(Image via Wikipedia)

President Obama announced today a ‘compromise’ to the uproar caused by an HHS mandate that religious allied employers provide for contraceptives, abortive pills, and sterilization as part of the health care for their employees.

The President merely put the burden on the Insurance companies instead, forcing them to pick up the additional cost for providing these services. Also the administration said that it would not ‘allow’ the insurance companies to increase their premiums to cover the additional costs.

This really didn’t change a thing as far as Catholics are concerned. They will still be forced to provide health insurance for their employees which offer services contrary to their religious beliefs and conscience. Here’s one response to the ‘compromise’ from U. of Notre Dame law professor Carter Snead:

Today’s rule still requires religious institutions (on pain of ruinous treasury fines) to purchase insurance that covers these same objectionable services.  It is irrelevant that the rule requires the insurance company (rather than the religious institution) to explain to employees that the policy purchased for them by their employer includes the 5-day after pill. For institutions that self-insure, the situation is even worse; they will be forced to contact their employees and pay for such services themselves.

It is no answer to suggest that the religious liberty of such employers is being accommodated because they are not “paying” for the objectionable services.  First, it is naïve to imagine that the services are truly cost-free and that these costs will not be passed along to the employers who purchase these plans.   More importantly, the simple fact is that under this policy the government is coercing religious institutions to purchase a product that includes services that they regard as gravely immoral.

Response: Actually I believe that this ‘compromise’ or ‘accommodation’ may even be worse than the original mandate. Not only is the Obama administration trumping religious liberty but also now forcing private insurance corporations and their stock holders to bear the costs of the additional services. Since most 401K  and retirement programs invest heavily in American insurance companies, it means that millions of us will be helping to pay for this program whether we morally accept it or not.

Health insurers are concerned about the precedence that Obama is setting here and every business in America should also be concerned since they might be next. 

This is what happens when you have a President that does not understand or respect the private sector of the economy. Is he really so naive that he believes the insurance companies will not find a way to pass on the expense of all of this to their customers? What is he going to do if some companies decide to go out of the health care business instead? Force them to keep on offering it regardless?

Is it even Constitutional for a President to place this burden on private enterprises through an executive order? I don’t know. One thing for sure, this President is constantly doing things that are borderline or even illegal and the main stream media in America doesn’t say a peep. President Obama recently made a ‘Recess Appointment’ when Congress was still officially in session and got away with it.

Remember also that he took over General Motors and Chrysler Corporation and flushed all of the creditors and investors giving equity to the unions and the government instead. It reminded me of what happens in a ‘banana republic’ in Latin America. We are a country of laws where usually the assets of bankrupt companies are adjudicated by judges. It set a dangerous precedence that may have encouraged Pres. Obama to now make decisions for the insurance business since the media had nothing but praise for what he did with the auto companies.

The original conflict over religious liberty has now escalated into a conflict that includes forcing private businesses to provide and pay for services whether they want to or not. The end result could also affect millions of investors including those of us with retirement accounts.              *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Wash. Post Editor: Maybe the Founders Were Wrong to Guarantee Free Exercise of Religion
2. -Confrontation Between Catholics and Obama Continues to Escalate as an Issue of Religious Freedom

“Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment but that is what they did and I don’t think we have to choose here.”

Here’s a transcript of the conversation between Henneberger and Matthews aired last night (2/8/12) from NewsBusters:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: There you have the ideological argument from the left, I suppose, the progressives in this country. You heard it well-spoken there, I believe, Melinda, they see it as an argument over whether you’re allowed to have birth control or getting covered as part of the insurance or not. The Catholic Church and those who are looking at the interests of the, well, the First Amendment if you will, as they see it look at it differently. Explain this distinction and how you look at the interests involved, the conflicts, the rights involved here.

MELINDA HENNEBERGER (Washington Post): I just think the two sides can’t hear each other, not that there is anything unusual about that. But I know in my own conversations with friends, I’m saying, "First Amendment, First Amendment, First Amendment." And what I hear back is, "Wow. I had no idea you, you didn’t believe in birth control." You know, this really is  seen widely among Catholics and people of other faiths as an attack on religious liberty. Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment, but that is what they did and I don’t think we have to choose here. The key is that I think there are ways we can go about this where, without infringing on any concern about a woman’s health, we can still guarantee religious liberty without which, I mean, there is no way this is going to stand in the court but it’s also a huge political liability.

MATTHEWS: Okay. You say there is no way it’s going to stand in the court. Let’s assume there is no legislation that gets signed by the President. Let’s assume it stands between this who’s going to blink thing. Let’s ask, will the Catholic Church, let’s ask, blink? Can you imagine them saying we give up. We’re going to provide full insurance coverage with no co-pay for everything now defined by the FDA as birth control. They’re going to do it. They’re going to go for this?

HENNEBERGER: That actually can never happen so they would have to literally go- I mean, what Sister Carol Keehan is saying who runs the Catholic Health association, do I really have to choose between the call that I think came from Jesus to serve the have nots in this world and the government telling me that I have to do something that goes against my faith? I mean, this really- that will never happen so what they’re doing is guaranteeing people, you know, these Catholic outfits and others can’t serve the populations that they were called to serve. But, it does not have to come to that.

Response: Remember WaPo editor Melinda Henneberger was defending the Catholic Church in the conversation and supporting the rights of the church to continue their allied ministries and looking for someway that religious freedom could be preserved while maintaining a woman’s right to choose and receive expanded healthcare.

The conversation is revealing on a number of different levels. Both Henneberger and Matthews are progressives and the issue is really about how they might be able to get around the Constitution which allows religious freedom and yet provide for a progressive agenda which supports a woman’s ‘right to choose’ and wants to provide for contraceptives, abortive next-day pills, and ultimately abortion through mandated health care insurance on the dime of employers, even religious ones.

Matthews sees the progressive ‘right to choose’ agenda as trumping religious rights. Henneberger points out here that the 1st amendment of Constitution will actually end up supporting the church in this matter therefore they must find a way around it.

The slip of the tongue here by the WaPo editor ( Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment) actually reveals an on-going  battle in progressive think tanks over what the 1st Amendment actually means and how to get around it in order to support a hierarchy of rights for homosexuals and women.

The current progressive thinking is that the ‘freedom of religion’ in this country needs to be re-interpreted and limited to a ‘freedom of worship’ instead. A ‘freedom of worship’ only affects what is happening within a religious worship center itself and does not include the public square. This seems to be the Obama Administration approach. If Barack Obama gets a 2nd term then the issue will be front and center as he chooses 100’s of federal judges which also reflect that view.

Here are links to a couple of articles I have written on the issue:

-Is the First Amendment In Danger of Being Overridden For the ‘Greater Good’? 

-What’s the Difference: ‘Freedom of Religion’ vs. ‘Freedom of Worship’

*Top

                                                     (Image via Wikipedia)

This is a story that continues to escalate and shows no sign of going away anytime soon. Here’s a link to my first article on the confrontation between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church over a new requirement to provide for contraceptives and after-morning abortive pills in their health-care coverage of workers in the church’s allied ministries.

The Bishops sent out letters 2 weeks ago to be read in the churches all across America protesting the new requirement and laying down a gauntlet and drawing a line in the sand stating that the church has no intention of ever complying with the order.

At that point, President Obama who personally signed off on the HHS ( Department of Health and Human Services) order had to be wondering how he got himself into this mess during an election year. The administration did back off somewhat by giving the Catholics and others a year to comply with the order hoping to put off any confrontation till after the election. However, the issue continues to expand on many different levels.

One battle front was the military. Letters were sent out to be read by Catholic chaplains in the Army but the administration through the chain of command initially ordered the chaplains to stand down and not read the letter to Catholic soldiers. Some Catholic chaplains disobeyed the order and read the letter from their Bishops anyway. Then a new letter was crafted and approved that left off the part that seemed to encourage civil disobedience against the commander-in-chief.

This whole issue is now taking on a life of its own and becoming larger than just the original issue. Some protestant leaders are now joining the battle with concern over the Obama administrations penchant towards issuing executive orders that could well end up challenging everyone’s religious freedoms in the future.

Here’s a link to an article by Dr. Albert Mohler (President of  The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) who sees it as a larger issue -an attack on religious freedom itself:

The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril

Here’s a couple of quotes from Mohler’s article:

“In actuality, the Obama Administration trampled religious liberty under the feet of the leviathan state, forcing religious employers to do what conscience will not allow. Religious organizations such as schools, colleges, and hospitals will be required to pay for services that they believe to be immoral and disobedient to God.”

…

“Every president faces decisions that test his character and principles. President Obama has failed this test, and the results will be tragic. He has trampled religious liberty underfoot and has announced his intention to force religious institutions to violate their consciences or go out of business.”

Response: This issue is way bigger than I initially thought. I believe that Dr. Mohler and others are correct in framing it in the context of the larger issue of religious freedom and liberty in America. If Catholics do not have the right to follow their own conscience in matters related to their allied ministries than religious liberty has been diminished on our watch.             *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Catholic Bishops: “Will Not Comply” with Obama Administration Contraceptives Order
2. -USCIRF Shutdown: Obama Administration No Longer Cares About Religious Freedom?

                                  (Image via Wikipedia)

I don’t know if you have been following events in the Middle east lately or not but the ‘war of words’ has been heating up in the last week or so in regard to Israel and Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Last week US Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta said that he expected Israel to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities soon –sometime between April and July. At the same time, it was estimated that Iran now probably had enough weapon’s grade nuclear material for at least 4-6 bombs.

Then over the weekend the Iranians tested their new 2-stage intercontinental Ballistic missile and claimed to have put a satellite into space. So the game is a foot so to speak and a very dangerous one indeed.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to hold back the Israelis from making a pre-emptive strike on Iran while trying to solve the threat through diplomatic means. However, statements made over the weekend by Iran’s supreme leader  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and on official websites associated with the leader seem to indicate that the time for diplomacy may have passed.

An article written by Iranian Islamist Alireza Forghani showed up over the weekend on official websites mapping out a justification and plan for making a pre-emptive strike on Israel and naming which cities, those with a majority Jewish population, would be the best to assign for destruction. The article also included a teaching that all the Jewish people around the world needed to be finally wiped out for Islam to be secure. The writer put forth that it was imperative to take action soon:

“…the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

Response: The world just became a far more dangerous place while we were all watching the Super Bowl. How much of that article by Forghani really reflects the current thinking of the Iranian leadership cannot be completely known. But the fact it was put up on a number of official sites shows that they are at least seriously considering the teaching and may be planning a pre-emptive strike of their own.

The Obama administration is playing a dangerous game with the Iranians. Just a couple of weeks ago Iran was talking about closing the strait of Hormuz and shutting down the major source of oil to the world. The US called their bluff and sent another aircraft carrier back into the gulf and the Iranians blinked.

The Obama administration also seems to believe that Iran is just bluffing when it comes to destroying Israel by nuclear annihilation. However, the Israelis cannot afford to play the game and must assume that the Ayatollah and the Iranian regime is serious.

Regardless of what the US may think about it all, something is bound to happen this year one way or another. Meanwhile, the American administration feels rather secure in Washington DC and wants to continue to play the game solely through diplomatic means which has never worked with the Iranian regime in the last 33 years or so and has no real hope of working now.   A good time to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and Israel.             *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Iranian General: “We Have No Option but to Destroy Israel”
2. -Obama Backs UN Resolution Calling for Israel to Receive Nuclear Inspections

     ( Getty Images via @daylife)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry took time out from his busy presidential campaign in South Carolina to attend a prayer event. While there, without any fanfare or introduction he took the stage at the large prayer gathering called "The Response" in Greenville, S.C. and prayed for President Obama and his family:

“Perry led a prayer in which he asked God to grant safety to "our president" and his family. He also said that "we pray that you light his way" in dealing with national issues.”

