The Hobby Lobby decision is about more than religion; it’s
about the rights of Americans to not be forced by their government to do what
they think is gravely immoral.
If the government can force people who believe, for whatever reason, that abortion is the murder of a human being to directly cooperate, through funding and providing links to the abortion services on their company health insurance web site, in that murder there is really no limit to what the government can do.
While in the Hobby Lobby case the issue is health insurance the real core of the liberal judges conclusions on governmental power is more far reaching.
If the government can force people who believe, for whatever reason, that abortion is the murder of a human being to directly cooperate, through funding and providing links to the abortion services on their company health insurance web site, in that murder there is really no limit to what the government can do.
While in the Hobby Lobby case the issue is health insurance the real core of the liberal judges conclusions on governmental power is more far reaching.
There is no guarantee of health insurance in the
Constitution. The Hobby Lobby case is
therefore not based on competing Constitutional rights. Instead it’s really
simply a measure of how limited, or unlimited, the Governments power to force
people to give up their First Amendment rights is.
No one has died from being chaste. We know this because
millions of ugly nerdy people go without sex even though they don’t want to and
millions more people stay chaste because they believe that sex outside of
marriage is morally wrong.
Hence birth control is like sunscreen. Both are health related—though unlike sunscreen the Pill is a carcinogen-- but neither is “necessary” in the sense that an antibiotic is necessary.
Hence birth control is like sunscreen. Both are health related—though unlike sunscreen the Pill is a carcinogen-- but neither is “necessary” in the sense that an antibiotic is necessary.
As such the liberal judges ruling that free birth control is
sufficient reason to compel people to go against their deeply held moral
beliefs is an amazingly chilling statement.
If the Government can compel people to violate their deeply held moral principles in order to provide someone else free of charge with a luxury then what rights do Americans have?
We see the same “logic” at work when bakers and photographers are compelled to provide services to gay “weddings”. The “right” of gays to have the photographer or baker they want—for there is no shortage of bakers and photographers who will work at gay “weddings”—has been ruled by the courts to override the deeply held moral beliefs of those photographers and bakers.
What this tells us is that in the mind of liberals if liberals should decide that the Nazi’s are nice folk then it would be ok for the Government to force a Jewish baker to cater a Nazi celebration.
But if the Government has the power to force us to do whatever the Government thinks is good how is that different from a tyranny?
Interestingly enough this tension between the Governments power and people rights has been addressed before in America. Even when faced with an existential crisis America decided that those whose deeply held moral beliefs prevented them from killing, even in defense of their country, would not be required to fight.
To this day liberals will defend, and even extoll, conscientious objectors.
Yet those same liberals believe that while someone can’t be compelled to kill Nazi’s to save the country she can be compelled to help kill the unborn.
The only logic seems to be that liberals believe that Americans cannot be compelled to do what liberals don’t like but Americans can be compelled to do what liberals do like.
And in a society where the Government can use all of its terrible force to make people do what the Government thinks is good there is no real freedom.
If the Government can compel people to violate their deeply held moral principles in order to provide someone else free of charge with a luxury then what rights do Americans have?
We see the same “logic” at work when bakers and photographers are compelled to provide services to gay “weddings”. The “right” of gays to have the photographer or baker they want—for there is no shortage of bakers and photographers who will work at gay “weddings”—has been ruled by the courts to override the deeply held moral beliefs of those photographers and bakers.
What this tells us is that in the mind of liberals if liberals should decide that the Nazi’s are nice folk then it would be ok for the Government to force a Jewish baker to cater a Nazi celebration.
But if the Government has the power to force us to do whatever the Government thinks is good how is that different from a tyranny?
Interestingly enough this tension between the Governments power and people rights has been addressed before in America. Even when faced with an existential crisis America decided that those whose deeply held moral beliefs prevented them from killing, even in defense of their country, would not be required to fight.
To this day liberals will defend, and even extoll, conscientious objectors.
Yet those same liberals believe that while someone can’t be compelled to kill Nazi’s to save the country she can be compelled to help kill the unborn.
The only logic seems to be that liberals believe that Americans cannot be compelled to do what liberals don’t like but Americans can be compelled to do what liberals do like.
And in a society where the Government can use all of its terrible force to make people do what the Government thinks is good there is no real freedom.
The liberal judges dissent on Hobby Lobby and the cries of
anguish from liberals combined with their eager crushing of the rights of those
who don’t wish to support so called gay “weddings” reveals the hard fist of
dictatorial oppression at the heart of modern liberalism.
Conservatives are not at war with people of good intent—though most people who vote for liberals are ignorant of what they are really voting for—but with the intellectual children of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
The way to win that war is to educate America. Liberals win because they lie about what they want. They don’t discuss what the Hobby Lobby case is really about for example but instead imply that somehow the Supreme Court has outlawed birth control.
The MSM can be counted on to lie in order to cover the liberal agenda.
That leaves us to bring the truth to our well meaning and good-hearted neighbors.
Conservatives are not at war with people of good intent—though most people who vote for liberals are ignorant of what they are really voting for—but with the intellectual children of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
The way to win that war is to educate America. Liberals win because they lie about what they want. They don’t discuss what the Hobby Lobby case is really about for example but instead imply that somehow the Supreme Court has outlawed birth control.
The MSM can be counted on to lie in order to cover the liberal agenda.
That leaves us to bring the truth to our well meaning and good-hearted neighbors.
feel free to follow tom on Twitter
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment