasingly curious about this rock-star politician with the funny name, Obama discussed how he had found a deep faith during his time working with black church leaders as a community organizer in Chicago. "The questions I had didn't magically disappear," he said. "But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

It was enough to give many Christians hope that the future president would have their backs. But a decade later, as Obama's tenure at the White House draws to a close, those who believe in the importance of religious liberty and free association have few reasons to celebrate. Despite his protestations on that day that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square," many will remember his presidency for the many times he insisted that his fellow religionists do just that.

1. Early in his first term, to get some key pro-life lawmakers to support the Affordable Care Act, Obama signed an executive order reaffirming his support for the Hyde Amendment, a policy that prohibits federal dollars from paying for abortions. Six years later—and without a word of objection from the president—the Democrats wrote into their official platform a call for that restriction to be repealed.

2. The federal Office of Civil Rights recently took the authority upon itself to issue what it considers to be binding guidance requiring public schools to let children use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identities instead of their anatomical sex. By foreclosing the possibility of locally tailored solutions, the move angered more than a few parents who think they should have some say in the rules that govern their kids' schools. Enforcement of the requirement has been temporarily stayed and the Supreme Court is set to hear the case in the coming year.

3. For the time being, sexual orientation is not considered a "protected class" at the federal level. But during Obama's terms in office, several states were emboldened to expand their anti-discrimination laws in ways that implicitly targeted Christian organizations. In Massachusetts, for example, an all-girls private high school was forced to settle for an undisclosed amount with a man whose job offer was rescinded after the school learned he was married to another man. And in New York, a couple was fined $13,000 for declining to host a same-sex wedding on their family farm. Other examples abound.

4. In May 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation prohibiting discrimination under Obamacare based not just on sex but also on gender identity. As a result, some medical professionals worry they may be forced to participate in sex reassignment surgeries and related treatments, even if doing so runs contrary to their ethical beliefs or their medical judgment about what's best for the patient. In August, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a lawsuit challenging the rule.

5. In March 2014, Obama's solicitor general argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that family-owned businesses should be required to provide their employees with free access to emergency contraceptives, even when those business owners have conscience-based objections to doing so. That position did not hold sway with the justices, who ruled later that summer in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that the contraception mandate—at least as applied to closely held corporations—was indeed a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

6. The rebuke in Hobby Lobby did not deter Obama from dragging a coalition of faith-based nonprofits before the Supreme Court two years later. The conflict: whether or not groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who care for the indigent elderly, should have the freedom not to be involved in facilitating access to free birth control and sterilization procedures, in accordance with their deeply held convictions. The verdict is yet to be decided.

In his 2006 speech, Obama urged his progressive friends not to "discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced." With wedding vendors across the country facing legal reprimand for wanting to be excused from baking cakes, creating floral arrangements, or providing photography services for same-sex commitment celebrations—and with the Little Sisters waiting on tenterhooks to learn whether they'll be permitted to continue operating in this country at all—Americans of faith could be forgiven for wishing the president had taken his own advice more often.

NEXT: Brickbat: Weak Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, can we all agree that Obama should go down historically as one of the worse presidents?

    -Entire presidency had America involved in war
    -Signed ObamaCare. Clearly unconstitutional, no matter what SCOTUS says
    -Stirred up faux racial conflict
    -Attempted to divide Americans rather than unite Americans
    -Policies helped destabilize numerous parts of the World
    -Gave Iran $1.3 Billion in cash. Probably to be used against U.S. interests
    -Protected Hillary from rule of law
    -etc

    1. I’m sure anyone who looks at Obama with even the slightest amount of scrutiny will realize just how awful he really was. But remember, the progs cheered when they successfully made nuns pay for birth control and then wondered why they completely lost the religious vote this year to a man who admitted on tape to attempting to sleep with a married woman. They are incapable of self-reflection

    2. I think people don’t understand why he is liked by progressives so much. He channeled their anger and belittled others, attacked the opposition at every turn and refused to alter course even after decimating the down ticket democrats.

      1. In other words, he stuck to the faith of the prog despite all evidence of its failure. And the left makes fun of religious people. Good grief; there is no more dogmatic individual than a leftist ideologue.

    3. What is with the hard-on that so many people have for Iran? I believe that it was their money in the first place, and who made the US the policeman as to whom gets a nuke? Gosh, only our ‘allies’ like the Zionist Enterprise are exempt.

      1. so we should give back the money as a reward for Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, often against American/Western targets? No. Since we’re not going to attack militarily, we can do so economically. Unless we have a president who doesn’t care if the mullahs target an American. And we haven’t stopped India, Pakistan, France, Britain, etc from getting nukes, you’re Jew-hate notwithstanding.

      2. I believe that it was their money in the first place,

        It became ours, more or less as damages, when they destroyed our embassy and took our people hostage. Considering the alternatives for redressing those wrongs, just taking their money was pretty nice of us, really.

        the Zionist Enterprise

        Fuck you.

        1. I was prepared to defend him that it was technically their money, but then I read your post and thought “Well shit, keeping their money was the most tempered response we could have given at the time.”

      3. Let’s have a discussion with the Shah over what constitutes ‘their money’ or ‘the Iran government’s money’.

        Gosh, only our ‘allies’ like the Zionist Enterprise are exempt.

        If you want to not be seen as a likely anti-Semite I suggest you refrain from language like this.

        1. In fairness, he did refrain from calling it an ‘Entity’. ‘Enterprise’ sounds much more free-markety.

      4. Could it have something to do with the storming and hostage taking of our entire embassy staff, keeping them all well over a year? Could it have something to do with their characterizing us as “The Great Satan?”

        Oh – and the nuclear question is the UN Non Proliferation Treaty which Iran is a signatory to, not a US only issue.

      5. I hate to break it to you, but there is no World Government (at least no yet), so there is no one to make anyone the World Police. It’s pretty much the law of the jungle. If you are able to prevent someone who has made clear they would like to do you or your friends/family harm from acquiring the means to do you harm, it’s usually a good idea to do so.

    4. This dude has been a snake in the grass his entire life lc1789. This doesnt surprise me. What surprises me is how many fools were taken in by him.

    5. Don’t forget the extrajudicial kill list and the assassination of an American citizen. If a President can simply kill an American at whim, he can do anything he wants. That’s the most egregious violation of rights possible.

  2. Where was this Christian support for free association when state legislatures were criminalizing homosexual sex?

    1. it was in the corner of the bakers, florists, nuns, and assorted others set upon by the SJWs. It was evident in the state referenda on SSM. I’m cool with gay marriage but please don’t pretend that the vast vast majority of the public was because when given the change to put their beliefs on ballot, almost every state voted no. That govt has no real business regulating marriage escaped both sides.

      1. That govt has no real business regulating marriage escaped both sides.

        Winner!

        Equality is in the government ending government rewards and punishments based on chosen lifestyle, not in moving some people from column A to column B.

    2. “Association” =/= “depositing bodily fluids into each others’ rectums.”

      Sodomy is a public health hazard. But Democrats and ‘progressives’ don’t really give a damn about public health anymore than the GOP, do they?

      1. Fuck you, I’ll stick my dick where anyone will take it!

        1. “He’d screw a snake if you’d hold it straight…Hell, he’d screw a woodpile just in case a snake was in it!”

        2. Try a woodchipper. I hear they’re all the rage.

      2. Tulpa?

        If you are going to go down that road of regulating behavior, then all sex should be banned. There is really no need for it. If you want to have a child, you can apply for a permit to be artificially inseminated with sperm from the partner of your choice (subject to genetic screening, bad genes are a public health hazard too).

      3. It’s got nothing to do with public health. Nobody catches anything from what two people do in private. Their business, not yours.

  3. Where is this Christian support for the right to freely associate with pornographic websites of our choice?

    1. Yeah, I don’t recall any religious effort to outlaw or ban porn on any significant scale. This is the standard pathology of Leftists, they believe that disapproval towards something is the same as Leftists using the force of the state to imposing something on religious groups. It’s a false equivalency.

      Tell you what, when religious groups start pushing for laws to restrict porn sites (besides a single representative in a southern state that isn’t getting any support) then you can talk. In the meantime, Massachusetts, California, and Democrats in Congress are forcing religious groups to violate their conscience and attempting to repeal the once bipartisan RFRA act.

      Go back to Slate or grow-up

      1. One activity consists solely of watching movies to facilitate masturbation….

        …and the other consists of things like forcing nuns to participate in what they consider the murder of human beings. Or forcing small business owners to publicly celebrate two strangers’ lifetime commitment to sodomizing each other. Only someone with no moral compass whatsoever could compare those things, especially the forced participation in institutionalized human abortion.

        Abolitionists, even when they were a small unpopular minority, were never forced to participate in human slavery. Forcing nuns to pay for human abortions is really a grotesque new level of genuine evil, even for the Party of Slavery, i.e. the Democrats.

        1. Now on this one I’ll agree with you. No one should be forced to participate in any way with the actions of another based on their private morals for exactly the same reason no one else should be forcibly prevented from their private actions based on a third party’s private morals. The two issues are identical.

      2. they believe that disapproval towards something is the same as Leftists using the force of the state to imposing something on religious groups. It’s a false equivalency.

        One occasionally abetted by you-know-who. Because having the ability to (hypothetically) pass on catering a gay-wedding is the same as being “anti-gay”.

        they conflate ‘tolerance’ with affirmation.

        1. Your link is not wearing matching socks.

      3. If you have noticed religious efforts to outlaw or ban porn then you haven’t been paying attention. They’re not as obvious because they don’t have the “no establishment of religion” cover that the left’s anti-religious efforts do, but they definitely there.

        One example is the sudden change, in the Bush administration, in how the 2257 regulations were enforced – putting lots of small producers out of business and imposing big burdens on the rest. The ostensible reason was to fight against child porn, but that was just the religious right using “child porn!” as cover in the same way the leftists use “no establishment of religion!” as cover to pursue their respective anti-porn/anti-religion agendas.

    2. Obscenity laws are routinely held up, encouraged, and vociferously defended by both sides of the political spectrum douche.

