Risk to Religious Liberty Recognized

Last week I highlighted in a blog that defense of religious liberty is currently a priority of the LDS church.

Two headlines this past week relating to threats to religious liberty are worthy of your investigation:

Religious Liberty: The Latest Target of Obamacare by Grace-Marie Turner at National Review Online:

"The Obama administration announced today it will wait for a year (coincidentally until after the elections) before requiring religious organizations to comply with an Obamacare mandate that they provide coverage for contraception —including controversial drugs that can abort an early pregnancy". (full article)

Bishop Burton Joins Leaders to Promote Religious Freedom and Marriage by the LDS Public Affairs on their website:

"Last Thursday, Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, H. David Burton, joined 38 prominent leaders of different faiths in signing a letter advocating traditional marriage and religious freedom". (read letter)

Are so many of our religious institutions imagining a looming threat to free practice of religion, or is religious liberty truly put at risk by recent legislation and political agendas? You be the judge.

Pray for the USA

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

While driving, I usually listen to talk radio on AM and driving my boys around to their weekend activities on Saturday was no exception to start with. However, predominant themes of national debt, constitutional sidestepping, and general political dishonesty brought about an unusual despair and frustration. I racked my brain but couldn’t see a way out of our national mess and ultimately began scanning the FM dial for some music to regain my sanity.

I’m a few years behind on my country music, so when I rolled across a weekly country countdown, I decided to catch up. Featured on the program was a song titled “Love Like Crazy” by Lee Brice, both unfamiliar to me. A line in the song’s chorus seized my attention:

“Never let your prayin' knees get lazy”.

These lyrics made me wonder whether or not Americans are engaged sufficiently in prayer and supplication for the Almighty to intervene and help us fix our problems. I had to admit that although I personally pray often, I do not often (enough) pray for my country, its leaders and its citizens. I wondered if across the board, god-fearing patriots are not pouring their hearts out sufficiently to bring down the blessings of heaven so needed by our nation.

I recalled how the miracle that was the creation of our constitution only occurred after our founding fathers sought divine intervention to overcome irreconcilable interests. Benjamin Franklin urged them to so humbly petition thusly:

“Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

“I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.”

History attests that shortly afterwards, the founders’ “irreconcilable” interests were reconciled, dramatically highlighting the limitations of men who’s “prayin’ knees [are] lazy” and the contrasting power of prayer.

I suspect that what our country needs is more prayer.

Matthew 7: 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Highlight: An Introduction to Religious Freedom

“A free society committed to religious freedom and freedom of conscience means that all its members are vigilant in protecting the freedoms of each other. Maintaining this most basic of human freedoms and the harmony it brings is imperative for us all.” So concludes a recent article published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). The article titled “An Introduction to Religious Freedom” is a “broad introduction for a forthcoming series of articles on religious freedom”. I look forward to reading the series.

Judging by the related links accompanying this article in the LDS Newsroom, educational emphasis on religious freedom is a current priority of the LDS church:

• “Apostle Says Religious Freedom is Being Threatened” – 13 Oct 2009
  
  
• "Religious Values in the Public Square" - 15 Dec 2010
  
  
• “Apostle Emphasizes the Importance of Religious Freedom to Society” – 4 Feb 2011
  
  
• “Selected Beliefs and Statements on Religious Freedom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” – 4 Feb 2011
  
  
• “The Case of Religious Freedom” – 25 May 2011
  
  
• “Religion and Freedom” – 1 Jul 2011
  
  
• “Elder Quinton L. Cook Delivers Speech on morality and Religious Freedom” – 16 Dec 2011

“An Introduction to Religious Freedom” first establishes that freedom of religion “is not simply the freedom to worship or to believe the way one chooses...neither is it just for religious people”, but rather it “is the human right to think, act upon and express what one deeply believes, according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience”. The article further states that religious freedom is “the preeminent freedom in the U.S. Bill of Rights... the first among other essential liberties ...often referred to as the 'first freedom'. It is characterized this way because it enables and protects other human freedoms, like freedom of speech. Indeed, the culture of liberty and peaceful democracy in the United States in large part emerged from its firm respect for religious freedom".

After a brief discussion on “Religious freedom and society” and “Mormons and religious freedom”, the article gets to heart of why this topic deserves the recent emphasis given it by the LDS church:

“Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways. Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life. These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents. In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded. And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense. In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them".

The article's conclusion leads off: “Religious freedom, or “freedom of conscience,” has long been the bedrock of democracy. Long buried and taken for granted, it is now an elevated concern. There is need for Americans ... to become reacquainted with this freedom and recommitted to it".

Amen.

Don’t assume someone else will preserve your “first freedom”. It will surely die the death of a thousand cuts if patriots fail to stay on top of current issues, identify where and how liberty is under assault, and unite together in its defense.

History of Political Correctness

Video Summary: The working class having failed to bring about revolution under classical Marxism, a Marxist think tank sets out to develop a new class capable of doing so. The goal: complete destruction of western culture, believed to have thwarted the original revolution. They develop “Political Correctness” as the mechanism to curb the free speech messages of anyone in opposition to their goals.

Kagan Wrong For The Land Of The Free

Wrong on so many levels.

One has to wonder what designs for America those who voted "yes" hold.

This speech against nomination is a little long, but well worth watching, lest we forget.

Romneycare: What's Happening in MA?

For those of you who don’t follow Rush Limbaugh, you missed this insightful critique of Obamacare, informed by the fruits of Romneycare:

“Massachusetts and the health care plan they have is the role model, it is a miniature laboratory, if you will, for Obamacare. Even Democrats have described it that way. Insurance rates are going through the roof. The governor has imposed price controls. The insurance companies who asked for their rates to be raised are nonprofit companies, nonprofit. Today Massachusetts, tomorrow the rest of the nation. "This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under Obamacare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you. The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve." They have to go get approval to raise their rates. Deval Patrick said hell, no, and started tarring and feathering the companies as part of his reelection campaign, same thing Obama has done is demonize these people. These are nonprofit companies.

"Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed," exactly what we were discussing yesterday. There is no greed in industry. These are nonprofits. They're trying to make enough money here to stay in operation in Massachusetts. The real greed can be found inside most Congresses and legislatures in these states. That's where the greed is. Not in the free market. "Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits. Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009. In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims." And this gets even better. Stick with me. "It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies. So until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies."

“They're not selling anything. That's their response. Now, let's extrapolate. In Massachusetts, the government can't take over for the insurance companies or doesn't want to. In the case of Obama, when this happens, as we predicted, as a lot of people predicted, when this happens in America's private sector, nationwide, that's when Obama will move in, if this happens, and get his single payer. When the insurance companies can no longer stay in business even if they're nonprofits, they're just gonna quit. That's the objective -- mark my words -- of the Obamacare problem. "A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums." So the State of Massachusetts, "You're not selling policies? Fine. You better start quoting for people that want to buy, and you're going to quote last year's prices." And they talk about greed in the private sector?

"Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs). One irony is that Mr. Patrick's own Attorney General and his insurance regulators have concluded -- to their apparent surprise -- that the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Mr. Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite." And they're actually acting surprised. They're stunned to learn that these costs going up are related to the price of health care. They say they're surprised. See, their template, their narrative has been the insurance companies are evil, they've been demonizing, they're raising prices without any regard for the consumer, raising prices without any regard for true market forces, they're just greedy. And now the attorney general and Deval Patrick all of a sudden learn, no, no, no, the cost of health care is just skyrocketing. And you'll hear why, this gets even better in just a moment.

"On top of that, like ObamaCare, integral to the Massachusetts overhaul are mandates that require insurers to cover anyone who applies regardless of health status or pre-existing conditions and to charge everyone about the same rates. This allows people to wait until they're about to incur major medical expenses," such as getting sick or right after they have the car crash, before they buy insurance. So they buy the insurance only when they need to, and then after the catastrophe has passed, they are selling, they're getting out, they're canceling the policies. "This week Blue Cross Blue Shield reported a big uptick in short-term customers who ran up costs more than four times the average, only to drop the coverage within three months. Last July, Charlie Baker detailed similar gaming at Harvard Pilgrim, the health plan he used to run. Between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher than the company would have otherwise expected."

“Well, bingo, this is perfectly allowed under Obamacare. The only difference here is if you don't buy the insurance -- there's a mandate that you buy it -- if you don't, you get fined. We know now the IRS will take the value of your fine, the amount of it, from your so-called IRS refund, your income tax refund. And then when you need the insurance, doctor tells you you got a bad problem, illness, or the minute you have the wreck call the insurance company and they have to insure you just like they have to in Massachusetts, at controlled prices. Well, this is what's causing prices to skyrocket in Massachusetts. This is why these insurance companies have asked the commission for rate increases from anywhere from eight to 32% and Deval Patrick said no way as part of his opening salvo in his reelection campaign. So the insurance companies, "We can't do business like this." They're nonprofits don't forget, so they stop selling policies. And the governor has ordered them to start quoting prices at last year's premiums. Well, folks, they can't stay in business this way. It's not possible. This is a 100% microcosm. This is just one of the many aspects that is rife throughout Obamacare.”

Read full transcript here.

Do We Have A Right To Health Care?

I stumbled across an online debate wherein members of The Ornery American Forum offered some excellent arguments as to why Health Care is not a Right. I’ve selected postings from the thread to highlight some positions in the debate.

Forum member “G2” started the thread by posting an argument against health care being a right, written by Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University. As part of his argument, Williams offers:

"If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations."

“JoshCrow”:

"The problem with this argument [Williams'] is that health is unlike any other aspect of human existence - it is necessary to be in good health to perform any other function one can even have a right to do."

“Pyrotin”:

"You can effectively replace 'health care' with 'police', 'fire departments', 'roads', 'national military services', 'civil courts', and many other public needs to see just how absurd that argument [Williams'] is."

“Jasonr”:

"I think the author's position is confined to debunking the notion that healthcare is a 'right'. I agree with him that healthcare cannot possibly be a right in the same category as speech, for example.

"It is perfectly possible and logically consistent for me to conclude that healthcare is certainly not a 'right' by any rational standard, yet support universal government sponsored healthcare. I don't even need to bother with the 'social obligation' language JoshCrow suggests. It's just good public policy. Support universal healthcare without all the touchy-feely 'healthcare as human right' BS."

"Pyrtolin":

"So basically, he's [Williams] picking a different meaning of the word [right], making a totally irrelevant semantic argument, and then using that to back his pretty much explicit assertion that it should not be publicly funded?"

"Jasonr":

"I'll tell you what. I'll support your 'right' to healthcare when you agree to support our 'right' not to have the english language mangled to suit a political agenda.

"Both of us probably agree that universal healthcare is a good thing. I'm all for socialized medicine too. Just can the namby pamby 'rights' nonsense."

"Adam" highlights the fallacy of calling Health Care a right:

“I feel that the concept of 'rights' is frequently divorced from its intended context, and thus, meaning. The original (for us), very deist exposition was as much a metaphysical observation as a political assertion. 'All men are created equal [explicit rejection of so called 'natural castes'], and as such are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc.' The phrase 'nature and nature's God' suggests that Jefferson's opinion regarding the nature of said creator differs greatly from theistic interpretations, but its actually beside the point. We exist, and naturally possess life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. These are 'rights' in that we have them intrinsically. Government can't give us something we already, naturally have; they can, however, take it away. Thus, the Bill of Rights; a list of natural rights that the government promises not to touch.

"The most awful slaughtering of this concept is the theistic perversion that and entity 'God' gave us these rights, and that respecting them is a necessity because of divine will. However, calling healthcare a right is also in contradiction with the philosophical meaning of the word. Just as it shouldn't be warped into a theological appeal to authority, likewise it shouldn't be reduced to a simple 'something that's really important.'

"I could be persuaded to define healthcare as a fundamental duty of government, which would be equally significant, IMO. However, the concept of rights is valuable enough to protect it from political dilution, even for a cause I support.”

“G2” drives the fallacy home by taking the health care as a right rationale to its logical conclusions:

"...those calling health care a right are picking a different meaning of the word [and not Williams], making a totally irrelevant semantic argument, and then using that to back an explicit assertion that it should publicly funded.

"G2 has the right to travel freely. Many of you are arguing that if G2 did not have the funds to exercise that right, then G2 would have the authority to take it from you - most likely under the guise of taxation.

"G2 cannot be healthy without food. Does G2 have the right to take it from the grocery store without paying? Can G2 simply enter your home at will and raid your fridge to exercise my right to food? G2 has a right to that food, how can you deny it? Don't give G2 any crap about property rights, the right to live must surely trump the privilege of private ownership."

"Pyrotin" thinks it's o.k. and maintains we do just that:

"Like is the case of the publicly maintained roads that you'd most likely be using to travel? Or for many, the publicly subsidized transit systems without which they'd be unable to afford to travel to work?

"And thus we have public support programs like food stamps and WIC, which at least begin to make a dent in the fundamental problem, inadequate as they might be on the whole."

"G2":

"No. More like the car I need to drive those roads. G2 needs a car, without it the roads are pretty meaningless, yes? So you owe G2 a car.

"G2 would also like to go to some places that are pretty far away - like Hawaii and the USVI, no road to get there - but G2 has a right to travel to it. Therefore, give G2 the money for plane fare or provide G2 the aircraft to do it. It is G2's right and you should pay it.

"[WIC] is subsistence living with a significant stigma attached to it. G2 has a right to the food G2 prefers delivered in a dignified manner. G2 should simply have a credit card with US Government stamped on it so G2 can get the food he needs from whatever source he deems appropriate. Do not deny G2, or anyone else, his right to quality food and to be treated with a little human dignity.

"BTW, G2 also needs clothing and housing. Without those, G2 could not survive or at the very least would be at a significant health risk. G2's government card should pay for all those too being that G2 has a right to food, clothing and shelter (the basic necessities of life). And travel, don't forget G2's plane fare ... and a place to stay in Hawaii, so cough up for a hotel too. It doesn't have to be too nice, just near the beach.

"As everyone can see, there is no question that these things are G2's right. Nobody denies that. We're only discussing the details of its delivery now. G2 has a *right* to all of it and you all need to chip in to cover the cost. G2's right to these things trumps your right to keep what you earned."

I don't think anyone tried calling health care a right after that, although the thread continued for pages and pages.

Don’t let anyone get away with saying we have a right to health care.