At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’ teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”
Now, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the taxman.
The Judeo-Christian tradition commands personal generosity as represented, for example, by the biblical injunction against retrieving any sheaf left behind while harvesting one’s own field. That is for the gleaners — “the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:10). Like Ruth in the field of Boaz. As far as I can tell, that charitable transaction involved no mediation by the IRS.
Advertisement
But no matter. Let’s assume that Obama has biblical authority for hiking the marginal tax rate exactly 4.6 points for couples making more than $250,000 (depending, of course, on the prevailing shekel-to-dollar exchange rate). Let’s stipulate that Obama’s prayer-breakfast invocation of religion as vindicating his politics was not, God forbid, crass, hypocritical, self-serving electioneering, but a sincere expression of a social-gospel Christianity that sees good works as central to the very concept of religiosity.
Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival — the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health-and-human-services secretary to promulgate the definition of “religious” — for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.
Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state’s regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.
Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such “health-care services” (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.
Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.
And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of “religious” and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything — from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free-of-charge.
The more I think about this wretched policy, the angrier I get. It's repulsive and disgusting beyond compare. The worst of it is that, in effect, it punishes religious organizations for showing kindness and mercy to people of different faiths. The willingness to reach beyond the cloister or the chapel and bring help to all people is one of the noblest and best things about religious practice. But this damnable policy effectively penalizes religious people for following God's command to love and serve everybody. It's the most low, vile disgusting social policy I can think of.
A nation that turns away the charity of the faithful in exchange for the charity of the state will reap as it sows.
We have chosen the charity of the bureaucrat over that of the inspired. Do not be surprised when the nature of the former takes over the giving of "alms" and he expects you to play by his rules.
A policy such as this that forces religious organizations out of the business of charity and good works results in the government claiming control of such activities. "The church has abandoned their charitable works because they cling to their silly morals! We have no choice to tax you heavily and use the money to perform what WE consider to be charity!". It is just another part of life that can fall under government control. And as with the student loan industry takeover, which is now leading to floated debt-forgiveness ideas, so to will the current "debate" set up other nefarious government plans....
The self-sacrificing love of neighbor ("agape," in the Greek in which the New Testament was originally written) at the heart of the good news of Christ ("evaggelion tou Christou," translated long ago into Old English "gospel") directly undermines the power of the state to control its citizens. It is therefore an existential threat to coercive power structures. This is why the New Testament speaks so often of the hatred borne towards Christ by the world.
Obama's real ideology (broadly, secular materialism, in which people are treated as disposable rather than with full dignity) is rigorously atheist in that it denies the Biblical understanding of the human being as created with dignity and free will. He and his supportors, whether they know it or not, are waging war on the gospel of Christ. They want to establish total governmental power by destroying the strongly Christian conceptual foundations of our country and replacing them with materialistic falsehoods that fundamentally degrade human identity and purpose. Gay "marriage," contraception mandates established by executive fiat, mass destruction of innocent unborn children in the name of "gender rights," allocation of health care according to social usefulness... all of these are salients in the assault by the godless on those who dare confess a higher authority.
And the sad thing is. If Gingrich were to get the nomination, I have no doubt a large number of National Review 'Editors' we pull the lever for Obama. They can claim
they wouldn't, but they know as well as I, that once they got in the booth, they would.
It needs to be emphasized that Families and Churches are the primary bulwark against the State. Through these two institutions, values are passed down from generation to generation—values that individuals deem are worth passing down—and therefore the State must do away with them.
Leviathan with tolerate no rivals.
This is why it is wrong to view social issues as "distractions" or "side-issues." The preservation of Families and Churches is absolutely vital to keeping the State at bay.
And because abortion, marriage, contraception, sex, and other social issues speak to the health of Families and Churches, they are also central to the fight to restore us to our Constitutional roots.
Are all you people crazy? It is as simple as this. ... Everyone should be able to have the same coverage ie. breast exam, pap smear and yes birth control. If you don't want it, then don't use it. This is not political, nor was it meant to be an assault on anyone's religious beliefs. It is about fairness. You are all crazy!
And what about therapuetic euthanasia (the kind that is slowly but steadily becoming an accepted form of medical care in some European nations)? According to your logic, only "crazy people" would demand a religious exemption from being forced to subsidize such a medical "procedure". The Church has taught for centuries that both abortion and contraception are twin evils. The Church's teachings on this certainly predate the US Constitution (by some 15 centuries). As a matter of fact almost all Protestant confessions taught the same thing until recent decades (the 1930s).
If HHS and Obama get away with this, there will be no moral justification remaining for religious organizations to prevent the State from forcing any immoral medical procedures upon private religious organizations. Euthanasia and state ordered sterilization (which were quite common in some states up to 1973) are currently being considered again amongst our intelligentsia and elite. Only people with religious scruples stand in the way of this false utopis.
Exactly right. If the Church loses this battle, it is a small step to the government declaring, "Oh, your county doesn't have an abortion clinic, so your Catholic clinic for walk-in care for the poor needs to perform abortions if the other patients want their emergency care to be subsidized by their Medicaid coverage." Then it will be, "Our state has euthanasia, so your Baptist hospital has to put these old ladies (and the government healthcare hospice funding) out of their misery." The nearby prison could say, "These executions are too expensive to do in the prison. We want this Quaker doctor to do this in the nearby ER at lower cost." We will see government healthcare gatekeepers telling pregnant women who have unborn babies with defects to have abortions because the neonatal care is so expensive. If you think workers at the Post Office are rude and inefficient and the DMV is not your favorite place, think of how bad it will be to have the government telling us what our morals should be. They can't even run the public school system with success.
You can have your birth control. Just don't try to force a religious institution to pay for it. That's like saying an Islamic school HAS TO serve bacon in the cafeteria because everyone has a right to bacon.
I love it! You are absolutely correct! Bacon, bacon for all! Stuff it down their throats just like Obama is stuffing this down ours.
Thing is, what's next? I worked at a Catholic hospital for 20 years, during my reproductive years. I understood the church's stand, and bought the pill myself. I accepted it, no big deal. But what freedom will be next? What mad mandate will be deemed "good for me" and forced upon me?
You're right...that's why we should require people to donate to Catholic hospitals...it's not about religion, it's about caring for the poor and fairness.
We also need to require people to give to Scientology drug addiction programs...it's not about religion, it's about helping addicts get clean.
Oh, no, that would violate that pesky Church and State thing...
Amazing how that prevents the Church from telling the State what to do, but not the other way around.
Agree-if it's about "health and fairness", then why not also force Americans to donate $$ to Catholic charities? Oh wait... then it would not be a choice to donate would it? Especially if you don’t “compromise” you’ll be hit with a fine.
Neither the government nor anyone else forces people to work for religious organizations. Free choice still reigns here.
Moreover, with Planned Parenthood in the game there really is no problem re the availability of contraception products and services - even abortions - you want it you get it.
So this is a red herring - and one is left to wonder why would the so-called smartest guy to ever sit in the Oval Office pick a fight with religious institutions which deliver more than half of the non-governmental social services in the USA - and which via their religious schools relieve the public school system of the cost of educating their children, even though the government taxes the parents to support public education.
The dirty little secret in the USA is that mayors live in mortal fear that religious institutions will say "we quit - now the mayor can pay to educate our kids and deliver social services to all of the needy". The cities and towns in the worst financial shape have the most to fear - which rounds the circle, as the voters in those municipalities and states in the worst financial shape have a long history of keeping Democrat pols in office.
Neither the government nor anyone else forces people to work for religious organizations. Free choice still reigns here.
Moreover, with Planned Parenthood in the game there really is no problem re the availability of contraception products and services - even abortions - you want it you get it.
So this is a red herring - and one is left to wonder why would the so-called smartest guy to ever sit in the Oval Office picks a fight with institutions which deliver more than half of the non-governmental social services in the USA - and which via their religious schools relieve the public school system of the cost of educating their children, even though the government taxes the parents to support public education.
The dirty little secret in the USA is that mayors live in mortal fear that religious institutions will say "we quit - now the mayor can pay to educate our kids and deliver social services". The cities and towns in the worst financial shape have the most to fear - which rounds the circle as the voters in those municipalities and states in the worst financial shape have a long history of keeping Democrat pols in office.
I'll be a little more charitable to you than you obviously are to others and assume that you're speaking more from ignorance than from outright stupidity. This has *nothing* to do with what coverage the employee will use and *everything* to do with a religious institution being forced to pay for practices that its doctrine deems immoral. I'm sure that your inability to recognize the clear constitutional implications (hint: look at the very first amendment) has more to do with your ignorance of the Constitution than your inability to grasp logic, but I could be wrong.
One other friendly tip: drop the inane invocation of "fairness". That term, more than almost any other, illustrates childishness and lack of any deep thought.
Crazy? What is really crazy is that we are forcing companies and churches to do something that goes against their morals. you obviously don't have any so you can't understand the value of fighting for them. I'm already to a point that I want to move my business and it's 3000+ jobs out of the country because of Obamacare etc., and the enormous tax burden these socialist 'rights' inflict. Why do you think all these other companies are leaving? get a clue!!!!
Follow
