Debating about HHS mandate and religious freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter funion987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

funion987

Guest
How do I respond to people who say that I am taxed for things like development of nuclear weapons or other things that go against my beliefs? They present this as saying there are situations where the state law trumps religious liberty.

What do I say to a person who asks, “What if I believe God doesn’t want the races to mix? Is it infringing upon my religion to force me to pay taxes to fund integrated schools?”

Thanks, I need a lot of help here.
 
How do I respond to people who say that I am taxed for things like development of nuclear weapons or other things that go against my beliefs? They present this as saying there are situations where the state law trumps religious liberty.

What do I say to a person who asks, “What if I believe God doesn’t want the races to mix? Is it infringing upon my religion to force me to pay taxes to fund integrated schools?”

Thanks, I need a lot of help here.
Having tax dollars sent to things we disagree with is not a violation of religious liberty as such, so long as we have the (name removed by moderator)ut to try to stop it (which we do). This is why, despite the fact that we think contraception is morally wrong, the religious freedom argument does not say that it should not be mandated at all (other arguments do that), but that if it is mandated that those with religious objections should be exempt.

Not that tax money going to immoral things isn’t wrong; it is. But that falls under the “render unto Caesar” stuff, you do your best to make sure it goes to good causes and pay anyway. The religious freedom problem is that the government is telling Catholic institutions that they must directly do immoral stuff regardless of religious belief.
 
How do I respond to people who say that I am taxed for things like development of nuclear weapons or other things that go against my beliefs? They present this as saying there are situations where the state law trumps religious liberty.

What do I say to a person who asks, “What if I believe God doesn’t want the races to mix? Is it infringing upon my religion to force me to pay taxes to fund integrated schools?”

Thanks, I need a lot of help here.
“The State is oppressive, get over it” – that seems to be their argument. Wow… very convincing.

Instead of answering all their hypothetical questions, loaded questions btw. I mean, mixing of the races… com’on… instead of that ask them in what cases should the State respect religious liberty. Are there any legitimate cases where a religious belief should trump the practical and preceived needs of the State?

After all, we aren’t talking about defense here, or educating the poor, or feeding the hungry. We are talking about free birth control, you need to put it in persective. The need for free birth control is sooo overwhelming that we need to force catholics to pay for it?
 
I would tell them that contraception goes against Natural Law and that abortion is murder and also against Natural Law and that those two things are particularly offensive to God because they willfully prevent souls from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism which is necessary for salvation. Also tell them that we aren’t really taxed for nuclear weapons… And in terms of integration, that that is not a matter of life or death for most people and won’t prevent the reception or administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, so even if it were offensive to God, it’s not in the same way that preventing a soul from tasting of the effects of the Cross is.
 
Jesus Christ paid taxes to support the occupying Roman army; and paid taxes to the Temple with which He was so often at odds. A religion-based exemption to any oppressive tax can’t be had by Jesus Christ’s example or teaching. Hope lies in civil rights granted to Americans in the First Amendment; or by simply voting representatives who heed a religion-friendly construal of the Constitution. Catholics have for so long faithfully supported the Democratic party in spite of an explicit pro-abortion plank, including so-called Partial Birth Abortion, it’s easy to see why HHS’s Kathleen Sebelius, herself a Catholic, would treat Catholics so…appropriately.

Re-inventing Partial Birth Abortion is how Sotomayor got rewarded with a Supreme Court Justice-ship. Sotomayor bullied the AMA into saying Partial Birth Abortion could “maybe” be a therapeutic abortion procedure; and not always a dangerous tissue-harvesting technique that always endangers the life of the pregnant woman (apart from the dead child), as the AMA previously held. Sotomayor also wrote the health care particulars and did not recuse herself. One may also note that the then-director of the IRS’ Kansas City Service Center dashed to Washington in 2008 to help Barak write the Affordable Health Care Act. Taxes is as taxes does. “We won’t be fooled again.”

Happy July 1st, 2012, 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s 1862 establishment of the Treasury Department to finance the Civil War without recourse to foreign banking. It is suggested printing those greenbacks probably helped get him assassinated. There are those who still believe the Civil War was to impose Federal overlordship by vacating State’s rights to enslave people who were defined by the Supreme Court as property; and as 1/8th humans for purposes of enumerating delegates to the House of Representative. And the Confederates had the religious convictions to back them up, with Southern Baptists only formally reversing this stance in 2009. Lawyer Lincoln himself didn’t think the Emancipation Proclamation was legal; but he decided it was necessary after some kind of disturbing vision.

The only people who now have any kind of religious tax exemption in the USA are the Amish and the Mennonites, who have their own legal system and refuse government assistance. They are generally self-employed and don’t have to pay social security tax. But they don’t take unemployment and so forth.

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Affordable health care, with its mandate to force, say, an order of pro-life nuns to buy health insurance that covers, in their cost, immoral–to them–birth control pills and devices; or fining said nuns $100/day; may be construed as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That will have to be adjudicated if the Affordable Health Care tax is not repealed.

What about those nuns who have most recently condoned all sexual activity and any attendant birth control and abortion? Should they be covered by any religious exemption? It’s not their religious belief. And they certainly have exercised their civil right of free speach to entangle themselves in this travesty. I don’t see the lapdog press saying much about the religious infringement angle. May the Lord grant us the guts to exercise our God-given rights.
 
The HHS mandate is not specifically about taxation. It is about the government requiring Catholic and Christian institutions to buy and provide to their employees something that is contrary to morals. Actually, it applies to all employers, and forces Catholic employers to violate their conscience.

