By Tom Quiner

Bald eagle

It is illegal to kill bald eagles (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).

The Northern Arapaho Indian Tribe threatened to sue the federal government, claiming that their rights were being violated, claiming that killing bald eagles is an important part of their religion.

The Obama administration said, okay, we’ll let you kill them, we don’t want to threaten your religious freedom. Although we consider endangered species laws to be vitally important to America, the First Amendment takes precedence.

The Catholic community claimed that their religious freedoms were being violated by the Obama Mandate which forces Catholic organizations to provide abortifacients and other items that violates their religious convictions by killing and preventing human life.

The Obama administration said “tough”

Okay, that is not their exact word, but that is the sentiment.

Indians are part of a protected class for Liberals.

Catholics aren’t.

The president of the Catholic League, Bill Donahue, pointed out the inconsistency of the application of religious freedom doctrine by Team Obama:

Pre-born bald baby

“We live in strange times. It is legal to kill a human being in utero through term—for any reason. Moreover, the president of the United States thinks it should be legal to allow a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion to die on the doctor’s table unattended. But we can’t kill eagles that are bald. However, the Northern Arapaho can kill the birds by insisting on their religious rights. Yet when Catholics demand their religious rights, they are punished, largely because they oppose killing unborn babies.”

So here’s what we’re left with: the administration will grant a religious exemption for Indian tribes who want to kill bald eagles; but they won’t grant one for Catholic tribes who don’t want to kill pre-born babies.

For Team Obama, the killing of little bald babies is open season 365 days a year.

8 Comments

  1. Bob on March 19, 2012 at 10:27 am

    When I heard about the bald eagle thing, that was my first thought. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? Religious freedom for favored groups, none for those who are out of favor? The amazing thing is that it’s not even politically expedient. Catholics represent something like a quarter of the voting population. Arapahoe Indians represent — what? a fraction of a percent?

    • quinersdiner on March 19, 2012 at 10:38 am

      Good observation. It points out that Mr. Obama is an ideologue out to remake American religion in his image.

  2. momofsix on March 19, 2012 at 10:54 am

    The Arapahoe Indians and their rituals don’t have much of an impact on the morality of our nation. The Catholic Church can and does have an impact on the moral fiber of our nation. Obama’s actions reveal that his main goal is to tear apart the moral fiber that’s left in our nation. America will be left so weak that it will keel over easily to socialism. We are speeding up fast, down that slippery slope. Is there anything planned for Friday March 23, the day that many cities will be protesting the HHS mandate? I have not heard anything about plans to do this in Des Moines.

  3. juwannadoright on March 19, 2012 at 11:49 am

    This is a thought provoking piece. If there is one thing I can say that is positive about Obama it is that is that he is a consummate politician. (I’m not sure that’s really a positive). It is apparent to me that his plan is to get re-elected – whatever happens to the country being of secondary importance.
    Which leads me to wonder – why take on a large Catholic bloc which might impair that goal? The only thing I can figure is that he has as little regard (and more than enough arrogance) to put freedom of religion in the same category with other constitutionally guaranteed rights in the same cesspool of irrelevancy that his administration has so amply demonstrated. Perhaps he feels sure of winning re-election with or without Catholic voters. I pray that November 6th proves him wrong. Please keep up the good work.

    • quinersdiner on March 19, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Thanks for the kind words. I really like your use of the phrase: “cesspool of irrelevancy.” I’d like to see you write a blogpost with that title that I can reblog on my site.

      • juwannadoright on March 19, 2012 at 11:58 am

        Let me think on that. Thanks for the suggestion.

  4. Rambling Democrat on March 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    This leaves me a little baffled to read. I’m not wishing to start an argument with respect that this is your blog, but I would like to offer a counter point.

    I would like to first note that, on the topic of abortion, early medication abortion is a minority of any other induced abortions at 17%-25%. (1) Scary high number for pro-life advocates, I can understand, but it is a minority. It used to be higher. Also to note, Plan B medication (aka “morning after pill”) isn’t an abortifacient, since it’s used to prevent the egg from implanting, which is still preventing pregnancy.

    For religious organizations, such as a church, the cost is on the insurance company instead without cost on the employer, so they are not paying or subsidizing for it. For any other business that has a religious affiliation, or owner who does through their own faith, it’s no longer about special interests. This is a business, and it’s fair treatment for all employees.

    And, truly, it’s the woman’s choice if she chooses to use birth control at all. In fact, the majority of Catholics do support the mandate, according to some studies, and about 98% use contraceptives. (2) Considering that some still feel it may affect their religious beliefs, this is why the latest amendment to the mandate would shift the burden of cost (as I recall this is the major point of the opposition) to the insurer, without having that cost reflected against the employer.

    The majority of the mandate is to cover birth control medication that is not an abortifacient. It has uses to help prevent pregnancy, as well as medical reasons. The fact any religious affiliate is upset over this only pushes their own beliefs onto their employees, which would violate their employee’s liberty on any front.

    Honestly, this doesn’t sound at all like any violation of government mandates on religion, and it doesn’t violate the First Amendment given the latest iteration that we have now.

    References:
    1. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
    2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/catholics-support-contraception-mandate_n_1261046.html

    • quinersdiner on March 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm

      Hi Rambling Democrat: Thanks for sharing your always cogent responses to my posts. You offered up enough meat that I may respond more fully in a future post. For now, I will simply say that 100% of the Catholic Bishops along with the vast majority of Catholics who attend Mass every week view the Obama Mandate as a violation of their religious freedom. Check back for a more extensive reaction to your post later this week. Thanks again for writing.

Leave a Comment