President Obama signs religious freedom bill


The bill will attempt to help the US administration combat a worldwide escalation in persecution of religious minorities


Will they enforce it against the DNC?


Who was persecuted by the DNC? There are men and women around the world being killed and imprisoned for their religious beliefs and all you can say is, “what about me?”


Ridgerunner has consistently wondered why the number of Christian immigrants from the Middle-east have seemed so low priority. Now he’s accused of thinking only about himself?


Oh, the Dem attack on the Catholic Church in the U.S. is more directed at deceiving the young, not at shooting me, so no need to worry about me. But just because it’s much worse elsewhere, that doesn’t mean we should ignore milder versions here.

But while we’re talking about people being killed and imprisoned for their religious beliefs, why did this administration do nothing when Yazidis and Christians were being butchered in the Middle East? And why were only 8/10 of 1% of the refugees allowed into the U.S. from the warring areas of Syria and Iraq Christians when they compose about 10% of the population in those places?

But maybe change is coming in both venues.


I read that the refugee camps were not safe for the Christians so they weren’t staying there…hence why very few of them were coming here. The Christians and Yazidis are just at as risk as the muslims are…but if you look at the area historically, the Christians have lived there far longer than the muslims.


The Democrats didn’t attack the Catholic Church. I’ll need more than a couple of out-of-context personal emails between Catholics to prove that the Democrats want to destroy the Church.

I’m not sure why I need to defend the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism in foreign countries.


One of my son’s former classmates operates an organization, the purpose of which is to extricate Christians from the war-torn areas and shelter them in Turkey and in the areas under strong Kurdish control. He and others in the organization have crossed over into hostile parts of Syria many times at extreme risk to themselves. The secondary goal is to get them placed as refugees in the U.S. and elsewhere. They have pretty much faced a stone wall with the current administration, though they have fared better with some of the European states.

Notwithstanding that Christians and Yazidis are at higher risk from the jihadis than are most Muslims, the current administration simply does not wish to accept that they are at higher risk.


Maybe it is time to put aside the wildly hyperbolic rhetoric.

But while we’re talking about people being killed and imprisoned for their religious beliefs, why did this administration do nothing when Yazidis and Christians were being butchered in the Middle East? And why were only 8/10 of 1% of the refugees allowed into the U.S. from the warring areas of Syria and Iraq Christians when they compose about 10% of the population in those places?

I agree that the US should have done more. Sadly there was not much appetite for confrontation and escalation, not just in the administration, but throughout the US. Not sure why you think that a change is coming now, HRC was far, far more assertive than DJT.


Kudos to your son’s former classmate.
In my state, a Republican candidate for governor in this election ran a disgraceful TV ad about the perils of Democrats allowing Syrians into the US.


It is not wildly hyperbolic when the presidential candidate says people need to change their religion to accommodate abortion, when the administration sues the Little Sisters of the Poor to make them complicit in providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees and themselves, and when its political party supports organizations, the purpose of which is to undermine the teachings of the Church. :But let’s not limit it to the Catholic Church. There was also the Hosanna Tabor case in which the administration brought suit against the Lutheran Church to establish the principle that the government, not the Lutheran Church, determines who Lutheran ministers are or are not.

Nothing hyperbolic about any of that.

There didn’t need to be much appetite for confrontation and escalation to save the lives of many Yazidis and Christians in Syria. Turkey offered to provide troops to do it if the U.S. would provide a “no fly zone” in the area of operation. At the time, the Russians weren’t flying in Syria, just the Syrian air force, and not much of that. It could have been done, but Obama turned the Turks down.

And I think the public would have supported that, such were the horror stories coming out of Syria at the time.

But again, we might be seeing changes in all of that fairly soon. At least one can hope so.


Anything more than nothing is still something. The US (via Kerry) CHOSE to use the camps as the sole conduit for refugees, even after being advised that Christians were being excluded. There were other ways to reach out to refugees and other receiving countries have been much more successful in doing so. It’s not a matter of being more “assertive,” but of being willing to go in another direction.



Plus you provided so much useful information, Thank you…


We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The concern is valid. We are heading in that direction. One Catholic leader recently remarked how the person to come after him will be imprisoned and the one after that martyred.

Besides, the legislation may be more symbolic. I’m not sure what this Administration can really do about what goes in the borders of other countries beyond cutting funding if there is any.





“Dem attack on the Catholic Church”

I wouldn’t be so quick to generalize. Sen. Bernie Sanders said marvelous things about Pope Francis during the primaries and shared his message on love and compassion. Some of the most progressive Democrats on the Hill (including Raul Griljava and Luis Gutierrrez) derive their economic justice theories from a Catholic background. Not to mention the fact that JFK was the first and only Catholic POTUS thus far. Do some liberals go too far? Absolutely. And none of this excuses support for things like unlimited abortion. Certainly anti-religious sentiment is to be condemned. But to characterize a major political party as hostile to Catholicism en masse is wrong.

It is important to note at this point that Donald Trump has shown a complete disrespect for Pope Francis and Christian doctrines in general. He may be pro-life, but his adherence to the principles outlined in the Bible stop there. No humility, no constraint, nothing.


Perhaps, instead of simply stating conclusions, one could tell us specifically how Trump shows a “complete disrespect for Pope Francis and Christian doctrines in general.”

And, it might be additionally useful to more carefully outline the positions of, say, Luis Gutierrez. He voted for using federal funds to pay for abortions. He voted for funding embryonic stem cell research. He voted against any bans on utilizing human embryos for research, and much more. He voted against banning partial birth abortion. He is as anti-life as anti-life gets, and his positions are anything but guided by “his Catholic background”. He has a 100% favorable rating from National Abortion Rights League, and a 0% rating from National Right to Life.

JFK couldn’t possibly be elected as a Democrat from Massachusetts today, let alone as the presidential candidate of his party. Too prolife, too market oriented.

As between Barack Obama, say, and Donald Trump, the latter is far more in accord with the Social Encyclicals written by the Popes from Leo XIII on. Before declaring that this candidate or that is more in accord with Catholic principles, one ought to actually read those encyclicals. They are negative toward centralization of federal power. They favor peoples’ ability to find well-paying jobs and to engage in commerce. They favor subsidiarity and the individual and family acquisition of inheritable, productive assets.
That sounds a lot more like Trump than it does like Obama or Hillary Clinton or Luis Gutierrez. Odd as it may seem to liberals, the Social Encyclicals absolutely do not favor welfare statism.


Actually on every matter raised a re-examination of the facts would help to avoid hyperbole.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit