The one on the left is more dangerous because it uses freedom of worship (FoW) to replace freedom of religion (FoR). The president has increasingly been using the phrase FoW instead of FoR since his Cairo speech in '09; some say to the exclusion of FoR. At least one organization, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom also noted the shift and raised a flag on it in its 2010 annual report. Freedom of worship is just that; it says the only place you are allowed your religious views is in a recognized church - and if congress trying to decide who gets freedom of speech is any indication, laws defining an allowable church ought to start hitting the congress in ...oh...15 minutes or so. You can believe anything you want in your recognized building, but the moment you walk out of it, you may only believe what Your God Your Government tells you. Even Muslim nations under Sharia law trumpet their Freedom of Worship, where (at best) it means other religions may be taught only in churches. More often, it simply means the choice between the Mosque and the cemetery; you're free to be a Muslim or die (or get out of the country).
Freedom of Religion is what is expressed in the constitution, and has allowed for the ‘free exercise of religion’ in all aspects of American society unabated for over 200 years. Only those very uninvolved in watching society would say that there is no conflict over this in American society; just last week, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Vatican's Chief Justice noted that US policies “have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization.” In his interview, he specifically said he thought Obama was shifting America to a Freedom of Worship society.
I think it's wise to never dismiss politics when watching any politicians doing anything, and that's especially true with the crop of Alinskyites in power. Why does this case get to the Supreme court? If the government wanted to absolutely ensure those abortifacients were available, they have many ways to do it, including direct confiscation of your taxes and mine. So it can't simply be about that. What's it all about? One of two things: to get yet another area of the constitution shredded away - even better! by the court not the president's phone and pen; the other possibility is to further try to break Obamacare down so that the morons cry out for single payer government takeover of everything. Which is virtually total control over every citizen. If you're the one in control, and a pathological control freak, what's not to like about total control over everything?
It's worth noting that the government has declared war on Christianity here; it's not the other way around. Christ said in Mark 12:17, "give to Caesar that which is his, and give to God that which is His". While under valid Earthly governments; obey them. Pay your taxes. Follow Just Laws. The problem is the government seems to think that everything you earn, everything you own, and as the Freedom of Worship change progresses, everything you believe belongs them, too.
Well said, and a damned scary portent of what's coming down the road
ReplyDeleteAnd did you every notice that things started going downhill for this country right about the time that the 60's leftists took power and began using it to turn America away from it's roots as a Judeo-Christian nation? I'm thinking that's not a coincidence.
And while I'm not a Catholic, every one I know would say point out that period coincides with the advent of the pill, legalized abortion and a lot of other violations of the sanctity of life.
ReplyDeleteI am not totally opposed to what Hobby Lobby is trying to do but my problem with it is that we are supposed to be a country of laws and equal under those laws. If Hobby lobby can be exempt from some part of a law for what they believe then everyone should have the same ability. Having said that I tend to lean towards the belief that the public accomodations law is a good thing. So therefore a public entity as opposed to an individual or what you practice at home, must treat everyone equally. Just as we wouldn't accept it if Walmart choose to not hire a minority or to hire them but not provide equal benefits or to not allow them in the store to shop or any of a long list of inequitable treatments we shouldn't accept it if Hobby Lobby chooses to not provide the same health care that every other employer in the U.S. is required to provide. I am opposed to Obamacare and I am opposed to the federal government inserting itself into our lives. But if the Supremes decide that it is the law of the land then by golly I want it to be the law of the land for everyone. No exceptions for religion or gender or ethnicity or union status, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1802 - Yeah, but that's saying there's no difference between a privately held company like HL and publicly traded one like Walmart?
ReplyDeleteThe decision here is where we draw the line where government tramples on individual rights: it's all they ever do. Once you start a company, you're no longer allowed to be guided by personal beliefs, only what five of nine black-robed Government agents say? The only place you're allowed to believe in things is in a designated church building?
Or forget abortion entirely. Perhaps there's some product you would never sell for some other reason: are you required to do whatever the government says and can't decide for yourself? What if you think halal slaughtering of food animals is horrible? If the government says you're required to provide it for your Muslim employees are you required to supply things that disgust you? What if you're opposed to smoking or alcohol or fatty food or fat-free food and nonalcoholic beer? Are you required to provide them?
Or what if you aren't religious, but are opposed to abortion anyway? I've met people like that: they say, "What species kills itself off? It's stupid!". Are they obligated to provide abortifacients that they're opposed to?
What about the choice of people deciding they like the higher pay and better working conditions everyone says HL provides and are willing to say, "I'll put up with no abortifacients for the nicer working environment"? Why aren't they allowed to make that decision?
There's no room for individual liberty at all? Just if five of nine black robes say to do it?
"we shouldn't accept it if Hobby Lobby chooses to not provide the same health care that every other employer in the U.S. is required to provide"
ReplyDeleteWhat we shouldn't accept is a government that feels it has the authority to intrude into every interaction we have with each other, in order to assure that we behave according to the "morals" of the government apparatchiks.
The purpose with the abortafacient requirement, as well as the gay marriage push (regardless of what you think about it yourself) from the left, is to get a court decision that eliminates the concept of personal conscience. They want the decision of right and wrong to be in the hands of government bureaucrats and "non-governmental organizations" staffed by the family members they can't get into high political office.
ReplyDeleteFor the win, Rob. I'd be happy to mail you the Internet you Won for the day.
ReplyDeleteAnd then the obligatory question is, "have you ever seen the government turn it down when we offer them that kind of power?"
I see no difference between a private company and a public one. I agree that the government tramples on individual rights. So do you think the answer is to let them tramp on everyone's right except for Hobby Lobby? No! We are all in this together if Hobby Lobby or the unions or the catholic church gets an exemption from something then everyone should. It's the crony politics and the special interest groups and everyone else asking for a special deal that is wrong. Here is where we agree (I think): People should not be forced by our government to do something they don't want to do. The difference is you think that only hobby lobby or someone with a religious disagreement gets this special privilage while I think we all should. I am confident that IF the Supremes decide this in Hobby Lobby's favor that I and YOU won't get that "right" and that is morally wrong and unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2317 - You actually read me almost 100% opposite from what I'm trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteI don't think HL should get any special treatment at all, and I don't think the answer is to let the Fed.gov trample on anyone - period. No carve outs for unions or Catholics or anyone. If there's ever one idea that I've beaten like a rented mule here it's that the government has become way too big - as proven by this cronyism. I say they have no right to demand insurance cover anything, and one of the main reasons healthcare costs go up at 3x inflation is the Fed.gov messing in the marketplace.
I absolutely don't think "only hobby lobby or someone with a religious disagreement gets this special privilege while I think we all should". I think we all should; that was the whole point of what I wrote about the people with non-religious opposition to abortion or people who don't want to accommodate halal butchery (or Near Beer). Why should only religious opposition matter? Strongly held beliefs of any other kind aren't acceptable? I say they are.
The government's role should be to get out of the way; get out of the marketplace. Their only place is to assure a level playing field: equal chances, not equal outcomes. If some company doesn't want my business - like that bar in SC recently that was calling anyone with a concealed carry license a douche bag - I'd be just as happy to spend my money elsewhere. Let the market decide.
I think we're in virtually complete agreement. The way I read you, you're saying no special carve outs for anyone: I agree.
Then my apologies for not fully understanding your position. I do think we agree on this. I think Obamacare was unconstitutional regardless of what the Supremes decided. I think any and all forms of gun control that "infringe" on our 2nd amendment rights are unconstitutional regardless of what level of government does it. I think a small, even "tiny" federal government would be a good thing for all of us and a merely "adequate" state and local government too.
ReplyDelete