Tuesday, May 22, 2012

"Nothing To See Here. Move Along." --Signed, MFM

Not that anyone's surprised, or anything.

The evening news broadcasts all but spiked the largest legal action in history to defend our constitutionally protected religious freedom. The May 21 editions of ABC’s World News and NBC’s Nightly News refused to report the fact that 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Obama administration. CBS Evening News gave this historic news a mere 19 seconds of air time.

This is the worst bias by omission I have seen in the quarter century history of the Media Research Center. Every American knows about the Chinese communists withholding for 20 years the news that the US had landed on the moon, because it reflected poorly on the government. Our US media today are no different. They are now withholding news from the American people if it is harmful to the re-election of Barack Obama.

This IS the 'Religion News story' of 2012, not to mention the most significant First Amendment (religious freedom) case in at least the last two years, if not 20. 

But not to the MFM.

HT:  FrZ

10 comments:

Jim said...

The largest legal action in history? Really? A little hyperbole, anyone?

This deserves little more coverage than Orly Taitz and her birther lawsuits. When the Catholic church employs people, it's an employer and should be subject to any and all labor laws.

Amy said...

When the Catholic church employs people, it's an employer and should be subject to any and all labor laws.

So First Amendment rights go out the window because of other laws?

I think not.

But, on the upside, this lawsuit may be moot when SCOTUS overturns Obamacare.

Dad29 said...

As usual, Jim has it upside-down.

Jim said...

So First Amendment rights go out the window because of other laws?

There is not one piece of the legislation or regulation that denies a person their freedom of religion or the free exercise thereof. The First Amendment has nothing to do with this. It is labor law, the same that is in place in 20-some-odd states already. The Catholic church sued California over the same regulation and lost.

Dad29 said...

Jim, you ignorant bozo.

It's a prima facie violation of the 1st Amendment to force ANY religious institution to violate their doctrine.

That's exactly what the mandate does.

Or you could read Kennedy/Schumer's RFRA, if you prefer. Both are clear. You are confused, at best.

Jim said...

How does a rule that someone who chooses voluntarily to use contraceptives should be able to cover the expense through their insurance violate religious freedom? The bishops don't use contraceptives. The priests don't. And they are free to not use them. How is their religious freedom restricted?

I see no infringement on any catholic of the free exercise of their religion.

Amy said...

I see no infringement on any catholic of the free exercise of their religion.

Most religions, Catholic, Islam, etc. also believe it is a sin to be a cooperative partner in aiding someone to sin; i.e., if I drove a woman to an abortion clinic, I committed a sin because I helped her commit a sin.

Catholics should not have to pay for contraceptives when Catholic teaching has prohibited the use of artificial contraception for eons.

Just because you don't "see" it doesn't mean it's not there.

If I CHOOSE to do something, I should also be WILLING to pay for it.

Why is asking someone to pay $9 for birth control so outrageous, but demanding Catholic institutions violate their conscience merely "labor laws"?

It's B.S. and you know it, Jim.

Dad29 said...

I'm leaving Jim's comments up b/c he is an excellent representative of the Left.

About as perceptive as a frog.

TRBlog said...

Not perceptive, manipulative.

Jim said...

but demanding Catholic institutions violate their conscience

If a church wants to be a church, it is free to stick to its "conscience". When it becomes a business, its an employer.

If you are a catholic and you do business with a company that provides insurance for their employees, insurance that covers contraceptives, aren't you violating your conscience since a portion of the money you spend ends up paying for employees' contraception expenses?