News Media Deliberately Censored Biggest Religious Lawsuit in US History - Figures, Doesn't It?

Here's a link to sign a petition to stop Obama and the Media's war on faith:
http://www.mrcaction.org/action/586

Is there any wonder that nobody but the "useful idiots" watch the lamestream media?
Gee, like the Biggest Religious Lawsuit in US History isn't NEWS. Maybe they're hoping that if they pretend it's not there, that it won't be. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room. HA!

And yet they'll cover what's supposed to be a HUGE protest against Rush Limbaugh and ends up being 7 women.

Lol Marilyn. They really think we're dumb. Now if they could fully sensor the Internet... They are doing pretty good, though. You have to know a story is out there to find it. It sure doesn't come up as "news" for more than a few minutes, then it is buried.

Marilyn, it's obvious that the lamestream media knows of Saul Alinsky's...
Rule #1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Yet, when the Tea Party has a rally with hundreds or thousands, the lamestream media isn't there.

Yes, Char. They think we're dumb. Boy do I get frustrated at trying to find a particular story online only to discover that there are dozens of liberal lies about the same thing. Finally, about page 3 or 4 or 5 I'll find the real story. Grrr.


ONT, even when the lamestream media does show up at TEA party events, they pretend that those hundreds or thousands are a mere dozen.

"...only to discover that there are dozens of liberal lies about the same thing." Ah, Obama's willing "useful idiots" enlisted in his army of the lying "Truth Team" dedicated to the task of scubbing the Internet of all truth.

"even when the lamestream media does show up at TEA party events, they pretend that those hundreds or thousands are a mere dozen."
And then the lamestream media proceeds to label the peaceful Tea Party as racists and terrorists. Yeah. I'd say that the lamestream media and the democommiRATS have the same agenda.

They certainly do, ONT, they certainly do.

It is the Clintons and Obama that allowed the Communist China into our country. Be aware, tne Muslins and Communists will be your neighbors.

Indeed. I was reading yesterday about how much land China is buying up in the US.

In an email I received today from CatholicVote.org:


If bad news invites our justified protest, then good news should inspire our praise!

Today I urge you to applaud those that filed suit yesterday. Their names and contact information are listed below. Take 2 minutes now to make a call or drop a quick note of thanks. Tell them you are proud to stand with them.

Assure them of your prayers that our collective action bears fruit.


Sincerely,

Brian Burch
President, CatholicVote.org


Here is the list of entities that filed suit by state:


District of Columbia

1. Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.
301-853-4500
chancery@adw.org
http://www.facebook.com/adw.org
@Cardinal_Wuerl

2. Consortium of Catholic Academies
301-853-4589
catholicacademiesinfo@gmail.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Consortium-of-Catholic-Academies/106234042759917

3. Archbishop Carroll High School
202-529-0900
carroll@archbishopcaroll.org
http://www.facebook.com/ACHSWashdc

4. Catholic Charities of D.C.
202-772-4300
communications@catholiccharitiesdc.org
http://www.facebook.com/ccadw

5. The Catholic University of America
202-319-5000
stevko@cua.edu
http://www.facebook.com/CatholicUniversity
@CatholicUniv

Illinois

6. University of St. Francis, Joliet, IL
800-735-7500
university_relations@stfrancis.edu
http://www.facebook.com/StFrancis
@UofStFrancis

7. Diocese of Joliet, IL
815-722-6606
ddelaney@dioceseofjoliet.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roman-Catholic-Diocese-of-Joliet-in-Illinois/109848045700846

8. Catholic Charities of Joliet, IL
815-723-3405
info@cc-doj.org
http://www.facebook.com/ccjoliet
@CathCharJoliet

9. Diocese of Springfield, IL
217-698-8500
ckannall@dio.org
http://www.facebook.com/diospringfield

10. Catholic Charities of Springfield, IL
217-523-9201
robinson_spfld@cc.dio.org

Indiana

11. The University of Notre Dame
574-631-5000
president@nd.edu
http://www.facebook.com/notredame
@NDdotEDU

12. Diocese of Fort-Wayne-South Bend, IN
260-422-4611
info@diocesefwsb.org
http://www.facebook.com/diocesefwsb
@diocesefwsb

13. Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
260-422-5625
ccoffice@ccfwsb.org
http://www.facebook.com/CatholicCharities.FW.SB

14. St. Anne Home
260-484-5555
http://www.saintannehome.com/Contact_Us

15. Franciscan Alliance
574-256-3935
http://www.facebook.com/FranciscanNWI
@FranciscanNWI

16. Our Sunday Visitor
800-348-2440
cdee@osv.com
http://www.facebook.com/OurSundayVisitor
@OSV

Michigan

17. Michigan Catholic Conference
517-372-9310
mccinfo@micatholicconference.org
http://www.facebook.com/MichiganCatholicConference
@MiCatholicConf

Missouri

18. Archdiocese of St. Louis, MO
314-792-7172
communications@archstl.org
http://www.facebook.com/archstl
@archstl

19. Catholic Charities of St. Louis, MO
314-367-5500
info@ccstl.org
http://www.facebook.com/ccstl

Mississippi

20. Diocese of Jackson, MS
601-355-8634
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roman-Catholic-Diocese-of-Jackson/95981452195
@jacksondiocese

21. Catholic Charities of Jackson, MS
601-355-8634
info@catholiccharitiesjackson.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Catholic-Charities-Diocese-of-Jackson-MS/44133503191

22. Vicksburg Catholic School
601-636-4824
info@vicksburgcatholic.org

23. St. Joseph's Catholic School
601-898-4819
info@stjoebruins.com
@StJoeBruins

24. Diocese of Biloxi, MS
228-702-2111
info@biloxidiocese.org

25. De l'Epee Deaf Center, Inc., Biloxi, MS
228-897-2280
deafcenter@cableone.net
http://www.facebook.com/pages/de-lEpee-Deaf-Center-Inc/79459006752

26. Catholic Social and Community Services, Inc., Biloxi, MS
228-702-2137

27. Resurrection Catholic School, Pascagoula, MS
228-762-0282
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Resurrection-Catholic-School/145463042143070

28. Sacred Heart Catholic School, Hattiesburg, MS
601-583-8683

29. St. Dominic Health Services, Jackson, MS
601-200-2000
contact@stdom.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/St-Dominic-Health-Services/110683708956920

New York

30. Diocese of Rockville Centre
516-678-5800
bishopsoffice@drvc.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Diocese-of-Rockville-Centre/93430711099
@RVCDiocese

31. Catholic Health Services of Long Island
516-705-3700
info@chsli.org

32. Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre
516-623-7400
CIR@catholiccharities.cc
http://www.facebook.com/CCharitiesLI
@CCharitiesLI

33. Archdiocese of New York
212-371-1000
communications@archny.org
http://www.facebook.com/TimothyCardinalDolan
@CardinalDolan

34. ArchCare
646-633-4700
info@archcare.org

Ohio

35. Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH
740-283-3771
president@franciscan.edu
http://www.facebook.com/FranciscanUniversity
@FranciscanU

Pennsylvania

36. Diocese of Erie, PA
814-824-1120
bishopofc@erieRCD.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Diocese-of-Erie/267111616832

37. St. Martin Center, Erie, PA
814-452-6113
bschreckengost@stmartincenter.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/St-Martin-Center-Inc/104652166238479

38. Prince of Peace Center
724-346-5777
popc@princeofpeacecenter.org
http://www.facebook.com/PrinceOfPeaceCenter
@PrincePeaceCtr

39. Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA
412-456-3000
communications@diopitt.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Catholic-Diocese-of-Pittsburgh/175177579162895

40. Catholic Charities of Pittsburgh, PA
412-456-6999
info@ccpgh.org
http://www.facebook.com/ccpgh

41. Catholic Cemeteries Association of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA
866-794-5081
cca@ccapgh.org

Texas

42. Diocese of Dallas, TX
214-528-2240
info@cathdal.org
http://www.facebook.com/CatholicDioceseofDallas

43. Diocese of Fort Worth, TX
817-560-2452
dws@fwdioc.org
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roman-Catholic-Diocese-of-Fort-Worth/115590764076


This list is also available on our website:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=30342


I'm not a Catholic, but I applaud these organizations filing suit and I hope that it encourages others to do the same.

You know that those who are opposed to this will write and call the organizations. Those who support them should do the same.

This is about religious liberty.

Then there's this:

Suing may be necessary to protect the Church’s assets, but it is not, by itself, leadership. In modern America, when faced with other great challenges to its teachings, the Church and its leaders showed their leadership through personal example and action.

That means preaching, being at the forefront of vigorous public campaigns in favor of the right-to-life, and through organizing the faithful to demonstrate their opposition to immoral government policies -- as church leaders did in support of civil rights legislation when they declared segregation a moral wrong. The campaign to end the Obama administration’s unconstitutional invasion of freedom of conscience deserves that same kind of leadership.

Those church leaders who once thought Obama’s promise of change wouldn’t affect them must get on the side of Constitutional government now. If they put their moral authority and leadership publicly out front, they will show Americans that they understand that the loss of freedom of conscience threatens all of our other freedoms, and they will find millions of Americans – believers and non-believers alike – on their side.

* The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has established a website, preservereligiousfreedom.org to explain the lawsuit against the Obama administration, publicize its positions and inform interested parties of the latest developments in the case.

http://www.conservativehq.com/article/8100-suing-obama-administration-no-substitute-moral-leadership

"If they put their moral authority and leadership publicly out front, they will show Americans that they understand that the loss of freedom of conscience threatens all of our other freedoms, and they will find millions of Americans – believers and non-believers alike – on their side."

Of course, and this is because this is not just a Catholic issue, though the Catholics happen to be the religious group involved in the specifics in this instance. It's not how many Catholics agree as you've already well pointed out. A good deal of those Catholics, if you know any at all, are in the do my duty, attend Mass for a half an hour once a week, and I go to heaven crowd. These are not people, in probably the majority of cases, who even know that their religious freedoms are on the line. They just have an opinion based on their uninformed notions, while justifying their lax adherence to the laws of God.

Justice has a whole new meaning now. It's not justice for the sake of justice, but justice for the sake of justifying what I want to do whenever I want to do it, and really, that's how "social justice" so-called Christians within and without the RC church maintain themselves with a Christian label at all. And we can't deny that this is rampant in the left-wing Catholic faction so if anyone wants to give what they might contend as irrelevant any credence, you may as well just poll non-believers and say that's the real stand of the Catholic Church.

Catholics are nowhere near in agreement, even within those dioceses, Marilyn. Do you remember your dubious lectures to me about how the leadership of the UMC differs from the laity? It's probably on steroids in the RCC. You are C+Ping RW articles on subject matter you barely understand, if at all. Is that what it's about? Marilyn throwing subject matter out there if it vaguely "looks good?"

All people of ANY faith or no faith at all are NEVER all in agreement. The vast majority of people of faith ARE in agreement though. You would only like to project that idea that they are not.

You're wrong.

Dave, you're the one who is wrong. This is all about religious liberty. The government has no business telling a church or business or non-profit that it MUST cover contraceptives.

News Bulletin! Opinion Nate Ted is wrong 100% of the time.

I didn't offer an opinion on the law here. Didn't notice, eh?

Mr Dave A,
Catholics are nowhere near in agreement, even within those dioceses, ....
Catholics are true to the Roman Catholic Churches Doctrines, Dogmas, Teachings, Traditions, Heritage, and the full Catechism of the Church.

There is no disagreement there.

However there are many, who disagree with one or more of the Churches teachings.

No matter what they were ‘born into’ they are Protestants, but insist on being ‘called’ Catholic.

You may insist on being called many things, but that does not make is so, so matter how many times you say it.

“Being” a Roman Catholic, is by definition, accepting of the entire Church.

That is why I am no longer rightfully called a ‘Catholic’. Have not had that right in over 25 years.

I understand that many Catholics feel that way, but they are in the minority.

The majority of Catholics (58%) "believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception," according to a 2012 survey. And in fact, "a majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception." These results are in line with a similar 2009 survey of Catholics.

Oh, Dave, there are surveys to prove everyone's point of view. :) In that first link, it says that only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it. It's quite enlightening how the numbers appear in different groups. Thanks. But what you're not understanding is that the average Catholic does not make the rules in the Catholic church. Besides, there are few with no opinion and depending on the demographics, almost as many as approve as disapprove. Clearly not a real majority for your side at all. :)

And that 2009 survey you found? Nah. I doubt I'll consider a site called "Catholics for Choice" as a reliable source. But nice try.

Anyway, as thinking Americans understand, this is about religious liberty, not about birth control. And when people get that, many are changing their minds about what they're for or against. It takes giving them truth and allowing them to think for themselves, though, something lib/progs detest.

Why is it that Democrats can't seem to be able to afford that $10 per month? Are they really that poor?

Mr.Dave,
Again with the same tired disingenuously inane, flawed, and unfounded comments.

It is quite simple.

1) To be a Catholic, one must take an oath to uphold ALL teachings of the Church.
2) Anyone that does not maintain that oath is not permitted to participate in any of the Sacraments. It is supposed to be self-policed, by people with a conscience.
3) Those that disobey the Churches teachings have forfeited the right to identify themselves as Catholic. Ignorance of that is not an excuse.


Anyone that answers a survey as you described, has no right to claim to still be a Catholic.

They are still “used to be”, or even “born and raised”, Catholic, but no longer “are” Catholic.

Therefore, a survey like that, would be equivalent to asking people how they feel about the Democrat Party, when over half those surveyed only “used to be Democrat”.

Whether or not Carholics are "required" to follow the dictates of the church authorities, clearly many do not agree with the official position. None of these comments impeach the survey data. And Jesse, whatever the expectations, I'm pretty sure you haven't been placed in charge of deciding who is or is not a Catholic.

By Jesse's rules, there are virtually no Catholic women, since 98% of Catholic women who have ever been sexually active have used contraception other than the "natural method". (In the general population, it's 99%.) All those women are no longer Catholic, right?

It's ironic that so many conservatives who warn of the evils of a tyrannical government bureaucracy maintain that the Church is not the community of believers, as it was in early Christianity, but an old fossilized hierarchical bureaucracy organized much in the same way as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union used to be.

Mr. Dave,
I was "placed in charge" of deciding whether I am Catholic or not, based upon THEIR definition!

The rules were explained quite explicitly, and there came a point when I became a "former" Catholic, because I could not continue to be faithful to al of their “teachings”.

Every person in the Church is given the same direction as I was.

I am not ‘deciding’ who is or who is not as you snidely put it, they are deciding for themselves.

Even if they do not have the courage, or knowledge to admit it.

Ms. Anika,
Do you know of a survey that says 98% of females that declare themselves Catholic use birth control: Or is it simply a number you made up?



I do not know why you cannot see the absolute truth: A person that disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church, is by definition, not a Catholic!

Of course I am trying to explain things to at least one person, that believes that Martin Luther wrote the King James Bible, even tho it was written 50 years BEFORE he was born.

Have either of you studied Catholicism? Have you read the entire “catechism”? Did you spend over 4 years in the study of the Church with multiple Priests, and 2 Bishops?

By what authority, do you claim to have such vast knowledge?

I have a simple test for you to decide your ‘wealth of knowledge: to what event does the Church teach “Immaculate Conception” refer too?

Do Catholics “pray to” Mary?

What is Limbo?

Is the Pope always infallible?

This should be fun!

I see.

96 hours, and not a response to actual knowledge.

What is the problem?

You certainly shot you mouth off enough about Catholics!

Please, stop researching, and impress us with your vast wealth of information!!!!

You sorted yourself into a pile of your choosing, and that is certainly your province, J. You've also had your answers, and they might be helpful to you if you paid close attention to them.

In terms of the position of the "fossilized hierarchical bureaucracy" to which Anikó referred, I would ask who had been prohibited from receiving the sacraments among self-professed Catholics to determine who could no longer claim the label. Even in that case, excommunication is said to be "medicinal" and not a punishment. If you can muster the capacity to learn something new, see the discussion provided by the church itself. Take care.

Oh, terribly sorry, Jesse. Life and stuff, you know. As a netiquette note, though, one can secretly celebrate that one's authoritative comment with the iron-clad argument hasn't been responded to, or one can send out private reminders to people who have been asked questions and haven't returned to respond, but throwing a victory fest smacks either of believing one's comment and in general these exchanges on the internet to play a central role in everyone's lives, or of being too desperate to declare victory, both of which tend to attract a bit of derision.

Regarding the data that 98% of sexually active Catholic women have at some point in their lives used contraception other than natural family planning, it's based on a study by the Guttmacher Institute, based on interviews conducted with women aged 15-44 (defined as child-bearing age). It has been pointed out by critics that as such it excludes older women, an also (necessarily) women currently pregnant or trying to conceive. It does, but of course putting more qualifiers in a brief statement doesn't necessarily lead to clearer communication (you missed the ones I did put in mine, for an obvious example). The data does clearly demonstrate that the Catholic population is virtually indistinguishable from the general population, which was my point. [Source]

I doubt there's anyone on this thread who believes Martin Luther "wrote" the King James Bible, so I find it curious that you'd bring that up. I also find it strange that you would think it's necessary to refer to dates to dispel this notion. I would just point out that the King James Bible is an English translation of the Bible, and Martin Luther was German.

(You do realize it's obvious your trivia questions come from a freshly googled Catholicism FAQ site? Let's not waste more time with empty posturing, please.)

Ms. Anika, and Dave,
Yet neither of you showed your vast knowledge about Catholicism.

You can spout all the rhetoric, slanted surveys you wish.

I am addressing what the Church itself has said.

I have no need to “google” it, as the answers were ingrained in me. It became a bit of a “pet Peeve” of mine, that even most who claim to be Catholic, do not know the correct answers.

The Roman Catholic Church decides the last word, about who is, or is not, A Roman Catholic. Its first teaching is that you must adhere to all practices, traditions, canons, teachings etc.

That is the end of it.

You either are, or you are not – period.


And ms. Anika,
Yes Dave did indeed state, that the KJV left out Jewish heros, because Luther did not want to show that. The comment has been removed, but it was there.

Typical - when you can not win the argument, you scrub the history!

By the way, Ms. Anika,
Glad to see you at least "googled" to see what all you do not know.

Thank you for proving my point, that you are talking about a subject that you have zero knowledge of.

We have a different understanding of what Church means, Jesse. Mine centers on the people ("where two or more are gathered" in Jesus' name). Yours centers on a bureaucracy, a power structure and its representatives. As such, our views will not meet. There is still the question of how many actual Catholics exist by your rules, since they almost all disagree with something that's current RCC teaching.

Regarding Luther and the KJV, whatever it was that someone said, and wherever the comment went, it wasn't the Dave whose subthread this is. I think you should clarify that, because your comment currently suggests that reading.

(I didn't google anything. I recognized the questions as common topics on Catholic FAQ sites.)

Jesse: "Yes Dave did indeed state, that the KJV left out Jewish heros..."

All the comments I made are still here, Jesse, and I stand by each and every one of them. I never said anything here about the KJV or Jews. I don't recall seeing the comment but it's obviously not relevant to my content here. I suggest that if you want to hold people accountable for the things they do say, you follow my example here and provide a direct quote.

If you follow your own comments back to May 21, Jesse, you'll find your response to the person you're thinking about, and the person's comment itself. It's not missing. It isn't on this post, and the commenter's name is not Dave or anything similar. (And of course he didn't say Luther wrote the KJV but assumed an influence by Luther on the KJV--a Protestant translation that came after Luther. You got the chronology right when you commented there (Luther died before the KJV was started) but flipped it around here.)