On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace not only interviewed Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington DC, but asked him about the MRC’s finding that the broadcast network evening news shows only gave the Catholic lawsuits against Obamacare 19 seconds of air time.
He asked: “I don’t know if you’ve heard this, but it you haven’t, I’ll inform you. What do you make of the fact that the broadcast networks have spent a grand total of 19 seconds this week on their evening newscasts – 19 seconds covering the lawsuits by the 43 Catholic organizations. What do you make of that?” (cut)
WUERL: I think we have to take a look at this in the much larger picture and certainly people have their own mindset when they comment on an issue. That’s one of the reasons why we will continue to say to our people the issue is religious liberty. Read more: here
And that’s what this is – an issue, a gigantic issue, regarding religious freedom in this country. And an Obama issue clearly opposing religious liberty and our Constitution.
It’s also one of the bigger issues to come along in many years – and yet the majority of the bias news media, who still tout their unbiased objectivity, are choosing not to mention it. They know it wouldn’t be good for Obama to report the facts that our governemnt is being sued by the Catholic church.
So where are all the liberals screaming “separation of church and state”? They beat that drum whenever they see a cross or nativity scene on public property. Yet they’re all strangely quiet now. It could be no one in the news is reporting that or it could be they’re hatred of those you have an appreciation of God and godly issues has become crystal clear. It’s not about a cross nor nativity scene – it’s about their hatred of God.
We’re rapidly losing our freedom, especially under this regime who’s whole goal has been to give tax money to it’s ‘friends’ and punish it’s enemies Those ‘enemies’. They’re hate of oil is punishing all Americans. They’re hate of capitalism is strangling the economy and economic freedom.
Our only hope is to vote this ugly regime out of office and dare I say, pray, for God’s grace a little longer on this struggling nation. Either that or give up and find ways to mutter more quietly about government oppression and find ways to be thankful for those 2 free beets a day, provided by our benevolent government.
Swimming Against The Current 
The real news is that notwithstanding the bishops’ arm waving about religious liberty, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences. Contrary to bishops’ assertions and the widespread belief of those who trustingly accept their claims, the law does no such thing.
Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved. Solved–unless an employer really aims not just to avoid a moral bind, but rather to control his employees’ health plan choices so they conform to the employer’s religious beliefs rather than the law, and avoid paying the assessments that otherwise would be owed. For that, an employer would need an exemption from the law.
Indeed, some have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.
In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.
The bishops are coming across more and more as just another special interest group with a big lobbying operation and a big budget—one, moreover, that is not above stretching the truth. The bishops want the government to privilege their business enterprises by allowing them to offer their employees health care plans conforming to the bishops’ religious beliefs rather than the law. They’re so keen on this that they have resorted to a media blitz centered on the false claim—sometimes uttered in priestly tones by bishops themselves—that the law forces employers to act contrary to their consciences. Bunk!
“The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government ” – yes, and why should anyone be forced to pay a fine for something they oppose on moral and religious grounds, as a church would? And where does the “separation of church” apply when it’s something other than Leftist wanting a cross or nativity scene removed?
Fact is, those cheap little fines will rapidly increase, as they’re designed to do. Obama’s plan, as he his own lousy self, has proclaimed – is to force a one- payer system, aka socialized medicine, which is a disaster wherever implemented.
But you’re missing the entire context of Obamacare – government forcing people to make a government mandated purchase. Clearly, not constitution (regardless of how much and how often Libs deem it to be constitutional and certainly Justice will say it is. It ain’t).
The church (whatever church), according to the Constitution, can’t be force to partake in any stupid little thing, some radical government czar, representative or presidents suddenly mandated. This nation has unfortunately, gone along way to long, on allowing government mandating one foolish, stupid thing after another because liberal mindset tells them they’re smarter and should ‘dictate’ their personal agenda on all others. This must be stopped before personal freedom is totally corrupted.
And since the Catholic church has moral, legal grounds NOT to supply abortions and BC to it’s employees, they shouldn’t should be forced by this heavy-handed, fascist hand of this government to do so. As NO citizen should be. And the simply fact is, any female wanting BC or abortion, can pay for it themselves. Good mercy, how much people have gotten soooo lazy and entitlement minded, is sickening.
You ask “why should anyone be forced to pay a fine for something they oppose on moral and religious grounds.” Such requirements are hardly new or unusual. When the legislature anticipates that application of laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may afford some relief to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.
In any event, objection to paying an assessment is simply not an argument about avoiding being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is predicated on the false claim–or, more plainly, lie–that employers otherwise are forced to act contrary to their religions. They are not.
The claim that the mandate to buy insurance is unprecedented or unconstitutional would surprise the First and Second Congresses and Presidents George Washington and John Adams; they enacted bills mandating that all able-bodied white men between 18 and 45 provide themselves with arms, knapsacks, and ammunition and that shipowners and seamen purchase medical insurance. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102739/individual-mandates-history-maritime-law
The real argument here is about contraception, abortion, and such that some oppose on moral grounds. They are dressing up their arguments in the guise of protecting their “religious liberty,” when that is not at stake at all. They just don’t like the policy, and they’re not above lying to try to get their way.
Pingback: Logos and Muse: Deconstructing the Absolute Statism of Doug Indeap
Pingback: Deconstructing the Statism of Combox Junkie Doug Indeap
Pingback: Deconstructing the Absolute Statism of Doug Indeap
Pingback: Deconstructing the Absolute Statism of Doug Indeap
Pingback: Of Course You Have Religious Freedom. Except When the State Says You Don't: Deconstructing the Absolute Statism of Combox Junkie Doug Indeap, If That Is His Name. - To Give a Defense.