When President Obama mandated that religiously-based organizations violate core tenets of their faith, Americans were rightly outraged. In response, the president announced an “accommodation” policy to these organizations, but the so-called compromise is not a compromise at all because it does not take away the mandate that infringes upon religious liberty.
On Jan. 20, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, affirmed a rule that requires church-affiliated hospitals, agencies and universities to provide contraception and sterilization in the health insurance for their employees. The president later announced a false compromise, mandating that insurance companies offer free coverage of these services directly to the employees of religiously-affiliated institutions.
The announcement merely attempted to alleviate a political problem for the president, after Americans across the political spectrum spoke out against this intrusive government overreach and blatant disregard for our constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
However, the contempt for protecting the right of conscience remains. Religiously-affiliated institutions that have moral objections to contraceptives and abortifacients will still be forced to facilitate a government mandate that goes against their faith.
The new regulation, forcing insurance companies to provide contraceptives to employees, actually increases the power of government to mandate further items through its control of insurance coverage under Obamacare.
And while the directive says that companies must meet the mandate without charging either the employer or the employee, there is no such thing as a free lunch. To say that insurance companies will provide free contraceptives and abortifacients is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. We all know in reality, someone pays. And in this case, religiously-affiliated organizations will foot the bill as the premiums go up to cover all of the government mandates.
Furthermore, religious-based organizations that are self-insured will be forced to buy insurance coverage under this mandate, and they will end up paying indirectly to violate core tenants of their faith, rather than directly.
This country was founded by those who came to these shores seeking relief from religious persecution. And the crafters of our Constitution explicitly protected religious liberty, writing that “Congress shall make no law” that violates freedom of religion. The Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed that this right includes freedom to practice religion without government interference.
The president’s new regulation still represents a serious threat to religious liberty and erodes our right of conscience.
The only acceptable way to protect religious liberty is for the president to admit that he and his Administration have made a mistake and to withdraw the mandate over religiously-affiliated institutions completely.
Congress can, and should, act to restore the constitutionally-protected right to exercise religion. I will work in the House of Representatives to reverse this policy and restore our constitutionally-protected freedom of religion.
This is not something new, having a president who was deeply religious. Calling it Sharia is simply a scare tactic that doen't work. Our country is not geared to having theocratic rule by a dictator president. That's why we have three branches of government, three oppose the one that is off track.
Today we see it at Waldorf Schools in the form of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposphy, which also has done much to change the practice of medicine, banking, and agriculture (the growing and producing, not the business). It hurts to be republican.
It is a waste of your time dumping garbage my way thinking I will take it in as true. I prefer facts to your BS. Christian ethics were more prevalent among the Founding Fathers than you claim. They were interested in keeping government out of religious affairs such as was the case in the colonies where the church was run by the colonial government. The government picked pastors and bishops. That was okay when the colony was one religion. That would not work with a united state government with many religions coming together under one banner, who would decide the affairs of the churches? Jefferson and others came up with a new plan to let the churches govern themselves. It was a "government stay out of religon" policy. Do your homework and see that what I say is true. Find the source documents and read them. Try to disprove me if you can.
I brought home a JFK poster, my mom told me not to let the neighbors see it, we being Republicans and all, they were okay with my fascination w/ JFK. They didn't much care for Karl Marx, who at the time was my other favorite, they went bonkers when I announced I was a socialist. Use to read the Socialist Workers Newspaper. I think I was motivated to be a Socialist by listening to Wm. F Buckley. The socialists he interviewed always seemed to match up with him, and their point of view sounded so Christian and Jesus-ish. Long story short, I miss the Republicans like Bill Buckley. There isn't a true conservative left. Today's GOP/Teahadists make me cringe. Always with the invectives, negativity and pessimism. The Teahadist Flu has infected the Grand Old Party. Old guard politicians are bailing out. To much divisiveness. The old Republicans would have worked with Obama, and made sure they got credit for getting the job done. It gave them Gravitas. They were statesmen.
As far as the great concern from political Christians goes for the unborn, I wish they were kinder to the living. No doubt the 200,000 plus Iraqis that have died in this stupid war would have liked some more pro-life stance from them. But I imagine many supported that war. I am all for ethics...but situational ethics and straw men, touted as deep religious conviction at election time, makes me sick.
No, if you except money from the government you have the rights that they give. You are looking at this entirely with two diverging paths. Separation of church and state works two ways. You have your religious freedoms, you don't get public funding. If you get public funding, you don't get religious freedoms. Separation is separation.
Soon the democrates will come directly after the church for tax revenue too but there's a problem that needs to be worked out. The church has to decide if it wants to preach politics overtly from the pulpit or remain silent while enjoying it's tax breaks. Anyone in bed with the government will get screwed, for example, government school mandates. SOVIET UNIONISM IS UNAMERICAN
Actually, if Alan West were running for president I'd vote for him in a heart beat. You do know who Alan West is, yes? He's a person of color who despises Obummer's socialist agenda so be careful of what you say about West. I'd also vote for Mark Rubio too who despises Obummer's socialist agenda who's also a man of color so be careful of what you say about Rubio too. What goes around comes around. SOVIET UNIONISM IS UNAMERICAN
what your fear of a man of color. Alan West got kick out of the Military, I don'tthink he would be able to hold office as commander and chief. I know he resigned. He resigned rather than face court martial for torturing a prisoner. Rubio is a liar, he falsified his family history, He didn't just hide it he used it to run for office. Rubio's family members were not "exiles," nor were they "forced" to leave Cuba. They voluntarily emigrated to America in order to seek better fortunes. Even though he has claimed that his family fled "the thug" Fidel Castro, records prove that the emigration occurred years before Castro took power. You guys can't find any one who isn't divorced, separated, gay, having an affair, or a liar