Response: We all should be praying for our President and his family regardless of what we think about his policies and politics. It would be good if he did receive some ‘light’ from above on how to deal with the problems facing our nation right now and for the whole year of 2012 while he is President.            *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Obama Gets Daily Devotional on His BlackBerry
2. -The Inaugural Invocation by Rick Warren

                       (Image by OZinOH via Flickr)

It is very rare indeed for an unanimous decision to be handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. However in this key case on religious freedom that is exactly what has happened.

The SCOTUS justices ruled that the government has no right to interfere with the decision of a religious group to choose or fire one of its ministers.

According to Chief Justice Roberts:

”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”–bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers.

“controversy between church and state over religious offices is hardly new.” He noted that the founders sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church.

“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers,” Roberts said, and the “Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own. ”

“We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers, ”

while the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is important, “so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

He said, “When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.”

The court had sharp criticism of the Obama Justice Department’s characterization of the case as no different than that of a labor union or a social club when it came to the organization’s freedom to choose its leaders.

The case revolved around the firing of Cheryl Perich, who had been a commissioned minister and teacher at a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church. Perich became sick with narcolepsy and was no longer able to complete her duties at the school and was asked to resign. She refused and was dismissed from her position at the church and school.

Perich then contacted the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which subsequently filed a suit against the church arguing that Perich’s firing was in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Response: The resolution of this case is encouraging to say the least. The fact that it was unanimous gives one hope that religious freedom will be maintained in the USA at least for some time.

There are a number of activist organizations hoping to restrict religious freedoms in the USA through defining a new hierarchy of civil rights which trump the First Amendment. In this case the Obama Administration was supporting the rights designated by the Americans With Disabilities Act over religious freedom. 

As much as one would like to sympathize with Ms. Perich, she was a commissioned minister and not just another school teacher or employee. The Justices ruled that religious freedom, the First Amendment, and the right of religious organizations to choose their own leadership trumps the Disabilities Act. If not, than our religious freedoms in this country would have been severely compromised.             *Top

      (Getty Images via @daylife)

The National Defense Authorization Act has passed and has been sent to the President for his signature. The act is intended to protect America from terrorists. Even from American citizens who join in and support terrorist groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban in their fight against the USA.

I can remember all of the furor of civil rights groups against the Patriot Act that the Bush administration supported in order to combat world terrorism no matter where it was in the world. Now with a ‘Democratic’ President in the White House, the protests against a far more radical bill seem to be muted in face of actual challenges to the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens.

What does the new act actually do?

It specifically affirms that the administration has the authority to detain indefinitely and deny due process to any American citizen it charges with substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any associated terrorist forces.

What that means is that if the government believes that you are a terrorist then the Bill of Rights and the Constitution no longer applies to you even if you are an American citizen captured and detained within the borders of the USA.

The Act passed with overwhelming support from both parties in Congress and the Senate. President Obama has already agreed to sign it into law.

Now here are my concerns.

Today it is going to be applied to homegrown terrorists who have joined in a continuing war against the USA. If they are caught red-handed in the middle of an act of terror than so much the good.

I can see the uses and the validity in the argument that no matter where they are or whether they are citizens or not, if they have ‘taken up arms’ to do acts of terror against the USA then extraordinary measures are warranted for their interrogation and detainment.

However, where does one draw the line?

That is where the problem lies. It is supposed to be used against actual terrorists but what about those who ‘support the terrorists’ in some way? What ways are applicable by this act? No telling. Also, it is open ended when it comes to clearly identifying ‘associated terrorist groups.’

Today, the act is going to be applied to terrorists associated with 9/11, al Qaeda and the Taliban. But tomorrow some administration might identify a whole new set of ‘terrorist’ groups that are ‘opposing’ the US government.  Maybe ‘dangerous’ Christian groups opposing abortion or standing in the way of homosexual rights, or illegally teaching their ‘exclusive’ doctrines to their children, or maybe guilty of some future UN ‘defamation’ law. Sounds crazy and ridiculous now but who knows? At the very least, this act sets a precedence that might be used against citizens in ways that are now unforeseen.            *Top

Related Posts?:

1. -Do Your Part in WOT -Pray for a Terrorist!
2. -Should We Identify Terrorists by Their Religion?