LCMS Ping
This is our first time using the new LCMS Ping List. If you would like to be added to the list, let me know, either on this thread or via freepmail.
Also, lightman will ping this article on the more general Lutheran Ping List.
Missouri Synod president issues statement on recent HHS decision and religious freedom
It doesn’t appear Obama is going to back down. Apparently, he believes he can ride out this storm thru November. That all depends on the percentage of Christian liberals still willing to vote for the man.
Interestingly, Santorum seems to maintain his surge, and I suspect a lot of his popularity has do do with his social stances. This is going to be interesting.
This is our first time using the new LCMS Ping List. If you would like to be added to the list, let me know, either on this thread or via freepmail.
Also, lightman will ping this article on the more general Lutheran Ping List.
I don’t see this “compromise” as a compromise. Seems to me, if the health insurance company is mandated by the government to provide these “medications” and “services” free of charge to the “patient”, the religious organization is going to be paying for it through higher premiums.
I don’t see this “compromise” as a compromise. Seems to me, if the health insurance company is mandated by the government to provide these “medications” and “services” free of charge to the “patient”, the religious organization is going to be paying for it through higher premiums.
I don’t see this “compromise” as a compromise. Seems to me, if the health insurance company is mandated by the government to provide these “medications” and “services” free of charge to the “patient”, the religious organization is going to be paying for it through higher premiums.
To echo and paraphrase Rev. President Harrison, “Do not be fooled by language to the contrary, the individual mandate allows Obamacare health panels to ^require^ a woman to abort a child.”
I’m guessing the ELCA, UMC, UCC and Unitarians love it, though, right?
Wxcerpt from Big Government
by Joel B. Pollak Robert Creamer–Democrat strategist, Obama 2008 campaign aide, and political architect of ObamaCare–argues that the new contraceptive mandate for Catholic institutions isn’t really about equality for women, or religious liberty.
Rather, it is about population control.
Creamer–like his wife, the pro-abortion Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)–embraces the left-wing fallacy that children are a burden on the planet, which the state should encourage the church–and everyone else–to limit.
At 6:16-7:03 in the video below, by CNS News, Schakowsky describes abortion as “most often” a “responsible decision” to control the size of their families:
Writing in the Huffington Post yesterday, Creamer declared:
…[T]here is a worldwide consensus that the use of birth control is one of society’s most important moral priorities. Far from being something that should be discouraged, or is controversial, the use of birth control is critical to the survival and success of humanity….It is simply not possible for this small planet to sustain that kind of exponential human population growth. If we do, the result will be poverty, war, the depletion of our natural resources and famine. Fundamentally, the Reverend [Thomas] Malthus was right–except that the result is not inevitable….That’s why it is our moral imperative to act responsibly and encourage each other to use birth control.
Malthus’s late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century views, which still inspire much of today’s environmental movement, have been repeatedly disproved over the course of two centuries. Economic freedom, growth and innovation have made human society vastly more productive and efficient.
It is precisely because radical socialists like Creamer, Schakowsky and Obama detest the free economy that they continue to rely on old Malthusian and Marxist ideas.
Regardless, the indication by Creamer that the contraception mandate is not about “equality,” but population growth, suggests that the Obama administration’s challenge to the beliefs of the Catholic church may be more direct–and deliberate–than was previously suspected.
My coment
Eugenics.,is a basic tenet of socialism which includes the whole range of the “isms”. The new religions created by Marx, Lennin, and Fascists that mandates its followers practice population control, through abortion or sterilization and of course “mercy killing”. By edict Obama has not just violated the constitution by imposing a set of practices and their accompanying expences refuted by a religious group but has also sought to impose a belief system which is a defacto religion on another religious group...The results of this edict has not only created deep divisions within the groups affected which begs the question of the intent of result by the edicts issuance.
Defenders of this action quickly point to the regime decision to do so as its right because they are recipients of government funds. Those defenders convieniently ignore the fact that members of the groups affected have originally contributed those funds and were exempted from paying such costs resulting from and observing such practices that are now imposed upon them by the Obama regime.
Amen.
This controversy is not merely about ‘birth control’ and the Catholic Church’s views about it. It’s about mandating that we provide medications which kill life in the womb.
That is exactly what the MSM would have poeple belive.
I saw an ELCA Priestess on on the the talk show the other night, all she did was spout off about women's rights, never about God and His word related to this. The liberal church is just fine with all this.
Thanks for posting this important article.
Question: what is this referring to where he says,
"The next assault will come upon church-related retirement facilities. How much longer will it be legal in this country to believe and act according to the dictates of biblical and creedal Christianity?"
Is this going to be supplying condoms for geriatric Lutherans?-- or is he anticipating mandatory "end-of-life counseling" and Sayonara pills for expensive elders? Or does he think Obama is going to outright regulatory-strangle all church-based social services, just on principle? Or what?