Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July, 2012

An Ohio City Council voted to remove the image of a Catholic college from the town logo. Their logic? A citizen, who is a member of the group “Freedom From Religion Foundation” threatened to sue the City, saying the image was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This kind of ignorance and faulty logic really bothers me, because it has become so widespread.

Here is a basic lesson in logic and consistent literary interpretation:

If you interpret the beginning clause of the First Amendment as banning religious expression – because people may listen to the expression and feel compelled to follow it – rather than simply prohitibiting a national denomination as they had in Britain and almost every European power at the time, then you have to interpret the next clauses as being banned behavior as well. The same logic must govern either the entire First Amendment or none of it. If, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, is interpreted as erecting a wall of separation prohibiting religious expression on government property, then, “[Congress shall make no law] abridging the freedom of speech” must be interpreted as meaning speech should be equally banned on government property. The same logic would have to follow for, “[Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom] of the press”; “[Congress shall make no law…abridging] the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, and “[Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If the first clause bans religious expression, the following clauses must ban free speech, free press, peaceable assembly and the petition for redress for grievances. Either all clauses must be read with a “wall of separation” interpretation or none of them should be.

Besides, we already know that what the Framers clearly intended – to prohibit a national denomination such as the Church of England.

Read Full Post »

There’s a news story circulating that the Obama Administration has again rejected Indiana’s attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.  The text of a very forceful letter sent from the administration to the State of Indiana can be found here

The essence of  the letter is that Medicare and Medicaid funds going to a State means the State must provide medical services, and to the Obama Administration providing medical services means providing for abortions, period:

(page 18) “….In review, § 1902(a)(23) requires that state plans for medical assistance must: ‘[P]rovide that (A) any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required…'”  (page 20)”….the proposed SPA violates the plain text of § 1902(a)(23) because it restricts individuals from obtaining covered family planning services from entities that are fit to provide and deliver such services….”  (Letter from Health and Human Services Office of Attorney Advisor to the Indiana Attorney General, dated July 5, 2012; emphasized text is from the letter)

This line of thinking is not new for the Obama Administration.  Buried in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is legislation requiring private insurers of employees to pay for abortions in the form of abortifacients.  There are no ways to opt out and no exemptions for conscience or religious faith.  In order to employ someone or insure someone in the U.S., you are now being compelled to be complicit with abortion.  And this is part of a growing trend where in at least one case a military physician has been forced to refer patients for abortion against his personal convictions.

There is no moral difference between the Obama Administration forcing doctors and insurers to provide for abortions against their consciences and China forcing individual women to have abortions.  In both cases we are dealing with compulsory abortion.  In both cases the state is dictating and the individual must comply or face consequences that could include losing their profession, their way of life or even their freedom.  The United States has been lowered to having the same moral stance on abortion as the nation of China.

And this is the sad legacy of a President who in effect has introduced compulsory abortion to the U.S.

Read Full Post »