Chuck Colson
The Christian Post
Western Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, are currently observing Lent, the 40-day season preceding Easter. Through self-denial, alms-giving, and prayer, many Christians prepare themselves to properly commemorate our Lord’s passion and resurrection.
Lenten self-denial traditionally includes giving something up we enjoy, like a particular food or pleasurable activity. Well, this year, clergy in Britain are asking their dwindling flocks to give up coal for Lent.
Well, sort of. The Anglican bishops of Liverpool and London have called for a “carbon fast” this Lent. Instead of giving up, say, chocolate or meat, people should reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they produce.
Thus, preparing for Good Friday and Easter consists of actions such as the following: “avoiding plastic bags”; “giving the dishwasher a day off”; “insulating the hot water tank”; and “checking the house for drafts.” I’m serious.
Perhaps the bishops were aware of how, well, silly this sounds because they had to cloak it in language like this: It is “individual and collective action” on behalf of the poor. According to the Bishop of Liverpool, “it is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change,” and “to carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.”
It’s true that “carrying on” while ignoring the plight of the poor violates Christian teaching. What’s not so clear is how giving your dishwasher a day off or using paper instead of plastic fulfills your Christian duty to the poor.
Then again, as Frank Furedi of the University of Kent reminds us, the religion being appealed to here isn’t Christianity but, instead, “environmentalism [as] a caricature of a religion.” He calls the carbon fast a “morally illiterate attempt to recycle” Christian practices “as a form of environmentally correct behavior.”
In this caricature, according to Furedi, “original sin has been reinvented as a wicked act of ‘carbon emission.’” Instead of the Seven Deadly Sins, we have “everyday behaviors,” including your morning latte, turned into an offense against the planet and, oh yes, the poor.
Of course, recycling and conserving energy, however sensible, won’t make any difference whatsoever in the lives of the poor. And it certainly shouldn’t be passed off as a “sacrifice” for their sake. Its only beneficiaries will be westerners who will feel better about their own lives, even as the lives of the supposed beneficiaries remain untouched.
The saddest part about this “carbon fast” business is that our preparation for Good Friday and Easter ought to include an examination of our assumptions about what constitutes the “good life.” The global recession is a painful reminder of the dangers of laying up our treasures where moths, rust, and thieves—including those in expensive suits—can take them from us. This will be the subject of tomorrow's broadcast.
God may be calling us to live more simply—but it ought to be as an expression of our trust in Him, not fear of an environmental doomsday. This, in turn, will enable our concern for the least of our brethren to go beyond choosing paper over plastic.
-------------------
"...environmentalism as a caricature of a religion." An apt description, I think.
---Katie
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Lamentable Republican Civil War
I always appreciate Thomas Sowell's writing. I'm not so sure I agree with him about Republicans' fighting amongst themselves being a bad thing. It seems to me that conservatives either need to take control of the party or form another party that is able to articulate conservative principles to groups beyond the traditional constituency of the Republicans. Click on the title to read the entire article from the Philadelphia Bulletin!
The Lamentable Republican Civil War
By Thomas Sowell, For The Bulletin
Thursday, March 19, 2009
As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.
At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.
New Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s cheap shot at Rush’s program as “ugly” set off the latest round of in-fighting. That is the kind of thing that is usually said by liberals who have never listened to the program.
Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.
-------- snip
There is certainly a lot to be said for inviting wider segments of the population to join you, by explaining how your principles benefit the country in general, and those segments in particular. But that is fundamentally different from abandoning your principles in hopes of attracting new votes with opportunism.
No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population.
The teachers’ unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism.
Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.
-----------end
It seems to me that the recent election proved that being "Democrat Lite" has failed the Republicans miserably. It is time to encourage those Republicans who think we need to be more like the Democrats to gain votes to just go ahead and become Democrats. Let the Republican party stand for conservative ideals and articulate them clearly instead of being embarrassed by those who do.
---Katie
The Lamentable Republican Civil War
By Thomas Sowell, For The Bulletin
Thursday, March 19, 2009
As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.
At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.
New Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s cheap shot at Rush’s program as “ugly” set off the latest round of in-fighting. That is the kind of thing that is usually said by liberals who have never listened to the program.
Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.
-------- snip
There is certainly a lot to be said for inviting wider segments of the population to join you, by explaining how your principles benefit the country in general, and those segments in particular. But that is fundamentally different from abandoning your principles in hopes of attracting new votes with opportunism.
No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population.
The teachers’ unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism.
Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.
-----------end
It seems to me that the recent election proved that being "Democrat Lite" has failed the Republicans miserably. It is time to encourage those Republicans who think we need to be more like the Democrats to gain votes to just go ahead and become Democrats. Let the Republican party stand for conservative ideals and articulate them clearly instead of being embarrassed by those who do.
---Katie
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Coming Storm
If you are interested in the recommendations of the sexuality study task force in the ELCA as well as the proposed social statement on sexuality, please check it out at www.elca.org. The recommendations related to homosexuality and the church are basically a local option type of recommendation, which means there will not be one standard for the whole church. I personally would prefer they choose one side or the other and go with it.
Here is one pastor's reaction (I do have permission to print it.):
The Coming Storm
by John S. McKenzie
For many years, there has been a movement within the ELCA to normalize same-sex practice. In the last ten years, this has taken the form of a push to ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians into the public ministry.
Scripture is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. The moral tradition of the Church is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. As far as God’s will can be discerned from Scripture and the Great Tradition, God’s will is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them.
In 2005, revisionists approached the national convention with a proposal to change discipline and allow practicing homosexuals to engage in the public ministry of the Church. The national assembly said “No”, but allowed for a task force on a social statement on sexuality to address the question in their report. The task force has now reported back with its recommendations. They recommend a variation on local option. If a synod wants to ordain practicing homosexuals, it should be allowed to do so. To borrow a phrase from Elijah, we would limp about with two opinions regarding the will of God for those engaged in the public ministry of the church.
Homosexual behavior should not be singled out among sins. All of us are all guilty of private sin. Martin Luther insisted that private sins be dealt with by confession and absolution which is what we do every week. Luther, however insisted that public sin of which one refused to repent was to be dealt with by excommunication until public repentance could happen. That is because a church that continues in fellowship with those who sin publicly and refuse to repent is undermined. We look to all the world as hypocrites who do not believe what we claim to believe.
It is for this reason that ongoing, public and unrepentant sin among persons involved in the public ministry of the church is such a problem. It says to all the world, “God thinks one thing, but we think something else.” This is true whether the sin is pride, envy, anger, covetousness, sloth, gluttony, or lust. It is not that clergy do not commit all of these sins early and often. They do and they repent and they try to do better. The problem is when clergy refuse to repent saying, “That which I do is not really sin. I do not need to repent.” This is what the denomination is preparing to affirm in August: The sin of homosexual behavior committed by clergy in life-long committed relationship is not sin.
If any of the task force’s four propositions passes in August, the ELCA will be officially post-Christian. That is to say, without ambiguity, we deliberately chose to believe and act outside the revealed will of God. If anyone ever asks you what Unitarians believe, give them a copy of the four propositions. In the 1800s influential leaders in Christian congregations disagreed with the Great Tradition on the nature of God. The solution was to respect every member’s bound conscience and hold all truths as relative. The Unitarians embraced a different gospel. The Gospel of the redemption of sinners was replaced by the gospel of inclusion: It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you come to a Unitarian church to believe it. The Unitarians became post-Christian.
Look at some of the post-Christian implications contained in the four propositions forwarded by the task force:
“If we disagree, then God has no opinion.”
“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.”
“My conscience trumps the will of God revealed in Scripture and the Great Tradition.”
“It is more important that everyone feel welcomed and included than that we be obedient to God.”
“You can hold to a truth as long as you don’t express it in a way that offends or limits another person’s truth.”
“In the end, everything is relative: the will of God is a wax nose that we can shape any way we want.”
The point of participation in any denomination is that it provide a connecting link with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. At one time, I believed the ELCA might be the fullest expression of that Church. Now I am bitterly disappointed with what the ELCA has become. Rather than the vineyard of the Lord, it has become a playground for groups with agendas. Here is the question that drives me out: Why would a Christian remain in a denomination that had intentionally severed its connection with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church in order to appease special interests?
Let me take an aside here. I have long thought and prayed about the motives of the revisionists. They see themselves as compassionate people defending poor beleaguered homosexuals from the ravages of evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes, and as advocating for justice.
Yet this self-perception is not a necessary and sufficient explanation for why they are willing to undermine Scripture and Tradition, change gospels, and take the ELCA out of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This is something that has kept me puzzled for a long time.
Here is my answer. Whenever you establish a special class within an organization for whatever reason, there is a temptation for the members of that class to see themselves as an elite. We have a class of pastors, academics and professional church bureaucrats in the ELCA. They feel great solidarity with one another and with the elites in politics, in the media, in liberal denominations, and in academe. Our elites have become elitists. They see themselves as the intellectuals—the ones who should be doing the thinking for all the rest of us. Elitists love to call the shots and create movement in an organization. They crave progress which other elitists can recognize and applaud. They need both for themselves and for others, demonstrations of their power and authority. The presenting issue of the normalization of homosexual behavior in the public ministry of the denomination is something of a Trojan horse. The real point is that the elites establish themselves and their “bound consciences”, rather than the revealed will of God in Scripture and Tradition, as the final authority in this organization. This is why they can never accept “No” as an answer. This is why they have turned the church upside down in the last ten years. The game is not over until they win.
The four propositions look like a formula for peace extended in the spirit of compromise. But beware elitists offering peace. They do so in true Stalinist fashion. This will be temporary peace. Since this has little to do with sex and mostly to do with control, the resistance will gradually be mopped up, the evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes will be pushed out or isolated, and the revolution will continue. More demonstrations of their power must come. The only thing ruling elites ever wanted was more control. The vote in August is about taking the Church away from the Holy Spirit so that the smartest people in the room might increase their control.
--------------
---Katie
Here is one pastor's reaction (I do have permission to print it.):
The Coming Storm
by John S. McKenzie
For many years, there has been a movement within the ELCA to normalize same-sex practice. In the last ten years, this has taken the form of a push to ordain practicing homosexuals and lesbians into the public ministry.
Scripture is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. The moral tradition of the Church is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them. As far as God’s will can be discerned from Scripture and the Great Tradition, God’s will is not ambiguous about same-sex relations. It is clearly against them.
In 2005, revisionists approached the national convention with a proposal to change discipline and allow practicing homosexuals to engage in the public ministry of the Church. The national assembly said “No”, but allowed for a task force on a social statement on sexuality to address the question in their report. The task force has now reported back with its recommendations. They recommend a variation on local option. If a synod wants to ordain practicing homosexuals, it should be allowed to do so. To borrow a phrase from Elijah, we would limp about with two opinions regarding the will of God for those engaged in the public ministry of the church.
Homosexual behavior should not be singled out among sins. All of us are all guilty of private sin. Martin Luther insisted that private sins be dealt with by confession and absolution which is what we do every week. Luther, however insisted that public sin of which one refused to repent was to be dealt with by excommunication until public repentance could happen. That is because a church that continues in fellowship with those who sin publicly and refuse to repent is undermined. We look to all the world as hypocrites who do not believe what we claim to believe.
It is for this reason that ongoing, public and unrepentant sin among persons involved in the public ministry of the church is such a problem. It says to all the world, “God thinks one thing, but we think something else.” This is true whether the sin is pride, envy, anger, covetousness, sloth, gluttony, or lust. It is not that clergy do not commit all of these sins early and often. They do and they repent and they try to do better. The problem is when clergy refuse to repent saying, “That which I do is not really sin. I do not need to repent.” This is what the denomination is preparing to affirm in August: The sin of homosexual behavior committed by clergy in life-long committed relationship is not sin.
If any of the task force’s four propositions passes in August, the ELCA will be officially post-Christian. That is to say, without ambiguity, we deliberately chose to believe and act outside the revealed will of God. If anyone ever asks you what Unitarians believe, give them a copy of the four propositions. In the 1800s influential leaders in Christian congregations disagreed with the Great Tradition on the nature of God. The solution was to respect every member’s bound conscience and hold all truths as relative. The Unitarians embraced a different gospel. The Gospel of the redemption of sinners was replaced by the gospel of inclusion: It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you come to a Unitarian church to believe it. The Unitarians became post-Christian.
Look at some of the post-Christian implications contained in the four propositions forwarded by the task force:
“If we disagree, then God has no opinion.”
“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are sincere.”
“My conscience trumps the will of God revealed in Scripture and the Great Tradition.”
“It is more important that everyone feel welcomed and included than that we be obedient to God.”
“You can hold to a truth as long as you don’t express it in a way that offends or limits another person’s truth.”
“In the end, everything is relative: the will of God is a wax nose that we can shape any way we want.”
The point of participation in any denomination is that it provide a connecting link with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. At one time, I believed the ELCA might be the fullest expression of that Church. Now I am bitterly disappointed with what the ELCA has become. Rather than the vineyard of the Lord, it has become a playground for groups with agendas. Here is the question that drives me out: Why would a Christian remain in a denomination that had intentionally severed its connection with the one holy catholic and apostolic Church in order to appease special interests?
Let me take an aside here. I have long thought and prayed about the motives of the revisionists. They see themselves as compassionate people defending poor beleaguered homosexuals from the ravages of evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes, and as advocating for justice.
Yet this self-perception is not a necessary and sufficient explanation for why they are willing to undermine Scripture and Tradition, change gospels, and take the ELCA out of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This is something that has kept me puzzled for a long time.
Here is my answer. Whenever you establish a special class within an organization for whatever reason, there is a temptation for the members of that class to see themselves as an elite. We have a class of pastors, academics and professional church bureaucrats in the ELCA. They feel great solidarity with one another and with the elites in politics, in the media, in liberal denominations, and in academe. Our elites have become elitists. They see themselves as the intellectuals—the ones who should be doing the thinking for all the rest of us. Elitists love to call the shots and create movement in an organization. They crave progress which other elitists can recognize and applaud. They need both for themselves and for others, demonstrations of their power and authority. The presenting issue of the normalization of homosexual behavior in the public ministry of the denomination is something of a Trojan horse. The real point is that the elites establish themselves and their “bound consciences”, rather than the revealed will of God in Scripture and Tradition, as the final authority in this organization. This is why they can never accept “No” as an answer. This is why they have turned the church upside down in the last ten years. The game is not over until they win.
The four propositions look like a formula for peace extended in the spirit of compromise. But beware elitists offering peace. They do so in true Stalinist fashion. This will be temporary peace. Since this has little to do with sex and mostly to do with control, the resistance will gradually be mopped up, the evil hetero hate-speaking homophobes will be pushed out or isolated, and the revolution will continue. More demonstrations of their power must come. The only thing ruling elites ever wanted was more control. The vote in August is about taking the Church away from the Holy Spirit so that the smartest people in the room might increase their control.
--------------
---Katie
Armed Citizens as First Responders
What would happen in our country if more responsible people were licensed for concealed carry and actually were present at potential mass shootings? This article makes a case for more responsible citizens being armed to increase the chances that someone armed could stop a mass tragedy in its tracks.
Armed Citizens as First Responders
Daniel White
In the field of medicine, the Golden Hour refers to the period of time immediately following a traumatic injury and the idea that the ultimate outcome of the injury is determined by the treatment the patient receives during that time, which can range from a few minutes to a few hours. It is often the first responders, preferably paramedics, who have the greatest impact on a victim's survival.
The clearest illustration of this principle can be seen when considering the scenario of a heart attack. If a person suffers a heart attack in a hospital, help is moments away. Treatment begins immediately, and a person stands the best chance of survival. However, if a person is hiking in a remote area and help takes three hours to make it to the scene, that person has a greatly reduced chance of a positive outcome.
Think, then, to a situation where a lunatic goes on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. Average police response time to a high priority call within city limits can range from 5-10 minutes. Add additional time to access the building, assess the situation, locate and neutralize the shooter, and you're looking at a minimum of 20 minutes. A shooter can get off several hundred rounds in that time and a lot of deaths can occur before the police can stop the attack. The scenario changes drastically if an armed citizen is already on the scene and can appropriately respond.
Click on the title to read the rest from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.
---Katie
Armed Citizens as First Responders
Daniel White
In the field of medicine, the Golden Hour refers to the period of time immediately following a traumatic injury and the idea that the ultimate outcome of the injury is determined by the treatment the patient receives during that time, which can range from a few minutes to a few hours. It is often the first responders, preferably paramedics, who have the greatest impact on a victim's survival.
The clearest illustration of this principle can be seen when considering the scenario of a heart attack. If a person suffers a heart attack in a hospital, help is moments away. Treatment begins immediately, and a person stands the best chance of survival. However, if a person is hiking in a remote area and help takes three hours to make it to the scene, that person has a greatly reduced chance of a positive outcome.
Think, then, to a situation where a lunatic goes on a shooting spree in a shopping mall. Average police response time to a high priority call within city limits can range from 5-10 minutes. Add additional time to access the building, assess the situation, locate and neutralize the shooter, and you're looking at a minimum of 20 minutes. A shooter can get off several hundred rounds in that time and a lot of deaths can occur before the police can stop the attack. The scenario changes drastically if an armed citizen is already on the scene and can appropriately respond.
Click on the title to read the rest from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.
---Katie
Orders We Will Not Obey
I have often wondered what it would take for the United States to become a totalitarian society. It could happen if our police forces were federalized and our military was used within our borders to quell dissent from states or individuals. An organization called Oath Keepers is asking police and members of the military to think about the possibilities and pledge not to turn on the American people by promising not to follow certain orders.
Here are the "Orders We Will Not Obey:"
1) We will not obey orders to disarm the American people.
2) We will not obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3) We will not obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or subject them to military tribunal.
4) We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state. (I believe this is qualified with "without the invitation of the governor or state legislature.")
5) We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6) We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7) We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8) We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or "maintain control."
9) We will not obey orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10) We will not obey orders which infringe on the rights of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Do we need this? Could this happen in the United States of America? Read your history. Look at what happened in Germany and the USSR. Look at how politicians use emergencies, real or manufactured, to increase their power over the institutions and people of a country. Are you concerned that the powers we gave our government after 9/11 are now in the hands of leaders who are essentially Marxist and would like to change our whole economic and governmental system?
Of course, we could solve this whole issue if we could get our politicians to sign the above list, changing the beginning of each statement to "I will not give orders..." Or we could insist that our leaders obey the constitution and only vote for those politicians who promised to do so.
Click on the title to learn more about Oath Keepers and to see the entire declaration.
---Katie
Here are the "Orders We Will Not Obey:"
1) We will not obey orders to disarm the American people.
2) We will not obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3) We will not obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or subject them to military tribunal.
4) We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state. (I believe this is qualified with "without the invitation of the governor or state legislature.")
5) We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6) We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7) We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8) We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or "maintain control."
9) We will not obey orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10) We will not obey orders which infringe on the rights of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Do we need this? Could this happen in the United States of America? Read your history. Look at what happened in Germany and the USSR. Look at how politicians use emergencies, real or manufactured, to increase their power over the institutions and people of a country. Are you concerned that the powers we gave our government after 9/11 are now in the hands of leaders who are essentially Marxist and would like to change our whole economic and governmental system?
Of course, we could solve this whole issue if we could get our politicians to sign the above list, changing the beginning of each statement to "I will not give orders..." Or we could insist that our leaders obey the constitution and only vote for those politicians who promised to do so.
Click on the title to learn more about Oath Keepers and to see the entire declaration.
---Katie
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Protecting Conscience
You may not have heard that the Obama administration is considering rewriting the rules that protect medical providers from violating their consciences by providing treatment that would be against their religious beliefs. The following article is from Chuck Colson's Breakpoint:
An Obstacle to Tyranny
Last week, what the Washington Post characterized as a “terse posting on a federal Web site” set the stage for a debate on just how seriously our society takes freedom of conscience.
The posting announced that the Obama administration was planning to rescind “job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable.” These explicit protections were issued in the last few months of the Bush administration.
Under the current provisions, health care providers can lose federal funds if they don’t accommodate health-care workers “who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their . . . moral or religious beliefs.” The regulations covered “state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities.”
Health-care providers and “abortion rights” advocates were quick to attack the Bush administration for promulgating the regulations. Groups like the American Medical Association said they opposed the regulations because, as they put it, “health-care providers have an obligation” to advise patients “of the options despite their own beliefs.”
At the same time, they said that the regulations were unnecessary because “there are already laws [that protect] health-care professionals” who refuse to provide care for personal reasons.
Well, not so fast. The rules were established in response to what the Catholic Health Association called “a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
In a country that treasures freedom, what could possibly justify compelling people to violate their consciences? There is a long tradition established in the law and court cases not to do this, as in the case of conscientious objectors not being compelled to serve in the military.
Reportedly, some officials believe that protecting health-care workers’ consciences creates a “major obstacle to providing many health services” and even interferes with “scientific research.”
It is difficult to imagine what “scientific research” they have in mind—a pro-life researcher is not likely to choose a specialty where the destruction of unborn human life is a pre-requisite.
And by “many health services,” what’s really meant is “pharmacists.” One of the groups leading the charge for rescinding the rule is the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Its members have joined with Planned Parenthood to force pharmacists to dispense prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs, even when the prescription can be filled elsewhere.
In other words, the government is considering undermining religious freedom and freedom of conscience for the sake of convenience. They can’t even argue it’s necessary. If someone objects, for conscience’ sake, to facilitate abortion, anybody is free to go to another doctor or druggist.
Remember—freedom of conscience is the first freedom. And people who can be compelled to act in violation of their most deeply held convictions are not free in any meaningful sense.
The good news is that this appears to be a “trial balloon” of sorts. Administration officials are expecting lots of comments on the proposed change. And we shouldn’t disappoint them. Let them know that we value freedom of conscience too highly to let it be sacrificed, especially to those driven by ideology and profit.
Because what government officials are regarding as an “obstacle” is, in fact, the very foundation of our freedom—and the first defense against tyranny.
Click on the title to visit the Breakpoint website.
I have read elsewhere that Catholic hospitals would likely shut down rather than provide abortion services.
---Katie
An Obstacle to Tyranny
Last week, what the Washington Post characterized as a “terse posting on a federal Web site” set the stage for a debate on just how seriously our society takes freedom of conscience.
The posting announced that the Obama administration was planning to rescind “job protections for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable.” These explicit protections were issued in the last few months of the Bush administration.
Under the current provisions, health care providers can lose federal funds if they don’t accommodate health-care workers “who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their . . . moral or religious beliefs.” The regulations covered “state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities.”
Health-care providers and “abortion rights” advocates were quick to attack the Bush administration for promulgating the regulations. Groups like the American Medical Association said they opposed the regulations because, as they put it, “health-care providers have an obligation” to advise patients “of the options despite their own beliefs.”
At the same time, they said that the regulations were unnecessary because “there are already laws [that protect] health-care professionals” who refuse to provide care for personal reasons.
Well, not so fast. The rules were established in response to what the Catholic Health Association called “a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
In a country that treasures freedom, what could possibly justify compelling people to violate their consciences? There is a long tradition established in the law and court cases not to do this, as in the case of conscientious objectors not being compelled to serve in the military.
Reportedly, some officials believe that protecting health-care workers’ consciences creates a “major obstacle to providing many health services” and even interferes with “scientific research.”
It is difficult to imagine what “scientific research” they have in mind—a pro-life researcher is not likely to choose a specialty where the destruction of unborn human life is a pre-requisite.
And by “many health services,” what’s really meant is “pharmacists.” One of the groups leading the charge for rescinding the rule is the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Its members have joined with Planned Parenthood to force pharmacists to dispense prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs, even when the prescription can be filled elsewhere.
In other words, the government is considering undermining religious freedom and freedom of conscience for the sake of convenience. They can’t even argue it’s necessary. If someone objects, for conscience’ sake, to facilitate abortion, anybody is free to go to another doctor or druggist.
Remember—freedom of conscience is the first freedom. And people who can be compelled to act in violation of their most deeply held convictions are not free in any meaningful sense.
The good news is that this appears to be a “trial balloon” of sorts. Administration officials are expecting lots of comments on the proposed change. And we shouldn’t disappoint them. Let them know that we value freedom of conscience too highly to let it be sacrificed, especially to those driven by ideology and profit.
Because what government officials are regarding as an “obstacle” is, in fact, the very foundation of our freedom—and the first defense against tyranny.
Click on the title to visit the Breakpoint website.
I have read elsewhere that Catholic hospitals would likely shut down rather than provide abortion services.
---Katie
Monday, March 02, 2009
Tuesday is Square Root Day!
03/03/09
A date like that happens only nine times in a century. Can you figure out what is special about it?
Click on the title to read the AP article.
---Katie
A date like that happens only nine times in a century. Can you figure out what is special about it?
Click on the title to read the AP article.
---Katie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)