Published: Friday, Jan. 31 2014 4:00 a.m. MST
The editorial said: "The First Amendment grants clear protections for the
free exercise of religion, as well as against government attempts to establish a
religion."The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,"There is no "to establish a religion" in the
1st Amendment. Why does that make a difference? It makes a difference because
the Catholic Church is "an establishment of religion". It already
exists. It is fully protected from government meddling with its doctrine by the
fact that it is an established religion. Contraception is part of the Catholic
Church's doctrine. If contraception is part of the Catholic Church's
doctrine, Congress can make no law respecting contraception vis-a-vis the
Catholic Church.Some would call that nit-picking, but words matter.
People get riled when they think that the Constitution says something that it
clearly does not say. Too many people think that we can't have prayer in
schools because there is a separation of Church and State. Those words are not
in the Constitution. Prayer is allowed. Prayer is free speech.
Re: "Why would government make Little Sisters of the Poor an enemy?"Why? Because they're in the way of Obama's attempts to
"fundamentally transform" America into his brave-new-world vision of a
radical, autocratic, secularist, socialist, nanny state.There's
no personal animus. They just got in the way. So, now they're enemies of
the state.It'll be interesting to see what liberal character
assassination technique is applied to them as the statist propaganda juggernaut
rolls on. That's the standard liberal technique.
Why should the government bully these Sisters? Because it can!
@ Mike Richards and procuradorfiscal:Well said, both of you. Thanks
for taking a stand for common sense and for exposing some of the techniques
deployed by the liberal extremists.
This editorial is highly misleading, either you don't know what the case is
about, or you are simply obfuscating. The Sisters are already exempt from the
contraceptive mandate. All they have to do is fill out a form to claim the
exemption. Their suit claims that making them fill out a form violates their
religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that while the case was pending, they
did not have to fill out the form, but they still had to convey all the
information to the government that the form asked for.In other
words, the Supreme Court punted until the district court issues a decision.
When you live in a society you get the whole enchilada. And that enchilada
includes some sides not everyone likes. I didn't want to pay for a war in
afghanistan, or Iraq. I think churches getting tax breaks is a scam. It goes
against my conscience. But, I like a lot of things I get from government, too,
and some compromise is always necessary to get by in this world. So, rather than
paint these outfits as victims, maybe back the idea of single payer health care,
so employers and nuns aren't even part of the health care delivery process,
and health care choices are made by people and physicians.
Sorry, Roland, but you and I disagree on this point."All they
have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption." Why? The Government
has no authority to change the doctrine of an establishment of religion. It has
no right to require an establishment of religion to "sign a form" to opt
out of an illegal mandate.That is the point that I was trying to
make earlier today. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," How can anyone,
including the President, require an establishment of religion of sign a form to
exempt itself from a law made by Congress that infringes the rights of a
Church?When we, the citizens, sit back and allow any President to
tell us what the Constitution says, as he tries to enforce a law that violates
the Constitution, then shame on us for not protecting OUR RIGHTS. Government
does not give us rights. We were endowed by our Creator with inalienable
rights, including freedom from government interference in matters of religion.
We need to support the Little Sisters.
Hutterite: The reason there should be no single payer system is simple. The
Constitution doesn't allow it. It is a simple document for those who
believe in simplicity. Judges, however, that want to be rulers instead of
servants, and worse yet, citizens who want to be ruled, rather than to rule, are
an existential threat to its simplicity and the liberty of those of us who
believe in liberty. The United States can reclaim its position as the leader of
the free world in how wealth is created, as well as how rights are protected,
including the rights of the sisters of the poor, or it will find itself just
another third world country! I doubt very much whether our president even
considers America as such and his polices have done nothing but destroy
capitalism, divide our nation, and pit the unalienable rights of man as given by
God against the corrupt power brokers in Washington! In either case, it
isn't going to end well for one or the other. I doubt it will be the
@Mike RichardsChurches have to sign forms to get tax exempt status.
It's not a new concept.
HutteriteI curious about something you said. You said you did not
want to pay for a war in Afghanistan. Was that always the case? Or just now
after 10 years? Few people in the world, much less here in the U.S. did not
want the United States to mount some kind of attack against the perpetrators of
911. Are you one of them? I only ask because I frequently read your posts, and
do wonder how far to the political left you lean.
Liberals have no problem with the free exercise of religion as long as it is
confined to Sunday and is within the four walls of a church. Other than that,
they think thy have a right to dictate what the free exercise of religion will
be. These sweet women are NOT going to sign a form that consents to something
they find abhorrent and against their conscience. I hope this
attempt by the Obama Administration to oppress people of conscience is stopped
cold by the Supremes and that it is the final straw that breaks the back of this
total disaster known as Obamacare.You never know. We may be able to
save our country yet.
According to the dictionarty, "an establishment" does not only mean an
edifice or an organizaiton. It also means "an act of establishing."
Therefore, when the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." its meaning
includes "Congress shall make no law respecting an act establishing a
religion." This restriction was extended to actions by state and local
governments by the 14th Amendment. Prayer in school, etc., are acts by
government respecting an act establishing one religion as being the
"official" religion of the government and are, therefore,
unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. yes words are important --
that's why it is important not to try to construe them to only support one
position/action when the words actually mean more.
Re: "The Sisters are already exempt from the contraceptive mandate. All they
have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption."Disingenuous liberal sophistry.The "exemption" requires
the nuns, under penalty of prosecution, to fork over association funds to an
insurance company, so it will provide contraception benefits. As if that somehow
means the nuns are not being forced, by the heavy boot of government on their
necks, to violate their conscience.The regime offers this up as its
disingenuous fig leaf, suggesting it can somehow justify its illegal and immoral
shredding of the Constitution. It's telling that liberal regime supporters
won't admit this autocratic decree is only a tiny baby step away from
Marxist-Leninist re-education camps.And, it's clear the regime
has come to expect dissenting Americans, not only to abandon and violate their
religious beliefs, but to embrace the transparent dishonesty that characterizes
liberals, in general, and this regime, in particular, as well.
First of all, contraception is used for a bevy of reasons beyond merely
preventing pregnancy. Secondly, no one in the government is making any Catholic
person take contraception, thereby violating their fundamental religious rights.
The Government is not intervening in their actual practice. Also, there is no
protection that the government will not intervene in religious practice if it
goes against other laws. That is why you can't merely become a Rastafarian
and legally smoke pot. Another overlooked aspect is that many of
the employees of these "poor old ladies" are not Catholic. They are
portrayed as a humble little group, but in fact, they run nursing homes with
many female employees whose doctors may prescribe birth control for ovarian
cysts or other health issues. What they are doing is not only trying to not
provide the contraception, but by challenging the exemption created for them,
they are actively trying to obstruct their employees from accessing medical care
and force their own religion on them. If Hobby Lobby wins, the implications are
huge. Can a Christian Scientist declare they won't pay for any medical
expenses, since they don't believe in medicine?
It's just part and parcel of the left and their full scale assault on
Christianity. Muslims don't have to comply with Obamacare, but Obama is
forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to. That's just one front.
Another is gay rights, where the doctrine being pushed is that if you are
Christian, you have to leave your religion inside the church and cannot use it
in business. The same concept--Christianity is being relegated to the old status
of pornography--you can only do it in the privacy of your own home or in that
seedy place down the road, but it can't be brought out otherwise. Remember, the Democratic convention, 2012. They booed the mere mention
of God; booed lustily. Leftists, judging by their supporters and actions, have
fully bought into Joseph Stalin's views on Christianity. No,
they say, you can practice your religion. Just as long as its hidden and of no
consequence, and you do what we tell you when we tell you, we don't care
what you believe--for the moment.
How one could construe prayer as an act to establish a religion is not only
ridiculous, but shows how far some are willing to go to remove God from any
forum except in a cloistered outhouse atop mount olympus. If this isn't a
Karl Marx dream argument, I don't know what is! How any American could
diverge so far from Constitutional understanding while spitting in God's
face at the same time is beyond me.
@procuradorfiscal"The "exemption" requires the nuns, under
penalty of prosecution, to fork over association funds to an insurance company,
so it will provide contraception benefits"Contraception coverage
would not come from the funding paid for by the nuns."only a
tiny baby step away from Marxist-Leninist re-education camps."Someone woke up on the overdramtic side of the bed this morning...
"Can a Christian Scientist declare they won't pay for any medical
expenses, since they don't believe in medicine?" The answer is simple:
Yes.Since when do we force employers to provide health care on
penalty of governmental punishment? Plenty of jobs I've had don't
offer any health care at all. And Obamacare is going to vastly increase those
numbers. Why should Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to subsidize someone
else's health care? Why can't those poor, poor women buy their own
contraceptives? Is there some rule saying that your employer buys your condoms
or you don't get any? The "Pill" is only available to people with
a health care plan? I find it more offensive and "war on women"
to believe as the liberals do: that women are incapable of finding birth control
themselves and their employer must be forced to provide it, because their female
employees are incapable of doing otherwise. Why should anyone be forced
to pay for someone else's birth control?
"Requiring religious people to associate themselves, even from a distance,
with something that violates their conscience inhibits their right to freely
exercise religion."Is this really an argument Mormons want to
follow to it's logical conclusion?
Perhaps if we were given a bit more information about the financials of the
Little Sisters of the Poor, we could understand why they have become an enemy of
the American people. Charity in America has devolved into a business operation.
And business operations should not have religious freedom in their service to
the public.The business operations of the largest financial
organization in the world, as with other religious organizations, should not be
allowed to use economic force to impose their beliefs on others. Traditionally America has regarded business as being a public service to all
Americans. And over time we have use the power of our government to enforce
that policy. We have given religious organizations great leeway in the
advertising of their beliefs. The clothes they wear, the external nature of
their buildings, and in some cases even allowing religious practices done in the
public square. If religious forces are able to gain control over
our government, America will devolve into that same world that the first
Americans were fleeing. Giving religion the ability to flout American civil
law is a giant step in that direction.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments