President’s plan angers Catholic leaders

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are bristling over President Obama's recent plan to require insurance policies to cover contraception (and other birth-control matters) because, they claim, it somehow violates their religious liberty.

Meanwhile, women's rights organizations and liberal Catholics share an equally strong view in favor of Obama's move—to them it is an affirmation of individual liberty. Who is right?

The president has offered a compromise with the ever-rigid bishops to allow religious-based employers (i.e. Catholic hospitals, etc.) to opt out of paying for such coverage.

Costs for contraceptive services would be covered by insurers at no charge to recipients, according to politico.com the online publication whose focus is on elected officials, policy and all things political.

Naturally, the bishops aren't happy with not being able, at least so far, to persuade Obama into gutting the whole thing       and backing their antiquated world view by leaving employees of Catholic entities without coverage for such things as birth control pills.

It is amazing how entitled these guys feel about their role in dictating public policy.

If they aren't brazenly attacking pro-choice politicians by refusing to offer them Communion, they're casting same-sex marriage as some sort of evil that must be destroyed.

The real kicker, of course, is how quickly the bishops demanded action on the contraception issue and how incredibly long it took them to acknowledge a massive sexual scandal within their own midst.

Yes, I am referring to the rash of priests whose ongoing molestation of mostly young boys had been either ignored or indirectly sanctioned by moving these predators from one location to another, apparently hoping a change of scenery would correct this behavior. It didn't work.

Advocates of the policy change are just as displeased because they feel Obama does entirely too much compromising and deal-making on issues ranging from health care reform and keeping the U.S. in Afghanistan longer to essentially placating conservatives on the federal budget, taxes, etc.

Many have spoken out against Obama's policies because, they believe, he has not done nearly enough to advance a progressive/liberal agenda.

It is very similar to same-sex marriage supporters being angry because of the president's stance, which continues to evolve from opposing it to being more receptive. In other words, it's all or nothing.

Religious purists share a common obsession with being relevant. They are, after all, given the massive task of figuring out how to try to control people through some level of mental cleansing of individual thought or self-determination.

Oh, the horror of knowing someone, somewhere is actually making clear-minded decisions for themselves without the increasingly harmful edicts from on high.

Obama makes people on the extreme ends of the spectrum positively livid.

We can all think of someone in our own lives whose role as peacemaker contributes mightily to warring camps digging in and refusing to budge.

The odds are stacked against reaching a consensus, let alone compromise.

We turn to these individuals to do what is essentially impossible because we set them up to fail and reserve the right to blame them.

This is not about bashing true believers of faith or secular backgrounds. But it is about the proper role for discourse in crafting reasonable public policy.

From stem cell research to medicinal marijuana to contraceptives, too many conservative pulpit speakers are standing in the way of human progress.

And yet, a substantial slice of liberal activists stand at the ready to punish economic success, anything close to a rational middle ground on the environment and a plethora of other things.

By Election Day this fall, I fully expect the self-appointed righteous-among-us figureheads to conjure up more outrage and, of course, advise their followers as to which candidate to support.

Unfortunately, there's no pill to prevent that from happening.

Childress is a graduate student in political science of Jonesboro.