The Huffington Post has reported that Hobby Lobby has sued the government to block the portion of the new health care law that requires coverage for birth control. Hobby Lobby is a Christian-owned company (closed on Sundays) who holds that some of the contraceptives are abortifacients -- they kill babies -- and being required to provide them violates their freedom of religion.
The government, of course, disagrees. Abortifacients don't cause abortions. Don't be silly. (I'll come back to that in a moment.) And, besides, corporations aren't people. People have religious freedom; corporations don't.
Hobby Lobby is facing daily fines of $1.3 million if they fail to comply. Their alternative would be to drop health care insurance entirely for their employees. They would face $26 million in fines per year for this choice, but you can do the math. Or, of course, they can violate their own beliefs. This would be the demand and expectation of most people, I suppose. Oddly enough, in these bad economic times, Hobby Lobby has been growing. They've been hiring. Their minimum wage is 80% above the national average. So the government is planning to penalize a job-producing company in order to kill babies.
The result of the news of the suit is a strong outcry from the American people standing for religious freedom. Oh, wait ... no ... that's from a dream. Didn't happen. No, it's a boycott. The right thing to do, to the American public, is to eliminate religious freedom if it contravenes the right of women to choose to kill their babies.
They tell me the "doom and gloom" reports coming out from this most recent election aren't fair or reasonable. You draw your own conclusions. I did want to get back to that argument the government has offered about abortifacients. You see, they argue that abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy requires the fertilization and implantation of that fertilized egg. Abortifacients simply prevent the implantation of that fertilized egg, so no abortion takes place. This, then, illustrates my problem with the "anti-abortion" position. I have claimed all along and will continue to claim that I am not "anti-abortion". I am pro-life. You see, a fertilized egg is the first stage of human life. An unfertilized egg is not. Simple as that. Splitting hairs about "implanted" or the definition of "abortion" misses the point. I believe in the value of human life. Human begins at fertilization. Ergo, anything that intentionally ends the process after fertilization is killing a human.
As for your freedom of religion, surely you're not surprised about that, right? When we shifted from "Under God" to statism, where the State determines our moral values, we surrendered "inalienable rights endowed by our Creator". When we clung to "Separation of Church and State" as a mantra, we eliminated any basis for God-given rights. Your right to religious freedom has been on the chopping block for a long time. Don't be surprised (1 Peter 4:4, 12; 1 John 3:13).
35 comments:
Obviously, if a law required ME personally to do something against my religious beliefs (have an abortion, if that were not what I believed in, marry a gay guy, if that's not what I believed was right...), that would be an obvious problem. But this is a step removed.
It's rather similar to the laws that we pacifists abide where we HAVE to pay taxes, some of which go for paying for war. Is being required to pay into a system (a tax system, a health system) and that SYSTEM then uses my money to do something I don't approve of due to my religious beliefs, is that the same level of religious violation?
If we're going to take it to that level, then how do we handle any taxation or rule requirement?
I've certainly had my problem with paying war taxes, because of my religious beliefs, so I'm not unsympathetic, but I'm just not sure how a society would deal with taxation or rules such as this healthcare rule if we try to figure out “opt-out” options when it conflicts with religious opinion.
How would we do that?
And is requiring someone to pay into a system that THEN does something with that money, the same level of religious “oppression” as requiring people to directly do something themselves?
Honest questions I have. Do you have thoughts?
I can see the dilemma with paying taxes some of which might go to defending the country when you believe that is a violation of your religious beliefs. That's one end of the spectrum. The other would be, as you said, being required to have an abortion (like it is in China under certain conditions). The difference I see between your tax example and the payment for contraceptives is the unknown. You pay taxes (generally) and some may be used to pay for war. Unknown. Can't be known. A company required to pay for contraception knows what they're paying for without question.
But, again, I get the dilemma from your example. I'm not sure that it's the same. If you, for instance, gave money to a homeless fellow for food and he used it to buy drugs, did you do something wrong?
Not arguing or disagreeing. I'm not sure it's the same, but I can see that it could be a problem. In the military there are "conscientious objectors" who take no part in war but serve in other ways. Perhaps that could be applied to taxation?
In any case, being required to pay directly for something which violates your religious beliefs is surely a different level than paying for general taxes that could be used for things that violate your religious beliefs.