  4. “People of faith” have the habit of using reason only when its convenient to their beliefs. The minute the facts turn against their beliefs they retreat into faith. It’s such bullshit.

    1. First off I’m not religious.
      second off, fuck you.

      The religious in this country arent the ones actively using the force of the state to force people to associate with those whom they would rather not.

      Also ignorant progs turn to the faith of their idiot ideology even when the facts are clearly again them

      1. The religious in this country arent the ones actively using the force of the state to force people to associate with those whom they would rather not.

        If they could they would though.

      2. Um, actually…

        There have been what, a half-dozen public accommodation cases involving gay people over the last decade? Heck, Elane Photograph started in 2006, so if we’re counting “event origination” date, that’s off the list.

        Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of public accomodation cases involving race and religion every year.

        So yeah, they are using the “state to force people to associate with those whom they would rather not”. It’s just not controversial when you’re talking about anti-religious or racist discrimination.

    2. Of course, some people are very selective in their “facts”.

  5. Religious types are very often the most vocal proponents of the drug war. The truth is that many of these people of faith are so often the worst violators of personal liberty and free association. So go fuck yourselves people of faith.

    1. While I do not hold the same vitriol as you do, I have often wondered how libertarians of faith can reconcile the fact that religion is the original oppressor of freedom. Hello? Dark ages, anyone? “You must follow these Ten Commandments, else you will burn in Hell for all eternity” just does not scream freedom loving to me.

      1. As long as it is not imposed by force on people, who cares?

        “You murdered someone and have not repented, you are going to be damned” – I can live with someone saying that.

        Blue Laws shutting things down on Sunday – I am not OK with that.

      2. religion is the original oppressor of freedom

        Eh, social animals have pecking orders, which imply a loss of freedom. Religion has nothing to do with that.

        Also freedom vis-a-vis other men has nothing to do with freedom vis-a-vis God.

        1. Blue Laws are a brilliant example of my overall point. I contend, and believe anyone would be hard-pressed to contradict, that every “victim-less crime” law we have on the books is in actuality a “crime of morality”, which always has the backing of religion. Can’t buy beer on Sundays, but can on every other day. Drug laws. Prostitution laws. Assisted (compassionate) suicide. Gambling. Etc. Etc. Etc.

          1. every “victim-less crime” law we have on the books is in actuality a “crime of morality”, which always has the backing of religion

            Until 30 years ago, this country was nearly universally religious. Pointing out that religious people found ways to rationalize their shitty policy positions with their religion isn’t really illuminating. Of course religious people supported the bad laws of the past. If no religious people supported them, they wouldn’t have become laws.

            To show any meaningful impact of religion on freedom, we would have to do a comparative analysis, and certain religions don’t come out all that poorly against the secular “utopias” of modern times. In fact, one of the few extreme outliers throughout history when it comes to liberty (the US) was created based on philosophy rooted in Christian premises.

          2. blue laws are virtually non-existent beyond a few holdout places that ban sales of beer and booze before noon on Sunday. That reflects the lessening influence of religion on the public, and it also speaks to religious folks views changing to understand that someone who really wants to drink will have stocked up before the Sunday dead zone.

            1. I think it reflects the death of the Prohibitionist Evangelical movement. For example, a majority of the religious folks in my family (as well as my wife’s) who are Boomer age or older are tea-totallers. Maybe 2 or 3 out of 30 in GenX are tea-totallers, and they’re certainly not averse to having alcohol in their presence. I can think of one single religious person I know in my age bracket who doesn’t drink, and he’s generally a very uptight person.

              Lumping religion into a bucket, even Christianity as a whole, is a huge mistake when discussing social movements. For the longest time, different Christian factions inhabited both sides of the debate on all political issues. (This is still true to an extent today)

              1. To an extent? Liberals/Democrats/whatever are still majority religious. Less religious then their conservative/Republican cohorts, yes, but still majority religious.

                They’re just less obnoxious about it.

            2. A few holdout places like the bastion of secular progressivism that is New Jersey. It’s not just religious SoCons that are dumb on this issue.

            3. Wrong there. NC prohibits hunting on Sundays. When I asked a game warden why that was, he flat out told me it was so hunting would not hurt church attendance. He thought the law was BS, but there it is. Luckily he was checking my license and game on a Tuesday.

          3. All crimes are crimes of morality. What you dismiss as “morality” really means “other people’s morals which I don’t share”; presumably you use a different word to describe your morals which has exactly the same meaning. Just be aware that the law likely includes some crimes you agree with that other people feel impose an alien morality on them.

            1. No – laws against harming the person or property of another aren’t (or don’t need to be) based in religious morality, but on the nature of human beings and what we need to survive *as* human beings. Those facts transcend all religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

              1. That is itself a type of morality.

                /pedant off

              2. but on the nature of human beings and what we need to survive *as* human beings

                I, as a superior form of human, have decided that I should be able to harm the inferior forms of humans as I please for the furtherance of my superior form of humanity. You, as an inferior form of human, obviously cannot harm me, a superior form of human.

                Your puny “humanist” morals do not apply to me as I am a superior lifeform.

                (tl;dr: Egalitarianism is a form of morality)

                1. I encourage you to read Peter McWilliams “Ain’t Nobodys Business if you do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country” (1998) which is available at Amazon or for free as a .pdf from his website. It is an entertaining read and the quotes are fantastic.

          4. You think the Leftists who are raising the alarm about a so-called human trafficking epidemic are motivated by religion?

            This is just dumb argumentation

            1. Some are. And the original bans on prostitution generally were religiously motivated.

          5. I contend, and believe anyone would be hard-pressed to contradict, that every “victim-less crime” law we have on the books is in actuality a “crime of morality”, which always has the backing of religion.

            Prohibition was a Progressive project, although it had the backing of some, but not all, organized religious denominations.

            Assisted suicide is opposed by a number of people on non-religious grounds. Probably the hardest of the hardcore opposition comes from disability rights groups.

            Look around at who is pushing victimless crimes laws now – you’ll find, again, a heavy dose of progressives, and ever fewer religious people doing so on religious grounds.

            1. Look around at who is pushing victimless crimes laws now – you’ll find, again, a heavy dose of progressives, and ever fewer religious people doing so on religious grounds.

              It’s one of the odd intellectual transitions in the last few years that Christians have largely (not completely by any means) accepted the Enlightenment idea that the state should not enforce religious beliefs while the self-identified children of the Enlightenment have embraced state coercion. Of course, the latter point was an obvious outworking of Rousseau’s thought.

            2. Look around at who is pushing victimless crimes laws now – you’ll find, again, a heavy dose of progressives, and ever fewer religious people doing so on religious grounds.

              I wonder how much that has to do with religious people realizing that they are likely to become a minority and “getting religion” when it comes to individual liberty because they realize that if they can legislate their moral code then so can people of other religions, or people with non-religious ideologies.

              Pity the left doesn’t seem to grasp that concept very well.

              1. Perhaps so, like a pendulum. This is why Federalism is the best we can do. People should have the freedom to congregate in same political unit and force their values on anyone else who is part of that political unit as long as everyone is free to move to a different political unit.

      3. “reconcile the fact that religion is the original oppressor of freedom”

        You misspelled “Nobility”.

        1. Yeah, religion itself wasn’t the oppressor so much. But it was certainly used as a tool of oppression by the nobility and other rulers.

          1. Yes, if it wasn’t for religion, the vast swath of history would have been a paradise. No wars. No genocides. No conflicts of any kind. Everyone living in peace and harmony. Can you give me a Kum-Ba-Yah ?!

      4. You must not know history, even a little. The Dark Ages were not dark, at all. Most advancements that laid the foundations for the Enlightenment happened during the so-called Dark Ages. A few things that religions contributed during the Dark Ages: modern philosophy (Thomas Aquinas), Galileo (funded by the Jesuits), Copernicus (a clergyman), and the idea of natural rights (the School of Salmanaca), etc.

        1. Christian natural philosophy is also the reason why we stopped treating Aristotle’s work as the ‘Bible’ on how nature functions.

          In short, conflict thesis is bullshit, and has been discredited for decades.

        2. Though I should clarify that half of what you described is not Dark Ages, but Early Modern.

        3. I believe that the Dark Ages aren’t called “dark” not because everything sucked, but rather because of the relative lack of historical sources from the period.

          1. it was the combination of plague, bad teeth, and dragons.

            1. Dragons are extinct. Yet another crime laid at the feet of White People. (Sure, there aren’t any in China either, but that doesn’t count.)

          2. Woopsie. Unintentional double negative in there.

          3. Not just the paucity of recorded historical evidence, but also because of the cultural void created by the withdrawal of the Romans.

            There was genuine technological and cultural regression from 300AD to about 800AD in Northeastern Europe, which was somewhat relieved by the widespread growth in monasticism at the hands of the Irish and the Franks. While Catholicism may not be a cure for very much, we owe it some gratitude for its contributions to get us out of the kind of life that the climate alarmists want to return us to.

            1. Ice core data from Greenland backs up your assertion. Examination of particulates within bore samples show industrial production collapsed when the Western Empire did and do not reappear until the late 17th century.

            2. There was genuine technological and cultural regression from 300AD to about 800AD in Northeastern Europe

              Northeastern Europe? You mean Northwestern Europe right?

              Regardless the idea that there was a technological regression is largely unsupported. Yes, the collapse of the Roman Empire resulted in the collapse of the continental trade system, which meant that Europe could no longer be supplied with food from across the empire, which lead to urban population decline and a more rural existence with much smaller towns. But innovation still continued, just primarily in fields that aren’t considered when we think of ‘big technology’. Things like labour saving devices (windmills, tools, etc.) and irrigation improvements were massively important in the period, but aren’t discussed.

              1. Now if you define ‘technological innovation’ as ‘reads Aristotle and has a complex trade network’ sure, they regressed. But really the Dark Ages is more about the collapse of classical urbanism than technological stagnation.

              2. But all that happened in flyover country. Or… go around on horseback country? Or whatever. You know, rural areas filled with the worthless, inbred, possibly cannibalistic dregs of humanity, unlike civilized urban folk.

              3. Yep. Lousy proofreading by me – Northwestern.

      5. I have often wondered how libertarians of faith can reconcile the fact that religion is the original oppressor of freedom.

        “The” singular original oppressor? Not really, no.

      6. Hello? Dark ages, anyone?

        Oh goddammit, we have a Chartist.

        I’m guessing your view of the ‘Dark Ages’ is extremely historically inaccurate and based on Renaissance and Reformation propaganda. Let me guess, lots of shit-covered peasants right?

        1. What the hell is that? What do you suppose the scale is supposed to be on the “scientific advancement” axis?

          1. I stopped trying to rationally analyze The Chart years ago, it’s just part of the odd mythology the New Atheist movement is building. I assume they think scientific advancement is like the tech tree in Civilization where you just have a checklist of things like agriculture, metal working, printing press, etc.

            1. +1 phalanx crushes AEGIS Cruiser

        2. That chart you linked to not only disparages Christians, it disparages non-Christians and non-Europeans as well with it’s implicit assumption that just because scientific advancement stopped in Christian Europe (which, as you point out, is a patently false claim) that it stopped, period. I take it you’ve actually known people who’ve used such a chart unironically, in which case I’d say you must be gunning for Derpetologist’s gig.

          1. My favourite part is the fall-off back to ‘Egyptian’ levels in the ‘Dark Ages’. Because apparently all of Europe just forgot thousands of years of metallurgy and labour-saving devices.

    2. And so once again antipathy to religion causes another “champion of freedom” to cheer diminished liberty.

    3. Jesus himself was anti-political. He spoke of a kingdom in heaven and not the one on earth that the Romans and Sanheedrin believed he would start.

      As a Christian libertarian myself I can separate my personal moral code from the public sphere and what is forced on others. It is not right to have religion forced on unwilling subjects. Christianity itself is a personal choice and if you are not doing it willingly you are not doing it. I’d love everyone to follow Christ’s example but you cannot force people to do something so deep and transformative. You can force a man to kneel but you can’t make him love.

      I am constantly having to balance what I know is the right thing to do with what should be forced on all to do. The NAP is an excellent guideline. Christian conservatives (I’m reformed) believe they are doing what is right but don’t realize that criminalizing sin doesn’t make it go away and only hurts the cause of advancing love by making enemies out of potential converts.

      1. don’t realize that criminalizing sin doesn’t make it go away and only hurts the cause of advancing love by making enemies out of potential converts

        From my experience, conservative Christians have a hard time understanding authority as described in the Bible. It’s a complicated issue, but the Bible makes clear how to handle sin/disputes within the family and within the church. It also makes clear that vices outside of the church are within God’s realm of justice, and it’s not within our authority to judge them, whether in our family, in the church, or in secular government. (1 Cor 5:9-12)

        1. “…as described in the Bible.”
          The Bible was written by human beings.
          Human beings make mistakes.

          1. The bible is regarded as inerrant. However, the translations are not.

            1. However, the translations are not.

              This. Along with the fact that many of the most commonly relied upon verses are usually taken out of context and abused to fit into a church that prides itself on ego-stroking and getting butts in seats.

            2. “The bible is regarded as inerrant.”
              Anything written by fallible human beings is not “inerrant”.

              1. That doesn’t stop people from believing it to be so.

                The belief that the Bible (especially the New Testament, since it was written in historical times, mostly well after the events depicted) is the unerring word of God is one of the weirder beliefs that Christians have, if you ask me. But what are you going to do? Faith is a weird thing.

        2. I was reared in a conservative Christian environment and it baffles me that people think God is concerned about who is in proximity to whom while taking a dump

          1. The relevant question is why SJWs are so concerned, since they’re the ones who brought the issue into politics.

            1. “Why are the Spaniards so obsessed with national sovereignty?”

              /Napoleon, 1808

            2. The relevant question is why SJWs are so concerned

              No it isn’t. They don’t appeal to the same authority as far as I can tell, so it’s actually irrelevant my point, which is God doesn’t give a crap about the rooms people crap in and “Christians” that think he does are wonky.

              1. You won’t be able to find the term “men’s room” or “ladies’ room” in the Bible, but you can certainly find “male and female He created them.”

                1. I think most followers of religion agree with that whether they’re missing a testicle or not and regardless of the room they currently occupy

          2. God doesn’t care who you feel privileged to take a dump next to. But ordinary people might not want to witness your dump, however important you think it is that they do.

            1. Which is why God created the single occupancy toilet stall.

          3. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a big issue in Biblical times.

            Though I saw this documentary once where it was pretty clear that men did assert the right to have babies at around the time of Jesus.

            1. Splitter!

        3. ” Bible makes clear how to handle sin/disputes within the family […]”
          Sure does!

          Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18-21 are very clear!

      2. Well said!

      3. “It is not right to have religion forced on unwilling subjects.”

        How much detail are you willing to get into?

        Take the Ten Commandments. The part about honoring the Sabbath, for example, should not be forced on anyone by the government. But what about the parts banning murder and stealing?

        Simply because a supposedly-powerful religion preaches against something doesn’t mean the government should legalize it just to prove how non-theocratic it is.

        Otherwise, we’d logically have to legalize murder, theft, and false accusations.

        Rather than freaking out over alleged theocracy, why not be grateful that certain religions lend their spiritual influence to the campaign to suppress murder, robbery, etc?

        1. why not be grateful that certain religions lend their spiritual influence to the campaign to suppress murder, robbery, etc?

          Their spiritual influence, sure, but the physical influence of their followers has historically been rather lacking. That’s not to say Bones’ argument is correct, but the gratefulness probably has to be checked by the fundamental historical hypocrisy.

          1. You’re citing incidents in 1182 and 1572 in response the current campaign in the United States against religious freedom.

            1. No, the current campaign in the United States is not relevant to the position I’m taking. I’m citing incidents in 1182 and 1572 to contextualize the historical actions of certain religions that lended their spiritual influence to the campaign to suppress murder, robbery, etc. while still engaging in that behaviour when they deemed it necessary. I’m qualifying the ‘gratefulness’ that people should feel for these ‘certain religions’ with the reality of their historical actions.

              1. “hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue” – the fact is that such crimes are easily seen by impartial people as violations of Christian teaching.

                What Progressive principles are Obama and the SJWs violating when they use violence against religious dissent?

            2. One of these atrocities (Massacre of the Latins) is anti-Catholic, the other is an infamous Catholic atrocity from the French Wars of Religion.

              In the US, unlike the Byzantine Empire and France, Catholics were (with unfortunate exceptions) allowed to practice their faith on an equal basis, and they reciprocated by respecting the rights of the Protestants, almost as if when groups don’t have to establish themselves by force they use persuasion instead.

              1. And I’d say the St. Bartholomew’s Massacre was a Counterreformation atrocity in the same sense that Dresden was an Allied atrocity – it doesn’t mean the underlying cause was wrong, it means some supporters of the cause committed crimes.

                1. it doesn’t mean the underlying cause was wrong, it means some supporters of the cause committed crimes.

                  The underlying cause of the massacre not being “dammit these Huguenots worship differently than we want/one of them tried to kill an important guy”?

                  1. The underlying cause was the Calvinists were taking part in the French civil wars and made no bones about wanting to establish a Calvinist state and abolish the Catholic church.

                    1. And of course the 1540s persecution of non-Catholics as heretics had nothing to do with that.

                    2. From the American point of view, perhaps it’s best to see Protestantism as a secessionist movement like that of the Confederate states in the 1860s. Just as the Confederates weren’t trying to set up a regime of enlightened tolerance, neither were the Protestants – and they were the aggressors by trying to split off of Catholic Europe and crush the Church. If the Catholic Church was a tad…Lincolnesque in its response, I can certainly understand, even if I’m glad that the American model showed itself to work better.

                    3. “Lincolnesque’ is a rather…kind way of putting it. I believe Jan Hus may disagree on such an assessment. As such the tale your offering is Catholic propaganda. I could easily frame the Protestants as plucky underdog rebels attempting to overthrow a tyrannical, corrupt system, a la the American Revolution, but both accounts lack nuance and exist to legitimize their movements, not reflect actual history.

                      And of course, this also all ties into Christians’ (and other religions, and other ideologies as a whole really) habit of justifying negative behaviour in the context of mythologized narratives.

                    4. “justifying negative behaviour”

                      …by referring to the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre as an “infamous Catholic atrocity”?

                    5. Still necroing the thread cause I’m bored, but you’ve openly spewed propaganda about the noble Catholics defending against an unjustifiable revolution. This is inaccurate and dishonest. Again, I’m sure Jan Hus thought that was the case, that horrible aggressor against the Catholic Church. You’ve immediately tried to construct your institution into the noble defending who can commit a few atrocities and still be the justified side, while the Protestants are the degenerates who’s atrocities validate why they’re wrong. It’s almost like there’s some nuanced position, that correctly points out that the Catholic Church behaved in negative ways that validated the Reformation long before it started, while also recognizing Protestant atrocities as negative actions as well. No that’s crazy, it must just be a wonderful fiction where you’re the good guys and your opponents are the bad guys, that’s how history works right?

              2. the fact is that such crimes are easily seen by impartial people as violations of Christian teaching.

                And thus are reflective of a fundamental failure of the followers of that religion. Hence my point.

                One of these atrocities (Massacre of the Latins) is anti-Catholic, the other is an infamous Catholic atrocity from the French Wars of Religion.

                I know, I threw in an anti-Catholic massacre because I know you’d get pissy if I just cited Catholic atrocities, I was trying to be fair.

                The Catholic church and Protestant denominations do not exist in a magical American vacuum, they have centuries of history, and handwaving it ’cause MURICA’ is just nationalist claptrap. America, and Canada, both have the benefit of power being moderately spread out amongst various religious factions, necessitating a pragmatic and philosophical system of religious freedom. But systems wherein a particular religion has historical dominance are usually the opposite and quite bloody.

                1. Historically, the example of the U.S. helped show Catholic leaders how it is possible for the Church to thrive and achieve its mission in an atmosphere of religious freedom – this helped influence the religious-freedom proclamation of the Second Vatican Council.

                  Before that, the European experience shows a rule-or-be-ruled situation. The “Protestants” got their name from a protest against the toleration of Catholicism in the German empire. Those Protestants who actually had physical power behind them wanted to force their religious system on everyone, oppress the Catholics, and kill their most active priests.

                  Professed liberals in Europe also had a tendency, in the name of toleration of course, to oppress the Church. This tended to reinforce Catholic leaders’ preference for having Catholic confessional states, as an alternative to an anti-Catholic state.

                  The American experiment took some time to teach its lessons.

                  Now it seems the U.S. is going back on the good old experiment of religious freedom. Or has been until now.

                  1. Those Protestants who actually had physical power behind them wanted to force their religious system on everyone, oppress the Catholics, and kill their most active priests.

                    And those Catholics who had the physical power behind them responded in kind. Doesn’t justify either.

                    Do you perhaps note a particular theme in your argumentation? One where the Catholics are always justified in their goals, even if their methods are questionable, while their opponents are negatively viewed? Very convenient. Almost like it’s a very selective perspective.

                    1. I am drawing a distinction between an unjustifiable revolution – an act of aggression – and the measures – some justifiable, some not – employed by Catholic Christendom in an unsuccessful attempt to put down that revolution.

                      Identifying the aggressor in a conflict is certainly a “selective perspective,” but once you’ve graduated from kindergarten (“I don’t care *who* started it!”) it’s a relevant fact when analyzing a conflict.

                      If the Protestant Reformation were justified on its own terms – i. e., as a movement to improve Christianity – then it wouldn’t be praised by post-Christians and anti-Christians.

                    2. A bit late, but I’ll necro the thread anyway. You’re excusing tyranny and butchery under the context of Protestant aggression, which is historically inaccurate and rife with dishonesty. The Catholic Church did not just magically find themselves in a state where the Protestants wanted to overthrow them, they found themselves in that state because they prosecuted people who attempted to criticize or challenge church orthodoxy. It’s selective in the sense that you are constructing a bullshit narrative based on your own biased perspective. Your ‘unjustifible revolution was against ‘unjustifiable tyranny’. Yet you’re defending it.

                      This, Eddie, is also the reason why people tend to fundamentally not trust religious people who claim to believe in religious freedom. You claim to support religious freedom, but then turn around and “oh, but we were justified in always trying to maintain a hold of political power in history”.

                      If the Protestant Reformation were justified on its own terms – i. e., as a movement to improve Christianity – then it wouldn’t be praised by post-Christians and anti-Christians.

                      Logical fallacy, and more profound dishonesty and propaganda. Perhaps people are unwilling to offer up apologia for religious tyranny, regardless of whether it’s Catholic or Protestant.

                      “How DARE people recognize that the Catholic Church held an undue amount of power over European society and engaged in open corruption and tyranny, the NERVE, they must just hate religion!”

  6. Bathrooms in stadiums and the like are generally built for sexes, not genders. The diamorphic design is for biologically different sexes, not for what gender you regard yourself. As for gender neutral bathrooms, they are fine as long as they provide a level of privacy.

    1. Why can’t women stand at the urinal next to the men? Anything less seems sexist.

      1. Funnels will be provided.

  7. Bathrooms in stadiums and the like are generally built for sexes, not genders. The diamorphic design is for biologically different sexes, not for what gender you regard yourself. As for gender neutral bathrooms, they are fine as long as they provide a level of privacy.

    1. what about squirrels in stadiums?

      1. They generally run around on the infield for a while to the delight of cheering fans and cameramen

  8. Wait- Obama’s tent show revivalist act was just a confidence trick?

    Who could have seen that coming?

  9. many will remember his presidency for the many times he insisted that his fellow religionists do just that

    Two thoughts:

    (1) “Fellow religionist”? Seriously, does anyone believe Barack Obama is the least bit devout?

    (2) The term “religionist” sticks in my craw, for some reason, kinda like “faith tradition”. It seems a neologism, designed to strip away most of the meaning of being an actual believer in an actual religion.

    1. I recall that he went to some church regularly.

      1. Not once he got to DC and didn’t the local cred and network in Chicago anymore.

          1. I think he belonged to Rev. Wright’s church solely to become a viable politician in Chicago. He needed the credibility and networking that being a member of the church provided him. By his own account, he wasn’t paying any attention anyway, and I don’t think he belonged to a church before or since.

            1. “By his own account, he wasn’t paying any attention anyway”

              I think you’re being kind of tongue in cheek – saying he never heard Wright’s “G__ D___” America is like going to The Messiah and claiming you never heard the chorus sing “hallelujah.”

          2. “Jeremiah Wright? Never heard of him…”

    2. According to Merriam-Webster, “religionist” has been a word since at least 1653. I don’t see how it has any more or less meaning than “someone who adheres to a religion”.

      I have no idea what the man’s religious beliefs are and I am not the least bit interested.

  10. Obama’s Betrayal of Believers

    From the headline, I thought this was going to be about his cult of personality.

  11. Looks like they found the Pulse Nightclub Shooter’s wife.
    Trigger Warning: Fake News.

    1. Hopefully with this arrest, they can establish a motive for Mateen’s actions.

    2. Charges against Noor Salman filed in the Middle District of Florida include obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting Mateen’s material support to ISIS

      Which is weird, because didn’t authorities very publicly insist for the longest time that there was no real ‘terror’ connection w/ Mateen?

      1. Apparently now they are allowed to call terrorists terrorists.

      2. Depends what you mean by “terror connection”. Was he trying to help ISIS out with their campaign of terrorism? Probably. Was he actually connected to ISIS in the sense of working directly with them or being directed by them? No idea.

  12. What about his betrayal of Beliebers?

  13. Let’s be fair to Obama. is believers were retarded. So anything short of a national cake program was bound to leave them feeling betreyed.

    1. Church of Obama… cake or death?

  14. ….”expand their anti-discrimination laws in ways that implicitly targeted Christian organizations”
    Someone had to do it. “They” sure as sh!t weren’t.

    The current list of scientific discoveries that were later overturned by religion:

    1. N/A

    2. N/A

    3. N/A

    4. N/A

    5. You get the point.

    1. 1. Polygenism (blacks and whites as different species)

      2. Eugenics

      3. The “Population Bomb”

      4. “We don’t know when human life begins”

      5. OMG those aren’t True Scotsmen!

      1. 6. “Scientific socialism”

        7. A man can make himself a woman by wishing, and vice-versa

        8. Altruism is evil (scientific Objectivism)

        1. So what you’re saying is that “science”? is self-correcting in ways that religion is not?

          ’cause those were “overturned” by more “science”. Not by “religion”.
          ________
          ?An abuse of the word, but most people get the meaning.

    2. Relevance to the law:

      0

    3. The current list of scientific discoveries that were later overturned by government:

      Welp, obvious proof that we need to ban government, it doesn’t do science as well as science does.

  15. Let’s blame the President for actions by state and local governments!

    Very little of this has anything to do with Obama, as Reason panders ever more deeply to the extreme socons of the Paulista cult.

    1. “Reason panders ever more deeply to the extreme socons”

      It seems *someone* has access to stronger drugs than AC’s.

      1. It seems *someone* has access to stronger drugs than AC’s.

        Or just explain how and why Obama is responsible for actions by state and local governments,

        1. The article mentions actions taken by the OCR, HHS and the Solicitor General (all are part of Obama’s Administration). Most notable the Hobby Lobby and Little Sister’s of the poor case.

          The article uses the alignment of in ideology to say that states were “emboldened” which I will admit is not very compelling to me because at the same time a handful of states passed bathroom laws which are in opposition to the said ideology.

          The article is a little slanted but not overwhelmingly so.

    2. We were wondering when you’d show up to spout your crazy-old-man gibberish.

      And to save you the trouble:

      BULLY!

      STALKER!

      SNICKERS!

      1. We were wondering when you’d show up to spout your crazy-old-man gibberish

        Now just explain how and why Obama is responsible for actions by state and local governments

        And to save you the trouble:
        BULLY!
        STALKER!
        SNICKERS!

        I sincerely regret offending your sense of Political Correctness
        But that’s your problem to deal with.

    3. Ah, Hihn. Your posts warm my heart. They remind me of PETA press releases.

      1. Ah, Hihn. Your posts warm my heart. They remind me of PETA press releases.

        Now just explain how and why Obama is responsible for actions by state and local governments
        Then, why you assume I defended Obama

  16. My best friend’s wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site
    ================== http://www.homejobs7.com

  17. “The questions I had didn’t magically disappear,” he said. “But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

    Bwahahahahaha!

    I was always a Marxist, but by some strange coincidence I saw the Light of Jesus once it became politically expedient.

    Sorry, “Believers”, but anyone who bought this can hardly be called “Betrayed”. You performed a willful act of faith to believe what you wanted to believe. You betrayed yourself.

    This is more credibly authentic:
    Obama: ‘Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness’

  18. To tie with the religious content of the article, lets play a game called “Christian or Muslim?”.
    Take any actual action by President Obama, and apply that simple question to the action. Speeches not allowed, just actions. (Matthew 7:15)
    To get you started, here are a few examples:
    1. exchanges 5 known terrorist leaders for 1 deserter; Christian or Muslim?
    2. admits tens of thousands of Muslims “fleeing war” in a part of the world where Christian persecution is an art form, admits less than one hundred Christians. Christian or Muslim?
    3. Considered a mass shooting on a military base by an officer shouting “Allah Akbar” an act of workplace violence. Christian or Muslim?
    4. States that an order of Nuns who help the poor must pay for medical coverage that violate their beliefs. Christian or Muslim?
    The rest of the test is an exercise for the reader – – – –

  19. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.homejobs7.com

  20. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.homejobs7.com

  21. before I saw the check saying $8075 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this less than 14 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Subaru Impreza .
    ===============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  22. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  23. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    ================> http://homejobs7.com

  24. Another pro-Obama article from Reason…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.