It Turns Out Most Catholics Agree With Obama’s ‘War On Religion’

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that contrary to the GOP’s belief, a majority of Catholics agree with Obama on contraception coverage.

A majority of Catholics polled (58%) in The Public Religion Research Institute survey believed that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception, but if you really want to know more about why Republicans are making an issue out of this consider that, “Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it,” and only 36% of Republicans agreed that employer provided healthcare coverage should include contraception.

When the question was asked if religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide healthcare plans that cover contraception, the Republicans’ intentions become obvious. While a majority of Catholics (52%) believed that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide healthcare plans that cover contraception, only 45% of Catholic voters, and 41% of white Catholic voters supported it.

The issue at hand isn’t one of religious liberty, but whether or not a religious institution has to play by the same rules in terms of employee benefits. Since employee benefits issues don’t get Republicans out to vote, they have warped this into a “war on religion.” The reality that most Catholics agree with president’s position is irrelevant, because Republicans are courting white, Catholic, conservative voters with their latest trumped up war.

What this survey reveals is that Republicans are using Obama’s war on religion as a dog whistle to get their base out to vote. The Republican Party has developed a big enthusiasm problem. None of their candidates are getting the base fired up to go out and vote in the primaries, which hints a potential turnout disaster in the fall, so the GOP is manufacturing a bit of fear to light a fire under their base.

The war on religion charge is also another shameless election year attempt to attack Barack Obama. The ugly step child of Obama’s war on religion is the claim that Obama hates Christians because he is a Muslim. In case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, that is where this fake war on religion ends up. By the fall, Republicans all across America will be telling voters that Obama hates America and doesn’t understand American values because he declared war on religion.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans and Catholics will be in agreement with the president. As they pander to their base, the Republican Party (version 2012) is once again delivering a textbook case study on how to lose an election.

50 Replies to “It Turns Out Most Catholics Agree With Obama’s ‘War On Religion’”

  1. I am Catholic, Nobody asked me but I have spoken with a number of people at my church. You know what, We are fired up about this, this is an attack on our values and beliefs and an affront to the the religious freedom our constitution guarantees.

  2. Talk to a few women. The majority of catholic women are against you and use birth control. You do, no you don’t, understand the church has over 100 exemptions and that the bill says this is negotiable?

  3. The first amendment protects us from your church too. You can do anything you want, as long as it doesn’t affect the rest of the country in ways they don’t like. When you deny birth control or abortions to non-RCs, you’re sticking your religion into OUR lives. We all choose our own paths and morals, not you and not your bishops, and not the bishop of Rome either.

    Does “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” have any meaning whatsoever to you? Or do the words of your bishops and the bishop of Rome have more weight than Jesus Himself?

    The corollary to that famous quote: “Do NOT to others that which you would not want done to yourself” is also valid. You and those in your church who want to control others outside of it need to think about this.

  4. How is telling an insurance company that their plans must contain certain minimum benefits any different than telling an auto manufacturer that their products must have certain safety features or telling a toy maker that they cannot use lead based paint??

  5. Jeff,
    You seem to be VERY vocal about speaking FOR other women…As a Man you want to ‘ infringe ‘ and do the thinking FOR women. Sounds like sort of a control freak to me. I feel sorry for your family… if you have one.

  6. Do unto others.. Exactly I would not force my beliefs on you. So why is the government forcing their belief on a church. Something the Constitution forbids. Can any of you answer that???

  7. I am a recovering catholic.I left the church years ago because of their harsh stance against women.Let’s be clear here,this is not a war against religion,it is clearly a war against women.

  8. I left the Catholic Church right after I graduated from a Catholic High School and years of subjugation to their arbitrary policies. I feel sorry how so many people in every country in the world are suffering under the yoke of slavery and misery promoted by religious rules and regulations that do nothing but lower the quality of life for their brainwashed followers. Unfortunately, the rituals and rules mean nothing to God, no does much of anything else preached by the charlatans reflect in any way the desires of the creator.

  9. The government is not forcing beliefs on a church, it is the church trying to force its beliefs on people that work for their public institutions Which are not churches. The gov has the right to regulate businesses.

