Friday, July 04, 2014

The "hobby lobby" thing was about silencing those who don't agree

Stand to reason blog:

essentially it is about removing religion from any public arena, and about enforcing the secular religion over the traditional accommodation of all religious beliefs.

includes this link:
article, by Julian Sanchez, gets to what I fear is at the heart of the anger:
[T]he outraged reaction to the ruling ought to seem a bit puzzling. If what you are fundamentally concerned about is whether women have access to no-copay contraception, then there’s no obvious reason to invest such deep significance in the precise accounting details of the mechanism by which it is provided….
The outrage does make sense, of course, if what one fundamentally cares about—or at least, additionally cares about—is the symbolic speech act embedded in the compulsion itself. In other words, if the purpose of the mandate is not merely to achieve a certain practical result, but to declare the qualms of believers with religious objections so utterly underserving of respect that they may be forced to act against their convictions regardless of whether this makes any real difference to the outcome.
- See more at:

headsup via SenseOfEvents.

this forcing of agreement is not behind Hobby Lobby, but is the reason that the Little Sisters of the Poor won't sign a paper saying that the insurance company will have to pay for contraception because they oppose it (meaning of course that they will pay higher premiums to the insurance company so that the insurance company can provide them).

The Little Sisters know that this is a subterfuge to hide agreement and won't sign. (i.e. forcing them to cooperate with evil).

The Little Sisters are doing long term planning to keep their homes for the aged open without government funding, because they figure that in the future there will be pressure on them to kill their patients instead of caring for them. Paranoia? No, not if you read journals of medical ethics.

Wesley Smith points out the NEJM, which has been pushing euthanasia since 1989, implies the same thing.

The Court’s decision allows the beliefs of employers of various sizes and corporate forms to trump the beliefs and needs of their employees, potentially influencing the types of care that will be affordable and accessible to individuals and permitting employers to intrude on clinician–patient relationships.
It did no such thing.Employers offer salaries for work. Part of the “package,” as it is called, often includes health insurance.
Employers have always made decisions about whether to offer this benefit and the extent of the policies offered. And no one suggested–until now–that they were interfering with doctor-patient relationships in the decisions they made about the kind of insurance to offer as wages.
But once the government seized centralized control over these decisions–and used the cudgel of Obamacare regulations to impose the politically progressive moral view on everyone in the guise of regulating healthcare–it suddenly became a rightto have employers pay for certain procedures, even if the person who owns the business believes it would be sinful to so participate in the action.
That’s what happens with centralized control. Government power is used to impose a preferred moral view.
Then comes the NEJM hysteria:
Finally, in the wake of Hobby Lobby, we may anticipate challenges to other medical services that some religions find objectionable, such as vaccinations, infertility treatments, blood transfusions, certain psychiatric treatments, and even hospice care.
Good grief: What religions opposes hospice care? ...Bottom line in my book: The HHS mandate was intended to prepare the way for an eventual order for free abortion, free sex change surgery (already happening), free IVF, and perhaps, assisted suicide. One reason–beyond politics–for the rage is that the case throws a minor impediment in the way of using health care to transform the culture into the secular progressive image.

update 2: GetReligion blog says the Obama administration will continue to pressure Wheaton College and the Little Sisters in this. They quote an AP report.

The Associated Press editors take all of that complexity and condense it — in a set of unattributed factual statements — to the precise language used in White House talking points:
The issue in the lawsuits filed by Wheaton and other nonprofit groups is different because the administration already has allowed them to opt out of paying for the objectionable contraception by telling the government that doing so would violate their religious beliefs.
But they must fill out Form 700 that enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The employer does not have to arrange the coverage or pay for it. Insurers get reimbursed by the government through credits against fees owed under other provisions of the health care law.
The fight is over completing the form, which the nonprofits say violates their religious beliefs because it forces them to participate in a system to subsidize and distribute the contraception.
At this point it would be good to know what the leaders of these ministries say about this collection of unattributed statements. What are their arguments and how would they word them? What are their core beliefs? Do they even agree that these AP statements are an accurate summation of their case?
Well, it's called cooperation with evil.

The leaders of EWTN do not want to “encourage” in any way acts that — according to the doctrines that define the ministry — “grave sin.”
The big question: Will the high court now say that the government has the right to require ministries to help employees (and students, for example) commit acts that violate the doctrines and vows that define their work and common lives in these associations that they have voluntarily joined? Stay tuned. This is the next story.

No comments: