Pope to EU: Protect life!!!....Por que en Latinoamerica no Inventamos?...Obama and Race relations: Better or Worse?

• Share on Share on Twitter
• Comment on this Article
• Share via Email
• Print this Page

CATHOLIC CHURCHTue Nov 25, 2014 - 6:47 pm EST ...John Henry Westen

Pope to EU Parliament: Protect life, dignity and avoid ‘angelic forms of purity’

 European Parliament , Pope Francis

In a speech to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe Tuesday, Pope Francis said that today, “the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the European Union to advance the dignity of the person.” He warned against treating human beings as objects who can “be discarded when no longer useful, due to weakness, illness or old age.”

But that dignity also requires, he said “the possibility of freely expressing one’s thought or professing one’s religious faith.” Promoting the dignity of the person, said the Pope, “means recognizing that he or she possesses inalienable rights which no one may take away arbitrarily, much less for the sake of economic interests.”

A misuse and misunderstanding of human rights happens today, said Francis, when “the rights of the individual are upheld, without regard for the fact that each human being is part of a social context wherein his or her rights and duties are bound up with those of others and with the common good of society itself.” What is required is “to develop a culture of human rights which wisely links the individual, or better, the personal aspect, to that of the common good, of the ‘all of us’ made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society,” added Pope Francis, quoting a passage from Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate.

Without that proper ordering of the rights of each individual to the greater good, “those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture! 

“Men and women risk being reduced to mere cogs in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited,” said Francis, “with the result that – as is so tragically apparent – whenever a human life no longer proves useful for that machine, it is discarded with few qualms, as in the case of the ill, the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and uncared for, and children who are killed in the womb.”

The pope also drew direct attention to Christians persecuted in Islamic countries. “Here I cannot fail to recall the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities, and Christians in particular, in various parts of our world,” he said. “Communities and individuals today find themselves subjected to barbaric acts of violence: they are evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many.”

“Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality,” said the pope. Those harmful tendencies, he said, are “angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.”

He called on Europe to invest in the family, “the fundamental cell and most precious element of any society.”

“The family, united, fruitful and indissoluble, possesses the elements fundamental for fostering hope in the future,” said Pope Francis. “Without this solid basis, the future ends up being built on sand, with dire social consequences.”

¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos?

Carlos Alberto Montaner

25 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

Foto por Andrés Rodríguez

¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos? El periodista Andrés Oppenheimer, colaborador de CNN y de otros cien medios de comunicación, ha retomado con ímpetu la hiriente pregunta. La ha planteado en un libro excelente de título imperioso y subtítulo descriptivo: ¡Crear o morir! La esperanza de Latinoamérica y las cinco claves de la innovación.

Me parece un tema extraordinariamente importante que afecta a todo el ámbito hispano, no sólo a América Latina. A principios del siglo XX los filósofos españoles José Ortega y Gasset y Miguel de Unamuno lo debatieron apasionadamente en diversos textos y desde distintos ángulos.

España se atrasaba ostensiblemente con relación al resto de Europa. Ortega sostenía que la decadencia del país se superaba europeizándose. “España es el problema, Europa la solución”, decía. Unamuno alegaba que el genio español era artístico, fundamentalmente literario, y remataba el argumento con un grito desafiante: “¡Que inventen ellos!”.

Si Unamuno hubiera sabido economía en lugar de filología clásica le habría agregado una coda a su boutade: que inventen ellos… y que se enriquezcan ellos. Algunos expertos suponen que el 40% del crecimiento económico de las sociedades se deriva de las innovaciones e invenciones convertidas en bienes o servicios volcados en el mercado.

Los datos son alarmantes. Corea del Sur registra anualmente diez veces más invenciones que toda América Latina. Israel, con menos de ocho millones de habitantes, patenta más hallazgos científicos o artefactos novedosos que 600 millones de latinoamericanos.

No hay ninguna universidad latinoamericana ni española entre las primeras cien del planeta, y apenas comparece un puñado entre las primeras 500. Y no se trata solamente de estudios universitarios: en las pruebas internacionales PISA, consagradas a medir y contrastar los conocimientos de los adolescentes en matemáticas, ciencias y comprensión de lectura, América Latina aparece en la cola, muy cerca de algunas naciones africanas.

En el mundo hispano vivimos a remolque de los países innovadores. Nos movemos en sus aviones, nos curamos con sus medicinas, trabajamos en sus computadoras, nos entretenemos con sus películas y videojuegos, viajamos por su internet, hablamos por sus teléfonos, nos asomamos al espacio gracias al talento que ellos han desplegado y, en definitiva, somos un apéndice casi inerte de ese primer mundo curioso y creativo que va gestando día a día nuestro futuro y la forma en que vivimos nuestras vidas.

El libro de Oppenheimer rezuma admiración por los creadores, a quienes ha visitado durante la redacción de su obra. Ha hablado con ellos y los ha entrevistado para conocer sus testimonios de primera mano, pero su intención no es avergonzar a los latinoamericanos por su postración intelectual. Por el contrario, el autor ofrece soluciones a estas graves limitaciones. La obra culmina con cinco recomendaciones encaminadas a revitalizar las tendencias innovadoras. Vale la pena consignarlas. Están cargadas de sentido común.

Primero, crear una cultura de innovación en la que se distinga y venere a los creadores, como se hace con los deportistas, para estimular la aparición de estos talentosos ciudadanos. Cada emprendedor que se frustra es una fuente de riqueza y desarrollo que perdemos todos. Si estamos de acuerdo en que la clave de la prosperidad está en el empuje de personas excepcionales, hallarlas y cultivarlas debería ser una prioridad del Estado.Segundo, es posible y es necesario educar para que surjan los inventores e innovadores. Oppenheimer lo resume con un dato estadístico escalofriante: en Irlanda y Finlandia, de acuerdo con la población, hay cinco veces más graduados en ingeniería que en Argentina. El gusto por las matemáticas y por las ciencias comienza en la niñez. En esa etapa de la vida se puede abordar estas materias como si fueran juegos.

Tercero, eliminar las leyes que ahogan a los emprendedores. En América Latina la madeja burocrática asfixia a los espíritus creativos. Hay que pagar sobornos a funcionarios corruptos. Las leyes de quiebra impiden o hacen muy difícil que quienes fracasen puedan levantarse de nuevo, olvidando que la economía libre es un sistema de tanteo y error donde cada caída forma parte de un proceso de aprendizaje.

Cuarto, hay que invertir en investigación y desarrollo y en fomentar el capital de riesgo. Israel es el país del mundo que proporcionalmente dedica el mayor porcentaje del PIB a investigación y desarrollo. Pero ese dinero debe salir, en mayor proporción, de las empresas privadas. Hay que involucrar a las universidades en las tareas de las empresas. Las universidades no deben convertirse en instituciones antisistema. Eso es suicida.

Quinto, debe globalizarse la innovación y ello incluye servirse de la posibilidad de estudiar en las universidades del Primer Mundo. Corea del Sur, con apenas 50 millones de habitantes, tiene 71.000 estudiantes en USA, la mayor parte en carreras de ciencias, mientras toda América Latina posee menos de la mitad de esa cifra.

En fin: el camino es arduo y extenso, pero cuanto antes comencemos, mejor nos irá.

Ben Carson: Race Relations Were BetterBefore Obama Was Elected

"I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race."

11.25.2014 

 

News

 

 Jeff Dunetz 

 

49

16Share on print

Potential 2016 GOP candidate Ben Carson was a guest on Tuesday's Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss in part Ferguson and race relations. According the African-American Carson, "things were better before this president was elected." The problem, he explained, was the president's "unusual emphasis on race."

Carson is a retired neurosurgeon who is perhaps best known for his speech at the national prayer breakfast where he openly criticized President Obama's progressive policies while Obama was right there beside him. Carson's central argument is that progressives like Obama try to make minorities play the victim game. In his interview with Hewitt, Carson continued his unflinching critique of the failures of both the president and the progressive ideology:

Hewitt: Is it going to get worse before it gets better in the United States? Because, after all, we’ve had an African-American president for six years, Ferguson is a racially-charged situation. You’re an African-American running for president on the Republican side, and I say that with the assumption that you will run, and I know you haven’t formally declared, but you’re all but in. Is it going to be another hundred years before this tableau stops unfolding every time there’s a white-black incident?

Carson: Well, you know, I actually believe that things were better before this president was elected. And I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race.

Hewitt: Can you explain more? What do you mean by that? How did they get worse, and how did he contribute to it?

Carson: Well, for instance, in the incident with Henry Louis Gates, Skip Gates, and him calling out the police, and you know, how they always do this kind of thing, and the Trayvon Martin case, you know, if I had a son, this is what he would look like, rather than trying to take the balanced, objective look at things, and then, you know, what’s happened here. And then the way, which really irritates me to some degree, the way he and a bunch of progressives manipulate, particularly minority communities, to make them feel that they are victims. And of course if you think you’re a victim, you are a victim. And...

Hewitt: Was Michael Brown a victim, Dr. Carson?

Carson: Well, he became a victim based on perhaps not having a well-established ideal of how to relate to authority.

Hewitt: Let me also ask you when you say things were better before this president, some have said the President plays the so-called race card. Do you think he does?

Carson: Yes, absolutely.

Hewitt: Is he doing so right now?

Carson: He’s trying very hard not to, because I think he is aware that people are suspicious of him doing that. So you know, we keep an eye on him and hope for the best.

US and EU to push for abortion and homosexuality..they want to impose their views no matter what!...Igualdad Salarial - progresistas (comunistas) en Acción...Constitutional amendment to ban Abortion: Yes is Possible!

US and EU push Africans once more on abortion and homosexuality

BY STEFANO GENNARINI, J.D.

• Thu Apr 10, 2014 17:45 EST

NEW YORK, April 10, 2014 (C-FAM.org) - Africans are crying foul after wealthy Western countries ambushed them with a draft resolution that re-opens the troublesome issues of abortion and homosexuality in UN negotiations.

“You have set a precedent here that will not be forgotten,” said a representative from Cameroon at a briefing three weeks ago. Western countries have proposed a resolution for the annual UN Commission on Population and Development that surreptitiously endorses abortion and homosexuality, even though Africans asked to avoid those controversies.

The U.S., European and some Latin countries are increasingly insistent on homosexuality and abortion ahead of negotiations over a new UN development agenda in September, desperate to include homosexuality and abortion in future development efforts.

Africans for their part don’t want to be pressured on these issues, and have repeatedly stated that these are matters best left to countries individually.

When powerful western governments made their intentions for the resolution known, the Africans on the commission were furious.

The resolution includes references to regional agreements that touch on abortion and sexual orientation and gender identity—contentious issues that do not enjoy universal support at the United Nations. It was prepared by Uruguay, which is chairing the commission this year.

During negotiations this week the Africans repeated their position.

They don’t want a resolution to touch on substantive issues. They would rather have a resolution that defers to the UN General Assembly with regards to abortion and homosexuality in UN development policies.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

In 2010 the General Assembly re-committed countries to the development policies agreed to at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and clearly announced that it would not re-negotiate those policies. This year marks the 20^th anniversary of the seminal development scheme that made sexual and reproductive health a UN development issue.

The Cairo conference dealt with sexual and reproductive health, but did not include homosexual rights or a right to abortion.

African countries and other developing nations are adamant, now as in 2010, that the Cairo policies should not be re-negotiated or re-interpreted to include abortion and homosexuality.

They are worried about re-opening sensitive issues like sexual rights, abortion and homosexuality. The Cairo policies could not have been adopted had they included such rights, and the issues are still controversial 20 years later.

In fact, no UN treaty or political document recognizes homosexuality or abortion as rights. The General Assembly has been conspicuously silent on these issues because so many countries still have laws that prohibit and restrict abortion as well as laws that punish sodomy.

Together with key allies in Asia and Latin America, Western countries insist that the UN framework must recognize homosexuality and abortion. It is a human rights issue to them.

The commission comes on the heels of another UN conference where Western countries had to twist arms in order to get their way with the Africans. It remains to be seen how far they are willing to go this time around.

All indications are that Western governments have invested heavily in this meeting. Several of the UN officials and government officials that negotiated the Cairo agreement 20 years ago are at UN headquarters. Abortion groups and UN agencies are also out in force raising the issue of abortion and homosexuality at every turn.

Día de la “Igualdad Salarial”: Perjudicando a las mujeres en el trabajo

Amy Payne

Hoy es el “Día de la Igualdad Salarial” para aquellos que creen que el macho somete a las mujeres.

Convencer a la gente de que está teniendo lugar una injusticia es una magnífica manera de impulsar la propia agenda política y de ahí es de dónde surge el “Día de la Igualdad Salarial”. Eso es lo que supone la afirmación por parte de la izquierda de que las mujeres de Estados Unidos sólo cobran alrededor de 77 centavos por cada dólar ganado por los hombres.

Pero como ha explicado Genevieve Wood, colaboradora sénior de The Foundry, ese argumento proviene de comparaciones creativas, es decir, no precisas.

El problema de esta estadística del 77%, calculada por la Oficina del Censo de Estados Unidos, es que no compara los salarios de mujeres y hombres con la misma profesión. En su lugar, agrupa a todas las profesiones. De ese modo, si los profesores de secundaria ganan menos que los congresistas (¡hablando, por cierto, de algo que se debería arreglar!) y hay más mujeres que son profesoras y más hombres en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, entonces sí, las cifras mostrarán que los hombres ganan más que las mujeres. Pero si se compara el salario de una congresista con el de un congresista, ¿sabe qué? Ganan lo mismo.

De hecho, la discriminación laboral por razón de sexo ha sido ilegal desde 1963. Y desde entonces, “Las mujeres no sólo han alcanzado a los hombres en muchos ámbitos profesionales, sino que las mujeres jóvenes y solteras está superando a sus homólogos masculinos de áreas urbanas”, comenta la analista de la Fundación Heritage Romina Boccia, adscrita a la donación Grover M. Hermann. “No hay de qué sorprenderse, puesto que las mujeres ya obtienen más títulos de licenciatura, máster y doctorado que los hombres”.

El “Día de la Igualdad Salarial” se supone que ha de servir de estímulo para las mujeres, pero el presidente Obama y sus socios están aprovechando la oportunidad para impulsar dos propuestas normativas que perjudicarían a las mujeres (y a los hombres) en sus puestos de trabajo.

1. Subir el salario mínimo.

La Casa Blanca está impulsando la idea de que un aumento del salario mínimo ayudaría a las mujeres, ya que éstas componen la mayoría de la población activa en diversas industrias caracterizadas por sus bajos salarios. Lo que eso realmente implica, sin embargo, es que subir el salario mínimo supondría un duro golpe para las mujeres, puesto que esos son los trabajos que se perderían con una subida salarial. De hecho, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso estima que aumentar el salario mínimo federal hasta $10.10 a la hora acabaría con 500,000 empleos, mientras que el Instituto de Políticas de Empleo prevé que el 57% de esos trabajos pertenecería a mujeres.

2. “Justicia salarial” obligatoria.

Otra mala idea que el Congreso ya ha rechazado en el pasado y que está surgiendo de nuevo: la “Ley de Justicia Salarial” (PFA). Sin embargo, ya existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación basada en el sexo del trabajador, se trata de la llamada Ley de Igualdad Salarial y que ha estado en vigor desde 1963. ¿Entonces qué haría la Ley de Justicia Salarial por el sueldo de las mujeres?

