Conservative News, Discussions, and Solutions

Liberty vs Free Exercise of Religion -- Unnecessary Conflict

Governments are instituted to secure the blessings of liberty for the people.

In the recent discussion about the health care law, there are several important principles that may be in conflict. As it stands the health care law appears to violate; the constitutional mandate of the free exercise of religion; and the constitutional mandate about making no law about an establishment of religion.

But, the health care law appears to directly support a woman’s (governmentally declared) right to birth control and abortion – a blessing of liberty for those who choose to exercise it.

The Administration has modified its position from requiring religious organizations to provide insurance services that are against their moral foundations to requiring their insurance providers to pay for the morally objectionable services at no cost to the religious organization. This is a difference without a distinction and will never be morally acceptable to those who believe in the sanctity of life and their religions moral teachings.

There already exists at least one federally funded organization that provides abortion services. It is purely secular. This same organization provides contraceptive services, again on a purely secular basis. The Administration argues that abortion and contraception are part of a woman’s overall health care.

Since the mechanism for contraceptive and abortion services already exists (Planned Parenthood) and is funded from secular sources (the federal government), it seems that there is no need to expand the availability of these services to religious organizations or their insurance providers.

However, the Administration, insists that providing these (governmentally declared) rights must be available through religious organizations which are frequently operated by people who have strong moral objections to providing these services. To force one of these people to provide morally objectionable services is a violation of their free exercise of religion and their first amendment rights to freedom of expression (speech).

The difference without a distinction is that the religious organization and some or many of its employees are placed by Administration mandate into a position of transferring the cost from itself to a contractor that provides the same morally objectionable service. Morally, people in the hiring organization are still responsible.

To avoid the whole conflict of religious freedom versus personal liberty there are two options: 1) those needing abortion or contraceptive services can use the existing federally funded organization(s). 2) The government can provide a voluntary individual insurance plan specifically for those who believe they may need these services. This plan operate in a manner similar to the flood insurance program.

There is no need for a conflict to exist between individual liberty and freedom of religion.

The Administration has chosen to create a conflict and intends to use its rather considerable power to force religious organizations to accept their mandates. Since I have already pointed out that the conflict is avoidable, it appears that the Administration is interested in punishing those who cling to their guns and Bibles.

What say YOU?

Tags: Amendment, Care, First, Health, Liberty, Religion

Promote

2 members promoted this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JAMES CHILDRESS on February 13, 2012 at 12:19am

WHEN THE INSURANCE GIVES YOU SOMETHING FREE YOUR RATES GO UP

THERE MANY ITEMS FOUND IN DRUG STORES AND GRO. STORES TO PREVENT GETTING PREGNUT.

AS FAR AS ABORTION IF YOU DON'T WANT A CHILD KEEP YOUR PANTS UP

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by anthony perlingos on February 22, 2012 at 6:31am

No such thing as free. When your insurance company provides contraception , you will still be paying for it in the form of higher rates. It is like Palin's " lipstick on a pig " philosophy. I am pro choice, I just believe that women should have to pay for their own contraception and hopefully never let it get to the abortion phase.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by chad lewis on February 24, 2012 at 5:27am

I am with you...Free Choice, but they should pay for it, not tax payers! It is between them and God and I will keep my Guns & Bible and I am not even a 'Christian'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JAMES CHILDRESS on February 24, 2012 at 10:57pm

YOU CAN BUY ANY KIND OF PROCTION YOU WANT FOR BIRTH CONTROL IN ANY DRUG STORE OR GRO.STORE WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.IF YOU DO NOT WANT A CHILD KEEP YOUR PANTS UP

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alsacien on February 26, 2012 at 3:54pm

.............and the zipper closed....................

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alsacien on February 26, 2012 at 3:53pm

I am anti abortion on religious grounds but believe that women should pay for their own contraception. I'm against all mandates by the Government.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patricia McGehee on February 24, 2012 at 5:54am

One of the ways the Destroyers of America have infiltrated the American Experience has been to get to us through our children. First they came for the Schools to push their Socialist agenda. Union led teacher now teach alternative lifestyles, push Obama love songs, and rewrite history books. Now children may earn or be given a diploma but people in the 1800's were better educated and ready to face the world armed with knowledge about their country.

Next they infiltrated the churches and Social Justice was given life in the 1930's. Read Dietrich Bonhoeffer! Next they taught sex education in earlier and earlier grades. Then they gave out condoms . Now, they come for Religion itself.

Evil truly is alive and well in America. It goes after a Cross or a graduating child wishing to thank God in a speech. It walks in the White House and speaks with forked tongue. It destroys America's Economy and divides America.

People, what have we come to when our own Constitution which we revere is not protecting us? Why isn't it? One simple reason! We have failed to protect it. Our own Congress has neutered itself by not protecting it's responsibilities and giving it's power to the President. What are we to do? Are we willing to continue allowing our children to be indoctrinated? Are we willing to allow Obama another 4 years to complete the destruction he has begun? We are already well down the road! Are willing to sound the death knell of our Religion?

Jobs only under Romney will not get the JOB done. Both Parties fear Newt because he will shake up both Parties and give America with it's Constitution intact, back to the People. He sees the big picture, the destruction of our rule of law from the Federal Leftist Judges is just one example. He also sees the danger from BOTH PARTIES in Congress. They do not serve the People, they serve PARTY. Newt WILL change that.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pacontreras on February 24, 2012 at 8:39am

I agree with you JeansBrother, this has nothing to do with fairness, or they would not have written into the Health Care Bill, a policy for Sharia Law. They are only trying to tear down the institution on America and it's people.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tripp on February 24, 2012 at 5:00pm

When the end game means the government controls all, muddying the waters is a good first step. What is the dominant religion in America ? Christianity, by a great margin. So where do we see the attacks aimed towards - Christianity, not religion in general.

The guns and Bibles will win - they always do, when fighting on home turf. Team Obama has just begun to hear the outrage from the Christian right, with the Jews close behind. All religions know this will eventually get to their borders of philosophy. When are the athiest tyrants going to learn they can not win this war ? Never have and never will.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JAMES CHILDRESS on February 24, 2012 at 9:02pm

BUT IN THE MEAN TIME HOW MANY WILL DIE

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Norma J. Sears on February 29, 2012 at 10:48am

There's a lot that goes against the Freedom of Religion. It was not intended to be this way when we read the original intent, the U. S. Constitution, and Articles of Confederation. Religion played a big part in their writings and meanings as they wanted government to keep their hands off ..........period.