150 Christian Leaders Send Protest Letter Accusing Obama Admin of Creating ‘Two-Class Religious Scheme’
- Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:18pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Christians leaders aren’t backing down on their pleas for the Obama administration to further expand religious exemptions surrounding the controversial contraceptive mandate.
The ongoing debate about religious freedom has been raging since the mandate was first announced in January, causing a massive rift between Obama and a plethora of religious leaders and congregants. In a June 11 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, 149 faith leaders made their views on the matter known.
The letter, which can be read in full here, was assembled by Stanley Carlson-Thies who helped setup George W. Bush’s faith-based office. While numerous protestants were included in the pool of individuals signing on, no Catholic bishops joined in. As stated, the Catholic Church is pursuing its own lawsuits to help rectify the wrongs it sees inherent in the mandate. The National Catholic Register has more about the signatories:
The letter was organized by the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition that works to protect the religious identity and work of faith-based organizations throughout America. It was signed by aid organizations including World Relief and the U.S. branches of the Salvation Army and World Vision, Inc. The National Association of Evangelicals, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and the North American Baptist Conference were also represented in the letter, as well as law organizations such as Liberty Counsel and the American Center for Law and Justice.
The group did admit having a diversity of views on the issue of birth control and on the importance and viability of administration proposals that allow for some institutions to be exempt from the mandate. But the collective did, indeed, stand in agreement that the language being used to qualify and divide groups is unacceptable.
Based on administration descriptions, faith organizations are divided into two groups, they claim: churches and then faith-based service groups — the latter of which — at least a portion of which — may not qualify to be exempt. Religion News Service further explains:
“This two-class scheme protects those religious organizations focused on activities directed inward to a worship community while offering little religious freedom protection to the many religious organizations that engage in service directed outward,” the letter says.
The letter says that “both worship-oriented and service-oriented religious organizations are authentically and equally religious organizations. … We deny that it is within the jurisdiction of the federal government to define, in place of religious communities, what constitutes true religion and authentic ministry.”
Diverse critics of the mandate have found a common rallying point in opposition to the exemption definition. The regulation currently states that to qualify as exempt, an organization must be dedicated to promoting its religious values, must primarily employ and serve people who share the group’s beliefs, and must be a nonprofit.
In sum, the debate here is centered upon the government’s role in defining faith groups. While the Obama administration seeks to draw a line in the sand, faith leaders seem bent on seeing officials step out of a role that allows them to define the purpose and activities associated with these groups. In a sense, the argument that the letter touts is one that embraces a separation of church and state mentality, as the pastors and faith leaders maintain that the government‘s role shouldn’t be defining churches.
While the administration has attempted to assure faith leaders that the exemptions would cover churches and most non-profits, universities and hospitals won’t be covered. Still, considering Obama’s past promises not to infringe upon religious conscious and his most recent actions doing just that, the church leaders remain cautious.
Comments (69)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 676 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 628 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 522 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 311 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 123 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 173 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 123 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
vaman
Posted on June 15, 2012 at 8:58amIn this modern age, government is the last protection people have from radical religions and it is important government not be the religion game. The middle east is the proof. Radical christians in this country would become the taliban of the West if they had the opportunity.
Report Post »SuziQ123
Posted on June 15, 2012 at 5:21amAL J ZIRA is the only one who pointed out that “it was not the state (but the church)” who called for Separation of Church and State… this was done in Europe ‘prior to’ our Constitution. When the European governments publicly murdered the people without trial after the Reformation, it was not the Catholic church that gave it’s OK, but each country’s State Church. Jefferson, I’m sure was aware of this in mentioning the Separation of Church and State… so there would be no re-enactments of the European governments’ ideas. However, I’m sure Bernbart (and the like) still thank God that Luther had saved the people from the pope… wait until he finds out who Luther really was.
