Thursday, February 27, 2014

Organizing For America... 'Doing God's Work"??

On Tuesday, President Obama spoke to a gathering of Organizing For America members - a liberal, Obama supporting crowd that he has recruited to help him "spread the good news" about Obamacare. In his remarks to them the President said "You reach out to your Republican friend who can’t stand Obama, but is basically a nice person, but you know, they watch the wrong newscast. We’re going to make a big push these last few weeks. But as I said, I can talk, my team can talk here in Washington, but it’s not going to make as much of a difference as if you aren’t out there making the case. The work you’re doing is God’s work. It is hard work. You don’t have the prerogative to just go around and say no to everything. You don’t have the prerogative to just be cynical. You don’t think that the country moves forward just on its own. You understand that it happens because ordinary people come together to do some extraordinary things."

Doing God's work? Which God would that be? I'm pretty sure our Heavenly Father has bigger things to worry about than backing Obama and his disastrous health care law. Or maybe, since he was talking to his followers about his signature law, he was referencing himself as God. He's definitely a full blown narcissist so is it unfathomable that he would consider himself a god when talking to his loyal followers? Either way, invoking God's name in association with Obamacare is blasphemous.

And speaking of idiots in Washington - Senate Majority Leader and pompous birdbrain Harry Reid said yesterday that the horror stories of people losing their insurance coverage or having to pay higher premiums because of Obamacare are simply untrue. Harry says if you tell people your premiums went up or you lost your coverage you're a liar. I guess that includes MSNBC (All Barack All The Time) host Dylan Ratigan. Hmmm - seems to me he is (or maybe was) an Obama supporter. So he's lying too? What possible reason could he have to do that?

In other news - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer yesterday, to the disappointment of millions of conservatives nationwide, vetoed the religious freedom bill that was offered in that state. Brewer, who came under intense pressure from LGBT groups, liberals nationwide and even the National Football League, who threatened to move the Superbowl from Arizona if the governor signed the bill into law. (I find it interesting but not surprising that a national sports organization is throwing its weight around in the political arena. But that's another story.)

As I listened to the Mark Davis radio show this morning he brought up a couple of interesting points that question the "fairness" of the attitude of the left on this topic. The left doesn't believe that businesses owned and operated should be allowed to refuse service to anyone based on the business owners' religious beliefs. Let's go with that for a minute. 

In Colorado recently a Christian man who owns a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men because he said he does not support gay marriage based on his Biblical beliefs. The couple sued and a judge ordered the baker to make the cake for the couple. In New Mexico a Christian photographer declined to photograph a wedding between two women for the same reason. The photographer lost her case also with a written concurrence accompanying the decision that said the woman and her business partner husband “ are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”
“The idea that free people can be ‘compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives’ as the ‘price of citizenship’ is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom,” says senior counsel Jordan Lorence. “We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make it clear that no American has to abandon their constitutionally protected freedoms just to make a living. No American should be punished or put out of business simply for disagreeing with the government’s opinion on a moral issue.”
That case is still pending.
Mark Davis made a couple of points that bear contemplation. If a member of the Westboro Baptist Church went into a printing shop owned and operated by a homosexual man or woman and asked for some signs to be made up that said "God Hates Homos" would the printing shop happily say "We'll have them ready by tomorrow,"? Of course not. The printing shop would refuse and most likely ask the customer to leave the shop and never return. And rightfully so. But if Westboro Church sued the owner(s) for refusing them service do you think they'd win in court? Of course not. The court would find the request for the signs atrocious and throw the case out. But according to the decisions in Colorado and New Mexico that would be a double standard.
Example two given by Mark Davis - again far fetched but certainly possible. If an American Nazi went into a Jewish owned printer and asked for some celebratory signs for their upcoming party commemorating Adolph Hitler and the Jewish printer refused to make them - would the court compel the printer to make them anyway? Certainly not without a huge public outcry. Then again - the liberal court today might just find for the plaintiff on that one. One never knows.
On another show I heard a different and more prudent example of the hypocrisy when it comes to religious freedom in this country. In Illinois recently the FBI indicted a beverage distribution company for firing two workers who refused to deliver alcoholic beverages to businesses because their religious beliefs forbid them to use or even touch alcohol. It was determined that the company violated the religious rights of the two workers because they were fired for refusing to perform one of their required duties because of their religious beliefs. Would it surprise anyone to learn these two workers are Muslims?
Just one more example of the religious rights of Muslims being upheld and the religious rights of Christians being tossed aside. Why is it only one religion in the USA seems to have protected rights these days? Could it be because of the statement: "They [Muslims] have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

No comments:

Post a Comment