There has been no shortage of commentary and opinion about the HHS rule that would require religiously affiliated charities, universities, and hospitals to provide health insurance plans to their employees that include contraceptives and abortifacients free of charge to their plan enrollees.
The most vocal critic of this rule has been the Catholic church, which took the step of distributing and reading a very critical letter of this policy from the pulpit, and stating firmly that the Church cannot and will not comply with this law. The basis of this objection is that such a regulation would compel the Church to purchase something which is repugnant to its stated doctrine which has been it’s doctrine for centuries, and by its very nature, makes it complicit in something that it regards as a sin.
This predictably drew criticism ranging from the sublime to the idiotic, depending upon the personal prejudices of the critic. One such criticism is that “the Church is out of touch with its own followers, since 98% of Catholic women use birth control.” Putting aside the source and veracity of the statistic (including the reason for gathering the data and the methodology used in doing so), it misses a fundamental point about Catholicism: It is not a democracy. This is a point not considered by those who spend a great deal of time criticising religion without understanding it. At the heart of judeo-christian philosophy is the idea that man is an imperfect creature that while cast in the image of his creator is none the less prone to sin. The Church exists to address this condition, and to offer correction and guidance in overcoming sin. It could no more abdicate this duty and adopt the belief that since a majority of its female parishioners take birth control, that it must be correct any more than a responsible parent could conclude that ice cream and cake would make an excellent breakfast for their children simply because it is what the children would make for themselves if given the opportunity.
Of course, my favorite outburst so far was from a colleague in the blogging world who has some very strong feelings on the subject:
Did you get that? Nothing is being imposed…except for a rule that requires the Church to be complicit in behavior it finds abhorrent for religious reasons. And since he believes the doctrine to be “ignorant”, the government obviously should be ignoring it, and implementing it NOW. Why is the doctrine “ignorant”? Because it ignores “modern science”. But that phrase in and of itself implies an important truth: that science is not static. Anyone who has made an even semi-serious study of the history of science knows that its “truths” often come with an expiration date. After all, it was once modern scientific fact that the earth was flat, that the planets revolved around it, that life spontaneously generated, and that phlogiston was present in everything that was flammable and was release when those materials were burned. Illnesses were caused by bad humors that could be excised by bleeding the patient. Species developed unique characteristics because they willed it to be so.
Now I’m not a Luddite, and I am grateful for what man’s intelligence has drawn from scientific inquiry and experimentation. Whether it is antibiotics, materials sciences, or harnessing the power of numbers and revolutionizing everything in our lives by applying the binary paradigm of digitization, our lives are better for the application of science. But it is not sustenance for the soul, nor should it ever be used as a cudgel to beat the submission of one’s conscience into conformity with the best laid plans of technocrats.
The third argument that has been deployed against the religious resistance to this regulation is the argument that contraceptives are a “right”. It is the most facially compelling argument, as long as one doesn’t dwell too much on it, because doing so requires the hearer to define what is a right, and why contraceptives fit the definition, and then the implications of such a statement.
What is the origin of this “right”? Does a man or a woman in a state of nature have a right to contraceptives that are “free”? Of course not. This “right” is only conditioned upon the government being beneficent with other people’s money, which is the essence of the modern state’s beneficence. That recognized, this “right” is nothing of the sort, and is at best, a privilege, which is subject to revocation by the same government which conferred it in the first place.
That said, there are true rights at stake, and it very much IS a First Amendment issue. I have read the assertions that freedom of religion or the free exercise clause is not implicated in this scenario, because the Church chose to provide medical services, education, and charitable assistance to those who are not members of the Church, and that in doing so, they have “intruded” on the territory of the secular world, and should therefore be subject to its mandates. This is a seductive rationale, especially for those who are know nothing of Christianity, or are hostile to it, because they are incapable of seeing the provision of medical care, of providing an education, or of providing charitable assistance to the needy as the very expression of that faith, and in keeping with the example set by Christ himself, and consistent with his commandments to the individual believers, and their corporate bodies. These activities are undertaken as ministries, and to be the face and works of Christ to a world which Christians believe need him. Those who believe that this is not about the practice of religion fail to see that these are the works commanded by a savior who knew that not all who received what he had to give would be changed, but that did not and should not change the will and desire to give anyway. Christianity is not a religion that can be practiced within the walls of the church alone; it is not something that gets turned on at 9 am Sunday morning, and turned off again when you leave the parking lot. There is, however, another nuanced point that is being ignored in this controversy. This regulation offends a right that is fundamental to every right recognized and guaranteed in the First Amendment: The right of conscience.
If man does not possess the right of conscience, then he is not free to speak as he pleases. If he does not possess the right to report the events that he wishes to report on. If he does not possess the right of conscience, then he does not possess the right to worship as he pleases, or not at all if that is what he would chose. If he does not have the right of conscience, then he has no right to assemble with those who share his beliefs. If he has no right of conscience, he does not have the right to bring his complaints to the government. He who has no right of conscience does not have these rights, his very thoughts, which are also necessary to these rights, are subject not to him, but to the state which so enlists him into its service.
I know that it is not a subject often discussed these days, and that worship of the state while pretending at neutrality is much more in vogue than the free exercise of religion, but this freedom of conscience was recognized by the men responsible for limiting the power of government with respect to the exercise of religion, including Thomas Jefferson, who recognized that religion was necessary for society as a source of morals, but that it was dangerous to have conditions that would allow one sect to have favor and power over the others.
The fact is the federal government is trying to force Christian religious institutions to compromise their beliefs as they practice their faith in various ministries that use church members and non-church members alike in the service of the God they subscribe to. This suborns their conscience, and enslaves it to the desire of government to provide a product that has been speciously and facetiously referred to repeatedly as a “right”, with the apparent belief that the very real rights of conscience and free exercise of religion must yield to a privilege that will be afforded only as long as the state desires to compel others to provide it. Whether or not you are a person of faith, and whether or not you have any respect or love for the Catholic or any other church, you are a fool not to see that if the right of conscience central to the exercise of enumerated rights must give way to the dictates and desires of the federal government, then NO enumerated right is safe, and ”We the People” are little more than “We the Serfs”.
Excellently well put, Biw. Congratulations.
For my part, the question has always been Why? My first assessment was that it’s a trial balloon, to see how much trashing of Constitutionally guaranteed rights the Obamunists can get away with. But just this morning, another factor has come to light, which suggests that the moving force behind this obscenity isn’t Barack Hussein Obama himself, but one of his chief lieutenants.
How will this affect the November elections? Especially with Romney, a defender of State-mandated and supervised medical insurance, as the probable nominee?
Excellent BIC. Best yet that I have read here. Fabulous,in fact.
And those will note, as you tacitly stated, that most of these defenders of HHS, in what is clearly an infringement upon the very first Amendment, almost to a man or woman are the ones who selectively demand “choice” in issues conveniently and selectively applied. And their basis is nothing other than their own pitiful understanding of our true roots which invariably leads to the unfounded arrogance of them deeming just themselves worthy to decide right from wrong – with no other guiding principles other than their own opinion or emotion based without any sound reasoning besides it appears right in their own eyes.
But when their prior demands of a wall of separation becomes inconvenient, without debate the demand for separation can be conveniently dismissed, and the only choice becomes their determination and dictates of a monolithic national conscience (public education & Obamacare come to mind).
That is thuggery. That is slavery. That is totalitarianism.
I do not exaggerate when I say this. What you have witnessed from HHS and its lackeys from the Left and the media…
…is an enormous step toward a path that has given rise to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Marxism, sharia law. Clear thinking people, those whose guiding principles have stood the test of time believing our rights endowed by a Creator and not mortal man, should innately understand the inherent and grave nature of not rejecting immoral law before the habit becomes routine. Because we ourselves have become lax, decadent and apathetic and all have witnessed those fruits the last 60 plus years.
The cultural rot, the moral decay and decimation of parental responsibility and family, the dependency and sloth, the general breakdown of norms where conscience has been determined by no amorality, or a few of unelected members empowered either by twisting of law and fiat, or simply the strong arming by repetitive argument of elite and media (gay marriage and abortion).
Put another way, Mrs. Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
When theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution, we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” –Justice Curtis, Dissent, Dred Scott v. Sanford
I pray for our nation that we as Christians, Protestant and Catholic, religious Jews who were granted our freedom by birthright and have take much for granted, or simply those seeking liberty free from tyranny, have the fortitude to say to this overreaching government, “you have gone too far” and a line must been drawn. We have ourselves to blame and have taken too many backward steps, granted too much leniency, whimpered but not fought, allowed all government to run roughshod over our desire for representation for too long.
If we don’t, and it pains me to even think of this and state it publicly, and I sincerely mean that: we are not worthy of the rights, and the wisdom, and the liberty, and the freedom that God granted us through the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers.
Oops…give me liberty or give me a preview key (because my proofreading sucks until it seems it hits the big screen):
Determined by amorality….
It would actually seem to be more pernicious than just forcing subsidiaries of churches to comply with what is clearly an abrogation of the establishment clause.
Many of the regulations the Fed imposes start with a very small number of employees(25 to 50 usually). What becomes of the devout. whose connection to the church is as a parishioner, if they employ more employees than the safe harbor amount. Are they then going to be forced to violate their conscience?
Obamacare is all inclusive and nothing to do with receiving government funds it is going to apply to all that it lays claim to. And as this ruling is pursuant to the implementation of Obamacare it is part of the illegitimate Wilsonian delegation of legislative authority that is inherent in the debacle. That also brings up the idea of government funds. What will that include? Medicare payments? Payments for other goods and services needed in the normal course of operations or just extra ordinary funding like grants and loans?
My second point is you may have “right” to contraception but that does not impose a concomitant responsibility on me to provide it for you.
It is incumbent upon the right holder to have the wherewithal to exercise his so-called rights. In no case is it your “right” to make a claim on anything I own in order to exercise your “right”. My duty is to not interfere with your “right”. The fact that I refuse to subsidize you cannot intelligently be reasoned as being such interference.
Excellent post BiC.
I’m still struggling with the concept of contraception being deemed “health care” (i.e. preventing and curing illness) let alone a right to have it paid for by someone else.
Maybe there exists some unexplored “right” to have sex itself or maybe free recreational drugs?
Tigre,
You’re struggling with contraception being deemed health care, and I am struggling with Obama and Sebelius’ definition of ‘religious organization.’
Mass services are ‘religious’ but Catholic Charities and , as deemed by praefectus morum Kathleen Sebelius, are not. Caesar Obama was pleased.
Have any of you read this. Let Sir Charles Krauthammer explain why…
religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” properly rendered up unto Caesar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-obama/2012/02/09/gIQAngvW2Q_story.html
Rutherford used to get extremely frustrated with my empirical data continually showing liberalism was a mental disease.
Now I’ve got written proof even he can’t dispute! Damn David Brock, head lackey of George Soros and Obama, is bipolar.
Don’t need to be psych M.D. to figure that much out after reading this….
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/
I swear, liberals are sick SOBs. If they weren’t so vile, fascist and physically nasty, their pitiful personal lives might garner a bit of sympathy from me. But I’m afraid their rabid nature means they just need to be collectively euthanized. There is no for their malady.
There is no treatment for their malady….gad…(but death).
El Tigre hints at one of my main problems with the mandate. The Left screeching that failing to provide, free of charge, contraceptives is somehow a harmful act.
No. Pregnancy is NOT A DISEASE. It is a natural state.
Sorry to go O.T. BIC, but tell me if by parodying the Left, in actuality the producers have pegged the Left.
When you close your eyes and just listen, the guy could actually substitute for NBC News or MSNBC Pravda and never miss a beat with its listeners.
Man do I hate to weigh in here, clearly a minority of one on this blog, but since I was quoted in the main post and referred to in comments, here goes. Thoughts in no particular order:
When I first heard a Cardinal make reference to the “pregnancy as sickness” meme, I got pissed off and called him a fool. But in between rants during the past week, I’ve been giving these matters lots of thought. Our rhetoric regarding health care vis-a-vis pregnancy IS off kilter and subject to distortion. Pregnancy is not an illness. Contraception cannot be viewed as preventive from an illness perspective. If it is, then we have indeed lost our way.
However, pregnancy is a natural state that the consensus of Americans believe should be controlled. Look around you and you will see the days of Catholic women having ten or eleven children in the course of their lives is over. To believe these women have greatly reduced the incidence of intercourse is to be incredibly naive.
Pregnancy, or not being pregnant, certainly has an impact on the health of the woman. I’m not saying pregnant women are unhealthy. I’m saying they are in an unusual state of health that requires medical scrutiny for the benefit of mother and child. So in my long-winded way, I am saying contraception does indeed belong in the realm of health care. (Mind you, I’ve set aside the obvious case where contraception is being used to treat a pathology such as over-productive periods. In that case, it is indeed preventive.)
Should female contraception be free? I don’t see any reason why it should, any more than a box of condoms should be free. Granted, prescribed contraception is expensive. Should insurance companies subsidize it? I see no reason why they shouldn’t. But it needn’t be completely free.
BiW quoted me from a comment I made in the thread of a post but he neglected to deal with the main premise of my post, which I still stand by.
When an entity enters the secular sphere to perform services in that sphere they should be subject to the rules of that secular sphere, I would NEVER advocate the government dictating the content of sermons. I would NEVER advocate the government compelling anyone to use birth control against their religious beliefs. Those are encroachments upon religious freedom.
But when a Catholic hospital or a Catholic university (that teaches a predominantly secular curriculum … ie, not a convent) employs people of many faiths to serve people of many faiths then they must engage by the same rules as any other entity engaged in commerce. Is it not also true that many of these institutions receive some federal funding? That also makes them hardly exclusively religious entities.
Let us take an absurd example to try get my point across. Would we as a society tolerate a Jehovah’s Witness run hospital that refused to give blood transfusions to their patients? Would denying accreditation to such a hospital violate the establishment clause?
The First Amendment protects the church from the secular world mucking things up in their realm. It does not, in my estimation, give them a free pass to muck things up in the secular realm.
Not much to add to Rutherford’s predictable and incoherent conclusions about religious vs. secular since Rutherford has admitted on numerous occasions he neither: (1) Understands religion nor (2) Understands faith.
However, Rutherford does provide a classic example of the type of liberal ingrate and Obama servant that doesn’t understand a Catholic hospital is not secular by definition. Undoubtedly, the crosses contained on and within the Catholic hospitals are some sort of pagan symbolism of Baal Government like Obama’s regime.
Rutherford’s limited understanding is what Charles Krauthammer accurately referred to as “religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire”, never understanding a Catholic hospital is an extension of Catholic faith and works.
Well, I do understand religion and such. Many various sects have beliefs that run contrary to popular opinions. That’s fine, some of them are borderline mental illness level, but opinions are opinions. Also, opinions are what folks call “faith”. It’s just another opinion. Now, Catholic hospitals take all kinds of patients including those whose payment source is from the government. They are not allowed to discriminate either in their admission policies or in their operation of the cafeteria. Why? Because rules that apply to businesses apply to them when they are conducting business. Gee. If their pet opinions tell them to care for the sick, fine, but when they bill for it, it’s no longer the practice of their religion, it’s just another business. I just got out of a Catholic Hospital and not long afterwards received a notice from Medicare of how much they were billed for my care and how much they paid. A business is a business is a business.
When an entity enters the secular sphere to perform services in that sphere they should be subject to the rules of that secular sphere
And
But when a Catholic hospital or a Catholic university (that teaches a predominantly secular curriculum … ie, not a convent) employs people of many faiths to serve people of many faiths then they must engage by the same rules as any other entity engaged in commerce. Is it not also true that many of these institutions receive some federal funding? That also makes them hardly exclusively religious entities.
Aside from the fact that you obviously didn’t read paragraph 9 very carefully, this shows first a bias in assuming that everyone considers the world divided into secular and non-secular spheres of sovereignty. I can assure you that for committed Christians, this is not true, and any careful study of both history and law will reveal that it is the state which has fostered this worldview in an effort to justify its ever-growing reach into the lives of man. Of course, if you were to ask yourself the question “Why does the Catholic Church do these things to begin with? And why did they do these things before government decided to bloat and insert itself more and more often into the practice of these various activities?” then you might start to understand just how much you have approached the analysis backwards. Ok, maybe not you, because your own antireligious bias is the redwood in your eye, but an honest and objective person could probably realize that the notion of religion’s “intrusion” into the secular realm ignores history, law, and logic. After all, there is something sadly funny about a Harvard Grad talking about a university teaching “secular” subjects. Even if one were to accept the notion that a subject were purely “secular”, again, the obvious question would be to ask why that is…or who pushed whom out of a particular subject.
Let us take an absurd example to try get my point across. Would we as a society tolerate a Jehovah’s Witness run hospital that refused to give blood transfusions to their patients? Would denying accreditation to such a hospital violate the establishment clause?
Let’s take an example so absurd as to be a David Gregory question.
Seriously, WHY would Jehovah’s Witnesses run a hospital to begin with?
Because, like the Catholics, they wish to do good works.
*facepalm*
While we’re on the subject of other religions running hospitals…
BiW and Tex, I understand the notion of doing good works. EJ Dionne, a lib pundit whom I assume you both dislike, talks about the good works of the Catholic church and suggests a certain ingratitude on the part of those who would meddle with these good works.
I counter with, does the good Samaritan get to operate without rules? Does the nobility of one’s purpose exempt them from rules that everyone else has to follow?
And Tex … please explain to me, other than the numerous crosses on the walls, how a Catholic hospital differs from a non-Catholic one. Do they practice some sort of “Catholic medicine” with which I am unfamiliar?
I’m not familiar with the term Catholic medicine, other than the fact that apparently these Catholic hospitals don’t agree with your take that the practice of medicine and health care should include the choice of infanticide or “be yet barren and not multiply” like your publicly funded hospitals?
However, I am familiar with the term private foundation or trust – as in, they provide the facility, facilitate the services, are non profit, and oversee the facility, usually administered under the executive authority of the sponsoring convent.
But let me ask you a question in return, Einstein. If these Catholic Churches are ultimately public entities and under secular guidelines, and under jurisdiction of your bloated and benevolent federal government, why is it that the ACLU hasn’t intervened to remove those “abominable” crosses, chapels, altars, pictures of Christ and Mary by now – and would not accept say a red crescent when demanded?
Perhaps until now, the Anti Christian Litigation Unit felt it had no legal basis to do so maybe?
Well, you basically answered my question. With the exception of contraception and abortion, these hospitals are little different from their non-religious counterparts.
You’ve tossed “public” and “secular” into the same brew. I’m not sure I ever referred to a Catholic hospital as “public”. It would be pretty absurd in my judgment to tell a Catholic hospital not to display crosses. Kinda like prohibiting waiters at a Mexican restaurant from wearing sombreros.
Still I don’t understand why you don’t get the distinction between a hospital and a church and why the latter might be expected to enjoy greater independence from government regulation than the former.
Hum. Let’s see. A hospital that is owned by and operated by a government entity is a “public” facility. A hospital that is owned by and operated by a corporation of some type and serves the public is required to follow a whole ton of government regulations including equal access/non-discrimination, taxes, various licensing regulations, public health regulations, on and on. A landlord who has serious religious beliefs against cohabitation of unmarried persons cannot refuse to rent to an unmarried couple based on his religion. He is therefore providing a venue for activity he considers severely sinful, thus violating his conscience.
There is a very large can of worms here, and providing medical group insurance following governmental regulations for such seems to fall into the same category as the landlord above.
I can only assume that you don’t know many Jehovah’s Witnesses, or much about their doctrine aside from their aversion to blood transfusions, or else you wouldn’t have attempted to use that analogy.
However, it seems to me that this only becomes an issue if such an institution existed in the first place, and if it stayed open long enough for the question to be answered in a legal challenge. But between you and me, I don’t see a hospital that won’t perform a blood tranfusion staying open very long. Until Obamacare finshes driving the flight of providers from the practice of medicine, people still have choices, and considering just how many potential procedures would include a blood transfusion, the treatment options in such an institution would be severely limited.
The same cannot be said of an institution that will not give away abortafacients or contraceptives, as a faith-based limitation on the care it provides.
As for the rest of the “good works” question, I’ve all but drawn crayon pictures of explanation for you.
But between you and me, I don’t see a hospital that won’t perform a blood transfusion staying open very long.
And if they did wish to run such a hospital, why not? What business is it of the FEDERAL government how any organization runs its institutions?
It’s not. It is only through the perversion of the Commerce Clause that we can be having this conversation.
While I know that hospital standards are outside the venue of the FDA, I am curious Xbradtc if you think the FDA should be abolished. No where in the Constitution does it say the Fed should oversee food and drug safety. So are you fine with killing that?
Is there any protection other than military that you think the Fed should provide?
R, sorry I’ve been away.
I think you can make a reasonable argument that the FDA does fall under the guises of the commerce clause. That is, that SOME federal oversight of both food and drugs can be justified. Whether it is a good idea or not, as currently established, and whether sufficient protections are in place to curb the bureaucratic imperative, is another argument.
I can think of any number of roles for the federal government. But I also believe the the “mission creep,” if you will, of the government has gone too far, too long.
You know Rutherford, and I sincerely mean this: I need to retract some of the flattering comments I have made to you in the past. At one time I considered you a somewhat formidable and serious opponent. It’s been quite a while now since I thought that, but more recent that I’ve come to loathe you and your political hedonism which you currently traffic in at your blog. I suppose there is no limits.
I have appreciated your letting me partake in the neighborhood bar freely and without editing, with R.L. at one time attracting the interesting clientele. Now it more resembles something from Caligula’s reign, and why I chose to no longer be party to it. The inability to reason with any degree of moral clarity, understand similarity or contradiction, and the inability to think critically all contribute to a major shortcoming of yours.
If ownership of private trusts, equipment and governing staff, and personal purview of conscience are to be rendered meaningless unless approved by a governmental body, I suppose you’re right.
Surprisingly, you’re really supporting my above arguments here and the previous thread about your profound ignorance of the sound reasoning of the Establishment Clause and free exercise. Since I know you’re not a stupid man, I assume it is the fact you were raised in a nihilistic household replete with religious bigotry and no introduction of even basic children’s Jewish/Christian doctrine which has stunted your understanding as an adult.
I’ll play along. I am sure you do equate priestly robes, convents, altars and sacraments to a restaurant marketing ploy. I hope you in return can also understand why I consider you of all people an inadequate representative firmly entrenched in the nanny camp to discuss the merits of this very important issue – why the Sebelius mandate is such an unconstitutional misuse and abuse of power.
I get a distinction in that government funding pays for some minimum of the services rendered by the hospital, through Medicaid and Medicare, by necessity. Even our bloated government can not possibly provide the necessary scope and specialization of health care coverage to cover 309,000,000 citizens and 1/6 of the economy without assistance, though Obamacare is a large step toward hostile government takeover of healthcare. That worries me a little (a lot) being our present government can’t even formulate a budget over a 1,000 days, or create a tax code everyone can understand, or deliver mail effectively with reasonable cost, or doesn’t understand the dangers of $4.2 billion per debt accumulation, per day.
But I can say the same thing to you. About how government dictating against the basic precepts of Catholic doctrine is not only an egregious breach of the very first Amendment, the “golden rule” of the Bill of Rights, which clearly limits the federal government in overstepping its powers, but why the precedent you wish to set so dangerous even for your side should you lose an election.
Perhaps if I win the Presidency, I will decide by executive order that all Liberals will bow to the altar of Baal with two straws in their nose and a corncob up their ass, or lose their head.
“The personal purview of conscience.”
Tex, you act as though only Christians struggle with medical ethics. People of conscience of all stripes and colors wrestle with “questionable” medical procedures. Yet, using the First Amendment, we tell Catholic doctors, ‘no need to wrestle with the ethics. You’ve made your ethical decision (or just wholesale signed on to the Vatican dogma) and no one gets to question it.” That doesn’t seem right to me.
Besides, is it not true that charity not freely given is not charity at all? It seems the “good works” of the Catholic church come with a price. “If you don’t share our ideology, you don’t get the care you need/want.” That too seems wrong to me.
P.S. As an aside, you’ve made comments here and at Alfie’s implying some strange change in the mood of my blog. You are free to comment where you wish but I find it odd that you discount the frequent visits by BiW, Gorilla, Tigre and Rabbit. The place has not gone all M&H. None of the newcomers come with the Fat Grannies baggage from my POV. They are either conservative or they straddle the fence. Even Thor shares your faith. The only new voice to be boldly liberal is GypsyKat who has been absent of late. Sorry to go way off topic but I think you do a disservice to your friends back at RL who have supported your ideas for the past four years, to pretend that their voice is no longer heard there.
I can’t make up my mind if you’re so monumentally dumb that you don’t understand the inanity of this statement.
Or are you so devoid of conscience you don’t understand what you are demanding? Or are you this dishonest? Or just blind to your hypocrisy and double standards?
What price? And why would you have a problem with that, even if there was a price? That’s straight out of your big government handbook of taking money and either you getting in line, or you get nothing in return. Obama won, remember? We’ll do it his way, or no way. Ask Texas, who couldn’t get federal assistance during the worst fires in U.S. history last year.
But this has nothing to do with money. It is a matter of free will. You are free to go to any public hospital or Planned Parenthood that will gladly help you and your wife prevent a pregnancy on somebody else dime, or gladly help you and your wife kill your baby in the womb, if that is your wish. This godless, evil regime with its butchers of Planned Parenthood and NARAL have seen to it our national conscience, of which at least half the citizens find not just objectionable but murder, still gets to fund abortions. That was this abominable cretin’s first act as President.
You and men like you are about one step from the Brownshirts of Germany in your demands. Today, I once again read of Obama’s “truth squads” in the street.
You can not operate under the guidelines of the Constitution and demand a religious and charitable hospital begin operating under ethical rules they deem immoral and evil, unless you’re going to abandon the Bill of Rights and adopt Nazi Germany’s policy or Communist China’s policies. Your demands are an anathema to everything this country’s foundations are “supposed” to represent.
This issue, more so than any other, has convinced me that not only is civil war inevitable, but now necessary. I mean that. Our courts can no longer solve these problems because they too are corrupted with reprobate minds.
P.S. – all of the men you have listed know fully well I like them all, and respect their insights and commentary. But if you hadn’t noticed, to a person you named, their presence grew more and more infrequent over the past two years. Since I refuse to even click on your blog anymore, I’ll assume nothing has changed.
Ehhh, wrong.
As for civil war, you’ve truly gone around the bend.
On the question of charitable institutions. What’s the price difference between charitable and for profit? It seems to me that the Catholic hospital room and board bills are about the same as the other hospitals in the area. I wonder where I can get a copy of the financial statements for Catholic Healthcare West, one of the largest corporations in this area running Catholic Hospitals. Catholic hospitals are subject to the same laws and regulations that every other hospital is. Please be clear in your statements about hospitals; it doesn’t matter who owns them, the rules are all the same.
You would be wrong, branded by the same liberal meme with the hot iron to her own ass (like Rutherford). Not even as smart as cattle…
How many Catholic hospitals do you observe facilitating abortion?
In fact, medicine allows quite a bit of discretion not with just conscience, but business. How many doctors do you observe not accepting Medicare or Medicaid patients? Perfectly legal and a matter of personal conscience or preference.
Actually, Tex, it is a breach of the First and Ninth Amendments. But Comissar Rutherford has designated these activities an encroachment upon the secular, which of course makes abbrogation of the Constitution a “moral” imperative.
Like Tex I had to look up the ninth. Why didn’t you throw in the tenth amendment also?
Because I make specfic reference to an identifiable unenumerated right, i.e. the right of conscience, which is consistant with other Ninth Amendment jurisprudence.
By contrast, the Tenth Amendment is almost always implicated in questions regarding state jurisdiction.
I’m ashamed I had to look up the Ninth Amendment.
Speaking of personal weakness, I don’t think I would have cut it as a Constitutional lawyer. 
Perhaps I share more with Mr. Rutherford than I care to admit.
Besides, is it not true that charity not freely given is not charity at all? It seems the “good works” of the Catholic church come with a price. “If you don’t share our ideology, you don’t get the care you need/want.” That too seems wrong to me.
Need??? Seriously???
As for “want”, what you propose is nothing less than being invited to dinner at someone’s home, and expecting that you get to decide what will be served.
I suppose the flip side to charity is beggars can’t be choosers.
Rutherford’s got it completely backwards. You need not share the Catholic church’s ideology to get any of the services the church offers.
It doesn’t offer certain services to anyone, regardless of a person’s belief.
That is absolutely correct, Car. Rutherford surely must not understand that, because I refuse to believe he doesn’t perceive what an abuse this mandate from HHS is. Rutherford has once again caved and put personal decency, honesty and virtue aside (he wasn’t always this way) in defense of politic and coddling of cult of Obama. Any attack on Obama is an attack on Rutherford – this really slanted, peculiar and troubling form of hero worship so many on the Left hold – dupes and groupies.
Being Catholic in a Catholic hospital will not only not grant you access to birth control, it might get you a severe tongue lashing from the Mother Superior for asking, doubling as charge nurse.
You just proved my point. No one needs to go to the hospital to get a sermon. If I want that I’ll go to church. A hospital is there to provide MODERN medical treatments for health matters. And a Catholic hospital provides insurance coverage to employees of many faiths. But yes, I know your answer. If you want your birth control covered by insurance, don’t go work for a Catholic hospital. And if you don’t want to get lectured about Catholic dogma, take your sick ass to another hospital.
Fair conclusion I guess.
Some women are on birth control to regulate their monthly cycles rather than prevent unwanted pregnancies. It most definitely IS a health related issue. Other forms of birth control can be health related. Anything involving sex is definitely related to health, in my view.
Further, I think diet and environment are also health issues.
I have a problem with the government requiring ANYONE to purchase or provide insurance, health or otherwise. I have a problem with government deciding WHAT that coverage should or should not consist of.
I also have a problem with insurance companies as a whole industry, especially in relation to persons of “faith”. What is faith, if not trusting that God will provide and protect in all circumstance and condition?
“We trust you god, but just in case we have ourselves a backup plan,” doesn’t seem to exhibit any REAL faith. True, we can justify any degree of “backup” provision through various references in scripture, mostly from the OT. The hardworking ant and lazy grasshopper story quickly comes to mind. Storing up provision for cold days ahead is often twisted into a justification for hoarding wealth and holding insurance.
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded” is appropriate for our personal accounting with the Father’s provision in our lives. It is an acknowledgement from where all our talents and blessings come, but is not a mandate for others to force us to share those talents and provisions. As always, our own conscience SHOULD prompt us to share those things when the need is presented.
As for Catholic Hospitals or any other sect or religion providing medical facilities to the public, they should be able to offer their employees whatever health plan they choose or none at all. Only the care they provide to their patients should be governed by acceptable medical practice and scrutinized.
I think the law is still such that a health savings plan will meet the insurance requirement. A huge organization like the Catholic Church could easily offer one that would maintain their stated moral convictions and provide coverage for their employees.
I think this latest controversy was a political tact designed to occupy our energies while taking our focus off of other matters of import.
“Some women are on birth control to regulate their monthly cycles rather than prevent unwanted pregnancies. It most definitely IS a health related issue. Other forms of birth control can be health related. Anything involving sex is definitely related to health, in my view.”
Is this what we’re talking about, Poolman? Honestly. Cut the shit.
Pregnancy and children are neither illness nor disease. Under your definition, feminine hygiene products are “health related” yet no one is arguing that insurance companies should pay for them.
Why not lubricants too since “anything involving sex is definitely health relate?” The gay community should insist on it since birth control seems so discriminatory to the non-childbearing.
Any opportunity to pontificate. . .
Since you seemed to have missed the entire point of my post, I will try to clarify it for you:
I do not think government should be involved in deciding what is or is not health related or required coverage by private insurance companies. Period.
And yes, health encompasses more than medicine or pharmaceuticals can and do provide. Health is much more than a physical state.
But go ahead and pontificate…
Thanks for unnecessary opinion then Poolman.
Ditto, Judge Necessary.
Well, if you don;t like my ruling, you’re welcomed to address my comments/questions questions as to the scope of “health care,” Poolman. From what I can tell, you’re point is, “if it can be found at CVS, it’s health care as far as I’m concerned.”
The rest of your comment has been covered here and at R’s.
I think this latest controversy was a political tact designed to occupy our energies while taking our focus off of other matters of import.
Or it was a way to make insurance more difficult for churches to get since the administration’s “Heads I win, tails you lose” compromise requires insurance companies to offer a benefit to their benficiaries that they themselves won’t be paying for.
Or it was a way to cast the Church as a “bad guy” standing between those who want their “free stuff” that Obama promised, and the “stuff” itself.
Or maybe it was all of the above.
Why are we missing who actually benefits from requiring all insurance to cover contraception?
Who is getting cost plus 20?
Who paid to put Obama in the
whinerswinners circlejerk?Oh, Poolman may have a point, though I doubt he steeped enough to recognize its full measure.
I’m willing to concede occasionally, even Poolman gets something right. Of course, that will further muddy the waters and add further proof of why Poolman completely muddled in his perceptions of justifying his vote for Obama not once, but twice – because Ron Paul ain’t and should not be available this go around. Poolman still thinks a great majority of what’s wrong is the Republicans fault, even though President Feckless ran virtually unopposed in setting the agenda for two long years and obviously those agendas have made things substantially worse.
I have no doubt that Barack Obama so empty and devoid of moral decency that he did indeed use this clear infringement as a trial balloon to (1) See how far he can push his malicious transformation into his own image before the blowback; (2) to divert attention from how poorly he has managed the economy, reneging on virtually every promise he made in the 2008 campaign without responsibility.
These reprobates from the Left and the slackers they have festered over 60 years have these delusions that most of America believes and thinks like they do. They’re generally centered in the urban coastal areas and power metropolitan areas but not always, and government power or government dependency is all they know. They are under the illusion that a majority of Americans are simply confused and not enlightened like Europe.
I think these inferior people were once referred to as ‘Bitter Clingers’ off the record. Oops…
That’s one part of comprehensive health care in a Catholic hospital. But it is not the main mission of most. The mission statement of my children’s birth in a Catholic Hospital:
To extend the presence and healing ministry of Christ in all we do.
So if you have any decency left and want to prevent the future charge of hypocrite, you will find another hospital other than a Christian hospital, Catholic or otherwise, when the time comes.
And the time will come, so why don’t you make preparation to go to a nice, secular medical facility for you and your family? And then you can criticize anything affiliated with Christianity and Christ with a clear conscience, without playing gestapo?
Well I must confess that in my old home town I always preferred St. Mary’s Hospital to Waterbury Hospital. Even though the name gave me the willies they always seemed to have their act together a bit more.
There is no end to the thickness of the wall one is banging their head against in discussing a libertarian matter with Rutherford.
Although not as overtly fascist about it all Rutherford DOES accept the right of the government to order you to do something. He and his couch the terms to meet their needs but the end result is the same.
Alfie, I’m not sure I understand why that is so unusual. What we can and cannot do is dictated on a daily basis by laws. Laws are created by the government.
I swear sometimes reading the rants on this blog I wonder if BiW isn’t hosting an online conclave of anarchists.
Since the board offers a wide geographic pool I’m asking:
Does anyone live someplace where the only hospital is run by a religious entity?
I’m spoiled secondary to having hospitals of every stripe available but I’m curious.
I also have to know if Rutherford would object to being unknowingly fed kosher food if he were admitted to a place like Bostons Beth Israel???? Should we alert the feds on that too?
As long as the food tastes good, bring it on! And if Bostons Beth Israel can make good tasting hospital food, so much the better.
No Alfie, I don’t. But in a MSA of 3/4 of a million, the two largest, most prestigious hospitals within proximity are far and away the two large Catholic hospitals in town, both rated in the Top 100 of the nation. The others are either a specialty burn hospital, or those deemed to carry for the indigent and resident training, of which both Catholic hospitals also cover to varying degrees as well.
I would bet that people like Rutherford have no idea the degree, scope, expertise, and influence America’s religious hospitals represent. If they were to suddenly close their doors in principled protest, I can promise that the impact would be enormous and immediate. Though I know it would never come to that (as I am sure these extensions of the church aren’t going to let patients go without care), they could refuse voluntary treatment, elective surgeries, and the like and the impact would still be visibly immediate.
It may come to that, because I don’t see these hospitals willing to back down according to those I’ve spoke.
While I think I know where Alfie is going on this, I’d like him to elaborate a bit more himself before I answer this.
Another graph that I’m sure Rutherford will be proud….
http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/021612geithner1.jpg
Yeah Rutherford. I like the consistency of your hero’s message:
http://thevimh.blogspot.com/2011/12/two-days-180-degrees.html
I ain’t going to let you lie your way out of this one….
To a degree I am near speechless on this all now. I suppose there are those that will say I’m exploring semantics but I simply don’t see it that way.
I’ll concede I’m being nit picky here but that statement actually saddened me. I particularly frowned on how it captured things in the spirit of the subject at hand. Morality,no higher law exists and it is the very thing man now deems necessary to assail. One could put forth quite the treatise on the subject,I shall not try here. I will say if you feel your life terms are being dictated to you daily you might want to rethink your politics.
Evidence of the disconnect here as opposed to anything resembling anarchy methinks. Laws are created by and for the People. When a government exists for itself as opposed to its people you get tyranny & fascism. This is what the USA is experiencing at every level today. Whether it is examples like Central Falls RI or Harrisburg PA,the politics of the Commonwealth of MA (see senate election rules and action ie Warren) to of course the current trending of the Obama Administration and the duplicitous Congress and you realize we are all on the wrong road.
I have appointments to keep today but I hope to return. All I can say is that R you do indeed have a different perspective than I do. On a side my hospital food item was meant to get to the whole choice angle. Consumer choice is freedom and is the great equalizer in a capitalistic society.
Alfie, it is sad — a mindset that is the antithesis of the philosophy that underpins the founding of country.
