|‘Puter wouldn’t be surprised to start seeing
anti-Catholic editorial cartoons on the
NYT’s pages again, and soon, based on
the paper’s evidenced anti-Catholic bigotry.
‘Puter’s had just about enough of enlightened liberals treating religion generally, and Roman Catholicism specifically, as risible, superstitious mumbo-jumbo with no place in American society.
Most observant Roman Catholics can recount similar experiences at the hands of our secular elites. Our opposition to abortion is down to our delusional belief in a law-giving sky god. Opposition to birth control shows our misguided obedience to a hierarchical, misogynistic cross-dresser in Rome. Heaven forbid one take a principled stand against gay marriage, as you’re certain to be castigated complicit in the Church’s child rape scandal.
‘Puter’s constantly surprised, though he shouldn’t be, by the vitriol of some towards Roman Catholicism. According to these liberal geniuses, the entire Roman Catholic Church was singularly devoted to implementing new and better ways of raping children for the last 2,000 years.*
‘Puter’s generally chalked it up the unhinged ramblings of a few extremist liberals, hiding in the shadows, since polite society hasn’t accepted anti-Catholic bigotry since the Kennedy administration. But over the last few years, ‘Puter’s noticed a change. Mainstream liberals have become comfortable – too comfortable – sharing their bigoted views with the world at large.
Take, for example, the New York Times editors, setters of the Left’s national agenda. During the nation’s battle over ObamaCare, the editors have waged ideological war with the Roman Catholic Church’s over the Church’s opposition to ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate and abortion-friendly provisions.
Today, the New York Times’ tolerant, liberal editors inform us they are displeased with the Supreme Court’s injunction** preventing enforcement of ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate provisions against the Little Sisters of the Poor until such time as the appellate process runs its course. Quoth the editors:
Religiously affiliated organizations like Little Sisters are exempt from having to provide contraceptive coverage if they offer a health insurance plan to their employees. The minor paperwork requirement frees them from having to “contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage.” The notion that it substantially burdens religious liberty is ridiculous.
In March, the court will hear two more far-reaching cases challenging the birth control mandate brought by secular, profit-making companies, which are also claiming that the mandate infringes on their religious freedom. As in the nuns’ case, the real threat to religious liberty is the unjustified effort by employers to impose their religious views on their employees. (emphasis added)
Contrary to the New York Times
editors’ opinion, nine justices of the United States Supreme Court determined
(1) the Little Sisters of the Poor’s claims had merit and (2) allowing government enforcement of ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate provisions against the nuns during the appellate process would substantially burden the nuns’ religious beliefs.
It’s telling that even the Supreme Court’s hardest leftists (Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor) have difficulty reconciling ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate with the First Amendment. The New York Times editors would do well to consider the possibility it is they, not the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are “ridiculous.”
While the first cited paragraph shows the New York Times
editors for the contemptibly biased Obama apologists they are, it’s the second paragraph that’s more disturbing. There we learn the New York Times’ editors are just fine with Animal Farm
jurisprudence, so long as it’s done in service of the Left’s agenda.*** Let’s read that sentence again.
[T]he real threat to religious liberty is the unjustified effort by employers to impose their religious views on their employees.
Perhaps if we rewrote the sentence, the thickheaded liberals writing bigoted editorials at the New York Times
[T]he real threat to Second Amendment rights is the unjustified effort by employers to impose their anti-gun political views on their employees.
[T]he real threat to freedom of speech is the unjustified effort by the New York Times
editors to impose their scientifically unverifiable views on anthropogenic global warming on impressionable young minds.
Think about it. Liberals, including the New York Times
editors are fine with private businesses banning concealed carry even though it denies workers and patrons their Second Amendment freedoms. Liberals, including the New York Times
editors, are foursquare behind efforts to make anthropogenic global warming a part of public school curriculum, even though the “science” is suspect.
They’ve got no problem with using power in service of a liberal agenda.
Either the New York Times believes a private employer should be free to enforce its beliefs (religiously based or not) on its employees during work hours or it does not. The editors cannot have it both ways.
And if the liberal Supreme Court justices think they can have it both ways, allowing employers to ban employees’ exercise of certain constitutional rights during work hours but not others, they should anticipate a glut of litigation involving Second Amendment workplace carry rights and First Amendment free speech rights.
But back to ‘Puter’s main point. ‘Puter strongly suspects that there’s at least a hint of anti-Catholicism at the heart of the New York Times’ editorial this morning. After all, the Roman Catholic Church is a dedicated opponent of much of the Democrats’ libertine agenda.
Who has been one of the strongest voices denouncing the Democrats’ 40 year love affair with abortion? The Roman Catholic Church.
Who has spoken out time and time again against the dangers of secularism and its focus on self and sex to the exclusion of God? The Roman Catholic Church.
Who has warned of the societal impact of redefining marriage to be anything other than the union of one man and one woman for life? The Roman Catholic Church.
Who foretold the deep societal destruction caused by divorce? The Roman Catholic Church.
Who has denounced much of our current “entertainment” industry steeped in sex and violence, usually run by major Democrat benefactors? The Roman Catholic Church.
The New York Timesand many liberals are viscerally anti-Catholic, whether they acknowledge that fact or not. Heck, even many liberal nominal Roman Catholics are viscerally anti-Catholic. Think of Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden, for starters. The Roman Catholic Church stands against the tenets of their true faith: liberalism.
‘Puter believes liberals, including the New York Times editors, have set out to discredit and destroy the Roman Catholic Church precisely because the Church stands in the way of liberalism’s consequence free Shangri-La of free love, free divorce, free abortion and free crap for everyone.
‘Puter is done with quietly accepting liberal Democrats trashing his faith. There’s a new defensor fidei in town, and his name is Ghettoputer F.X. Gormogon.
* Most of these deep thinking liberals hang out on Twitter and are only too happy to share with you how benighted your religious beliefs are. Also, did they mention that every priest that ever lived was required to rape children as a part of the ordination process?
** Did ‘Puter mention the injunction was unanimously granted? He did? Well, it bears repeating, so deal with it.
*** When ‘Puter says “Animal Farm jurisprudence,” he means courts treating similarly situated litigants differently, based solely on the perceived validity of their beliefs, skin color, social standing, etc. Essentially, the New York Times editors argue for a double standard here, one malicious set of rules for conservatives and one benevolent set of rules for liberals.