  10. People on the left have got a huge problem. Instead of answering a simple question it turns into personal attacks. Can anyone of you answer a very simple question. How is the government not way overstepping what the constitution states???

  11. So Jeff, if my religion mandates that I sacrifice animals, you’re saying that no government, local or federal, should interfere with my right to practice my religion?

    How about Mormons who want to practice polygamy? or take underage brides? Should this be allowed in the name of religious freedom?

    The Right often screams about the threat of Sharia Law. Should the government let people practice Sharia Law because it’s their religion?

    We have laws that everyone must adhere to regardless of your religious beliefs. If your conscience prohibits you from taking contraception, don’t take it.

  12. Santeria practices are allowed. You know the sacrificial killing of animals. If they can afford multiple wives yes. Underage, depends on where in the country you are I do believe, perhaps a bit more specificity of what you mean by underage? Depends on which part of Sharia law you refer to.

  13. I think it’s really very simple. If the hospitals and other non-church facilities don’t want to abide by this rule, just give up their tax-exempt status. Also, they can give up their other government monies.

  14. I have a huge problem with a religion that pushes an attitude toward birth control which guarantees poverty and misery for folks in Third World countries who keep having kids far beyond their ability to care for them adequately. This goes on while the folks in the Vatican live in security, with their numerous rituals and rules. Of course, it all stems from the subjugation of women, from denying them the right to priesthood to irrationally denying the right to birth control. It’s quite telling that most Catholics don’t go along with it. That’s because they are out here living in the real world where these things have real consequences, as opposed to being closeted in an ivory tower and being far removed.

  15. The Constitution guarantees the right of all religions to PREACH their interpretation of God under the free speech provisions of the first amendment. The same first amendment protects the right to PRACTICE their freely chosen religion. In no way does the first amendment offer to become an ‘enforcement arm’ of any religion, coercing citizens into living our institutional doctrine.

    The HCA is designed for the benefit of all American citizens. It does not require anyone to USE contraception. Only that the full benefits of the act are available to all citizens. The 14th amendment provides equal protection to ALL citizens. The Catholic dhurch is the bully in this fight. They’ve been unable to convince even their own adherents to reject birth control, so now they would like the government to force all women into their mold.

  16. Clarification to above- The first amendment grants to citizens the right to practice their religion. If you think the amendments are not designed to protect individauals, I would direct you to the 2nd amendment and the claim, upheld by the SC, that gun ownership is an individual right.

  17. Your rights end at the end of your nose. When it affects others, you have no business trying to dictate their morals or lifestyle. Only SOCIETY has that right, and the legal system we have is supposed to limit society to protect minorities (that’s why we have separation of church and state, so that the damned churches cannot dictate to people who don’t belong to them). Your church certainly has no right to be dictating morality to others, even if they work for that church. Your church only has the right to set the requirements for being Catholic… although I would argue that when it tries to redefine Catholic to be “Christian” and denies others the right to claim that label, it’s also going too far.

    You’ve been arguing for your church dictating how women are treated. Well, think about this… I have a colleague whose aunt was MURDERED by your church. She lived in a country where the RC church made the rules, and she developed problems that precluded childbirth. Yet they couldn’t buy birth control and her husband (as I understood the story) was pressured into believing it was wrong anyway. She got pregnant, couldn’t get an abortion, AND DIED. She left a grieving widower and motherless children.

    Of course, to staunch “Good Christians” (or maybe I should say “Good Catholics” in your case), it doesn’t matter, only more warm bodies for the pew matters. The suffering of the husband and children doesn’t mean anything. (IT DOES TO REAL CHRISTIANS!)

    That colleague rejected Christianity because of that and now is not Christian. By the way, that colleague’s story is very common. I’ve heard of many examples of people who used to be Catholic and left the church because of the abuse (mainly women). There are several in our UU church – and some of them are atheists because of the top-down dictatorial nature of your hierarchy.

    Whatever happened to being an EXAMPLE, instead of being a dictator? Don’t people like you understand what being a Witness is? Think of being a witness on the stand – you don’t tell others what to believe or what you believe, you only testify to what you’ve experienced. 31-32 years ago, when I was a new cult member in the Assemblies of God, I had a person tell me “We’re sick and tired of hearing about Jesus! SHOW US in your lives that it’s for real, and we’ll believe!” Why don’t you try the same, instead of arguing for more domination by your church?

  18. Correction: some of them are atheists because of the abuses based on the top-down dictatorial nature of your hierarchy

  19. Jeff,

    If any organization or church accepts government funding for its public programs, then it must adhere to the same rules and regs as every other group receiving said funding.

    For example, imagine if I, as the head of the Church Of Molly Malone, accepted taxpayer money to operate my Joy and Happiness Hospital, but, due to my religious beliefs, refused to allow Viagra–which I believe encourages unplanned pregnancies and causes abortions–to be covered by insurance. This, even though Congress has determined that E.D. is a male “health” issue that must, by law, be covered by all health insurance agencies.

    Now here’s the thing: I can rail from my pulpit against the evils of Viagra; I can petition Congress to change that law; I can even excommunicate any member of my church who uses Viagra. But what I can’t do is exclude Viagra from insurance coverage for any members of my church or any non-members who are in my employ. To do so would be to deprive some men of the rights all men have under the law.

    Despite the hue and cry that this is some kind of war on religion, Obama cannot arbitrarily allow exceptions to the rules and regs legislated by Congress. If he had those kind of powers, he would not be a president, he would be king.

  20. A better example would be something like ritual pedophilia, or ritual infanticide.

    Both, by the way, abhorred by the religions I’ve heard accused of it (Satanism, Wicca, etc.). I’ve only heard of a few small cults who engaged in those things (and got shut down for it)… although I would admit that the pedophilia in the more dictatorial churches (Fundamentalist, Dominionist, RC) might be exceptions to the “small cults” example (and it doesn’t appear to be ritual, but based upon authoritarianism and sexual repression).

    Even then, I don’t think the “what about this horrible practice” would float with this guy and the people like him. They want to coerce society into enforcing their rules on others.

    I just remembered being told that the RC church DOES have one exception that I know of to the “no abortions” rule. In Sardinia, there is a horrible inherited genetic disease and the people of Sardinia CAN get an abortion if the fetus turns out to have this disease without being excommunicated.

    I have a friend and colleague from that island.

  21. Horse hockey! HOW is it an attack on the Catholic religion? I’m a Catholic, but I also used birth control when I was married, JUST as some 98% of Catholic women do. NO ONE is requiring members of the Catholic faith to use birth control, nor are these institutions being told they must provide it, but they ARE being told they cannot discriminate against employees of their non-religious but Church affiliated institutions such as hospitals and universities by refusing to provide the same coverage those employees would have anywhere else. In other words, this is NOT about religious freedom, but about the right of individuals NOT to have THEIR freedom infringed upon by their employer refusing to cover a needed medical service. And birth control IS needed by many women. The pill not only is used to prevent pregnancy, but to treat a very painful disorder called endometriosis. Many women have medical conditions for which the pill is one of the recommended treatments. Other women cannot afford to get pregnant or may even be endangered by getting pregnant due to some medical condition, so they must be able to prevent pregnancies. How is it that their EMPLOYER should have the right to say that there’s a class of medications for which they are not entitled to insurance coverage because it’s against the EMPLOYER’S belief system?

    So explain to me, please, two things: a) HOW is it an attack on the faith just to require this coverage; and b) HOW is the Church’s attack on this requirement NOT an attack on the right of individuals and employees to exercise THEIR freedom of conscience in making personal decisions or in seeking needed medical care?

  22. I doubt that Jeff will read that or think about the implications,but that article shows that his church leaders KNOW that they’re wrong and don’t care. (Might makes right, after all!)

    I also think that this is just an extension of the meme I’ve heard for several decades… “Those horrible Democrats/Liberals are warring against Christianity!”. It’s getting worse… even though that article proves that the Religious Right KNOW they’re spewing bullshit.

  23. I love all of your non-answers, and tries at smokescreens. Can any of you answer a simple freakin question. How does the government demanding a religious institution to do something that is against their tenets not conflict with the first amendment. All I want is a clear answer to that one question. Not hypothetical ED stories or stories about a foreign country. AN answer about the United States Constitution applying to this specific question.
    If you want hypotheticals try this one on for size. Obama or whoever the next president is decides that Jewish people or Muslim people MUST eat pork and then declares that if they don’t they will be fined. Any problem with that??? Come on people how hard can it be to answer a very simple question?

  24. As long as our friends here are aware of it its ok with me. No RWNJ is going to want to find what he believes is wrong. Well no one does lol

  25. It’s funny how they (the top-down authoritarian churches) just cannot get things like this through their heads.

  26. It happens. The Mormons were stopped from practicing plural marriage. They were stopped from discriminating against Blacks.

    The churches of the south had to learn that they couldn’t discriminate against minorities (although they are central to this fight – they don’t want to give up their hatred and “I’m holier than thou!”).

    The RC churches out west were stopped from enslaving and selling my people (American Indians), which happened in California up into the 1900s. *Note – they were central to that trade, but not the only player.

    The law states that the RC church MUST supply birth control to employees. It doesn’t say if the employees use it or not. This law does not FORCE RCs to use birth control. It DOES say that they have a right to it if they so choose (and yes, the RC church could excommunicate them if the church chooses to do so). Even more important, those who work for RC institutions but who are not RC have a right to use birth control if THEY choose without being subject to the internal religious rules of your church. You can regulate your own, but you have no right to dictate your religion to someone who doesn’t follow it.

    The example about pork – that is a foolish argument and it doesn’t hold water. You’re arguing for forcing people to do without something that is a right in this country. People have a right to CHOOSE, but there is nothing in any of this about requiring people to do one thing or another – the government is not dictating the choice, it is making it available. That is where your argument fails, because Jews and Muslims have the right to choose to eat or not eat pork… and trying to force them to eat pork (or not eat pork) would be against the constitution both in the letter and the spirit – and not one of us would ever try to dictate people’s choices, we only insist that they have the right to choose.

    Do you see the difference? Or is the freedom to choose so horrific to you that you don’t want anyone to have it? You have the right to choose what church you attend and not one of us would disagree with that. If you wanted to start the Catholic Church of Jeff, you’d have that right, but then you’d probably be thrown out of the RC church. After all, they have the right to set the standards for membership, you don’t. Do you see the difference??? Or are you so blind and bigoted that you refuse to see what your argument actually involves?

    That’s why we call it “Pro-Choice”, not “Pro-Abortion”. We insist that women have the right to control their own bodies (NOT ANYONE ELSE) and to make decisions regarding their own lives. We don’t try to force everyone to have abortions (that would be both stupid and silly); we insist however that all women have the right to do so if they so choose. At the same time, if the RC church decides to excommunicate the women for choosing so, it can do so (and there are no laws against that). The church just doesn’t have the right to tell people “You don’t even have the right to make this choice”. It CAN say “If you choose to have an abortion, that is a violation of our rules and you’re out” (although I find such a position disgusting, immoral, and abusive, I would fight for the church’s right to regulate itself – as long as the regulation was strictly internal and didn’t involve coercion or external people. I would also be quick to provide help and support to the excommunicated woman because she deserved better treatment from a church that supposedly follows Jesus!)

  27. the government already passed this law four years ago. Even Georgia has laws that demand that any insurance provider provide these types of drugs. 28 states have the same law that Catholic healthcare providers are already working with. Also if you had read this instead of just going to Fox knows you would understand that there is plenty of exceptions for religious entities. If the Catholic Church wants to be a healthcare provider that it has to follow the rules that all healthcare providers follow.

    As for your Muslim or Jewish stuff you’re full of it. No one is forcing Catholics to use birth control although 70 to 80% of Catholic women already do. this is about the Catholic Church being a healthcare provider for people who may or may not be Catholics

    you are given the example of Georgia law that requires the same thing of Catholic healthcare providers that federal law does. There were no smokescreens here, just you refusing to face facts

  28. The Catholic Church did, after the Reconquista, force Jews and Muslims to eat pork, and those who couldn’t do it with apparent pleasure were subjected to the full force of the Inquisition. Meanwhile, you are failing to understand simply because you are using selective stupidity as a bad-faith arguing tactic. You are persuading no one with it, because we’ve seen it before. You do it to bully or annoy, and if you are who I think you are, understand that you are avoided around town because of it. Less liquor would do both you and your marriage more good.

  29. LOL,, more nonsense answers. Plain simple question. How is it not going against constitutional principles to force a church to do something against it’s tenets?? And Reyardine, no clue who or what you are talking about. What state do you live in?

  30. this idiot is gone. We would have to turn him as incapable of understanding what the law entails. If he had a clue of what he was talking about he could probably stay

  31. Jeff, President Obama is not forcing you to wear a condom, nor is he forcing Catholic women to take the pill. The Catholic church wishes to make condoms and the pill unavailable for all citizens. The Catholic church wishes to trample my rights to access birth control because of their extremist views.

    Oh, and, Jeff, the Christian church that I was forced to attend 4 times per week for 15 years taught me that Catholics were going straight to hell. “But why?” 9-yr-old me pleaded for my two best friends, both Catholic. “Because the Catholics use grape juice instead of wine for communion” – makes as much sense now as it did then – none.

  32. i reiterate; the first amendment guarantees ONLY the right of Speech to religions. It does not promise that if that speech is disregarded, the government will enforce specific doctrines. Forcing non-Catholic women to be denied healthcare due to doctrinal enforcement, surely sounds like an ESTABLISHMENT of religion to me. Such is prohibited by our Constitution.

  33. This phone is driving me crazy. Jeff’s just too dumb to understand.Jeff is just proof that even people with a very low IQ can be taught to use a computer. As far as the Catholic church, I can’t support an institution that protects child molesters.

  34. The Obama administration isn’t requiring any religious institution to provide contraception. It’s requiring insurance companies to provide contraception at no additional cost beyond the premiums their customers already pay. The religious institutions aren’t involved in this–it’s strictly between the insurance companies and their customers. The fact that some people work at religious institutions which contract with insurance companies, doesn’t mean that requiring those insurance companies to provide contraception to those employees, interferes with the beliefs of the religious institution–the religious institution has no say in the contractual relationship between the employees and the insurance company. The religious institution is not itself the insurance provider, so the religious institution is not being required to provide contraception.

  35. I think hospitals are like a corporation anyway. They charge to much for their services and are into making a profit. I thought the churches got Tax-Exempt status because they were non-profit. With the amount they charge I don’t think so. Also I hear some churches play on the stock market and grab land beyond what they need. This really sounds like a corporation to me, really!

  36. Jeff, I remember as a child bringing a meat loaf sandwich to school on Friday and getting reamed out for weeks by offended Catholics. I am not beginning my response humourously to denigrate your beliefs, but to illustrate to you how different Catholics’ view of moral behaviour is from many of the rest of us.

    On the question of whether the Catholics, through their hieracrchy have the right to trumpet their beliefs, I have no quarrel. To the question of whether the Catholics have the right to discipline their flock, I have no quarrel. Bur employment in a Catholic institution does not imply acceptance into the pastoral embrace of the Catholic church.

    A teacher, janitor, social worker, editor working in a Catholic institution is an EMPLOYEE and is entitled by law to all the benefits normally extended by employers in the USA.

    I do not think it is a great intellectual stretch to distinguish between the pastoral role of the church and its employee/employer relationships.

    There might be an issue if a practicing Catholic sought contraceptive coverage from employment in the church, but as the church is required by other laws, not to discriminate against non-Catholics in employment, there is no legal way the Catholic employer would know the employees’ religious affiliation.

    Unless of course, Jeff, you and your fellow religionists are contemplating an all out attack on workers’ rights in Catholic institutions.

  37. This is an easy question. The relationship between the church and the laity here, the right of an employee to have contraception covered in his employer funded health coverage, is an employee-employer relationship.

    Working for the church does not imply a pastoral relationship. Since the employee is not under the pastoral care of the church, normal employment benefits should be provided.

  38. Oddly – they neglect saying the women surveyed were between the ages of 18 and 25 and there were only 250 participating at a CA University – This is presented as if they “confronted” every Catholic and 58% of us agree and that couldn’t be farther from true. I can go to a gay bar and find out 99% or even 100% of heterosexuals are PRO-same sex marriage too. Junk research at best!!

  39. “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)
    per Mosaic Law – the death of an UNBORN child for the death of who’s hands took it

  40. “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)

Comments are closed.