Catholic institutions such as hospitals, schools, charitable organizations are forced to either provide an insurance package which violates their conscience, or pay a fine, or go out of business. In practical terms, paying the fine and going out of business may come to the same thing. It means this: cease being Catholic or go out of business.

That’s something new. And if it stands, the HHS has the authority to pass new rules in coming years which have the force of law. It could require Catholic institutions to include in mandatory coverage abortion or euthanasia, or even infanticide. It’s just a matter of what HHS may decide, with no religious exemption being provided to religious institutions, schools, and charities, and hospitals.

The current mandate forces Catholic institutions to provide no co-pay coverage for contraceptives, for sterilization, for abortion inducing drugs. It’s only a start. The bishops have said that they will not comply. Indeed, how could they comply without deciding to no longer be Catholic?

Not only that, Catholic employers will be forced to the same decision. Catholic insurance companies as well.
 
The BBC did a special on NAZI’s/National Socialism, and concluded their belief system was based on Satanism, the boys in the castles selling their souls to the “Father of Lies and Murder.” The Satanic NAZI’s pestered the Catholic Church to soften up the stalwarts standing in their way. Concordats signed with the NAZI’s didn’t stop the undermining attack. Ditto with IL DUCE, Mussolini, who co-wrote a snarky book about an unfaithful priest; and later signed agreements with the Church to garner popularity with the people. IL DUCE was determined to undermine Catholic self-determination, attempting to control approval of clerical appointments. Finally the Fascist banning of Jewish teachers galvanized the Church.

Communist Satanism was documented by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand in his book of quotes, Marx & Satan. WWSD? Ukraine Catholics were undermined by banking controls paralleling those in place now in America. Credit dried up. Middle-class farmers, kulaks, were on the economic ropes; then Stalin seized their crops Brits vs. Ireland redux. No cash, no crop assets, no way out, and the starvation of millions ensued.

Bella Dodd, an influential leader of the CPUSA/Communist Party USA, left (and converted to Catholicism after a meeting with Bishop Sheen) when she realized New York’s globalist financiers were colluding with Communists to subjugate Americans. Shades of Lenin on his train full of gold sent by German financiers “To Russia With Love.” Today’s parallel is George Soros buying media figures and faking grass-roots support in bolstering the current Catholic-persecuting, socializing, nationalizing regime. Catholics who try to get a religious exemption will be hard pressed to show why as being virtually indistinct from mainstream America. All are delivered up by quisling nominal Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, head of Health & Human Services. The salt has lost its savor. Divided, conquered.

Our Lady of the Rosary gave as the “only” (sole, exclusive) means to a period of peace is her conversion of Russia if invited; if the Bishops, led by Peter, consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart at one time, solemnly, publicly, in each cathedral. “Pray the daily Rosary for peace.”
 
May the Lord grant us the guts to exercise our God-given rights.

This may be the beginning to the answer to your prayer.
The letter below was signed by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, Mother Agnes Mary Donovan,S.V. Superior General of the Sisters of Life, and many other catholic and non Catholic religious leaders. If the provisions in the Health care law remain then those religious institutions opposed to abortion will be persecuted in what ever means our government deems necessary. Persecution is not new to us. We will remain true to our beliefs and face the hardships if they occur.

An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans

June 21, 2012 Dear Friends,
Religious institutions are established because of religious beliefs and convictions. Such institutions include not only churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, but also schools and colleges, shelters and community kitchens, adoption agencies and hospitals, organizations that provide care and services during natural disasters, and countless other organizations that exist to put specific religious beliefs into practice. Many such organizations have provided services and care to both members and non-members of their religious communities since before the Revolutionary War, saving and improving the lives of countless American citizens.
As religious leaders from a variety of perspectives and communities, we are compelled to make known our protest against the incursion of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) into the realm of religious liberty. HHS has mandated that religious institutions, with only a narrow religious exception, must provide access to certain contraceptive benefits, even if the covered medications or procedures are contradictory to their beliefs. We who oppose the application of this mandate to religious institutions include not only the leaders of religious groups morally opposed to contraception, but also leaders of other religious groups that do not share that particular moral conviction.
That we share an opposition to the mandate to religious institutions while disagreeing about specific moral teachings is a crucial fact. Religious freedom is the principle on which we stand. Because of differing understandings of moral and religious authority, people of good will can and often do come to different conclusions about moral questions. Yet, even we who hold differing convictions on specific moral issues are united in the conviction that no religious institution should be penalized for refusing to go against its beliefs. The issue is the First Amendment, not specific moral teachings or specific products or services.
The HHS mandate implicitly acknowledged that an incursion into religion is involved in the mandate. However, the narrowness of the proposed exemption is revealing for it applies only to religious organizations that serve or support their own members. In so doing, the government is establishing favored and disfavored religious organizations: a privatized religious organization that serves only itself is exempted from regulation, while one that believes it should also serve the public beyond its membership is denied a religious exemption. The so-called accommodation and the subsequent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) do little or nothing to alleviate the problem.
No government should tell religious organizations either what to believe or how to put their beliefs into practice. We indeed hold this to be an unalienable, constitutional right. If freedom of religion is a constitutional value to be protected, then institutions developed by religious groups to implement their core beliefs in education, in care for the sick or suffering, and in other tasks must also be protected. Only by doing so can the free exercise of religion have any meaning. The HHS mandate prevents this free exercise. For the well-being of our country, we oppose the application of the contraceptive mandate to religious institutions and plead for its retraction.
Sincerely yours,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top