.
We're not letting this go and if the reception given to upstate Democratic New York representative Kathy Hochul at a town hall meeting Thursday night is any indication, neither are a few other people.
"We were taking care of this country's sick long before the government got involved"
And as for this "accommodation" Hochul speaks of, either she has been misinformed or she is outright lying as Catholic employers will not have the choice, nay, they will be forced to provide contraceptive devices in their insurance plans. Catholics and other persons of freedom realize this and this is why this issue is not fading away as Team O has hoped.
Related:
We had to revisit the WaPo column written a month ago by liberal Catholic, E. J. Dionne and what he said that continues to misrepresent/mislead the public in this particular debate (for the record, Dionne is not specifically against the mandate, he's just bummed that the Prez botched the optics on it):
Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.(italics, ours)
Competing liberty interests...
That would mean there are more than one liberty interest, right? Well, we certainly can identify one and that would be the Catholic church and Catholic employers. But who is/are the other competing liberty interests? There is/are none. The other side of the debate wants Catholic employers to provide free of charge, contraceptives and abortifacients. That has nothing at all to do with liberty... nothing. Nothing that is unless you are coming from a cultural and societal viewpoint that makes up rights out of thin air.
A right to affordable housing, a right to a job and a now reproductive rights means that the government can insert itself into the role of the Catholic Church and compel them to violate their conscience with this "accommodation".
Now, how's that for some separation of church and state?
Posts
2 comments:
The distortion of separation between church and state is that it goes both ways, it doesn't. It is meant to keep the state out of religion. Progressives always seek to usurp the church through government and try to say the separation is broken and can be violated.
The state is here to protect our God given rights. Only two people stand to protect us from our protectors, Smith & Wesson.
So entitlements will now be relabeled as 'liberty intereste'? As if calling them 'rights' wasn't bed enough.
Post a Comment