Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

A Prayer Meeting

11 Comments

…for the purpose of bending religion to the will of the State:

The Obama administration has just put into force a new regulation under Obamacare that amounts to the most far-reaching instance of governmental religious intolerance since the Blaine Amendments. There is no other word but intolerance to describe what the rule aims to do: It doesn’t say that people should have the freedom to use contraceptive or abortive drugs —- which of course they do have in our country. It doesn’t even say that the government should facilitate people’s access to these drugs —- which of course it does today and has for many years, at great public expense. It says, rather, that the Catholic Church and others who have religious objections to the use of such drugs should facilitate people’s access to them. It says that we will not tolerate an institution in our society that, for religious reasons, is not willing to actively put into effect the views of those in power regarding contraception, abortion, and sterilization——that we won’t just let it be and find other ways to put those views into effect but will compel the dissenting institution itself to participate in the facilitation of access to these things on behalf of the people it employs, or else we will levy a heavy fine against it. We cannot abide even passive disagreement. That is a refusal to exercise even a moderate portion of toleration toward religious believers and institutions. It says, in effect, that the substance of religious convictions merits no regard from the state. And yet it seems that the forms of religious practice can be marshaled in the service of political objectives. The prayer vigil as PR stunt is expected to coexist with rank intolerance as public policy, and the White House itself is encouraging the stunt.

Without their hypocrisy and power hunger, they’d have nothing.

11 thoughts on “A Prayer Meeting”

  1. Nothing surprising here. Power hunger was the number one problem according to the Founders. Hayek knew it too and wrote about it. John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton encapsulated it in very nice bumper sticker (…power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely…).

    The thing government goons hate is the fact that they cannot do what they want. Too much stands in their way so they expend huge energy and resources going over, under, around it. Arrogating power to themselves so that they NOW have the control needed to make things……

    …nice.

    That’s all they want to do…make things nice.

    Limits to power, checks and balances…all these things are anethema – roadblocks to overcome.

    The real problem here is that Congress is not jealous enough of their power – they let Obama rule by decree. This includes the Dems.

    Ah well…as Franklin said……

    “…if you can keep it”

    1. “…if you can keep it.”

      And it appears we cannot. Not sure what can save the Republic, with so many moochers and looters in this society, and not enough people realize it.

    2. What I am waiting for is someone to compare this to the Federal government in the 19th Century forcing the Mormons (remember why Gov. Romney’s grandfather was forced to flee to Mexico…) to have only one wife at a time like the Christian religious tradition requires. It seems to me if this is a violation of the separation between church and state that was also and the bigamy laws based on it should also be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

      1. Bigamy laws are based upon the natural law, specifically the nature of human beings to live monoagamously. Bigamy/polygamy, while at times permitted for the sake of the survival of a given race or culture, is intrinsically unnatural and disordered, and thus is subject to religious and civil proscription. Bigamy/polygamy, when permitted in certain cultures and certain conditions, tends to promote life, marriage, and the natural human family, which are intrinsically good things. It may therefore be tolerated in such circumstances. Monogamy. however, is always the norm, and as such must enjoy the protection of the law.

        Artificial contraception is contrary to the natural law, specifically the nature of human beings to propagate via sexual relations. While natural methods of birth regulation may be at times permitted for the sake of the well-being of a family, the technological separation of the sexual act from its reproductive end is intrinsically unnatural and disordered, and thus is subject to religious and civil proscription. In all cultures and conditions, artificial contraception tends to cheapen life, marriage, and the natural human family, which are intrinsically good things. It may therefore never be tolerated in any circumstances. Marriage between one man and one woman leading to childbearing is always the norm, and as such must enjoy the protection of the law.

        The bigamy laws forbade people from doing something unnatural, and was therefore valid. This law forces people to do something unnatural, and is therefore invalid. It will not be obeyed by faithful Catholics, no matter what consequences may entail.

        1. B Lewis,

          [[[Bigamy laws are based upon the natural law, specifically the nature of human beings to live monoagamously. ]]]

          They may be based on “natural law” by they are not supported by research on human evolution. It appears the switch to monogamy in humans is very recent and may be another impact of the Agricultural Revolution.

          Dupanloup I, Pereira L, Bertorelle G, Calafell F, Prata MJ, Amorim A, Barbujani G (2003). “A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity”. J Mol Evol 57 (1): 85–97.

          This research would appear to be supported by the fact that only 17 percent of world cultures that have been documented practice any level of monogamy.

          Murdock GP (1981) Atlas of world cultures. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

          Even today nearly a 100 countries allow polygamy in different forms. Monogamy just seems natural to you because it is in western culture due to the influence of Christianity on Roman Law. Even Judaism allowed it until they were forced, like the Mormons, by law (in their case Roman) to conform.

          So it may be “natural law” in western culture but its not normal human practice

          Polygamy also makes sense from the perspective of evolutionary theory. The name of the game is maximizing the copies of your gene and if you are a super fit male the species will benefit from your genes dominating the gene pool. That is best accomplished by maximizing the number of breeding partners. In human society that fitness would best be communicated by your level of wealth, which is why kings usually have multiple wives, at least in non-western cultures. And again this argument is supported by evolutionary research. Recent genetic research on Y-chromosome has shown that nearly 8 percent of all males in Asia (1 in 200 globally) are direct male descendants of Genghis Khan through one of his numerous wives. That is that 8 percent of Asian males show nearly 20 generations of direct male to male transition of their y-chromosome to the Great Khan. Genghis Khan is just one of a number of super males that recent genetic research has identified.

          Which brings us back to the question – why is it OK for the U.S. government to favor the views of one religion when making marriages laws over those of other religions? How was forcing Mormons to give up Polygamy not a violation of the first amendment? And why is western tradition considered “Natural Law”?

        2. B Lewis,

          [[[The bigamy laws forbade people from doing something unnatural, and was therefore valid. This law forces people to do something unnatural, and is therefore invalid. It will not be obeyed by faithful Catholics, no matter what consequences may entail.]]]

          There are two assumptions here. First is that the school will force women to take it. No, its voluntary. The school is just required to include it in its coverage.

          And that brings us to the second assumption, that the students and employees at the school are bond by Catholic beliefs. This may be true for those that are Catholics, but its been illegal for decades for Catholic colleges to discriminate based on religious views, so that means that Catholic colleges not only hire non-Catholics but also admit them as students. So tell me why these non-Catholic employees and students should be held to Catholic beliefs in their personal lives? Again, aren’t you advocating the government favoring one religion over others by advocating a law that their health coverage must be restricted by Catholic beliefs. Again, isn’t that a violation of the separation of Church and State? Especially since the majority of funding Catholic Colleges receive is from taxpayers in the form of financial aid to their students, many of which are not Catholic? Now I would have no problem of Catholic Colleges banning coverage of birth control IF all of their employees and students were Catholics and they took NO financial aid from tax payers. But if you are going to take money from the government then you should be willing to also agree to spending it the way the government tells you.

  2. What do you expect from a WH that goes before SCOTUS and TELLS SCOTUS that they, the WH, should have the ultimate say so over who the church(es) choose for their clergy?

    What do you expect from a WH that tells a newly installed Cardinal, that HE should listen to THEM because the WH experts are more knowledgeable about Roman Catholic history and RC Catechism.

    This is a definite power play. And I don’t think even hyper liberal church goers want the WH picking their priests their pastors or their bishops, etc. It’s a power play hat even THIS clownish commie WH will lose.

  3. Assuming the government must ensure that people are to be free to “buy” the health care plan they desire…

    Then either religious employers must be forced to provide health care plans that their employees might want to buy, even if it goes against their teachings, or, health care plans must be made independent of employer.

    Apparently the former is more politically expedient than the latter. One power grab begets another, it is a virtuous circle, and all the power grabbers win!

    One of the reasons why I ethically refuse to get health care through my employer, even though it would cost far less – it is not a free market.

    1. Pete,

      I agree which is why a voucher program would have been not only more effective by leveraging the free market but would have avoided this problem.

Comments are closed.