Posted on 07/01/2014 4:47:41 AM PDT by rhema
Two years ago, I sat on a panel before Congress, testifying to the importance of religious liberty in America today.
It seems like a long time ago.
Since then, we have seen and heard a steady stream of news, from the church and the culture, about the Health and Human Services’ mandate and the Affordable Care Act, abortifacients and the conscience, religious freedoms and what this means for women.
Thankfully, the wait is over. The Supreme Court has ruled, and the verdict is in: In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious liberty, specifically in regard to closely held corporations (those with a small number of shareholders and offering no public stock, such as corporations that are family-owned, not operated by boards).
While we rejoice in this strong upholding of religious freedom, this decision does not signal an end to this discussion. It simply emboldens us carry on, doing what we do best as Christians: praying, confessing the faith and living it out in our daily callings.
We pray that Americans, whose consciences are burdened because they have been forced to violate their religious beliefs, would know God’s comfort and forgiveness.
We confess that life, which begins at conception, is a gift from God and ought to be held in the highest regard in this country.
We live, knowing that the First Amendment guarantees us not only the right to worship, but also to practice our faith as Lutheran citizens of this great nation, serving our neighbor where the Lord has placed us.
We do all of this, even as we rejoice with the Greens of Hobby Lobby, with the Hahns of Conestoga Wood Specialties and with our millions of brothers and sisters in the United States who believe just as strongly in the religious liberties guaranteed in our Constitution.
Today we are thankful for this step toward maintaining the integrity of our religious freedoms inherent in the First Amendment, but we will also remain ever mindful. The issue is and will continue to be purely and simply about religious freedom.
And so we pray. We confess. We live.
“We fought for a free conscience in this country,” I told the committee two years ago, “and we won’t give it up without a fight.”
I meant that, and I pray you do too.
The Rev. Matthew C. Harrison
President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
bump
Amen!
The irony of this whole thing is that the law that the decision was based on was passed by a Democrat congress, and signed by a revered democrat President named Bill Clinton.
And it had, I’m guessing, about the most bipartisan support of any controversy-prone measure passed in the last few decades: 97-3 in the Senate, unanimous voice vote in the House.
Taking the ruling one step further----hundreds of taxpayers protested against immigrants being dumped in their California city....where taxpayers would be forced to subsidize people here illegally, whose only aspiration is to falsify official documents to ride the US gravy train, and to send US tax dollars via "remittances" back home to corrupt Central American govts.
Taxpayers have the right to decide what happens to their tax dollars....to use their tax dollars for patently illegal purposes is a violation of their consciences.
I am not elated by this decision, not because think it’s wrong. It’s absolutely right. What bothers me is that it was even necessary, and that so many people, who vote, think it’s wrong, and will vote accordingly, and that so many members of the governing class will also act accordingly.
Those of us who believe in America and Americanism do not share values with those who support the current governing class. We can’t have a dialogue with them, we can’t persuade them. The only remaining question is how do we defeat them?
...Catholic kudos to the reverend...
Before we beatify Clinton and the Democrats---let's remember that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed in 1993, was intended to redress an earlier court ruling against Native Americans who’d used the hallucinogen peyote as part of a religious ceremony.
Hardly a Democrat declaration of reverence for pro-life Christians.
It’s sad the court had to rely on RFRA when the 1st amendment would have sufficed. We were ONE VOTE from losing religious freedom. We shouldn’t be cheering this ruling as much as prepping for when we lost more of our rights.
Too bad the women supremes can't get pass their sex.
Time to overturn Roe.
...just thinking...that might be the spark that ignites the violent culture war that everyone here seems to think will happen...at one time I just passed that off as overblown rhetoric, but now I’m not so sure, what with demographic changes and all...
Who beatified anyone?
The only logical solution is for businesses to stop offering health insurance as a benefit, & insurance being offered universally to individuals nation wide under a free market system.
If businesses want to offer “cost of living” benefits to employees they are free to do so. Bonuses also serve the same purpose. There is no reason your employer should have any involvement in your health insurance, nor is there any reason your employer would want the cost of administering such a benefit, when it would be far simpler/cheaper to just give each employee a cash benefit, paid monthly.
No, I don't suggest people have to buy insurance from Obamacare. It needs to be repealed immediately. It is part of the problem, not a solution. We need an open market like car insurance, without Federal interference.
“We shouldn’t be cheering this ruling as much as prepping for when we lost more of our rights.”
I agree, and said so in a later post.
That shows how far a society can fall in a measly 10 years.
I heard on radio this morning that liberal pundits were pointing out that the decision came out on the gender divide.
Their conclusion is that, basically, it is about the mens’ war on women.
That is such a lie.
What the gender split on the ruling actually suggests is that it is more likely that a hedonistic liberal woman will seek and find a highly visible judgeship (unseating the traditional man’s role) in today’s culture (or lack thereof) than one who is a God-fearing conservative.
The God fearing women just aren’t seeking to overturn tradition. Nor are they being sought by the powers that be for traditionally male roles today. (Acceptions permitting.)
The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.
For almost 100 years the courts had made rulings as if the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Blacks, but if the word “person” means “legal person”, then it never applied to Blacks because Blacks had already been declared by SCOTUS to be LEGAL non-persons, in Dred Scott.
And then in 1973 along came Roe, which in effect overruled those other rulings by claiming that the 14th Amendment DIDN’T apply to “legal non-persons” such as Blacks and (as they ruled in Roe) fetuses.
Since 1973 there have been SCOTUS rulings based on the understanding that the 14th Amendment DOES apply to Blacks though. Those rulings refused to acknowledge and accept Roe’s new interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
So what we’ve got is the 1973 Roe decision claiming the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to “legal non-persons”, surrounded by 100 years before it and 41 years after it where the SCOTUS-ruled “legal non-persons” (Blacks) are presumed to have the 14th Amendment apply to them.
The way to challenge Roe v Wade, IMHO, is to claim that some Black person has no citizenship because Roe decided that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and the Dred Scott decision that Blacks are legal non-persons has never been overturned.
Nobody would be willing to do that because the media would present the filer as a racist, when in reality the filer would simply be taking the Roe decision’s claims seriously so that the court is forced to admit that Roe is dead wrong - which all the judges/justices already know, as evidenced by SCOTUS’ refusal to consider that totally new interpretation of the 14th Amendment when considering “civil rights” cases.
and that males have an interest in their children.
The there's sickos and sheep like Obama that think baby killing is a good thing.
Stop having sex ladies and you want have inconvenient babies!!
Democrats supported it because they viewed it as a means of thwarting Christian influence in the nation.
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.