Will Christian Leaders Finally Compromise on ObamaCare?

A response to my column, “Catholics Defy ObamaCare! What About Fundamentalist Churches and Universities?” reveals a lack of understanding many people have as to the responsibility of Christians in the face of government intrusion into their ministries.

Most people obviously do not understand what all historians have known for two thousand years. The second century church leader, Tertullian observed, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Pagans (all non-Christians) observed that Christians who willingly went to their deaths influenced numerous unbelievers to trust Christ who then themselves became martyrs.

My critic sarcastically asked, "And how much stronger would the church have been made had all Christians refused and been killed?" Evidently, he did not know how persecution happened in the Roman Empire. The persecution was not constant, but took place in "fits and starts." Moreover, the worst part of persecution took place in selected localized areas, depending upon the local rulers, urban or rural areas, etc. Furthermore, many Christians did not "go public" and, therefore, did not face persecution. Believers who refused to obey Caesar and made much to do about it were given an opportunity to recant and deny Christ and some did so. And later recanted their recantation.

My critic said that case law amends the Constitution but he is wrong. If that were true, it would mean that the Constitution would be constantly changing. Case law is a constantly developing body of law which has made new interpretations of law which can be used as a precedent in similar cases. He has it backwards: case law does not amend the Constitution but case law is determined by the Constitution. The Constitution must go through the amending process before it can be changed. Radicals want the Constitution to be "flexible" so that anything can be read into it to justify things like ObamaCare, abortion, homosexuality, etc. My critic declared, "So all it would take to silence the churches in this country would be for them to all commit hairy kerry (sic) as soon as they have less then (sic) 100% religious liberty." I assume he meant to write "hara-kiri," not hairy kerry, but then I often presume too much.

But back to his previous mistake about the martyrs. No, the church would not be silenced, at least not true churches. It might be one of the best things to happen in America if a thousand preachers went to jail for refusing to obey an oppressive government order. During 1662, over 2,000 preachers in England lost their pulpits or went to jail for refusing to obey the king's order to strictly adhere to the Book of Common Prayer. In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control of religion in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by nonconformist Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others. The Nonconformists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the King and Parliament decided to bring them under control. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required all ministers to assent to the rites and liturgy of the Established Church. In fact, all clergy, college professors, and schoolmasters had to agree with everything in the Book of Common Prayer! All clerics who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,000 were ejected (and some went to jail) but 20% to 25% of the country continued to worship illegally, holding secret services in barns and other unapproved locations. That could happen here.

My critic wrote, "I understand those who have drawn the line here, and wish them success. But souls are still being saved that won’t be if everyone gives up and goes home at the first sign of trouble." He made a gargantuan leap in logic when he suggested that people won't become Christians if individuals, churches, and businesses refuse to obey ObamaCare in obedience to the Bible and their conscience. I suggest that such courageous action would prove to the cynical world that there are still people who will do what is right if it costs them everything–that was everything: reputation, job, home, business, retirement plan, and personal freedom. He accused Christians of going “home at the first sign of trouble." Principled people are not running home; they are fighting in court; they are going on record that they will not obey the law even if they lose in court. Whatever happens in court, they know the end result: they will not obey the law! Wow, that takes courage, character, and commitment to biblical principles. Government officials, judges, media, and politicians have not met many people like that. They will be shocked when businesses, churches, hospitals, orphanages, schools and other entities are closed by the government and the leaders are marched off to jail!

Some potential compromisers have begun to set the stage (and self-justification) for their eventual compliance by stating that ObamaCare may force them “to violate their consciences,” which is not a biblical response. The principled response is, “I won’t comply whatever the threats or consequences. Period.” No room for negotiation (read: compromise). Others have said, “Americans have no choice in this matter.” But of course we do. We have the choice to say, “Yes” or “No.” That is a choice. I have made my decision.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Three years ago, the second edition of ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published, and his new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from www.thegodhaters.com. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)

"Like" Dr. Boys on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/CSTNews?ref=hl and http://www.facebook.com/TheGodHaters?ref=hl Follow Dr. Boys on Twitter at https://twitter.com/CSTNews

What compromise? “My way or the highway” only means something when there IS a highway to get away from this monstrosity that is misnamed “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2011”.

MASSIVE RESISTANCE TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS PILE OF CRAPOLA IS THE ONLY SANE RESPONSE. That said, what effective means do we have to resist the effects of this unworkable and ineffectual piece of legislation? Escape to another country does not seem to be an option, as there are fewer and fewer places anywhere that are not also mired in their own set of cockamamie rules and counter-intuitive actions against both the will and the best interests of those subjects ensnared by such gimmicks.

First, take back responsibility for your own health. By refusing to either maintain a government-sanctioned “insurance policy” filled with mandates and exclusions, or to pay the fines imposed for refusing to participate in this fraudulent practice, there is a very real probability that at some time or another, you shall be found in violation of the law as written. But if enough people resist, there are simply not enough law enforcement officers out there to capture them all.

This is much like trying to locate all the illegal immigrants in this country, both those who came legally but overstayed their visa, or those who entered clandestinely and never had a visa at all. The job of finding them is judged to be “impossible”, so their presence is unoffically tolerated by the supposed authorities in this country. Likewise with a sufficient number of people who resist this health legislation, throwing maybe 10% or more of the population into some kind of detention is not a practical response to the problem.

There would just be a lot of hardened attitudes, and just possibly, the nucleus of the creation of a breakaway republic within that territory once known as “the United States of America”.

Secession has never been tested in a court of law as to whether it is legal or not, it has only been suppressed by superior military action and economic embargo. “One Nation, under God, Indivisible” would still be operable, if in fact, we WERE “under God”, but effectively, nearly half of the people of this country no longer believe this nation is “under God”.

So the part that believes breaks away from the part that does not sincerely believe in that maxim.

“But back to his previous mistake about the martyrs. No, the church would not be silenced, at least not true churches. It might be one of the best things to happen in America if a thousand preachers went to jail for refusing to obey an oppressive government order. During 1662, over 2,000 preachers in England lost their pulpits or went to jail for refusing to obey the king’s order to strictly adhere to the Book of Common Prayer. In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control of religion in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by nonconformist Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others. The Nonconformists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the King and Parliament decided to bring them under control. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required all ministers to assent to the rites and liturgy of the Established Church. In fact, all clergy, college professors, and schoolmasters had to agree with everything in the Book of Common Prayer! All clerics who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,000 were ejected (and some went to jail) but 20% to 25% of the country continued to worship illegally, holding secret services in barns and other unapproved locations. That could happen here. “

Well said.

why should we compromise when we have this: http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?topic=113.0 How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question. In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident. In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story. Drudge did an article in 2005 http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/ The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants. Both children were adopted from Latin America. A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.” Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.” Were the Children Adopted from Ireland? This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1 TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts's (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.” How were the Children Adopted? According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption. As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency."2 But was Robert's adoption utilizing "a legal method"? Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts "spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy," but "he did not play a central role," because " at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son." It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland. Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts' confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth. However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency. This would explain the children's origin from a "Latin American country", so as to circumvent Irish law. Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws -- entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland. Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation. Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts' for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as "infants". Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home. That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up their children except for that profit. Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity, and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That's an important ethical recognition. Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion. It all now makes sense. The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment. This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare. ... And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution. And it is consistent with Obama's Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed records in order to win election. « Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 12:50:58 AM by Trip » Logged Declaration: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.