El experto laboral de la Fundación Heritage, James Sherk, explica que la propuesta está más relacionada con favorecer las demandas judiciales que con cualquier otra cosa.

La PFA permite que los empleados demanden a las empresas que pagan a sus trabajadores sueldos diferentes, incluso si esas diferencias no tienen nada que ver con el sexo de los empleados. Esas demandas judiciales se pueden presentar por perjuicios ilimitados, concediéndoles unos ingresos extraordinarios a los abogados litigantes.

¿Cómo perjudicaría eso a los trabajadores? Pues bien, no se puede obtener un aumento por ser un empleado con un alto desempeño, ya sea un hombre o una mujer, si es obligatorio que todo el mundo con el mismo puesto de trabajo gane el mismo salario. Sherk observa la presión a la baja que eso supondría para los sueldos:

Se debería permitir que las compañías recompensen el buen desempeño sin arriesgarse a ser demandadas. Castigar a las compañías que no adopten unas escalas salariales uniformes reduciría los sueldos tanto de hombres como de mujeres.

El líder de la mayoría en el Senado, Harry Reid (D-NV), ha indicado que esta semana presentará ambas normativas y que el presidente Obama va a firmar órdenes ejecutivas que aumentarán la cantidad de información disponible sobre los salarios de los contratistas federales en nombre de la “igualdad salarial”.

En realidad, son normativas como éstas las que están sometiendo a todos los trabajadores americanos.

The untold story of how El Salvador passed its total ban on abortion with prayer and a socialist

BY PETER BAKLINSKI

• Fri Apr 11, 2014 13:54 EST

TORONTO, April 11, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – It is totally illegal for a mother to abort her child in El Salvador, the smallest country in Central America. But the amazing story about how a country with a name meaning “savior” came to constitutionally protect its unborn children from conception — despite ongoing massive international pressure to the contrary — remains practically unknown.

“It was a miracle,” said Julia Cardenal, president of Sí a la Vida (Yes to Life Foundation) of San Salvador, to attendees at Campaign Life Coalition’s national pro-life conference last weekend in Toronto.

Dan Zeidler, president of the Family Life Council, and Julia Cardenal, president of Yes to Life Foundation, speak at the National Pro-life Conference in Toronto April 5, 2014.

Credit: Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews.com

Cardenal related to about 200 attendees how underdeveloped countries like El Salvador depend on foreign aid to help improve the country. But she said that such aid usually comes with “reproductive rights” strings attached.

She remembers one cabinet minister saying after returning from a foreign assistance meeting in Europe: “All these people want to do is talk about abortion.”

“If you go to the international conferences of the United Nations, it’s incredible how in every treaty they want to put [in] abortion,” she said.

In 1998, a massive pro-life effort resulted in El Salvador removing from its 1973 penal code exceptions that permitted abortion, including to save the mother’s life, and in cases of rape and serious congenital disorder. Abortion was now illegal, but the victory was tenuous.

Pro-lifers feared foreign aid groups would too easily woo the country into signing onto a treaty that would override the penal code and effectively bring back abortion. They knew the only way to guarantee protection for the unborn was a constitutional amendment that no treaty could override.

Cardenal and her group began a national campaign for a constitutional amendment that would “defend the right to life from conception.”

They went mainstream with their message. They visited schools. They educated people across the country “about abortion and why it is important to defend life from conception.”

They passed the first hurdle when about half of the country’s legislators voted for the amendment. But for the amendment to be enshrined in the constitution, it had to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the next parliamentary period.

But then an election was called and a significant number of pro-life legislators lost their seats to socialists. Pro-lifers felt sure the amendment was doomed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

“We thought it was going to be impossible to get it, but we said we have to try. We have to do our best,” said Cardenal.

Pro-lifers immediately ramped-up their efforts, calling for a national prayer campaign. The spiritual battle reached its height during the last three days of the legislative period for that year.

“We sat for three days inside and outside the legislative assembly praying the rosary. We would go [up to legislators] with holy water on our hands and [pat their back or shake their hand and] say: ‘Hi how are you.’”

What happened next shocked everyone.

“When the time came for the vote, the first one who spoke was a socialist woman who said: ‘I’m going to give my vote as a woman and as a medical doctor for the constitutional amendment.”

“After that, there was no vote against it,” said Cardenal to applause.

“We could not believe [it]. It was a miracle.”

As of February 3, 1999, El Salvador began to “recognize as a human person every human being since the moment of conception.”

In spite of such a decided victory, the international abortion lobby has continued attempts to bring abortion back, even though El Salvador boasts a relatively low maternal mortality rate, said Cardenal.

In 2006, the New York Times produced what critics denounced as a ‘hit piece’ against the country’s pro-life movement. The piece highlighted a tale of woe of a woman who was reported to have had an illegal abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

A LifeSiteNews investigation at the time, however, found the story to be entirely false since court documents prove the woman was actually found guilty of infanticide after she strangled her full-term baby shortly after birth. The New York Times initially refused to correct the story, but later issued a correction after the paper’s ombudsman called them out.

Last June, United Nations human right experts and abortion advocates attempted to use the ‘hard case’ of a Salvadoran woman who suffered from lupus and who carried a baby with a fatal condition to change the law against abortion. The “Beatriz” case backfired when the mother delivered a baby girl through an emergency caesarian section who died within hours from natural causes. The mother meanwhile progressed towards recovery.

Cardenal said that El Salvador’s pro-lifers have to be constantly on their guard against opening the door to abortion even the slightest bit.

She says hard work and prayer will win in the end. “We have to do our work, but our work is done through prayer, because if we don’t have the Spirit … there is no way,” she said.

Who's watching us?....Washington: Ejemplo de Libertad Religiosa... Obama's golf tour!!

EU to act against Google over privacy rules: French agency

Read more on »Google|French agency|European Union|EU privacy laws|EU|CNIL

At the end of a four-month delay "no response has been forthcoming by the company", said France's CNIL which is leading the effort.

PARIS: European data protection agencies intend to take action against the US Internet giant Google after it failed to follow their orders to comply with EU privacy laws, a French agency said on Monday.

In October the data protection agencies warned Google that its new confidentiality policy did not comply with EU laws and gave it four months to make changes or face legal action.

"At the end of a four-month delay accorded to Google to comply with the European data protection directive and to implement effectively (our) recommendations, no answer has been given," said France's CNIL data protection agency.

It said that European data protection agencies planned to set up a working group to "coordinate their coercive actions which should be implemented before the summer."

European data agencies are to meet next week to approve the action plan, said CNIL, which said it is leading the effort.

Google rolled out the new privacy policy in March 2012, allowing it to track users across various services to develop targeted advertising, despite sharp criticism from US and European consumer advocacy groups.

It contends the move simplifies and unifies its policies across its various services such as Gmail, YouTube, Android mobile systems, social networks and Internet search.

But critics argue that the policy, which offers no ability to opt out aside from refraining from signing into Google services, gives the operator of the world's largest search engine unprecedented ability to monitor its users.

Google reiterated on Monday that its confidentiality policy is in line with European law.

"Our privacy policy respects European law and allows us to create simpler, more effective services," Google said in a statement following CNIL's announcement.

The California-based firm said previously that the changes are designed to improve the user experience across the various Google products, and give the firm a more integrated view of its users, an advantage enjoyed by Apple and Facebook.

"We have engaged fully with the CNIL throughout this process, and we'll continue to do so going forward," it added.

