Obama addressed the Pope today in a welcoming ceremony, welcoming the Pope to America. In his address, one statement stood out among the rest:
"You remind us that people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, we cherish religious liberty. Yet around the world at this very moment, children of God, including Christians, are targeted and even killed because of their faith. Believers are prevented from gathering at their places of worship. The faithful are imprisoned. Churches are destroyed. So we stand with you in defense of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue, knowing that people everywhere must be able to live out their faith free from fear and intimidation."
Obama's unbelievable hypocrisy was demonstrated by this bit of commentary. What does Obama mean by "Children of God, including Christians?" Are we truly allowed to practice our faith freely here in America? Well that depends. I'm going to list off a few cases which contradict Obama's plea for tolerance towards Christians here in America but also around the world.
Let's begin with Pastor Saeed Abedini.
Amid all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the arrival of the Pope to America today, reports came out showing that the Christian Pastor had been abused by Iranian jail guards, tasered and interrogated, and slapped with more trumped up charges for supposedly being connected to "anti government" groups in Iran. Obama had a chance to negotiate for his release during the Iran P5+1 nuclear talks this past year. But he didn't. Pastor Abedini remains languishing in an Iranian prison, all for being a Christian. This is the first in a list of contradictions, this one being Obama's claim that he "stands" with the Catholic Church "in defense of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue."
So far, the Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to the persecution of Yazidi Christians and Christian Refugees in the middle east. And thus far has done nothing but use its power to intimidate those of faith here in America.
An example of this is the Supreme Court case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, decided in 2012.
In this case, Cheryl Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy in 2004. When she was cleared by her doctors to return to work with no exceptions a year later, the School urged her to resign. When she refused, the school fired her for insubordination and disruptive conduct, claiming their right to "ministerial exception." She then sued Hosanna-Tabor School for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Here, the Obama Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, along with Perich's lawyers argued for Cheryl Perich, saying that the ministerial exception did not apply to her since she was not a "minister" at the School. However, the court disagreed, ruling 9-0 in the School's favor, saying that government cannot insert itself into the ministerial practices of a religious institution. Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous decision that Perich was indeed a minister, since she received special training and led students in prayer, distinguishing her from other teachers in the school who taught a purely secular curriculum, giving them grounds to terminate her. Her case was dismissed.
This case contradicts Obama's claim that "people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely." The government chose to try and insert itself in the practices of a religious institution to remedy what it saw was employment discrimination. They failed.
Moving on, we have the very recognizable Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 573 U.S. __ (2014). For those of you not current with the times, this case involved the Abortion Mandate of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (Obamacare for short). Here, Hobby Lobby sued the Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, citing that the mandate which required employers to fund drugs and abortifacients that cause abortions violated their religious beliefs.
The court agreed with Hobby Lobby, saying in a 5-4 decision the 1993 act (signed into law by none other than President Bill Clinton) protected Hobby Lobby as a "closely held corporation" from having to provide funding for contraceptives which cause an abortion, against their religious beliefs.
In an ongoing case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, the convent in a July ruling by the 10th Circuit Court was ordered to comply with Obamacare's abortion mandate. However, they were granted a reprieve by the same court until the Supreme Court ruled on the case.
These cases represent a contradiction of Obama's claim that "here in the United States we cherish religious liberty." The government tried to force a religious corporation and a convent of nuns to do something against their closely held religious beliefs.
In sum, Obama represents the antithesis of religious liberty in the United States. He also had the audacity to lie to the face of the Holy Father about the matter, and about our supposed reverence for religious liberty here in America.
"You remind us that people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, we cherish religious liberty. Yet around the world at this very moment, children of God, including Christians, are targeted and even killed because of their faith. Believers are prevented from gathering at their places of worship. The faithful are imprisoned. Churches are destroyed. So we stand with you in defense of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue, knowing that people everywhere must be able to live out their faith free from fear and intimidation."
Obama's unbelievable hypocrisy was demonstrated by this bit of commentary. What does Obama mean by "Children of God, including Christians?" Are we truly allowed to practice our faith freely here in America? Well that depends. I'm going to list off a few cases which contradict Obama's plea for tolerance towards Christians here in America but also around the world.
Let's begin with Pastor Saeed Abedini.
Amid all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the arrival of the Pope to America today, reports came out showing that the Christian Pastor had been abused by Iranian jail guards, tasered and interrogated, and slapped with more trumped up charges for supposedly being connected to "anti government" groups in Iran. Obama had a chance to negotiate for his release during the Iran P5+1 nuclear talks this past year. But he didn't. Pastor Abedini remains languishing in an Iranian prison, all for being a Christian. This is the first in a list of contradictions, this one being Obama's claim that he "stands" with the Catholic Church "in defense of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue."
So far, the Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to the persecution of Yazidi Christians and Christian Refugees in the middle east. And thus far has done nothing but use its power to intimidate those of faith here in America.
An example of this is the Supreme Court case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, decided in 2012.
In this case, Cheryl Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy in 2004. When she was cleared by her doctors to return to work with no exceptions a year later, the School urged her to resign. When she refused, the school fired her for insubordination and disruptive conduct, claiming their right to "ministerial exception." She then sued Hosanna-Tabor School for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Here, the Obama Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, along with Perich's lawyers argued for Cheryl Perich, saying that the ministerial exception did not apply to her since she was not a "minister" at the School. However, the court disagreed, ruling 9-0 in the School's favor, saying that government cannot insert itself into the ministerial practices of a religious institution. Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous decision that Perich was indeed a minister, since she received special training and led students in prayer, distinguishing her from other teachers in the school who taught a purely secular curriculum, giving them grounds to terminate her. Her case was dismissed.
This case contradicts Obama's claim that "people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely." The government chose to try and insert itself in the practices of a religious institution to remedy what it saw was employment discrimination. They failed.
Moving on, we have the very recognizable Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 573 U.S. __ (2014). For those of you not current with the times, this case involved the Abortion Mandate of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (Obamacare for short). Here, Hobby Lobby sued the Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, citing that the mandate which required employers to fund drugs and abortifacients that cause abortions violated their religious beliefs.
The court agreed with Hobby Lobby, saying in a 5-4 decision the 1993 act (signed into law by none other than President Bill Clinton) protected Hobby Lobby as a "closely held corporation" from having to provide funding for contraceptives which cause an abortion, against their religious beliefs.
In an ongoing case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, the convent in a July ruling by the 10th Circuit Court was ordered to comply with Obamacare's abortion mandate. However, they were granted a reprieve by the same court until the Supreme Court ruled on the case.
These cases represent a contradiction of Obama's claim that "here in the United States we cherish religious liberty." The government tried to force a religious corporation and a convent of nuns to do something against their closely held religious beliefs.
In sum, Obama represents the antithesis of religious liberty in the United States. He also had the audacity to lie to the face of the Holy Father about the matter, and about our supposed reverence for religious liberty here in America.
Last edited:
