Failed Senate Bill Reveals Continuing Assault on Religious Liberty
While a bill to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby ruling failed in the U.S. Senate, the effort shed light on the continuing attack on religious liberty in America. The measure, introduced by Senate Democrats Patty Murray (Wash.) and Mark Udall (Colo.) would effectively have reversed the 5-4 late June ruling by the High Court that owners of closely held companies can cite religious convictions to opt out of the ObamaCare mandate requiring employers to provide free contraceptives ‚ÄĒ including those that can cause abortion ‚ÄĒ to their employees.
‚ÄúAfter five justices decided ‚Ä¶ that an employer‚Äôs personal views can interfere with women‚Äôs access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong,‚ÄĚ Senator Murray said by way of the bill's introduction. ‚ÄúThis bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their...
either individuals have rights or corporations. Jim, you are pushing for corporate identity (as was Romney, making both parties nearly identical) and collectivism and then the great leader gets to decide what their behavior is. many would like to go back to having a say in our own lives.
there's a great big world out there and more to "choose" from than the one or two choices that corporations widdle things down to...
ie if I have cancer, and if I saw someone use baking soda treatments and voila, its gone (breast cancer), but then you come to me and say you must have insurance and now you can have chemo or you can just say no to chemo, and I'm thinking, in God's great world, my only options is chemical warfare agents from WWI or nothing? come on now.
or like, well you can't have treatment because you hit the age limit, so would you like us to euthanize you or send you home? questions like that, you know, that make you go "hmmm". its a contrived reality.
I don't entirely agree with the author Benyamin Applebaum. As I have asked earlier, if you remove all the people from a corporation, does the corporation still exist? If not, then why should it be treated differently than the people of which it is composed?
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, there are many small companies that can't or won't provide healthcare.
Jim, I will fault myself, because you obviously missed my point. You quoted what I would deem three unreliable sources, a lesbian (don't know why she is a more credible source than the John Birch Society). the AARP (who stands to make a lot of money via Obamacare and I thought you were against greed) and a NYT article put out before Obamacare became law. (they definitely don't believe honesty is the best policy, more like the ends justifies the means) I am still waiting for the links that show the accuracy of your 7/21/14 1:43 AM post with its broad generalizations. Also, still don't see why you would think the government forcing their view of morality is better than Christians voting for people who support their view of morality. Remember, government funded equals taxpayer funded, the government has no money except what it takes from it citizenry. Thus the term government funded healthcare is a lie, it is paid for by the funds they confiscate from those who produce. Finally, it is not the job of ANY company to provide healthcare for its workers.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- I wish I remembered where the commentary from a person of Britain, pointing out they like their National Health Service. The U.S. is backward country when it comes to healthcare. ---
So the comment from a person of Britain pointing out they like the NHS is evidence enough for you? Wow.
Remember, there but for the grace of God go us, Jim. But as he withdraws his mercy from us as a nation for rejection of his truths, perhaps you will get your wish, and we will become less "backward."
Jim, here's the thing. in a free society, not everyone has to agree with me. that is "freedom of association" means that I am not forced to do what is against my conscience or what is harmful to my very life. but if you were to be honest, a large majority have been against this whole thing, and the forced dependence I see among those I love into medicare, food stamps, etc although they are grateful, would rather have decent work, a piece of land for themselves and an ability to take care of their own. forced dependence is cruelty. to celebrate this as "progress", not on my radar.
Jim, it may shock you that there are multiple philosophical and practical approaches out there to the body, and not everyone is a cheerleader for the centralized highly regulated, corporatized, one size fits all, outdated chemically based evolutionary eugenics system that you seem to think everyone one's to be forced under in order to buy and sell. (end of my run on sentence)
Jim Lincoln wrote: .. thus costing the country and the workplace quite a bit of money. .
Just trying to understand your post Jim. You are saying that there is a problem that according to you is costing the country and the workplace lots of money. So, I am running a corporation, and I have something that is costing my company lots of money, however if I invest in my people (who are working to make me more money) I will ultimately save cost and make more money, but I don't want to that because it also benefits the people who are working for me???? You link to a lot of things on the net, can you link to a corporation that states they are against preventative medical treatment? Maybe there is an article that shows many workers suffering from illnesses because the company they work for discourages preventative medicine. Companies don't exist to provide jobs. Companies don't exist to give benefits. They exist to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they go out of business (unless they can get you and me to pay for their failure) If providing jobs with benefits assist them in that goal, then they hire workers and provide benefits.
the preventive medicine part also answers most of your comments ups. This is a problem the people are having, Corporation peopleis that workers are not getting early enough treatment for many medical problems, and thus costing the country and the workplace quite a bit of money. Whose morals I might ask? the workers? The general populace? Stockholders? I am somewhat surprised that you are taking such a liberal activist position for companies! . companies should be interested and the health of their workers from a bottom line aspect. They should not be interested the Catholic Bishops want. I would suggest you listen tothe sermon about the inadequacy of moralism. also
it never occurs to these people that some find abysmal results with the medical system and could use those hundreds going towards "health" insurance towards actually improving their health, which in many cases can be done. its not just the companies being forced into this paradigm, its everyone, when people are not satisfied with a product, they should not have to be forced to pay for it, and it takes money away from other things which might be working better for them.... like a friend who had the cost of going to a doctor visit, etc to get a diagnosis (I use that term loosely) of "restless leg syndrome". I suggested she might have a magnesium deficiency. After dealing with that, her multiple "leg syndrome" symptoms went away.
Jim,when the government is dictating their moral beliefs, that employers must fund access to 20 government approved contraceptives, or for that matter that it is the employers responsibility to provide healthcare benefits to their employees, don't you think shows the inadequacy of the their moral view? Shouldn't Christians be supporting righteous legislation because the Bible says righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.
The current on going push to make man the measure of all things and to say there are no absolutes is being accelerated by those in Washington. The desire to enslave people into a system where no one is responsible but all are victims who can't help themselves is not only what Strat has been trying to point out, but is unfolding before our very eyes.
Sad thing is Jim, the very group you despise is trying to put on the brakes and very group you think highly of has the pedal to the medal.
Perfect government will only happen when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord. Pointing out political failures has its place but there is clarion call to humble ourselves before the God of glory and petition Him who rules the kings heart, to exalt His name in our midst, whether it be by life or by death.
Mike wrote: Everybody's doing it, why shouldn't the Greens? Right Jim?
Can anyone tell me why it is my responsibility to fund someone else's sex life and/or the results of it....is there nothing private anymore or anything that falls within the scope of ones own responsibility anymore.
The phrase private assets vs public liabilities comes to mind,or put another way when I win its all mine,when I lose its your responsibility to make up the difference as if I had won.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Why is the Greens or anyone else determining that contraceptives are not considered immoral by some of their employees? Read the PDF file on Corporations, Milton Friedman says who is this fight benefiting stockholders? I never did invest in alcohol or tobacco companies for moral reasons, but as most stockbrokers would no doubt point out, mutual funds etc., that stressed they only moral choices are really bad investments (I can guarantee you they are. ) Apparently, I have pointed out The Inadequacy of Moralism enough This means that the Govt., will just fund Planned Parenthood more so women can get contraceptives, by the way Catholic women are big users of contraceptives, so all the Greens have probably done has strengthened Plan Parenthood and other organizations of the type. ---
Everybody's doing it, why shouldn't the Greens? Right Jim?
Why is the Greens or anyone else determining that contraceptives are not considered immoral by some of their employees? Read the PDF file on Corporations, Milton Friedman says who is this fight benefiting stockholders? I never did invest in alcohol or tobacco companies for moral reasons, but as most stockbrokers would no doubt point out, mutual funds etc., that stressed they only moral choices are really bad investments (I can guarantee you they are. ) Apparently, I have pointed out The Inadequacy of Moralism enough This means that the Govt., will just fund Planned Parenthood more so women can get contraceptives, by the way Catholic women are big users of contraceptives, so all the Greens have probably done has strengthened Plan Parenthood and other organizations of the type.
More and more pastors are realizing that doing God's business is spreading the Word to the world and trying to force the world to conform to it. "Christian Islam," doesn't hack it, Notes on Reconstructionism. One should read it so they stop playing into the hands of the Romish Church.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Depends on one's definition of religious liberty, /The Tea Party, the John Birch Society, and the Fear of ‚ÄúMob Rule‚ÄĚ: An Interview with Claire Conner I consider the John Birch Society and the new American magazine amence to religious liberty also. by the wayThe Inadequacy of Moralism
We know Jim. You repeat it often enough. Just for fun, how about answering GS Texas question?