I’ve posted before about the petition on the White House site to Officially recognize the Roman Catholic Church as a hate group. While sad it isn’t really something to pay attention to since anybody can start one of these petitions and even after publicity both pro and con it still only has a little over 3,000 signatures.

I bring this up today because there was this story.

The White House has removed a petition from its We the People Web site calling for singer Beyonce to be disinvited from performing the national anthem at President Obama’s inauguration.

The star and longtime Obama supporter has a $50 million sponsorship contract with PepsiCo. Public health advocates urged her to reconsider the deal last month, citing health issues linked to soft drinks.

So now we know what is beyond the pale for White House petitions. Catholics as a hate group, fine. Criticism of Beyonce, that can’t stand.

The irony is also very rich considering Michelle Obama’s food nanny state proclivities and her association with “public health advocates.”

A White House spokesperson told the Obama Foodarama blog that Beyonce’s performance at the inaugural is “not something the White House actually has jurisdiction over.”

Selecting performers is a function of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, not the White House. We the People’s terms of participation state that users cannot post “petitions that do not address the current or potential actions or policies of the federal government.”

For the Obama Administration, Catholics as a hate group did not meet the last criteria mentioned.

In other recent petition news the White House responded to a petition to make a Death Star to spur job creation. There was a rather humorous response in rejecting the idea. Although the real reason they declined is that they felt Planned Parenthood was doing a good enough job and a Death Star would be overkill.

Many have noted the President’s heavily ironic proclaiming of January 16, 2013 as Religious Freedom Day. I have stated before that many liberals are irony deficient and the President suffers from the same deficiency.

Whenever a quote is used which contains multiple ellipses it is usually interesting what was taken out. In this case the quote from Thomas Jefferson also included.

All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

Right now if you are a religious believer and refuse to support an insurance plan because of its support of intrinsic evils you are indeed punished and burdened. If $100 dollars per day is not a punishment and burden I am not sure what is. Although for a President who goes through trillions as if it was tissue paper it might not seem like much in perspective. Well maybe not since this was intended as a fine so large as to be an encouragement to just buckle under to the oppression.

This is social engineering akin to Mafia fire insurance. “You don’t want something to happen to your fine business”? Pay up or you will be put out of business via fines.

So you might ask how the President can be so paradoxical between what he says and what he does? I mean other than the fact that this is typical politician behavior. Is he just totally being a hypocrite here? I would say probably not. A thrust of the Obama administration has been the emphasis of “worship” over “religion.” Where religious freedom comes to mean being able to belong to a church and to attend worship services. You are even allowed to practice your faith in everyday life just as long as it does not intersect with some government/culture created right.

This is the Chinese government model where they have Patriotic churches created by the government. A Catholic would be allowed by the government to belong to a Patriotic Catholic Church, but would not be allowed to rebel against intrinsic evils such as abortion or contraception. Citing conscience against the one child policy will get you nowhere except possibly prison. We have not gone that far down this road, but there are many similarities. Somebody who totally accepts the culture of death will not be having their conscience violated by Obamacare. This is why most so-called progressive Catholics have no problem with the HHS mandate. They might talk about this being the result of living in a pluralistic society, but really it is because they have no problem with abortion, sterilization, and contraception in the first place. An article in Commonweal today illustrates this.

As bad as the current situation is, no doubt it will only get worse as more phony rights are created and weighed against actual rights. When God-given rights are balanced against created rights the current administration has their thumb on the scales.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose. Today, we celebrate one of our Nation’s first laws to protect that right — the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Written by Thomas Jefferson and guided through the Virginia legislature by James Madison, the Statute affirmed that “Almighty God hath created the mind free” and “all men shall be free to profess … their opinions in matters of religion.” Years later, our Founders looked to the Statute as a model when they enshrined the principle of religious liberty in the Bill of Rights.

Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. As a free country, our story has been shaped by every language and enriched by every culture. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, Sikhs and non-believers. Our patchwork heritage is a strength we owe to our religious freedom.

Americans of every faith have molded the character of our Nation. They were pilgrims who sought refuge from persecution; pioneers who pursued brighter horizons; protesters who fought for abolition, women’s suffrage, and civil rights. Each generation has seen people of different faiths join together to advance peace, justice, and dignity for all.

Today, we also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.

As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2013, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to commemorate this day with events and activities that teach us about this critical foundation of our Nation’s liberty, and show us how we can protect it for future generations at home and around the world.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

Irony Alert! Today is Religious Freedom Day – Frank Weathers

Who Knew Our President Was Such a Great Comedian? – Tom McDonald

Media boosterism of women priests is nothing new. PBS totally one-sided coverage on this issue is just the latest broadside.

This bit is also pretty muddle headed.

REV. THOMAS RAUSCH (Professor of Catholic Theology, Loyola Marymount University): The Catholic Church is not ready for the ordination of women right now.

… As far as the church is concerned, these are not valid ordinations. Ordination is an act of the whole church, and this is not an act of the whole church. In a sense, this is an act against the communion of the whole church. It is very difficult to call yourself a Roman Catholic if you are not living in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and communion means you are recognized by the bishop and you have this network of relationships, which is…It’s the kind of glue that holds the Catholic Church together.

… I think that, you know, the culture was patriarchal. It was very much male-centered. Males were educated. They took roles of leadership. They played leading roles in the churches. So I think those cultural reasons really have to be taken into account in order to understand the exclusion of women from ordained ministry in the life of the church.

Why am I not surprised to find that this priest has also been a favorite on the History Channel.

It does remind me of a parody I did back in 2007 of this fawning coverage of women’s ordination and maybe I also feel I have a call to be a PBS reporter.

I have quite an announcement to make. I am now a reporter for Newsweek magazine! I always felt a call to be a reporter for Newsweek magazine so this is something very important for me. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am at this news and the impact this has on my life and hopefully the lives of others.

The hierarchy of Newsweek magazine though doesn’t recognize my call to be a reporter for them. So I had to have reporter credentials given me by an Ecumenical magazine group that also see themselves nevertheless as Newsweek employees and don’t recognize the authority of Newsweek’s editors to make hiring decisions.

So for my first article as a Newsweek employee I am going to interview myself, this way nobody can charge me with making up interviews as in the case of ABC’s Alexis Debat.

NEWSWEEK: What made you decide to become a Newsweek reporter?
Jeff Miller: It was a long process that started at a very young age. I grew up reading bad religion reporting and was always attracted to Newsweek’s egregious reporting and I was affirmed by others that I had gifts for bad reporting.

Have you heard from the Newsweek hierarchy?
The reporting community I belong to hasn’t felt anything from the editors, but local stringers have informed others not to read my reporting since I wasn’t a “validly credentialed” reporters for Newsweek.

How has your family handled your decision? Are they still Newsweek readers?
They are. They are actually incredibly supportive. My immediate family came for my giving a Newsweek credentials. My grandmother bought me an old typewriter.

How many people read your Newsweek articles?
We have 80 registered members. And we have a number of people who come who are subscribe to Newsweek but who come to read with us as a place to refresh their souls—a lot of them are ex-Newsweek readers who are uncomfortable with Newsweek’s discriminatory hiring practices.

Do you know the other Ecumenically credentialed Newsweek reporters?
In the Ecumenical Newsweek Communion there are six other reporters. I know all of them. In the Ecumenical Reporters Communion we no longer claim that we’re underneath the authority of the editors. [There’s also a group called the Roman Newsweek Reporters, which also credentials some reporters.] During the last several years there have been organized giving of Newsweek reporter credentials primarily on river boats.

Have you received any hate mail?
I personally have not received hate mail, although there are plenty of blogs that I have found online that like to slander my name when they get hold of information about my credentials. It’s unfortunate and sad. The people I serve are excited to see a place where men and women can read my articles side by side. Just because I wasn’t actually hired by Newsweek and I receive no salary from them or actually turn my stories over to them to be published doesn’t prevent me from being a validly credentialed Newsweek reporters. Defenders of Newsweek’s reporter tradition says that since founders of Newsweek (Ward Cheney, John Hay Whitney, and Paul Mellon) didn’t allow people to call themselves Newsweek reporters without actually being hired by them that this can’t be changed. There has been recent archaeological evidence in Newsweek headquarters of a statue of a reporter who does not seem to have ever been on their pay role. I think this is evidence of self-named Newsweek reporters in the early history of the magazine. If only people would get with the modern time and to understand how discriminatory Newsweek’s present hiring practices are by not hiring everybody that would apply.

Is there anything else you wish people knew?
It’s important to me that people see that I did what the others do to prepare to be a reporter. I took that traditional path. I got a certificate from an online journalism school for a reasonable fee. I forced myself to cover local news of minor happenings to prepare myself. I just wish more reporters who find themselves alienated from the magazine could find a magazine home. I am taking this step forward so that others in the future will have the opportunity to be a Newsweek reporter without having to face their discriminatory hiring practice of only hiring those with a journalism degree and having the ability to write and to act as a reporter.