Monday, July 7, 2014

Not Just A Hobby Anymore...

"All Americans can be thankful that the Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and that the government cannot impose a law on American men and women that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance," ~ Tony Perkins, President Family Research Council.
Last week, in a landmark 5-4 decision (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, & Alito), the United States Supreme Court upheld the argument made by Hobby Lobby and 2 other US corporations stating that the new health insurance law, the Affordable care Act (ACA), which carries an abortion coverage mandate, either by benefits or by premium, also carries an unconstitutional imposition on American's Freedom Of Religious rights which, in their opinion, extends to the owners of for profit corporations upon which this mandate was thrust. 

"...(the decision) shows that religious freedom continues to be the lifeblood of a country founded on the inalienable rights afforded to us by our Creator.".."Religious groups and business owners should not have to violate their faith in order to follow the law. It's not the role of government to define what we believe or what our faith includes," ..."Fundamentally these cases were not about abortion or contraception: they were about whether government can require faith-based groups to violate deeply held beliefs." ~ Jim Daly President Focus On The Family
Not So Fast Goliath

Although Hobby Lobby has been blasted because much of their merchandise is made in China (as MOST other US companies and retailers) as one, moderately sized company, they are solely responsible for standing against big "Goliath" government, and a Presidential administration, which was slated to continue to run roughshod over all Americans especially those predisposed to closely held religious views. It seemed that the administration was bent on continuing to cast aside the exercise of religious freedom and the right of conscious as a dirty garment of post religious America. 

Well, after all, the erosion of religious rights is what we have come to expect from both the courts and the Obama administration. It is the Obama administration that continues to apply its view of religious pluralism as a mere dispensable hurdle in the road when it comes to theories of "the greater good" as defined by humanism and other anti-theistic world views and methodologies. For example, within the courts, even when legislatures have hand crafted laws defining marriage, based on the will of "the people" in those states, federal Courts have usurped their authority over the people, overturing laws, claiming that their understanding and endorsement of marriage diversity trumps the peoples understanding of marriage and morality. These are the days when religious views are negotiable. They are non-static no matter how closely held or defined. They, closely held religious beliefs, are only substantive to the degree in which they agree with the overall direction of government and human moral agreement. Otherwise, they are to be "praised" but minimized.  

In part, this is how the homosexual agenda has enjoyed such great proliferation under the Obama Presidency and administrative process. That is hardly a positive, because that proliferation has opened the door to all kinds of ugly and further perverted marital arrangements already on the horizon, including the re-institution of polygamy and the presentation and possible acceptance of pedophilia under the guise of arguments of moral harm and beneficial sexual education of minors. 

These are challenges that will not soon go away because the door has been opened to all forms and kinds of interpretations. 

What The Court Said:

The argument. like all at this level, was a complex one. At odds is the compelling governmental reason to require that coverage not only contain contraceptive coverage, but that all employers pay for it either through premium cost or by some other method. in short, the decision displayed that the gov't had not applied the least restrictive method in requiring such coverage. For them, it was a simple, "you should, because we say it's good and you should, and now it's the law" type of argument. The court said, not so fast...
" Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives. ~ Pg. 8
This goes back to what I said earlier about the hurdles of religion being easily cast aside by this administration. this administration does not view religious rights as "real" rights. They are negotiable. This was clearly the path they were taking. The court identified at least 2 other methods by which the government COULD provide the benefits that the freedom of choice and women's rights movement believes are essential to women's health. Why was there NO talk about any other path when these benefits were being challenged on religious rights and when it had been pointed out that those of us with closely held, moral and religious views on the subject should not be subject to governmental intrusions such as this? That is because this administration has no RESPECT for any religious belief that is contrary to its stated purpose and belief system. 

Corporations have rights which are a reflection of the rights of the individuals who form them:
"As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people." ~ Pg. 24
The entire decision can be found HERE, but as you can see, this was a complex case, but not so complex as to throw out all form of reason and what has been held since the founding of the country...that WE, the People have a fundamental right to the exercise of religious freedom and rights of conscience rooted in that fundamental belief even in the corporate world. 

God LESS America

To assume that a business owner should put down their closely held religious beliefs or that those beliefs can and should be changed, modified or taken away based on a person's subjective view and utilitarian value ethic is atrocious. However, as Todd Starnes outlines in his book, "God Less America" the erosion of religious freedoms, values and rights of conscious is exactly what is happening all across America as various parts of the "freedom of worship" mentality trumps the "freedom of religion" value ethic in America...
  • Wedding cake makers and Christian photographers businesses being shut down because they don't endorse homosexuality...
  • White House representatives on bullying, bullying Christians because of their faith and personal beliefs...
  • High ranking military officers being told to hide their faith because they could be considered "hate groups"...
  • Minister suspended from work because he preached from the pulpit of his church that homosexuality was a sin...
These are just some of the things that are happening in modern US society. Faith is being challenged along with sound and substantive moral values and ethics. It seems that the ACA was also loaded with its version of challenges to faith and faith practices. 

We can thank god for a victory for now, but those of us who understand the seriousness of the day and the arguments must remain vigilant and must continue to stand in the fight. At the end of the day we are not fighting men, flesh or mankind. We are fighting a spiritual fight and the value of the fight or what is at stake cannot be understated. Thank god for all willing soldiers who are able to stand along with me and us in the fight...

Blessed!  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.