Report Post »dirtypotter
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 9:17pmthe sad truth is that progressivism is a religion unto itself and like the aztecs, their sacrament is human sacrafice. only now they have “progressed” to the point that the sacrifice is no longer ripping the beating heart from a virgin but spilling the blood of an innocent from the woumb
Report Post »dirtypotter
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 9:22pmok… so i get excited and forget to check my spelling… whatever
Report Post »alrunner58
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 10:31amI swear this guy is a muslim.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 6:24amobama’s stand on religion and his turning away from Israel are the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Do not worry, God and Israel win in the end.
Report Post »Anamah
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 2:56amThe guy has not the level to be the USA president. He is a small Community Organizer with the poison and the fighting rules of Saul Alinsky rules for revolutionaries. As Hillary Clinton, he has been the most dangerous and incredible scam to America and the world.
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 6:21amHenry the 8th taught Barry everything a King must do to take care of religion.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:27pmour nation‘s Christianity is like ’a tiny flea’ to this rabid pro-muslim fuhrer-wannabe animal, he could care less –except to destroy it.
“rev” wright said it best, paraphrased, God dmn obama.
Report Post »MCDAVE
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 12:19amAtheism has become the religion of the government and they are forcing their beliefs on all Americans…
Report Post »Sirfoldallot
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 12:39amU think ? Wake up ppl, freedom of religion is under attack. Get these thugs out.
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:12pmChristians should not “plea” to this man for anything. He is not even likely eligible to be in office. We owe him nothing, no vote, no chance to make out like he is for us. Just know he is an enemy to most Americans. This man is a liar, a deceiver, a clown and a player. He does not even take the highest job in the nation serious. He backs those who are anti-Christian and against Christian values. Whate does it take for people to see what and who he is? He is where he is because he is someone those who put him there to use as a tool to stir up a whole black race of those who have no other way to see things than of skin color. He is using the less educated black and street people who are government dependent to cause problems. Those with some amount of ability to think outside their immediate needs see him for who he is. Christian people will not vote for this man. He is a known liar and people cannot believe anything he spouts. He does ot have the heart of an American.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:14pm@RealLiibertarian
Report Post »Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:55pm
Seriously, if you are a real liberatarian you would have noticed that I did not impart my “extreme” religeous belief upon you. I simply stated that I don’t want the government making policy to tell religeous organizations or their institutions like hospitals etc. to have to bow down to government. I don’t care if you are excited about goat humping (hyperbole before you get mad at my point). I just don’t believe that government should be teaching that to my kids at school. The idea of public school was a great beginning idea. It’s failed. I would have loved to have had a voucher and sent my kids to a private school of my choice. Many others think so as well. It‘s the new wave of the future and I’m cofident it will happen. Public school has failed due to the progessives. Billions spent to put more on welfare. I have a simple issue as a non-minority. Work or die. Hand outs are not an option for me.
MCDAVE
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:34pmYou got that right…They always go for outrageous and settle on a compromise ,but we still lose freedom or are taxed higher…Obama has repeatedly crossed the line with his unconstitutional legislation .there can be no more compromises..vote out the politicians who vote against our constitution.
Report Post »marinedad3
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:59pmO.K., lets get a few things straight here!
1. there is no clause in the constitution that calls for “separation of church and state” There is however a part that says Congress shall not establish a state church.
2 This was done, in minor part to protect our republic from becoming a theocracy, but in major part to prevent what had happened in many states in Europe. where many monarchs had declared a state religion then declared themselves to be it’s leader. Think Henry the Eighth , Cromwell, or the then popular notion of “The divine right of kings”
3. After declaring themselves head of the church these leaders them began to force the govt’s beliefs on the church, telling them what they should believe, what to teach, etc. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA IS DOING, this is one of the clearest violations of the constitution I have ever seen!
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:07pmYou are right.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:20pmFair enough, but there is also a movement to force Christian dogma into the government, and to make conservative Christian morality and dogma the law of the land. That also flies in the face of the 1st, since all religions, Christian or not, are equal under the law. Many of those religions, including mine, do not share the strict morality espoused by the the conservative right Christians, so why shoud we be bound by it?