Of course, to pay taxes to support the military, which serves the nation in a manner that is Constitutionally appropriate, is a far cry from paying taxes to purposely kill a child for selfish reasons. In war, children might die, but not as a premeditated act. Abortion is clearly premeditated. The purpose is to kill the unborn child. That is not the purpose of our military, which is to defend our nation, its interests and at times, our allies. Thus, taxes don't go "to war", but to the defense of the nation.
Stan...
In any case, being required to pay directly for something which violates your religious beliefs is surely a different level than paying for general taxes that could be used for things that violate your religious beliefs.
I can see at least three, maybe four levels here...
1. The gov't requiring you to DO something directly which violates your conscience: Requiring you to have an abortion, to kill enemies, to buy insurance or save money ("store up treasures") when that's against your beliefs...
2. The gov't requring you to pay money into a program and that program WILL sooner or later participate in things that you don't agree with... The military WILL kill enemies at some point and your money will be used towards that, for instance;
3. The gov't requiring you to pay money into a program and that program will participate in things contrary to your beliefs. The money itself will not be used towards that end, but it will be supporting the program in general... planned parenthood WILL help with abortions and your money - while not funding those abortions - helps PP in other areas and you view that as ultimately propping up PP.
4. The gov't requires you to pay money into a program (insurance, for instance) and that insurance will offer the possibility of treatments, some of which are against your morals... Requiring you to provide insurance and that insurance offers birth control options or abortion options which MAY be picked up by your employees. You don't know that your employees will use that insurance that way, but it's an option. Thus, you don't know (and, I'm pretty sure, WON'T know - since I presume this is a private decision) if your employees used your insurance to decide for themselves to get condoms or an abortion.
I would say that, while it may be hard to define, there are definitely levels. My option 1 (gov't forcing you to have an abortion) would be an example of a clear line that we should certainly stay away from (although, as the "dire-ness" of the situation and "weird-ness" of the religious belief grows/shrinks, I still think it may be vague... I generally disbelieve in insurance, for example, but gov't REQUIRING that drivers have auto insurance seems a reasonable demand, EVEN IF the individual is religiously opposed to insurance. They still have freedom of religion - if they/I don't want to get insurance, I don't have to get a car and NEED insurance. My "weird" belief doesn't mean I get to choose to drive without insurance...)
The problem with the rest of the options (whether "war taxes" or "required insurance where a company might contribute towards a condom") is finding a workable societal way to allow such variability. Taxation and insurance by line-item vote is not a very workable solution, it seems to me - as very much as I DO NOT want to contribute towards war taxes or personal auto promotion/subsidies, I am not aware of a reasonable way to accomodate my personal religious beliefs.
So far, I have decided that I have two options:
A. Pay into it and comfort myself with the knowledge that I'm not personally supporting the notion of War (or you're not personally promoting the notion of abortion), but I am paying into the common needs of my country, even in areas where I disagree, even strongly disagree.
B. Lower my income to the level where I'm not paying taxes (or, for those who don't want to provide insurance, change my business to where I'm not required to provide insurance).
I just don't see any way around the "line item vote" problem of accomodating all possible religious preferences.
Marshall...
That is not the purpose of our military, which is to defend our nation, its interests and at times, our allies. Thus, taxes don't go "to war", but to the defense of the nation.
Similarly, with providing health care options to individuals, you are not being forced to "pay for an abortion" (or a condom, if you're Catholic/of that view), you are paying for the health of our country.
The difference between war and abortion (as far as "forced" gov't moneys are concerned) is that, with War, MY TAX DOLLARS are going directly to pay for something DONE BY MY GOV'T which violates my religious liberty.
With insurance, your tax dollars are going to pay for insurance which then, INDIVIDUALS may choose or not to do something which I personally don't agree with. That is, it's not like the gov't DECIDING to kill babies (fetuses), but the gov't giving medical options to people. It's a step further removed with gov't doing something directly with my money that I disagree with, personally.
LEVEL ONE: Dan - won't kill for gov't and isn't forced to.
LEVEL TWO: Dan - doesn't want to pay for war waged by my gov't and IS forced to and people are killed directly with my tax dollars.
Versus:
LEVEL ONE: Stan - doesn't want an abortion or a condom and isn't forced to.
LEVEL TWO: Stan - doesn't want to pay for an abortion or condom by his gov't and isn't forced to.
LEVEL THREE: Stan - doesn't want to pay for insurance which ANOTHER CITIZEN might then use to buy an abortion or condom, and is forced to and babies are killed/fetuses prevented INdirectly by his tax dollars.
That, too, to me, seems to be a significant difference in level. The gov't isn't performing abortions or forcing abortions with my tax dollars, they're just providing health care options, some of which fellow citizens (not "my gov't," but fellow citizens) might use in ways I might disagree with.
The person who owns the company, who founded it, who decides what worldview to use when running the company, certainly IS an individual. Which is why HE should not be forced to pay for contraception of any sort.
The whole issue is a fraud by the government and specifically by the President. The claim is that contraceptives are "health care" that are not readily accessible, regardless of the fact that anyone can go to Target, Wal-Mart, or any drug store to purchase them. And they can have FREE contraceptive by just not having sex.
But the whole thing is a scam to promote abortion. Notice that there is no such thing as the gov't paying for condoms, which certainly are contraceptives for men. No, the whole issue is being driven by the feminist demands for unlimited abortion paid for by tax dollars.
The Constitution authorizes expenditures for the military so as to be able to defend this nation, whereas there is NO Constitutional authorization for the gov't to get involved with providing health insurance or mandating what the insurance companies have to do.
And "pacifists" like Dan make me want to puke. All the while they get to exercise their freedoms which they will find in no other nation, they decry paying into the very system that GIVES THEM such freedom! If it wasn't for our military defending the rights of his ilk, he'd be speaking German because the Nazis would own the USA!
A couple of things, Dan.
1. The issue is all contraceptives to the Catholics. For non-Catholics it is not. So don't get condomns confused with abortifacients. The owner of Hobby Lobby is not Catholic and is opposed to being forced to pay for abortions (including those caused by abortifacients). Just to keep that particular issue clear.
2. I have a hard time with "Dan doesn't want to pay taxes if they could be used for _____" where the space would be, in this discussion, military. (Completely side question: Are you actually opposed to nations defending themselves against aggressors?) I have an equal hard time with "Bob doesn't want to pay taxes if they could be used for" and this blank would be "abortions". In both cases, the tax use is vague. You and I pay into a tax pool. That pool pays for lots of stuff. Most of that stuff is stuff we need (or want), not morally objectionable stuff. I understand your dilemma (and Bob's), but the tax payment issue is too large to be able to say, "I am morally/religiously opposed to x and my taxes could possibly be used for some of x, so I shouldn't have to pay any taxes."
3. Paying taxes and buying contraceptives or paying for abortions are not the same thing. Taxes = general; the others = specific. Indeed, health insurance routinely has "line item vetoes" (so to speak). "We cover x; we don't cover y."
4. Cannot stress this enough. It is not a health issue. The line is "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." Similarly, "Your choice to engage in sexual encounters without moral or even practical considerations shouldn't mean that I, who have religious values forbidding it, should have to pay for the results." I recall, as a parallel example, when her (some unnamed girl) mother and father were asked to pay for her wedding to someone that they found morally and biblically objectionable. They were heartbroken, but believed that it would be wrong to support such an activity and could not do so. In today's climate, they could very easily be required to do just that.
Paying taxes for the military is paying someone else to save your life/property/country. Paying insurance allows and promotes murder for personal reasons which most of the time could be prevented in the first place is very different. Taking life to save life, though bad, is noble. Taking life because they don't want someone alive is evil.
Indeed. While Dan may have some irrational notion regarding the military based on a greater irrational understanding of Biblical teaching, the point remains that defense of the nation is a legitimate cost to every citizen. Providing for abortions, an elective operation 99% of the time, is not. What's more, this is a case of gov't mandating what should be covered and who should cover it when it has no Constitutional allowance for doing so. There will likely always be ways in which the immoral or stupid can find faux-birth control products or services without having to force every company and every insurer to provide it in order to comply with an unConstitutional mandate.
Yes, Dan, I'm curious. Is it your view that abortion (either by procedure or by abortifacient) falls under "the common needs of my country"?
Health care falls under the "common needs of our country (and indeed, the world)," in my estimation. And I support people making their own end of life decisions and other medical decisions.
My point remains: When gov't requires you to pay - either through taxation or required insurance - for programs by the gov't, you infringe on others' religious liberty and I don't know a way around it.
I will admit that it's at least a perceived problem in BOTH cases, just one that I don't know how to resolve.
I find it unsavory, though, and hypocritical that some would so gladly take away my religious liberty but cry so much about your perceived loss of religious liberty.
If you are actually concerned with religious liberty - as opposed to just cultural prejudices and wanting your way - then you'd recognize problems ANY time that someone's religious liberties are infringed upon, not complain only when it's your ox being gored.
Is it just me, or does it seem backwards to be opposed to war, but be okay with abortion for all reasons? How is killing enemies in the defense of others and self worse than the murder of "innocent" humans just because they aren't capable of supporting their own life?
Because, David, killing babies is "a woman's choice" on the basis of women's health issues, so killing babies under those conditions may be bad, but killing people for, say, the defense of the country is immoral. You know, the reverse idea that you took in your earlier comment.
Health care falls under the commen needs. Up until now, then, the government has failed miserably in its job of supplying for the common needs. Further, "health care" includes anything related to medical procedures, apparently, since abortions are in almost all cases post-pregnancy contraception, not a matter of health care in any sense of "health". Unless we're going to claim that pregnancy is a medical condition that happens to you, like a disease or a motor vehicle accident.
I do think that it's odd that you're complaining about people not caring about you having to pay taxes when some of those may be used to defend your freedom which would violate your religious freedom, but at the same time aren't concerned that their religious freedoms are violated in what you consider to be similar conditions. Seems to go both ways.
(And I'm still curious. If you were emperor, would you ban the military? Is it your view that it is biblically immoral for nations to defend themselves?)
Like you guys, I find it so very odd that some will support the killing of unborn babies because it's "my business, my choice"...and then not support the defense of our own country. I just cannot fathom that kind of thinking. Lord help us...no really.
It's off topic, but would I "ban" a military in a Republic? No. In a republic, people get to vote their opinions and I would be opposed to folk (even folk I agree with, such as the Amish or Quakers) imposing their religion upon a majority.
Again, it's a matter of religious liberty. Even though I don't believe Christians should kill their enemies or the children and innocents around their enemies, neither do I want to impose my religious views on others. You all appear to be okay with the notion as long as others don't impose THEIR religious views on you.
That is, you'd like to impose your views on others but not have others impose theirs upon you. Best of both worlds. For you. Not so much with those who have other opinions than you, but what do you care, as long as you get your religious liberty? Is that what I'm hearing you say?
As to, "If I were an EMPEROR, would I ban a military?" No. I'd ban the emperor-ship and create a Republic where people can decide for themselves.
Is it my view that it is Biblically immoral for nations to defend themselves? No.
It is my view that it is biblically wrong for Christians to kill their enemies or the innocent people around their enemies. That is my view because that is all the Bible has to say as to OUR responsibility in dealing with enemies.
That doesn't mean I don't believe in "defending ourselves." I just reject the option of killing as a way of "defending," partly out of basic Bible exegesis and partly because I doubt the efficacy of killing and war as self-defense.
We Christians have our commands and they're pretty clear, IF you don't approach it looking for loopholes. Love our enemies. Overcome evil with good. Turn the other cheek. Do not seek vengeance, leave that to the Lord. Seek the good of our enemies, etc, etc. We have no biblical rule that says, "In spite of all the direct commands you've been given, sometimes it is okay to kill your enemies - and even the innocent men, women and children around them..." It just isn't in the Bible.
I could go on, but this is off topic, I just wanted to try to answer your questions.
Again, for me, it's about religious liberty. I want religious liberty for ALL, not just those who agree with me. Which means I don't try to impose my religious views on others. I am/we are just asking the same courtesy from you that we're willing to extend TO you.
Consistency. Liberty. Yeah.
starflyer...
I find it so very odd that some will support the killing of unborn babies because it's "my business, my choice"...and then not support the defense of our own country.
1. I don't support the "killing of unborn babies." That would be a poor understanding of my/our position.
2. I support religious liberty.
3. I support people being able to make their own decisions about medical decisions for them and their loved ones - even end-of-life decisions. Even if those decisions conflict with my own religious opinions.
4. Again, for me, it's about religious liberty. I may hold the opinion that some people using the legal medical procedure known as abortion in some instances do so wrongly or at least questionably, but I don't want to impose my religious views on them.
5. It appears that you all care less about religious liberty for others, as long as you "get yours," is that what you're saying? You don't care that paying taxes for wars conflict with MY religious views, as long as you don't have to pay taxes that conflict with YOUR religious views?
6. If that is the case, I would call that a case of hypocrisy, selfishness and short-sightedness (recalling that old adage, "I was silent when they came for the Jews, because I wasn't a Jew...") Standing by quietly while religious liberties are being taken for others works fine until they come to take yours.
Sorry the question was so difficult. "Emperor" and "ban" became words you couldn't get past to get to the point. All I was asking was if you had the authority and capacity to do what was best for a nation, would it be best not to use military force to defend that nation? Indeed, we've danced around this (a very little) in the past on a smaller scale. "Is killing bad?" "Yes." "So you wouldn't kill to defend your family?" Your response was ... vague. In the larger scale, then, I was (am still) vague about your view. Defend your family? Yes! With force? Oh, I don't know, maybe, maybe not. Defend your nation? Yes! With force? No, probably not. So if the only possible defense from a militaristic aggressor is non-military, then the bottom line is "No, there should be, in a perfect nation, no military." Yes, it was off topic. No, no need to dig further.
"I don't want to impose my religious views on them."
Is that really what you think? Because lots of times it appears as if you're attempting to impose your religious views on people. For instance, you're quite certain that the only way to disagree with your view on no military is not further exegesis, but "looking for loopholes". The choice for any good believer, then, is to take your view or be not merely wrong, but deviously wrong. Or how about your repeated accusation that "you all care less about religious liberty for others"? That is indeed imposing your religious view on others.
More importantly, I'm wondering about the value of your "religious views" if they aren't worth giving to others. I mean, if it is a violation of God's commands to do x and you're not willing to suggest to anyone else that they shouldn't do x, what's the point?
You're of the opinion that morality is determined by harm. Wouldn't it be equally true that "religious views" are only as valuable as the good they bring? But if you're unwilling to impose such good on people, of what value are they?
But if the bottom line is "religious freedom for all" and not imposing religious views, by what remotely consistent method are we going to pass laws? Why, for instance, would prostitution or drug use be illegal as victimless crimes? You aren't going to defend the lives of babies in the womb because a woman's right to choose her "health issues" trumps their right to live. That's not "harm"? So without some solid basis for morality, all we have left is your opinion or mine and that will vary from person to person and likely from moment to moment. Now we're imposing opinions on each other rather than "religions views". And that is okay.
Makes precious little sense to me.
Dan,
Abortion is NOT a religious liberty issue. It is a moral issue, period. It is a matter of life and death.
Calling it a "religious liberty" issue would be the same as calling murder a religious liberty issue. The issue transcends all religious beliefs.
You see, starflyer, Dan is consistent. "I am opposed to killing in defense of the country. I'm opposed to killing babies in the womb. I would ban neither. And I will defend, at least with my taxes, their right to do both, even if I consider both wrong. Religious freedom means no one gets to tell anyone what to do based on religious values."
You and I may not see sense in it, but it is consistent.
Dan,
Love our enemies. Overcome evil with good. Turn the other cheek. Do not seek vengeance, leave that to the Lord. Seek the good of our enemies, etc, etc
As usual, you take Scripture totally out of context to justify your position. These citations were about personal enemies; i.e., personal relationships. They have nothing to do with national enemies and international relationships.
Stan...
I was asking was if you had the authority and capacity to do what was best for a nation, would it be best not to use military force to defend that nation?
I don't believe in top down management of people. I would not choose to ban something myself - even if I disagreed with it - because I don't believe in one person making the decisions for a group of people. I just don't and thus, the question is moot.
I would always counsel people, though, that killing our enemies is not the best way to resolve differences and killing the people AROUND our enemies is always wrong, and would work to convince people in a nation not to go that route.
Stan...
Defend your family? Yes!
That is correctly my opinion.
Stan...
With force? Oh, I don't know, maybe, maybe not.
I think I've been quite clear. I do not think killing someone else to defend my family is what Jesus taught us to do. Stop them? Certainly. Use deadly force, that is contrary to what we've been taught by Jesus, it seems to me.
Would I do it? Perhaps, but if I did it, I think I would do it in contradiction to Jesus' teachings and I would ask for forgiveness for not having a better answer.
I'm not sure what is vague about it.
Do I believe Jesus wants us to kill our enemies? I see NOT ONE SINGLE BIBLICAL verse to support such an idea. Not one. On the other hand, I see plenty of instructions on how we SHOULD deal with our enemies: Love them, turn the other cheek, give them my cloak, pray for them, overcome their evil with good...
NO WHERE in any teachings of Jesus do I have any suggestion that I should, while loving, turning the other cheek and overcoming evil with good - where I should kill them. It does not exist.
Agreed?
As always with pro-war types, they base their decisions on the fear of what might happen if they don't embrace deadly violence rather than strict biblical teachings. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it's not a biblical teaching. That's all I'm saying and that seems pretty clear to me.
Stan...
Defend your nation? Yes! With force? No, probably not.
DEADLY force? No, not if you're following Jesus' teachings.
Now if you want to say, "Being afraid of what might happen if I strictly follow Jesus' teachings, I might temporarily abandon those teachings in a moment of crisis, not knowing what else to do, and kill my enemies. I may even kill their innocent children in the process, shedding innocent blood, contrary to clear biblical and moral teaching. But I won't claim it's biblical or Christian to do so..." I think that is a fair thing to say (whether or not it's moral, I'll leave to you, but it's fair...)
But to try to claim that the Bible DOESN'T teach what it clearly teaches in order to justify your sin, that would be a mistake, it seems to me.
Does that clarify?
Stan...
Because lots of times it appears as if you're attempting to impose your religious views on people.
Making my case as to why I believe what I believe is attempting to impose my religious views on people? How so? I'm not requiring you by law to do as I believe. THAT is imposing religious views on others.
You know, like you all do in at least a few cases (imposing your religious views on people on marriage, on adoption, on abortion, on illegal drugs, perhaps...), but now are whining because you feel someone is trying to do the same to you (albeit not directly, as opposed to your DIRECT imposition of your religious views on someone else by weight of law).
Again, your concern for "religious liberty" would be more believable if you defended OTHER people's religious liberty, and not only your own.
Say what you will about my positions, I'm not trying to impose my religious views on others by force of law.
Those who do so can't reasonably complain about loss of religious liberty and be taken seriously. Just a suggestion, if you're truly concerned about this topic of your post today and want to have some credibility.
I'm curious how standing up against abortion is to stand against religious liberty. Are you saying it is someone's religious belief that the murder of the unborn is okay? Is it part of their religious practice? I think we can all agree that there are some religious restrictions, like child sacrifice is illegal because it is wrong. But I seriously doubt any woman in America is getting an abortion because her religion says she must. If she did, would you then say it must be okay for her to do because you don't want to hinder her religious liberty? There is a difference between something infringing on religious liberty and something being immoral. And while Dan doesn't agree that morality has a basis, just because we say morality does have a basis doesn't mean we are infringing on their liberty to conduct their religious practices. We are saying that there are things that are right and there are things that are wrong, and being pro-abortion has nothing to do with religion, and most of the time has nothing to do with health.
Sorry, Dan. Thought we were having a mostly friendly and even somewhat interesting conversation about religious liberty. Wasn't aware I was "whining". End of conversation. Thanks. Bye.
David...
Are you saying it is someone's religious belief that the murder of the unborn is okay?
It is YOUR religious belief that abortion = murder of an innocent child. Not everyone agrees with your religious belief. Nonetheless, you wish to impose it upon others, contrary to THEIR religious beliefs.
It is YOUR religious belief that gay folk should not have a legal right to wed gay folk. Not everyone agrees with your religious belief. Nonetheless, you wish to impose it upon others, contrary to THEIR religious beliefs.
What part of "imposing your religious belief upon others" in this context is unclear?
Stan, your concern about my use of the word "whining" (which seems an apt description, to me, when people only want "freedom" for them, but not for others, then complain when they are treated the same way they want to treat others) being "unfriendly" would be more believable if this sort of attack wasn't routinely tolerated by your comrades...
And "pacifists" like Dan make me want to puke.
I see your (reasonably placed) "whine" and raise you one "puke."
Sort of like my point here: You all seem to want to have religious freedom for yourselves, but not allow it for others.
You all want people to be "friendly" towards you (not use words/descriptors you find "unfriendly") but don't extend the same courtesy in the other direction.
You'd be more credible if you were at least consistent, one way or the other.
It is your religious belief that murder is wrong. Clearly since it happens with alarming regularity not everyone believes it's wrong, but you're willing to force your religious belief on everyone by force of law. It is your religious belief that health care (defined as anything remotely related to health whether it is optional or problematic or moral) is a matter of the common good and are willing to force that belief on everyone, whether or not they agree, by force of law. It is your religious belief that marriage should include gay folk and you're perfectly willing and happy to apply that belief on those who disagree by force of law. And somehow, as always, you are not guilty of the thing of which you accuse those with whom you disagree and are taking the higher moral ground without recognizing for an instant that you're doing the very same thing.
All laws are impositions of beliefs. All of them. Not everyone agrees with all laws. Or, to put it another way, there is no law on the books with which everyone has full agreement. But we do it. We pass laws. We imposed beliefs that x is wrong and y is right and, by virtue of the current legal system, "this" belief system (whatever it happens to be) will be imposed on everyone. It is a given. But you think it's wrong to impose beliefs.
You are opposed to "top down" management. As it happens, that's God's favorite method. He practices it. He arranges it. He ordained first a theocracy and then a king, not a democracy, for Israel. He gave the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions. But as you are fond of stating, God doesn't make rules and you don't see God in that light. I understand your view better now. It is inconsistent with reason and with Scripture, but I understand it better. It would seem that anarchy would fit better with your philosophy than rule of law. And still you argue vehemently railing against those with whom you disagree just as loudly as they rail against you and see no contradiction.
When this conversation started, I thought you asked a reasonable question. How is being forced to pay for abortion drugs different than being forced to pay taxes for national defense? Good question. Let's think about that. Of course, it didn't last. While I was trying to work through that with you, you decided that I, like everyone else, was "whining". I don't recall turning on you, but you think it is so, so by all means impose your beliefs on this conversation and I will do the same and impose my rule of no comments when friendly is impossible. You can't see the log in your own eye. Why should we continue trying to analyze if there is a difference between paying for abortion and paying for war? We're done.
So Dan has now decided that abortion does not kill the baby, i.e. murder. It doesn’t matter that science and the medical fields both state that abortion kills the child, with Dan it is just a “religious belief.” Let’s see, the definition of murder is to take a human life without just cause (i.e., judicial capital punishment, self-defense, etc). The reason babies are killed in the womb is for convenience of the mother. That isn’t a just reason, and it is taking an innocent life. One doesn’t have to have any religious beliefs to know that killing a baby is wrong. I.e., it is murder! Since I believed it was murder before I became a Christian (i.e., while I was still a pagan unbeliever), how is believing that abortion is murdering a child a religious belief?
Oh, and again while I was an unbeliever, I knew homosexual behavior was biologically wrong and perverted, and would never want the law to force me to accept it under penalty of fines, lawsuits, etc. So how is it a “religious belief” to know homosexuality is against the design of the human body?
On the other hand, you ARE using religious views to support homosexuality (your claim that God is okay with it) and are certainly supporting the forcing of those views on everyone else by having same-sex fake marriage legislated as being equal to real marriage.
To equate your charge of whining against Stan, with my personal feeling of nausea when listening to people claim pacifism by abusing Scripture is totally illogical. You made a false charge against Stan to marginalize his argument. I expressed a personal feeling of disgust for your abuse of the Scripture in regards to the military all the while feeling free to exercise liberties based on that same military earning them for you.
By the way - I don’t know of any pro-military type (such as myself) who is “pro-war.” None of us like or want war. But sometimes war is necessary to protect the very liberties we enjoy. You and your ilk of pacifists twist the Scripture’s teachings about personal relationships into meaning something about national relationships. Even protecting your own home is right and proper when necessary; YOUR Jesus would say let the bad guy rape your wife and daughters and then murder your whole family because that is turning the other cheek!
Every comment you make demonstrates more and more that you have no idea what Scripture really says. And more and more you demonstrate that you have made a God and Jesus in your imagination which have no resemblance to the God and Jesus of the Bible. And then you want to be accepted as a Christian!?!?!?!
Stan...
All laws are impositions of beliefs. All of them. Not everyone agrees with all laws.
But some are based on observable harm while others are based upon individual hunches about what God does and doesn't approve of.
You appear willing to have a rather haphazard and whimsical approach to creating laws based on what YOU think God wants, but if others disagree or think God wants something else, you don't want them to impose their views on you.
You're welcome to have a whimsical approach to rule-making that relies upon forcing your religious hunches on other people, but most people in our nation will continue to want to NOT force specifically religious views on others. You know, religious liberty, THE VERY THING YOU WERE COMPLAINING about in this post.
Again, it appears that for you, "religious liberty" means "the 'liberty' to agree with MY opinions about God and if you don't agree, you don't got no liberty..."
That is a rather immature and un-American approach to religious liberty. That's all I'm saying.
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings that I disagree with your approach to religious "liberty" but you're an adult, you can handle reasonable differences of opinion, I am quite confident.
Glenn, anytime you'd like to have an adult conversation based on what I actually believe and have said - as opposed to these childish ad hom strawman attacks, let me know. Suffice to say that when YOU say, "Dan thinks..." you can rest assured that you don't know a single thing. Or better yet, do it this way: IF you think "Dan believes X..." you can safely assume that in the real world, "Dan believes NOT X..." is a closer representation of my beliefs - since you consistently get it wrong.
You're welcome.
Actually, Glenn, Dan didn't say abortion doesn't kill a baby. He said that some people disagree that it's murder. And just because you think it's murder is no reason to make it illegal. I cannot fathom Dan's position, but it would appear that murder should only be illegal in the cases that all people agree that 1) it's murder and 2) it's wrong. Like I said, I don't really understand his position on this because #2 in that concept won't happen. Further, everyone is happy to impose their beliefs on others when they believe them to be important enough -- like his willingness to force marriage laws to change. So he'd like to impose his "health care" (I put it in quotes because he's using the term different than I would) and "marriage" (again, clearly a different term) views on society but doesn't think we should impose views on society. When I point out that there is a religious freedom question here, he considers it "whining" and while he is right for imposing his "marriage" views on society, we'd be wrong for imposing our "murder" views on the same society. Neither you nor I understand the logic there, but, hey, it's Dan. What do you expect?
Oh, and HEY, Happy Thanksgiving! May the Lord continue to bless you and yours and may we all continue to learn a deeper sense of gratitude to our Father.
Dan, ridiculing those with whom you disagree is classical ad hominem. It doesn't work to complain about ad hominem arguments while making them yourself. Strawman arguments, on the other hand, are when you make arguments that do not represent the position of the person you are opposing and then point out their error, something at which you are a master yourself (such as "whining", "war-mongering", and "imposing beliefs" while I've never once suggested any of these). You are quite practiced at the logical fallacies about which you complain. You should recognize that complaining about them while committing them is the classical definition of "hypocrite".
So you consider harm as the key issue and yet are quite comfortable with killing babies as a matter of opinion (instead of undeniable science) and not "harm". It's a "religious opinion", a "hunch". My view is that the most defenseless people in society need protection and yours is "Well, not if everyone doesn't agree" and mine is a "whimsical approach". I have not suggested in this post that any law be changed, but that religious freedom is being impinged upon. That's "imposing religious views". That's irrational. Indeed, I think I'd be quite happy to let you not pay taxes in order to retain your "religious opinion". I favor those who are conscientious objectors not having to fight in the military. I am in favor of religious freedom -- not requiring of those who have religious obligations to violate those obligations. But you're perfectly happy to require of us the opposite and stand on your "moral high ground" as defending religious freedom.
Dan, you sadly represent the classic "depraved mind" that Paul wrote about. Go argue with someone else.
Dan fails to show any conviction in his position. To dodge a hypothetical meant to clarify his position, he throws it to "the people" and hides behind the argument that the point is moot. But hypotheticals are always moot since they represent the greatest of unlikely possibilities; in this case, Dan having ultimate authority. Here, he could have provided some insight into how he believes national defense can be be achieved without the use of deadly force when deadly force is being used by an aggressor.
And there is still no clear explanation of how a Constitutionally appropriate use of tax dollars, to defend the nation, compares to a completely non-Constitutional mandate to force support of a heinous and unnecessary procedure such as abortion, even if we concede the mythical "right" of a woman to choose to kill her own child.
The only consistency in Dan's position is the blatant inconsistency of "do no harm". There is indeed harm to both the child aborted and the woman to aborts, as there is great harm to the civilian population when the arrow of deadly force is removed from the quiver of options afforded a nation in defense of its own people.
"But some are based on observable harm..."
Yep, there's no observable harm from an abortion. None at all.
I had a lot of catching up to do, so I probably missed a lot...but I HAD to point out a quote from Dan:
"But to try to claim that the Bible DOESN'T teach what it clearly teaches in order to justify your sin, that would be a mistake, it seems to me."
SIDE NOTE: your blog "character verification" is super difficult. You can't read it and it takes several attempts. Okay enough "whine"
Hahahahahahah! Isn't that what he does every day when he is talking about "gay rights"?
You don't understand, starflyer. If I do it, it's teaching what the Bible doesn't teach. If he does it, it's superior exegesis -- exegesis so superior that no one from the beginning of Christendom until today ever figured it out.
Post a Comment