The thing that SO annoys me about the so-called "conservatives" is that they all "hate" (want out of office) Obama for all the wrong reasons. WELL, I want his stinky ass out of office too! And for at least SOME of the right reasons!

Newsmax

Rick Warren: Obama Contraception Policy Endangers Religious Freedom

Sunday, April 8, 2012 03:31 PM

By: Newsmax Wires

Acclaimed evangelical minister and best-selling author Rick Warren slammed the Obama administration's approach to contraception and debt Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Warren told interviewer Jake Tapper that he is not satisfied with the administration’s compromise on a requirement that religious-affiliated organizations provide contraception coverage to employees, and said religious freedom is at stake.

So, if "the state" "forces" religious-affiliated organizations to provide contraception coverage to employees, are the employees "forced" to take advantage of the contraception coverage when they elect to not use contraception when they didn't want to use contraception in the first place, is THIS what has become of "religious freedom?"  Have we really devolved to this?  Really?  Human being really think like this?  Is Rick Warren a human being?  Or is this "being forced" to "worship at a state-sponsored church (or worse)?"

“The issue here is not about women’s health,” Warren said. “There is a greater principle, and that is do you have the right to decide what your faith practices?”

What "my faith" practices?  "My faith" is simply that: MY FAITH.  I do what I do; this is how I practice "my faith."  As long as I do not actively force a woman to have a baby, or force a woman to abort a baby, you can be assured that the issue is not about women's health, or about how my faith elects to honor (or dishonor) women's health.  I think Rick Warren has engaged in too many meaningless conversations about telelogical matters, and thus has become expert in OBFUSCATION.

The original ruling from the administration required religious-affiliated universities and hospitals to offer health plans that cover contraception; under the compromise, insurance companies have to pay for that part of the coverage.

So, if it is a violation "religious freedom" to "force" a "religious-affiliated university or hospital" to offer health plans that cover contraception, even if the "religious freedom seeking people" offer NOT to use the contraception benefit if they consider it to be in violation of their faith, that does not seem to be a violation of "religious freedom" because the members of the faith community ARE NOT FORCED TO USE THE BENEFIT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.  NOW - if the law was written so that the members of the religious-affiliated university or hospital were FORCED to use the benefit, forced to take contraceptive pills, or use prophalaxis during inter course, or forced to abort in the event of pregnancy, then, I can see how that would be very much a violation of religious faith, and also any number of invasions of privacy.  But to call this part of the law a violation of some one's religious faith seems to be far more than a mere stretch.  But a straw God's argument.

Warren, who spoke at Obama’s 2009 inauguration, also criticized the president's economic policies even as he said Obama alone is not to blame for the nation's woes. 

Barack Obama - NEVER the brightest bulb in the lamps, nor the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Whoopee! Rick Warren, white, male, leader of a very conservative church, let us offer him an olive branch, and maybe then his cohort will turn into democratic voting stepford husands and democratic voting stepford wives.  UNFUCK RICK WARREN FOREVER!

“Most people would not think they’re better off economically than they were four years ago,” said Warren. Asked who he holds responsible, he blamed an array of people.

Sounds as if the good preacher Warren is making his political leanings be pretty well and widely known!

Here's some of the interview:
TAPPER: You’ve written about this, especially on Twitter … a great deal when it comes to the Obama administration’s healthcare ruling when it pertains to contraception. You objected to that initially. They dialed it back. How are you with what they called an accommodation? Were you okay with that? Or no?
WARREN: Well, no, I’m not, because in the first place, there is a redefinition from freedom of religion to phrases — now you hear people talking about freedom of worship. That means it's limiting what the church does to only what happens in the one hour on Sunday morning as worship. In other words, if I have a school, which is part of my commission as a church, education, or if I had a clinic which is part of my — the Bible says Jesus went into every village, preaching, teaching, and healing. He didn’t just care about the spirit. He cared about the mind and the body, and you go into almost any country, the first school and the first hospital were founded by the missionaries, almost every country in the world. You go to Africa, 25 percent of the healthcare is done by Catholics.

NOTE: From the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 I am still at an utter loss at seeing how passing a law that requires religious organizations or hospitals to provide insurance for contraception that their insurance policy holders never are forced to use comes any where near the "establishment of religion" or the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." IF, on the other hand, the insurance policy holders WANT to be able to have insurance for contraception, but their religious organizations or religious hospitals PREVENT them from having such insurance, or at least from obtaining such insurance through them, when such insurance is legally mandated, well, then, my problem is with the religious organizations and religious hospitals.

WARREN: Now people are starting to frame this as women’s health issue. (I'm starting to frame this as a BOGUS ISSUE to galvanize the ignorati to come out and vote out of office the finest Republican President this country has had since slick Willie Clinton!) I’m 100 percent in favor of women’s health, obviously (No doubt, as being 100% opposed to women's health!). But the issue here is not about women’s health. There is a greater principle, and that is do you have a right to decide what your faith practices? (Again, I submit, your faith can continue to practice what it has been practicing all the long.  This is a bogus non-issue, which serves to drive matters of substance off the discussion table.) I would be just as opposed to someone making a law that says every Jewish deli now has to serve pork. (Just curious: what about a law requiring every Muslim Deli to serve pork?  Would that be okay?) Well, I would be — I would protest that. Why? There are 100 (So, the issue is, since there is CHOICE, and the contraception insurance can be gotten elsewhere, why force the churches to provide it?  EVEN IF the members of the faith community never have to use it? Is someone afraid that maybe WITH the benefit Catholics will start to want contraceptives (even abortions? even rubbers? and maybe want to start to have sex just for the thrill of it all, rather than for procreation and to enhance the church membership rosters (or to create little children for more Priests to sexually abuse?) other delis you can get pork at. Why do I have to insist that the Jewish delis also serve pork? There’s plenty of places to get contraceptives.
WARREN: Now I don’t have a problem with contraceptives. (No, clearly this is NOT the situation - you have a problem with ... drum roll pull ease:  B A R A C K  O B A M A - and so do I!) I’m a Protestant. I’m an evangelical. But I do support my Catholic brothers and sisters to believe what they want to believe. (Meaningless palavar - in NO way does this law force Catholics to believe something they don't believe in!)  And I would support my Jewish brothers and sisters to believe what they want to believe, and say if you say we don’t eat pork, we don’t want to serve it in our deli, then you shouldn’t have to serve it in your deli, because there’s plenty of other places to get pork. (Conspicuously absent from the "great man's" argument is this statement:  And I would support my Muslim brothers and sisters to believe what they want to believe ... nope, you t'ain't a-gonna' hear THAT from Brother Warren any time soon!)
TAPPER: But as far as you’re concerned, does that — you think that should apply beyond houses of worship, but houses of worship are already exempt?
WARREN: The Constitution says freedom of religion, (Um, actually, Preacher Rick, you sloppy piece of shit, the Constitution does NOT say "Freedom of Religion" not just freedom of worship. And churches, synagogues, mosques do far more than worship. In fact, if you took out all of the social services provided by Christian churches, and for that matter synagogues and mosques, too, America would go bankrupt in about six months, because the vast amount of social services, the free clinics and the feeding the poor and caring for the sick and educating the next generation is done a lot by these religious organizations. (America would go broke? No, you God damned lunatic moron: POOR PEOPLE WOULD DIE SOONER, GO TO SLEEP MORE HUNGRY, GO TO SLEEP IN MORE DANGEROUS PLACES ... churches are FREE LOADERS; they do not pay property taxes and they DO get community services; police, fire, et al, and besides, moron, America is pretty close to bank rupt any way - it's just that nobody's calling in our markers, because we are the biggest fish in the sea! And they should not have to say, well, I have to put my religion on the shelf to care for people.
TAPPER: So you believe that this should also apply to — this exemption should apply to religious schools — religious charities…
WARREN: I do…
TAPPER: But just to clarify, the accommodation, as the administration calls it, doesn’t require the Catholic charities or the Jewish schools or the Protestant ...
WARREN: So here’s the dirty little secret about that. It says we’re going to put it onto the insurers ...
TAPPER: Right. Insurance companies have to ...
WARREN: Most or many religious organizations insure themselves. We insure ourselves here at Saddleback Church. I have 350 staff. We have a self-insurance program, where we do our own insurance. So we’re basically robbing from ourselves to pay for ourselves. (As opposed to if you were paying the insurance companies - in which case you would be basically robbing "from ourselves" to pay for "the insurance companies."  This man is functionally illiterate, and cannot compose a rational argument.  And from some of the very studious theological minds I know, his theology is pretty shaky also!

TAPPER: But weren’t you already required to do this under California law?
WARREN: That’s not the issue. The issue is on a national level, on a national level, to start limiting churches and their organizations, the church and organizations — or any organizations, whether it’s Christian or not — in what they believe that that limits what they do with their school or their health care, that is a violation of the First Amendment, in my opinion.

But, if the state of California limits you, it's okay.  It's only when duh Feds, at the behest of the Muslim, communist, Kenyan, Obama "forces" you to not make your church goers not do what they don't have to do if they don't want to do, that it's wrong.
Good night Rick Warren.  You, sir, are, an abomination (and, not surprisingly, another leading intellectual of the Conservative Christian Community)!

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.