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:38pm@RealLiibertarian
Report Post »Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:20pm
Fair enough, but there is also a movement to force Christian dogma into the government, and to make conservative Christian morality and dogma the law of the land. That also flies in the face of the 1st, since all religions, Christian or not, are equal under the law. Many of those religions, including mine, do not share the strict morality espoused by the the conservative right Christians, so why shoud we be bound by it?
If you are a “real” libertarian, please espouse how the religeous right is trying to force Christian dogma onto the government. Let’s go back to the basics. The Government can’t “Establish” a national religeon. Separation of church and state is a made up progressive idea for what purpose? The church just does not want to be told by the government to provide contraceptives (not an issue the church will fall on their proverbial sword for, but, the abortion drugs… that’s another story) so, why can‘t you just choose to go to get a job with the many other providers who have no problem with abortion and let the rest of us who don’t approve of abortion choose not to support it in our life? Seems to me like you wish to use government to jam your philosophy down our necks. Which is ironic, because you argue that government should not jam any philosphy down your neck.
Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:42pmObama is a Marxist. Karl Marx said “Man makes religion, religion doesn’t make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again.“ Remember Obama telling his supporters in California in 2008 ”So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:55pm@Tired of Code Names- let me turn that back on you. Why can’t you just decide for yourself not to have an abortion and leave others to decide that for themselves? Or why can’t you just decide not to marry a person of the same sex and let others make that choice for themselves? I have not stated that the church should pay for contraceptives or abortions. I will state, however, that not all Christian denominations object to these things, and they have as much right to their opinion as the Cathoilics and Evangelicals do, so don’t play this as a Christian thing, it’s just an issue for SOME Christians. As far as my philosophy being jammed down your neck, my philosophy is to let people do as they wish. You have the right to be as religious as you wish, others have the right to be as atheistic, pagan, or just downright hedonistic as they wish. My philosophy is freedom. Unfortunately, freedom is not well received or respected by the Christian right.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:06pm@REALLIIBERTARIAN
Are you being forced to tithe? To love one another? To pray for your enemies?
Are you being forced to honor your mother and father, keep the Sabbath holy, visit those in prison?
Are you being forced to become more like Jesus, get baptized, be meek, humble and full of compassion?
Are you asked to read your scriptures daily, attend church or to be chaste?
The “Christians want a theocracy” mindset is a little bit of a reach.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:21pm@Brother Ed- are you being forced to have an abortion? Marry a person of the same sex?
Are you being forced to go to gentlemen’s clubs or other adult entertainment?
Are you being forced to watch TV, movies, or games that you find offensive?
Are you being forced to wear clothing that you find offensive or insufficient?
Are you being forced to participate in Wiccan Circles or Santerian ceremonies?
These are all things that have been under attack by the Christian right, things that they have attempted to ban through the law, either federal or local. So while I may not have been forced to particiapte directly in your religion, certainly your religious beleifs have been forced on me by prohibiting activities that you object to.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:34pm@@Brother Ed- are you being forced to have an abortion? Marry a person of the same sex?
Are you being forced to go to gentlemen’s clubs or other adult entertainment?
Are you being forced to watch TV, movies, or games that you find offensive?
Are you being forced to wear clothing that you find offensive or insufficient?
Are you being forced to participate in Wiccan Circles or Santerian ceremonies?
These are all things that have been under attack by the Christian right, things that they have attempted to ban through the law, either federal or local. So while I may not have been forced to particiapte directly in your religion, certainly your religious beleifs have been forced on me by prohibiting activities that you object to
@ Liberitarian. The answer to your question is yes! My children hear stuff in the public school system that is totally against my belief. I am a person of modest means and therefore I can’t send them to a private school of my choice. But, what really ruins your argument is that in public school, our kids our being forced to learn those things that are against my belief. Yes, I can “opt them out” but, then, they feel they are stigmatized from the “cool” group and I lose in that argument as well. Public school is a tool of the government. And Liberitarian, I don’t think you have malicous intent, you perhaps don’t see or have experienced what parents of faith have to deal with.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:39pm@RealLiibertarian
Ever wonder why Libertarians are branded as conspiracy theorists? You are the answer to that question.
You’re a damned fool if you think ALL Christians want to force their religion on everyone. The Christians who do are ALSO Progressive Socialists. Holy crap, man. Can you not see that? Can you not see that many Christians ardently believe we were given free will to make our own decisions, and some Christians are busy-body jerks who want to tell others how to live?
Christianity isn’t the problem, Progressive philosophy is.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:52pm@Tired- what, in the list that I posted, has anything to do with school?
Report Post »That some of those things may be mentioned is not the same as being forced to participate in any of them. They are also topics that appear in the media, both liberal AND conservative, so to blame the schools for the fact that your kids may have knowledge of them is ludicrous. They are part of the greater world, and you cannot shield your kids forever. The solution that the religious right seems to have chosen is to ban them from society at large. Hence my comment about conservative religion hating freedom. Like it or not, you cannot control the the thoughts, lifestyles and morality of the world at large. The more you try, the mnore we will push back. You live your way and we’ll live ours. We can‘t avoid hearing about your religious lifestyle and you can’t avoid hearing about our non Christian lifestyle, no matter how much you would like to.
encinom
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:55pmJaycen
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:39pm
@RealLiibertarian
Ever wonder why Libertarians are branded as conspiracy theorists? You are the answer to that question.
You’re a damned fool if you think ALL Christians want to force their religion on everyone.
Report Post »______________________
REALLY, have you not read the comments on the Blaze. From RangerP and company, you Christians seek to dictate the meaning of marriage, female healthcare, what can be shown on tv and what is science. Christian taliban on the Blaze go so far that they demand that science and the scientific take a back seat and that their creation myth be taught in the place of real science. Your comment is a pure lie.
RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:59pm@ Jaycen- I never said all Christians wanted to force their religion on the rest of us, just the conservative right. The more tolerant denominations, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Congregationalists, etc., are not at the forefront of trying to change the laws. They believe in live and let live. I do find it interesting, however, that you class these denominations, normally the more interested in social justice, as the ones that are pushing restrictions on lifestyle and morality.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 12:02am@RealLiibertarian
Report Post »Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:52pm
@Tired- what, in the list that I posted, has anything to do with school?
That some of those things may be mentioned is not the same as being forced to participate in any of them. They are also topics that appear in the media, both liberal AND conservative, so to blame the schools for the fact that your kids may have knowledge of them is ludicrous. They are part of the greater world, and you cannot shield your kids forever. The solution that the religious right seems to have chosen is to ban them from society at large. Hence my comment about conservative religion hating freedom. Like it or not, you cannot control the the thoughts, lifestyles and morality of the world at large. The more you try, the mnore we will push back. You live your way and we’ll live ours. We can‘t avoid hearing about your religious lifestyle and you can’t avoid hearing about our non Christian lifestyle, no matter how much you would like to
@real/legion. MY point was that this government is pressing everyone into a single point of view. And legion is in leading the charge.
brother_ed
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 12:44am@ENCINOM & others
We do not seek to change the law regarding homosexual marriage, we wish only to keep it the same as it’s always been – hence the name ‘traditional marriage’.
We are not seeking to change laws, we wish to keep them the same, that‘s why it’s the “defense of marriage act”, we are on the defense, not the offense.
We are not seeking to teach children about ‘alternative lifestyles’, again we wish to keep the status quo.
There are things we would like to overturn – abortion, for example – but i imagine that even non-religious people consider that wrong.
I am exposed to things that could possibly offend me all the time (bill boards for strip clubs, commercials for alcohol, wardrobe malfunctions at sporting events, inappropriate clothing, etc) but I choose NOT to be offended.
Some fences shouldn’t be torn down until we understand why they were put up.
Oftentimes, since we are more advanced technologically than our ancestors, we believe that their social rules are archaic also. That is not an assumption that can be made.
Report Post »gofer1
Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:03amThey also didn’t toss religion out of govt. or they wouldn’t have created a Congressional Chaplain and signed the Constitution “In The Year of Our LORD.”
Report Post »gofer1
Posted on June 15, 2012 at 12:40amCovering contraception because it’s a “health issue”. BS. Millions of women get pregnant and remain healthy. They try to make pregnancy out to be a disease. Why should somebody else pay for people’s pleasure. If you like to drink, maybe the govt. should pay for anti-hangover drugs. It’s NOT about covering the 9 bucks a month for contraceptives. That’s ridiculous. Health plans already pay for contraceptives in cases where they are indicated for health reasons, not pregnancy prevention. So it’s much bigger agenda. It’s about control.
Every pro-abortion person should be forced to watch an abortion, especially a late-term, because if you can and it doesn’t tear out your heart, you are a sociapath. They use terms like pro-choice, an privacy to numb their own conscious about the reality of a human life being destroyed. Why are they so opposed to counseling, screenings and sonograms. They don’t want them to choose, unless it’s death. They also avoid the fact that most PP clinics are in minority neighborhoods. Look at all the Pro-choice groups and check the racial make-up. They are no different than Sanger and her views of getting rid of the “undesirables.”
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:46pmOf course many more religions have signed a statement in support of Obama’a policies.
Report Post »Keep you religious ideology out of governrment.
Bill30097
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:54pmBernbart is a certifiable idiot as the issue is getting govt out of religion. Bernbart has it completely backwards. Typical progtard.
Report Post »jwt
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:56pmwhole thing a waste of time. the followers of the lord could care less what the gov does, as it belongs to this world
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:03pmBern only adds stupidity to inequity with a comment praising Religions that agree with Marxism on one hand while misrepresenting separation of those that don’t.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:25pmAlso a Hospital and University are not Churches. Neither the customers or employees of both institutions are exclusive of anhy one religion. This is not a religious dispute, but an employee rights issue. The Church are looking to control the morality of their employees. Should a jewish employer deny salary to an employee who will use that money to buy non-kosher food?
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:53pm@encinom
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:25pm
Also a Hospital and University are not Churches. Neither the customers or employees of both institutions are exclusive of anhy one religion. This is not a religious dispute, but an employee rights issue. The Church are looking to control the morality of their employees. Should a jewish employer deny salary to an employee who will use that money to buy non-kosher food
Dude, you really have no clue. If you don’t want to work for a company that is of any particular faith, you have many other options. Christian churches support and raised those christian hospitals out of the ground on the funding of not the governement, but, the funding of christian supporters. YOU are telling the folks we should “comply” with your belief. Sounds exactly opposite of your church and state argument. Your church is athiesm. I wish to have nothing to do with it. Please go get your job and health care with the many institutions who offer those services you deem important. Let the folks who care to offer health care on their dime under their philsophy do so as they deem. This is now the new argument of separation of church and state. And it will come out that it’s not the state deems their is no church. Even the supreme court is going to have to tuck tail and strike down Obamma care. It will happen.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:14pmENCINOM
I answered you on the Carrie Underwood article
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:59pm@Codes
You do realize, that between tax breaks, grants and through other programs Christian Hospitals and Universities recieve millions in local, state and federal funding.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 12:20am@encinom
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 11:59pm
@Codes
You do realize, that between tax breaks, grants and through other programs Christian Hospitals and Universities recieve millions in local, state and federal funding
Encimnon. Sure do. And now you progressives are messsing it all up. The game is on and we will see what happens when the government chooses to take over charity. Gee, Golly…does the current issues with europe give you a clue?
Report Post »christianUSA
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:45pmOpinion: While it great that these church groups are standing up in protest for their groups and worker it is sad not to see more like 10000s of churches and groups protesting and what about the freedom rights of individual Christians forced into subsidizing abortion etc? Christian time to stand up and protest and change people minds of so many things this administration and liberals are forcing on US that are game life changers!
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:55pmContraception is NOT abortion, and the government is NOT subsidizing abortion.
Report Post »Both the use of contracdption and abortion are protected by the Right to Privacy in the U.S.Constitution.
Fearnone
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:04pmBernbart, Please familiarize yourself with the U. S. Constitution. There is no mention of “Both the use of contracdption and abortion are protected by the Right to Privacy”, as you say it.
Report Post »Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:48pmBernbart, show me where in the Constitution it mentions contraception or abortion. It isn’t there. So you think abortion is protected by the right of privacy? So if you think a child can be murdered in private, then you must also think you can also murder an adult in private.
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 3:02pmSame of line of reasoning. The constitution does not say (fill in the blank). Of course the constitution does not say “Separation of church and state”. Of course the constitution does not say there is a right to contraception, or abortion, or…or…or…
These rights have been granted through interpretation of the constitution by the supreme court. These rights are no longer theory. As a result of the supreme court, they are REALITY.
When you get on the supreme court, you can argue your case to eliminate those rights. Until then, stop ignoring the supreme court, except when it suits your argument.
BTW, here’s a little bit about the supreme court ruling on privacy, contraception, etc.
The first Supreme Court decision to fully articulate the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that the right to privacy included the right for married couples to use contraceptives. In Griswold, Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have “penumbras,” or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating “zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one’s detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:45pmNo religion has the right to inject their religious ideology into government policies. The Constitution forbids it. This is a Democracy, not a theocracy. Women can decide based on their own values and conscience whether to use contraception or not, and if they do use it should be available through their health plans. No body is forcing anyone to use it.
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:05pmBernbart- you are what we call an idiot. The goverment is crossing the line by trying to impose on the church not the other way around. And the. Goverment does pay for abortions by giving funds to planned parenthood to use as they please.
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:06pm@Bernbart. I agree no religeous group should demand government policy based upon their faith. I’m o.k. with that. May I ask you a question though? Suppose you owned a business and would like to operate it within your faith based belief. That seems to me to be very reasonable as long as it did not break any law. Health care is not a right. Choosing an employer who wil provide you the compensation and benefits you would like would appear to be a choice. I’m all for choice. If the individual does not like the compensation package or the benefit package, they can choose to find employment elsewhere. There are plenty of companies that don’t worry about the issues that you find petty. You could go to work for them. It seems to me though that you are trying to get everyone through the use of government to conform to your standards, which is exactly which you are arguing against.
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:10pmYou’re right! And the separation of church and state which isn’t in the constitution but sighted so regularly was established by Jefferson as a means to keep government out of religion. So it goes both ways.
Also, your argument about abortion being legally protected is true, but wasn’t slavery and prohibition also legally protected at one time? Doesn’t mean the law is correct, killing is wrong on almost every level.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:38pmNever has there been a weaselier neologism than when “faith-based“ began to be substituted for ”religious.”
Report Post »CatholicConservative
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:34pmGlad to see the unity; we’re all in this together now.
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:09pmJust wished more catholics didn’t vote for Obama. I know a lot of catholics that are pro gay and pro abortion. They need to change and turn back to God this is. About more than a stupid mandate it is about right vs wrong.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 1:06amATHOLICCONSERVATIVE. I agree, being United we atand a better chance.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:31pmSo, the religious right doesn’t want the government to define what a faith group is or what their beliefs should be. On the other hand, they have absolutely no problem with the idea that THEY should define what a faith group is, which ones are acceptable, and which beliefs and morality we should all subscribe to. Hypocracy, anyone?
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:47pmRight.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:58pmWelcome to the Blaze. You probably cost Ron Paul dozens of votes. Good job!!!!
Report Post »Fearnone
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:06pmWhat are you spiking your KoolaAid with RealLib?
Report Post »Fearnone
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:16pmHere is some hipocrisy for you RealLib: “We are blessed to live in a nation that counts freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion among its most fundamental principles, thereby ensuring that all people of good will may hold and practice their beliefs according to the dictates of their consciences.” The speaker of those words was Barack Obama.
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:20pmReallibertarian and Bernbart: You’re right! Let’s have the government or man decide what is morally correct and right. That will work. MANBLA can have their right to abuse boys legalized, bestiality can be legalized because some farmers might be attracted to their sheep and who am I to say, I’m just a guy living far from any farmers.
This is where your argument really falls apart. Laws in just about every country are based on the morality and laws established by God. You can deny it all you want but it’s fact. And this country’s laws in particular were establish on biblical law. That you can deny but it’s been proven over and over again. So tell me again where your form of law comes from and how that works.
Separation of church and state was defined to keep the government out of church affairs. If you don’t believe it I suggest you pick up a book and read.
Report Post »RealLiibertarian
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:26pm@Chips1- I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, he’s not a real libertarian, so I don’t care.
Report Post »@Fearnone- I’m also not an Obama supporter, so his comments don’t affect me. Why would I be drinking spked koolaid? Because I believe that all religions are equal and all have exactly the same rights to exist and no right whatsoever to demand primacy?
Fearnone
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:03pmTired of Code Names, you sure got that right!
Report Post »Fearnone
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:09pmNot sure why you are drinking spiked KoolAid, you are the only one who knows that. I was just pointing out true hypocrisy with a factual quote, not some generic hypocritical assumption that you used. BTW, the only religious group that I am aware of that declares primacy is Islam, yes?
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 1:32amYou serve your god and I will serve mine okay. Nuff said
Report Post »akabosan
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:28pm“…pleas for further religious exemptions”
What happened to the first amendment of the constitution? Was it “exempted?”
GB
Report Post »bernbart
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 8:51pmThe first Amendment put a Separation between Church and State. Religion can practice as their religion freely, but they cannot impose their religious beliefs on government policies.. Besides The use of contraception is a woman’s choice..not the church’s. Contraception coverage is essential to woman’s health.
Report Post »Fearnone
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:10pmBerbart, please reread the 1st Amendment and come back when you get the actual meaning.
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:25pmBernbart: So if I‘m the manager of a Hooters I can elect to not hire a woman that I deem doesn’t fit my profile of one that would look good for my establishment. If I run a casino I can fire a waitress that put on too much weight because she doesn’t properly represent my casino. I could go on but the point is that the church can elect to not cover contraception and the employee can elect to work somewhere else. What’s so hard about that?
Report Post »Tired of Code Names
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 9:26pm@Fearnone. Please have sympathy for Bernbart. Probably had parents who paid 32K a year for him to go to the blue faces to learn something. He could prehaps read the 1st. Amendment and even if he could pronounce the words, I’m guessing he has no idea what they mean. That’s why he has to go back to what the government tells him to believe. He‘s not smart enough to comprehend he’s being duped. Ooops should not have used such a big word like duped. I should have said “being taken advantage of”. Oooops advantage is a big word. I’ll have to find something with fewer letters in it. The last time I used my conservative math, “used” has fewer letters in it than “duped”.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on June 13, 2012 at 10:35pmBernbrt does not understand what it means…. in a nutshell.
—- no matter what he wants to happen, that filthy fuhrer-wannabe obama and his administration cannot tell us we have to be muslims and he cannot make America into a muslim nation. but we can choose to be muslims IF we want [ugg]……….
AND, we can practice our religions and display its sympbols anywhere we want, for example, around our necks and at city councils saying prayers before meetings and school graduation invocations and on banners in schools and on hilltops ETC ETC ETC.
Report Post »