Since the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga decision, we’re running the emotional see-saw from elation over saving religious freedom to vile and vicious vituperation over so-called ‘women’s health care’.
The Libertarian Party put out a press release wherein in they get just about everything right; their only error, IMO, is in this sentence: Religion is not the issue.
I beg to differ; religion is the issue.
Religion is usually one of the first casualties when a totalitarian regime takes over. The USSR and its satellites, North Korea, and China (at the beginning) all outlawed Judeo-Christianity; modern China and Nazi Germany co-opted the church, turning it functionally into a propaganda arm of the State.
There’s a reason for this, especially in the face of Judeo-Christianity.
Totalitarians considers him/herself under the authority of no one but themselves; he or she is the top of the food chain, so to speak. They bow to no one, especially not some invisible ‘god’. Judeo-Christianity teaches that even the authorities – kings, princes, and other rulers, judges, etc. – are all under the command and are responsible to God.
The totalitarian considers the people little more than cogs in the machinery of the State, important insofar as they contribute to the State and, thereby, to the power of the totalitarian. There is no such thing as individuality. Judeo-Christianity teaches that every man is made in the image of God, that every man has intrinsic value and worth, and possesses enough free-will to make his own decisions, whether right or wrong.
The totalitarian demands all be ‘rendered unto Caesar’, including all homage, allegiance, obedience, and, in a manner of speaking, worship. Judeo-Christianity calls all men to worship, ally themselves with, and obey God above all, placing government secondary in the chain of command – even to the point of disobedience to government should government attempt to usurp the rightful place of God above all other things.
Is there any wonder totalitarians find it necessary to, at a minimum, co-opt the church, or outrightly destroy it?
Plenty of people have called and continue to call Mr. Obama a totalitarian. Considering his track record of enormous, impossible-to-read bills which are costing the nation trillions of dollars it doesn’t have, his penchant to bypass Congress and use executive orders, and his often childlike temper-tantrums against Republicans and/or Congress in general, there seems to be more than a see of truth in that label. And when you review his collective attitudes and actions regarding Christianity – the religion he himself claims – it’s not difficult to see the totalitarian streak within.
A short list of Mr. Obama’s words and actions should suffice as an example of this streak; other longer, more detailed lists can be found on-line:
- his comment that America is no longer a Christian nation
- his comment about ‘clinging to their guns and religion’
- his apparent inability to properly apply Scripture verses
- his seeming reticence to celebrate Judeo-Christian holidays, particularly in light of his seeming eagerness to celebrate Islamic holidays
- his comparisons of Islam and Christianity
- his lack of church attendance
- the 20 years he spent under the tutelage of apostate Jeremiah ‘God-damn-America’ Wright
Taken individually, these items might not mean much; put them together, and combine them with the longer lists, and there ought to be no wonder at all that people have a very difficult time imagining Mr. Obama as a real Christian – this tree just isn’t producing the expected fruit.
So it should have been no surprise at all when Obamacare was revealed to contain a sweeping mandate for the provision of contraceptives. Nobody – and I mean nobody – ought to have been caught off-guard by this. After all, the most vocal group against man-made forms of contraception just happens to be the biggest Christian denomination in the world – the Roman Catholic Church.
It strains credulity to imagine that the architects of Obamacare didn’t know this contraception mandate was in it, so the only explanation I can come up with is that the Administration didn’t expect the outpouring of outrage from the RCC; though the RCC has it on the books that contraception, other than the rhythm method, is considered a no-no, it’s not as if they’ve been all that strenuous in applying that rule (if you believe some of the polls and percentages thrown around by all and sundry the moment the RCC blew a gasket over the mandate). I expect the Administration expected the RCC and other Judeo-Christian denominations to make a little noise, then eventually they’d ‘come around’ and accept the mandate.
But that didn’t happen; this probably came as a surprise, considering how many Judeo-Christian denominations had already accepted Obamacare with open arms, including the contraception mandate. But it didn’t work on everybody, so in order to mollify (read, ‘steam-roll’) the more recalcitrant denominations, the Administration offered an ‘accommodation’: religious groups would not have to provide contraceptive coverage … so long as they met the government’s definition of ‘religious’. So long as they accepted the government’s definition of ‘religious’ – that is, so long as they allowed themselves to be labeled and, in fact, co-opted by the government – they didn’t have to pay.
That didn’t work.
So they tried another ‘accommodation’: religious groups wouldn’t have to pay for birth control – but the insurance companies with which these groups contracted and paid premiums to, would. They wouldn’t be forced to directly subsidize contraception; instead, they would be forced to indirectly subsidize it.
And that didn’t fly, either.
The Hobby Lobby case boils down to Judeo-Christian business-owners not wanting to be forced to provide, not birth control in general, but abortifacients – drugs and devices which kill the fertilized egg. That’s why the ruling said they would not have to provide coverage for four out of twenty methods of contraception – four out of twenty; Hobby Lobby will still provide coverage for the remaining 16, because they prevent fertilization, they do not kill the fertilized egg.
But that’s not good enough for our totalitarian rulers: they expect the people to obey all their rules and regulations – in this case, including killing fertilized human eggs. And that’s why this boils down to a religious ruling – it’s our Judeo-Christian faith – along with a healthy dose of science – which informs us that the egg, once fertilized, is a living human being, and that abortifacient drugs and devices commit murder.
Now there are some who say (as they do in the above-referenced article) that this is a Constitutional matter, and that Obamacare is unconstitutional. That’s fine. But what is the Constitution – what is our form of government – dependent upon? John Adams tells us:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.If we remove the Judeo-Christian influence from our constitutional discussions, we might as well dispense with the Constitution altogether. And dispensing with the Constitution is step one in falling under the tyranny of a totalitarian government.