How many are aware that last Friday there were "Stand Up for Religious Liberty" rallies in 164 cities across the United States? The lack of raised hands may have something to do with the lack of coverage of the events in the big three networks.
These rallies were held to make citizens aware of the threat to their religious freedom if the Health and Human Services (HHS) keeps the contraception mandate in the "Affordable Care Act". This mandate requires all employers to provide to their employees, at no cost to the employees, coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs. This includes religious institutions, excepting only a very few, even though they are against the moral teachings of some religions, most notably the Catholic Church.
While many are calling this a "Catholic" issue, it is much more than that. While the HHS mandate mostly targets the Catholic Church, it would open the door for more mandates and laws which could affect other religions as well. For example, the government could then decide that Kosher delis be required to sell pork products to be all-inclusive to everyone in the neighborhood. This would be against Jewish religious law.
The secularists have claimed that the Catholic Church is trying to control a woman's access to preventive healthcare not protecting religious liberty. This is certainly not the case. It has nothing to do with stopping women from using contraception, but everything to do with the church being forced to go against their teaching. It would be a different case if the church was actually trying to legislate that contraception is illegal and could never be used.
This is part of a bigger issue with Obamacare, which has nothing to do with religion, and that is whether or not the government can force any citizen to buy anything. Obamacare does exactly this under the threat of imprisonment.
The Catholic Bishops are right in saying this is more than just a Catholic issue, it is only the tip of the iceberg.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 14
Similar laws regarding birth control and abortion already exist in most states and the Catholic and other churches have been able to live with it.
Hospitals and schools run by the Catholic Church are religious institutions and they should not have to provide anything which is against their moral conscience.
The "Affordable Care Act" was passed to ensure that all employees receive a minimum medical coverage. Catholic hospitals employ non-Catholics. And with the hospital not being covered by the 1st. Amendment, they must provide those non-Catholics the same benefits other businesses provide for their employees.
Under your definition of a religious institution, I could form my own church, start a church owned business, and then refuse to pay taxes, citing Matthew 17:25-26
Matthew 17:25-26
17:25 . . . When Peter came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do earthly kings collect tolls or taxes – from their sons or from foreigners?” 17:26 After he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free."
And if I am can I then force them to live a healthy life? Smoking is bad for you, I don't smoke, can I then force you not to smoke? It is my money which is paying for your disregard for you health, I should be able to decide what I will pay for then.
If I provide you with contraception and you still get pregnant, can I now force you to have an abortion since you already have two kids and you can't afford to have another one? We already have to many people on the earth, so this should be okay.
When you allow me to control what people do with my money then I will agree with things like the misnamed "Affordable Care Act." It is only affordable for those who don't have to pay for it.
Your religious ideological dogma conflicts with the laws of the U.S. Constitution and therefore has no place in our open and free to reason and believe as you will society. You and those of your faith, are free to believe what you want in your church and within your home, but leave the U.S. industrial complex to the established laws of our country and stop attempting to make your church doctrine the law of the land. Church doctrine is just that, Church doctrine, not the law of the people nor the law of our country nor are they the laws of justice which regulate, control and protect our society.
Yes, I admit, I am biased when it comes to supporting the separation of church and state, mans law verses church law, Constitutional laws verses church doctrine and the American Justice system verses religious rhetoric, canons and dogma.
Your arguement is totally unsupportive in it's premises and has been since the Constitution was adopted as the law of the American people in 1779. To argue your point of church law, as somehow superseding Constitutional law is supercilious to say the least and not worthy of attention by the Court. Your rhetoric and points of view, may work within the walls of the Vatican, but here in America, it is nothing but religious spiel espoused by a quasi cult religion that is based on the personal indoctrination by the Catholic Church of it's members from the ritual christening/baptism as an infant throughout one's entire life.
The American people are not all members of the Catholic Church nor do the majority of the American people adhere to the religious doctrine of the Catholic faith, so stop trying to force your religion into our daily lives. We want stand for it and if you continue, you will only be opening yourself and your religion up to further ridicule and rejection on a large scale.
This mandate is establishing a religion by forcing those of the Catholic faith to go against theirs. Catholics are being forced to purchase something which their religion has determined is against their teachings. This is a clear violation of the "Separation of church and state".
By the way, nowhere does the phrase "Separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution. The Constitution says: "Freedom of religion" not "Freedom from religion".
You like all other religious fanatics either can not comprehend that which you read, much less attempt to explain the meaning of that which you have read to others. Because you can only view issues from the religious dogma point of view you have allowed yourself to be indoctrinated with all your life.
Therefore, I find it is best not to debate such issues with people having your frame of mind. Simply put, you bring no intelligent substance to the conversation and do not possess the open mind of reason, required to see both side of an issue. For you and those like you, it's religion, religion, religion, there is no other side to an issue, hence no honest debating can be had on the subject.
Just as in your response to my comment above, you attempt to interpet the meaning of the Constitution to read as you want it to read. In doing so, you totally ignore the fact that the highest court in our country, SCOTUS, has ruled against your interpetations as well as similar interpetations, time and time again. But, in the religiously indoctrinated mental state of mind your brain functions in, you are completely left unable to hear what is beng said nor to accept that which has been ruled not in your favor.
As I have previously stated, you are free to believe and worship as you choose, however, you are not free to push your religious beliefs on others. As to "Religious Liberty" being under attack, nothing new there, you self appointed Christians have been screaming, crying and moaning that same dogmatic trash since Christianity first came on the scene.
When you can show me where in the Constitution the phrase "Separation of church and state" is, then I will agree with you about making the Constitution say what I want it to say, until you can do that, you are the one who is making it say what you want it to say.
And I suppose I could say you are the one who has been indoctrinated with the secular, progressive mindset as taught in the public school system.
Your analogy is not wrong and the same analogy could be made of other things which Americans are forced to purchase by mandatd statutes of law. However, such comparisons are immaterial to those on the right who have allowed themselves to be lied to, conned and purposely misinformed by the conservative candidates they elected to office and are now serving in both houses of Congress.
Elected representatives who are acting and making nothing less than asinine idiots of themselves. Some doing so because they see any expenditure in government revenue or increase in social programs, as increasing the size of government. Others because, they simply want to disallow President Obama any notable achievement during his administration.
The former, being those elected to office for the first time in the 2010 mid term election. Candidates who won while campaigning under the newly formed Tea Bag party banner, representing those who wanted smaller government and less government spending. The latter being, multi term elected officials such as Mitch McConnell, John Beohner and Eric Cantor (to mention just a few) who have decreed that President Obama must be painted as a man who hates America and is not a real citizen of the United States. They also want the President to be viewed as a man who is out to destroy America and the American way of life by ignoring the Articles of the U.S. Constitution. All false ennuendoes, insinuation and charges but nonetheless, being repeated time and again for the weak of mind to mentally absorb as truth.
The Healthcare Bill it's self, has little to nothing to do with what the Republican Party politicians are attempting to make the average voter believe. The Bill is just another tool they are using in their endeavor to win back the "White" House from the "Black" President.
BTW: No guessing here, Yes, I do believe race/ethnicity is playing a big part in the extremist conservative's agenda. There is no doubt that the Teapublicans will call me a race card player for my position. They will label me as such, simply because that is the only defense/retort they have.
You are also not forced to buy house insurance. You can pay cash for your house and then you would not be required by purchase house insurance.
In both cases it is your choice to buy insurance, you can risk not buying it and suffer the consequences of not have it or the inconvenience of not having it.
The protests are against the HHS mandate has nothing to do with woman's health or a woman's right to contraception, it has everything to do with violating the First Amendment which is that the government has no right to tell any religious order what they can or can not beleive.
http://thewaywardcatholic.com/2012/06/15/hhs-mandate-public-commenting/
I'll ignore the derisive terms you use as it only shows quite a lot about your character.
Where can I start? The Tea Party is not a political party although the left continues to believe that.
You mention that all those elected in 2010 have continually done everything they can to stop Obama from accomplishing anything. Perhaps that is becasue he hasn't proposed anything which would help this country. And I'll ask this question: What did he accomplish when he had a "super majority" in Congress, his first two years? Nothing. Not even his healthcare fiasco was passed.
The cost of the healthcare bill has already doubled and it hasn't even begun yet. What you and your fellow lefties fail to see is sooner or later you will no longer be able to take other people's money to pay for all your programs as there will be non left? Then what? Shall we be like Greece? How's that working for them?
In this country we have something called the Constitution.Read it sometime and you will see how much this President has violated it.
As far as you typical claims of racism I won't even bother to answer them. If you beleive that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist, you don't know what racism is. I suppose the fact that this administration condones the intimidation of voters by military garbed blacks isn't racist. Nor is the garbage we here from Sharpton, Jackson and Wright.
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your point of view. However, I don’t believe that saying one doesn’t have to drive a car answers the question. Only 700,000 people in the U.S. don’t have access to a car, and they are mightily inconvenienced for it. Also, only 32% of Americans can buy a house for cash. So no, it is not realistic to say I can just choose not to drive and/or not to get a mortgage. Furthermore, here are a few other things we are “forced” to buy: A marriage license, a hunting license, a driver’s license, a small business license, a pilot’s license, a college degree (if we want to work in certain professions), etc. The list goes on, and on and on. Yet, no big Constitutional protests. That is my point. Consider this: if I am hit by a car while walking along the road and I am seriously injured, I will have to go to an emergency room and have several operations. This could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can’t pay so that cost is shifted to my neighbor. If I follow your suggestion and choose not to be insured, I will refuse treatment and lie on the side of the road with my legs and hips crushed and with internal bleeding. Do you seriously think someone would do this? So I ask again, if we want to live in a place where everyone takes responsibility for themselves, what is wrong with being “forced” to buy health insurance? I still don’t understand the logical difference between that and auto insurance. The question I am posing is not about Obamacare. This is not about contraception. It is a simple, logical exercise. I don’t believe anyone can state the difference, because I don’t believe there is any difference. But I am all ears if you or someone else can define it. It’s just something I have been curious about because it seems to be inconsistent. It seems to me that if there is a serious Constitutional issue with being forced to buy insurance, licenses, etc., then we should all be out protesting all of the licenses I noted above (and particularly our auto insurance), or else there is a false issue being made of the individual mandate.