Worse yet the belief that our freedoms are not inalienable, but rather exist as the product of some failure of government to assume and regulate as if a loophole.
Statism meets utopianism. History replete with evidence of its ultimate outcome — all of it ignored.
Short answer to Rutherford’s quote: He may in fact, be correct, but for all the wrong reasons. If we are talking about “our government”, on the face of it, he is correct. The various legislative bodies write and vote on whether or not to pass said legislation, after that the particular executive branch signs off on it (or not) and it becomes law. (subject to it’ being brought to court on it’s constitutionality). It used to be that in many cases, it was the will of the people, if not from one part of the country, at least from a congressional district, which prompted a congress critter to propose legislation, eventually to become codified into some law or another. For example, Prohibition was not the will of the state, it was the will of a very vocal amount of the citizenry which prompted this to eventually become the law of the land. Yes the “state” enacted it, and enforced it, but it was at least some part of “We the People” who promoted and pushed for this to happen.
If Rutherford is making a blanket statement about all governments past and present, world wide…than he would be wrong. In a straight stick monarchy, for example, the monarch is the one (and ultimately the only one) who can create laws. He is perhaps not the total government, but he is it’s apex. And he is (or she) just a man (divine right or not). Granted he does have the power of “force of arms” to back his wishes, but it is his word which becomes law, and not that of his subjects.
Apologize for the above, if somewhat rambling…five active brain cells and all (And three are on vacation at the moment.)
The question is why are laws created?
The answer, in this country as originally founded is to protect the rights of the citizen. Rights precede law. Law is a means, rights are an end.
However “rights” have been redefined by an increasingly intellectually dishonest left as “commodity”. I have said it before if you have not provided me a good or service you have no claim on my property. Third parties(except for breach of contract or the peace) have no right to determine the adequacy ,means or method in how I and those I contract with exchange value. Once this happens through the dubious doctrine of “compelling state interest” and and compelled to do as the state wishes as opposed to my own wishes, my property has been taken in every logical sense.
We have fundamental documents which ostensibly curtail the power of government and circumscribe the legitimate power to legislate to a few necessary items for the protection of the citizenry and for the betterment of substantially all of the the citizenry. Anything power exercised not enumerated is null. Any law that punishes one group for the benefit of another is patently forbidden(bill of attainder? equal application of the law?). The greatest example of this is the Internal Revenue code both in it’s progressiveness and in it’s clearly established rubric of “social engineering” and specialized payoffs that often cover the self dealing of government officials(Did you ever wonder why much of what is in the code takes effect at such odd dates as opposed to the beginning and ending of a fiscal year? It is to cover certain transaction by government officials or their patrons.)
Extra have no legitmate legal operation other than the chutzpah and mendacity willing to be engaged in by those who usurp said power and the cowardice and pusillanimity of those being wronged. It is the personification of might makes it right.
The point you’ve been evading all along, Rut, is this: Genesis 1:3-4 does not say, “And God said, let there be Government, and there was Government. God saw that the Government was good, and he separated the Government from the darkness.” As God’s law pre-dates government law by at least several millennia, so Catholic hospitals, along with those formed by numerous other religious denominations and secular charitable entities, pre-date government intrusion into health-care decision-making by at least several decades.
It is government that has usurped the free expression of Catholic religious faith here, not the Church abrogating government imperatives. And don’t you dare argue that the Catholic church’s moral prerogative impinges on the “rights” of patients or employees. Catholic hospitals are by no means a monopoly: Adventists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews and, yes, even governments also run hospitals. Americans remain completely free to reject Catholic teaching in this regard by avoiding Catholic hospitals altogether when considering where they receive health care and where they offer their services in the form of labor.
If so-called “progressives” can simply ignore the First Amendment’s restrictions on government as mere inconveniences standing in the way of their imaginary “rights,” then you socialists might as well be honest about it and toss the entire Constitution on to the ash heap of history. Which is, in fact, precisely what Uuhhhbama is doing right now with this fraudulent abomination he dares call a “compromise.”
Bravo!!!!
I missed this point, and as such, you are correct sir! Our “inalienable rights” are granted to us by divine providence, not by man … be it King or Congress. And as such, there is no government of and by man which has the “right” to remove or abridge same. That (the collective) we have allowed this to happen, to some greater or lesser degree, is to me a slap in the face to He who has afforded us these rights in the first place.
That we all have free will, is perhaps why this is allowed to go on as long as it has. And that these rights are applicable to all men, whether they believe in the Judio-Christian God, are Hindu, Buddhist, or even Muslim, or believe in nothing at all … and yet would freely seek to have restrictions placed on same, not by God, but by men … amazes and saddens me to no end.
Rutherford,
I am surprised that you put hospitals and universities in the secular realm. Are you not aware that for several centuries, both hospitals and universities were the exclusive province of the church. If you are considering disregarding this as just the ravings of some religious fanatic, I am a confirmed and openly avowed atheist, one who actually believes there is no deity, not the “atheist” that worships at the altar of the Holy State. And also I find that government requiring a church to provide a service that the church considers sinful to be a gross violation of the First Amendment. I also fully support the right of those who believe differently about the existence of deity to do so unmolested.
The part that surprises me about Rutherford’s conclusions concerning what is clearly a violation of First Amendment, is that Rutherford doesn’t understand the inherent danger government infringing on religion freedom could play if he suddenly found himself on the other side of the coin.
Unlike my Christian God, who gives you ample opportunity to either except or reject worship and in fact his covenants define free will, history has shown many times mortal man not so lenient.
While Rutherford hates everything of Christianity, and even believes it seeking to establish a theocracy here in America, Rutherford is definitely on board in his defense of sharia law and the right of Islam to practice freely and without restraint, failing to understand sharia law is by definition a theocracy.
I can only surmise from a young age, Rutherford was indoctrinated with a legacy of hatred and paranoia towards Christianity. Anything that opposes Christian doctrine, is predictably an ally of Rutherford.
I’ve been ill (no not mentally) so I am way behind on this thread. Tex, you have truly honestly lost your mind.
I defend Sharia law? In what universe? I have said on my own blog that the greatest vulnerability of Islam is their mix of the religious and the legal.
I HAVE said that the danger of Sharia law taking hold in the US of A is greatly exaggerated but I’ve never been a proponent of it.
I think Marie de Womwell has done a good job of expressing my thoughts on this matter.
I appreciate the atheist Imperial Researcher’s point on the history of higher learning (and hospitals) but I don’t quite know how it applies to the current situation.
They couldn’t build Park 51 big enough, high enough or close enough to the WTC for your tastes.
Don’t you dare lie about this one, you little worm. Had the roles been reversed, and that been Christianity making those kind of demands after committing such an atrocity, you would have been apoplectic, speaking in tongues about some theocracy, fomenting every talk of paranoia.
Complete dishonesty on your behalf. How do you lie so easily about yourself?
Sickening.
You never did understand the “WTC Mosque” debate so I’m certainly not going to do remedial work with you on it now.
Listen carefully for the terrible outcome of that debate several years later:
crickets.
We see it currently with the vilification of Komen who strayed from the secular sharia tenet that thou shalt continue to fund the religion of the state and the vicious slandering of Rick Santorum whose faith contradicts the religion of the state as he promote traditional judeo-christian values and must be mocked and destroyed for his heresy.
Make no mistake we are currently fighting a regime that seeks, to impose the state as religion. And as we have seen it is will brook no dissent and seeks to legitimize itself by falsely de-legitimatizing genuine faith.
I think our government at all levels have taken great strides in assuring the entitlement dependency of the many. These people are devout zealots when it comes to the programs and handouts they enjoy even though they seem unaware that they are targeted for dependency. Sad state of affairs America is in.
“These people are devout zealots when it comes to the programs and handouts they enjoy even though they seem unaware that they are targeted for dependency.”
The recipients or the advocates like Rutherford?
I don’t think the dependent really care. I am saddened by the willful blindness of the advocates.
Well, I do understand religion and such.
Apparently, not so much. That faux intellectual “and such” would be a giveaway, even if the rest of your comment wasn’t.
Many various sects have beliefs that run contrary to popular opinions. That’s fine,
I can’t tell you how relieved they must be to have your approval.
some of them are borderline mental illness level,
And those who treat the theory of evolution as unassailable truth, despite not having any proof of any “links” containing the hundreds of thousands of indiviudal changes necessary to get from one species to another by having faith that given enough time, they will are so much more believable. I’m sorry, it’s kind of hard to hear you over the sound of the mathematicians and molecular biologists laughing at you. Well, that and Richard Dawkins curled up into a ball in the corner, rocking back and forth repeating “It looks like intelligent design but it isn’t. It looks like intelligent design but it isn’t. It looks like intelligent design but it isn’t.”
but opinions are opinions. Also, opinions are what folks call “faith”.
No, opinions are opinions, and faith is faith. The former is saying “It looks like it could rain.” The latter is looking into a cloudless sky and saying “It WILL rain.”
And inasmuch as those rules do not interfere with their faith, then there is no problem, a fact obviously lost on you.
Gee. If their pet opinions tell them to care for the sick, fine, but when they bill for it, it’s no longer the practice of their religion, it’s just another business.
Except that to do this good, they have to use some people who are not volunteering their time, or their products, or equipment, and these people have a reasonable expectation of compensation for that.
I just got out of a Catholic Hospital and not long afterwards received a notice from Medicare of how much they were billed for my care and how much they paid. A business is a business is a business.
See the comment above.
Hum. Let’s see. A hospital that is owned by and operated by a government entity is a “public” facility. A hospital that is owned by and operated by a corporation of some type and serves the public is required to follow a whole ton of government regulations including equal access/non-discrimination, taxes, various licensing regulations, public health regulations, on and on.
I’m sorry, was there a question there?
A landlord who has serious religious beliefs against cohabitation of unmarried persons cannot refuse to rent to an unmarried couple based on his religion. He is therefore providing a venue for activity he considers severely sinful, thus violating his conscience.
Actually, that isn’t entirely true. There is at least one exception to this “rule” that I am aware of, and I bet if I spent some time on it, I could find more. But that isn’t really the point. You cannot force a religious entity to obtain a product that goes against its core teachings, period.
There is a very large can of worms here, and providing medical group insurance following governmental regulations for such seems to fall into the same category as the landlord above.
Only if you failed Con Law, and never bothered to read the debates on the First Amendment as well as the jurisprudence related to it.
On the question of charitable institutions. What’s the price difference between charitable and for profit?
Why do you think it matters? Of course, one of the big differences is that a charity can decide that it may reduce or forgive some bills, based on criteria that they are free to determine on their own.
It seems to me that the Catholic hospital room and board bills are about the same as the other hospitals in the area.
Maybe yes, and maybe no. But if there are other hospitals in the area, then maybe they drive the cost of the labor, skilled and otherwise, making it necessary for the Catholic hospital to pay competitive wages, in order to offer the very best services they possibly can.
I wonder where I can get a copy of the financial statements for Catholic Healthcare West, one of the largest corporations in this area running Catholic Hospitals.
If they are run by the Church, then they are not subject to the same financial reporting requirements as for-profit institutions.
Catholic hospitals are subject to the same laws and regulations that every other hospital is. Please be clear in your statements about hospitals; it doesn’t matter who owns them, the rules are all the same.
Saying it over and over again won’t make it true.
“A landlord who has serious religious beliefs against cohabitation of unmarried persons cannot refuse to rent to an unmarried couple based on his religion. He is therefore providing a venue for activity he considers severely sinful, thus violating his conscience.”
Eh, not exactly. Not every rental is covered by the federal fair housing laws, such as
owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer rental units
single-family housing rented without the use of advertising or without a real estate broker, as long as the landlord owns no more than three such homes at any one time
certain types of housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to their own members,
with respect to age discrimination only, housing reserved exclusively for senior citizens. There are two kinds of senior citizen housing exempted: communities where every tenant is 62 years of age or older, or “55 and older” communities in which at least 80% of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years or older.
Now why do you think that is?
Well yes, Mary Wormwood. It costs monies to pay for the nurse, the surgeons, the facilities, etc…Even your beloved nanny government is required to pay for its services, of which churches supplement the indigent care. And then the administrators, the nurses and the surgeons pay more taxes to supplement your Medicare, because the expense doesn’t defray the reimbursements – so, you and your ilk are generational thieves too.
I don’t understand how you could possibly be so ignorant to not understand the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. It meaning couldn’t be more clear, even to a lib.
Hopefully soon, your will find that Catholic hospitals begin to refuse Medicare patients like many doctors. Frankly, I don’t believe reprobates deserve their charity or services anyway.
I think what you need to do to Mary to solve your dilemma is to find another, nice, secular, neopagan, indigent hospital with a picture of Caesar Obama wearing laurel wreath in its entrance.