European data protection agencies had recommended to Google that it improve information provided to users, particularly on the categories of data being processed, and for what purposes and services. READ MORE

George Washington: Ejemplo de libertad religiosa

Julia Shaw

En vez de celebrar el aniversario del nacimiento de George Washington, hoy lo hemos englobado junto a desconocidos entre los que se incluyen Millard Fillmore y William Henry Harrison para celebrar un “Día del Presidente” genérico.

Pero George Washington no fue simplemente un presidente. Fue el hombre indispensable de la Fundación Americana. Las palabras, pensamientos y actos de Washington como comandante militar, presidente y líder patriótico posiblemente hacen de él el mayor estadista de nuestra historia.

Todos los presidentes pueden aprender de Washington en cuanto a liderazgo en política exterior, en la defensa del Estado de Derecho y, especialmente en estos momentos, en la importancia de la religión y de la libertad religiosa. Pues aunque la administración Obama afirma que se está “dando cabida” a las inquietudes de los americanos respecto a la libertad religiosa en relación al mandato de Obamacare impuesto por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), en realidad está pisoteando la libertad religiosa. El presidente Washington legó un magnífico ejemplo del modo en el que los presidentes deberían manejar dichos conflictos.

Washington sabía que la religión y la moralidad eran esenciales a la hora de crear las condiciones para una política decente. “¿Dónde queda la seguridad para la propiedad, para la reputación, para la vida, si el sentido de obligación religiosa desaparece de los juramentos que son los instrumentos de investigación en los tribunales de justicia?”, se preguntaba Washington.

La religión y la moralidad son, escribió Washington, esenciales para la felicidad de la humanidad: “En un libro no se podrían trazar todas sus conexiones con la felicidad pública y privada”.

Para corresponder a su alta estima de la religión, Washington poseía también una sólida comprensión de la libertad religiosa. La libertad permite la religión, en forma de moralidad y mediante las enseñanzas de la religión, para ejercer una influencia sin precedentes sobre la opinión tanto pública como privada. La libertad religiosa da forma a las costumbres, cultiva las virtudes y proporciona una fuente independiente de
razonamiento y autoridad moral. En su carta a la congregación hebrea de Newport (en su momento la mayor comunidad de familias judías de Estados Unidos) el presidente Washington cimentó las libertades civiles y religiosas de Estados Unidos en los derechos naturales y no en la mera tolerancia.

Washington también se enfrentó a los límites de la libertad religiosa. En otra carta, Washington elogió a los cuáqueros por ser buenos ciudadanos pero les reprendió por su pacifismo: “Sus principios y su conducta son bien conocidos por mí y es de simple justicia con las personas denominadas cuáqueras el decir que (excepto por declinar el compartir con los otros su carga en la defensa común) no hay congregación entre nosotros con unos ciudadanos más ejemplares y provechosos”. Sin embargo, Washington, finalizó su carta asegurándoles su “aspiración y deseo de que las leyes siempre se pudieran acomodar ampliamente” a sus prácticas.

Una verdadera acomodación de ese tipo ratifica el Estado de Derecho y la libertad religiosa, ya que permite que los hombres y mujeres de fe sigan tanto la ley como su fe religiosa.

En su carta a los cuáqueros, Washington explicó que el gobierno se constituye para “proteger a las personas y las conciencias de los hombres frente a la opresión”. Además, era el deber de los gobernantes “no sólo abstenerse ellos mismos [de ejercer la opresión], sino, según sus puestos, impedirla en otros”.

Pero el consejo de Washington ha sido ignorado.

Se nos dice que la religión y la política requieren de una estricta separación; que la religión es un impedimento para la felicidad y que por tanto se ha eliminado gradualmente del ámbito público. Se nos dice que las muestras de fe religiosa no dan sustento a la comunidad, sino que son manifiestamente ofensivas para los no adeptos. La Corte Suprema ha respaldado tanto como ha atenuado esta lógica distorsionada. Sin embargo, desde los años 40, la Corte ha constreñido cada vez más la religión y la libertad religiosa. En el mejor de los casos, la religión es un bien privado, pero uno que no debería mostrarse ante los demás. Y además, las creencias religiosas no tienen relevancia en la vida pública.

Se puede ver a dónde nos lleva esta lógica. Con Obamacare, todos los planes de seguros deben cubrir, sin costo para el asegurado, los medicamentos abortivos, los anticonceptivos, la esterilización, la educación como paciente y el consejo a las mujeres en edad fértil. A modo de ilustración de la estrechez de miras de la administración Obama en lo referente a la religión, sólo a las casas formales de culto se les permite una exención de este mandato obligatorio. Muchos otros empleadores religiosos, tales como hospitales católicos, escuelas cristianas y centros confesionales de atención al embarazo están obligados a proporcionar y pagar la cobertura de unos servicios que, por cuestión de fe, encuentran moralmente objetables.

Ni siquiera la recientemente propuesta de “acomodación” a la regla es una acomodación. Como explica Sarah Torre, la corrección sugerida “no abarca a muchos de los empleadores (ni evidentemente a todas las personas) con objeciones morales o religiosas que han de cumplir con el mandato”. Para cumplir con el mandato se requiere que los hombres y mujeres con sentimientos religiosos violen la doctrina de sus iglesias y de sus conciencias. Por tanto, con el presidente Obama, hemos vuelto a la tolerancia religiosa, según la ha definido algún burócrata en algún sitio.

Quizás es por eso por lo que no deberíamos celebrar a todos los presidentes por igual. George Washington “fue el espíritu director sin el cual no habría habido independencia, ni Unión, ni Constitución, ni República”, como expresó el presidente Calvin Coolidge. De hecho, estableció el camino por el que debería discurrir la presidencia de Estados Unidos. Es por eso por lo fue el “primero en la guerra, primero en la paz y primero en el corazón de sus compatriotas”.

President finally shows his face after $1m golfing weekend with Tiger Woods that White House didn't want world to see

• Obama played at exclusive Florida course on Sunday with Tiger Woods
• President refused to say if he had been beaten by the champion golfer
• Cost of Air Force One trips to and from Florida, along with hotel rooms, greens fees and exclusive golf lessons comes to $989,207
• Tried to mend fraught relationship with traveling press corps by 'hanging out' with them for 10 minutes on the flight back

By Meghan Keneally and Louise Boyle
PUBLISHED: 21:17 EST, 18 February 2013 

Pictures finally appeared of President Obama on Monday evening as he headed home to Washington after a relaxing golf weekend which was kept heavily under wraps.
The President was on the course on Monday for the third and final day of a Florida vacation with departing US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, the president's Chicago pal Eric Whitaker and White House aide Marvin Nicholson.

The President had enjoyed a round of golf with Tiger Woods on Sunday - a fact that only emerged by chance after media were banned from attending the event. The traveling pool of journalists who follow the President's every move were reportedly furious after being shut out of his round of golf and not being allowed on to the club  grounds.
 

Back in the swing of things: President Obama waves in the doorway of Air Force One as he departs from Palm Beach International Airport on Monday

Back to business: Obama jogs up the stairs of Air Force One upon his departure from Florida heading for D.C. (left) as an aide carries on the golf back of Obama's friend Eric Whitaker

Bags of fun: An aide heaves several golf bags up the stairs of Air Force One after weekend on the course with friends

 
It has long been a White House tradition that pool reporters cover the President's rounds of golf and even have the opportunity for a few questions on the course.

The President waved as he jogged up the steps of Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on Monday evening while a White House aide heaved golf clubs and large bags on board.

When he landed back in Washington and walked across the White House lawn, several frustrated reporters collectively shouted to the President to ask if he had beaten Tiger Woods.

Despite appearing to have heard the question, the Daily Caller reported, Obama did not answer and just smiled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280855/Obama-pictured-leaving-1m-golfing-weekend-Tiger-Woods-imposed-controversial-photo-black-out.html#ixzz2LM9spNaQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook