Why do these stories always say ‘one of the most influential evangelical leaders’ and you’ve never heard of the guy?
They know this is a radical secular campaign against religious institutions and belief, not just Catholicism.
And why is it again, that the Muslims get waivers?
Nice going, but I’m reminded of the cartoon where an army of medieval soldiers is storming a castle. One of them takes another aside and says, “Hey, you knew about the boiling oil when you signed up!”
This same Richard Land sees nothing wrong with RomneyCare...
We keep focusing on the rights of “providers”, and it just illustrates how screwed up our health care system is.
Why are Catholic Hospitals a “provider” of health insurance for their workers?
Why isn’t the focus on the rights of the PEOPLE to choose their health insurance? Under Obamacare, I am forced to buy health insurance that includes the mandate to fully cover abortion pills. Since insurance is collecting a little money from everybody, to pay for those who file, my money is going to pay for abortion.
In a free market, I should be allowed to shop for a provider that doesn’t include things I find morally repugnant. But under Obamacare, every provider is required to include these pills — except, if we win this fight, certain PROVIDERS who have religious objections.
But these providers who will get exemptions are specific employers, and unless I work for them, I can’t buy the insurance they are “providing”.
Note that the word “provide” is a misnomer here. Normally the “insurance provider” would be the company that insures you, that pays out if you have a claim. In this case, it’s not “providers”, it’s 3rd-party payers. So a Catholic Charity is seeking an exemption from the law, so that when they are REQUIRED to be a 3rd-party payer for insurance for their workers, they can contract for insurance that doesn’t include abortion pills.
This means some provider will be allowed to make a special insurance package for these religious institutions. But not for me, if I want to buy an individual policy.
Of course, half the problem is the government giving tax breaks to EMPLOYERS and then forcing employers to buy insurance for their workers, rather than giving the tax breaks to individuals, and removing the employer mandate, allowing individuals to buy insurance directly instead.
If you combined a removal of employers from the equation (which should mean employers would then provide additional pay to workers equivalent to what was going into insurance), with an individual choice as to what kind of insurance they want, NOBODY would be forced to pay for insuring anything they didn’t like.
If I hate all abortion, I could find an insurance company that simply doesn’t cover abortions at all, in any kind, even though they are still “legal” for now. My money wouldn’t go for it.
If I think homosexuality is a crime against nature, I could find an insurance company that doesn’t offer same-sex partner benefits, and thus lower my cost of insurance slightly since same-sex partners engage in risky behavior that drives up their cost of health care, and can’t be made to pay more money for that risky behavior.
And nobody else would “suffer” for my choice. If another person didn’t like being in an insurance poll with religious folks, they could find a company offering atheist health policies. Maybe someone else wants insurance that doesn’t cover children at all, like the old folks communities.
All this would be ours, if we didn’t have employer-provided insurance, Obamacare, regulations, and a nanny state looking to “make our lives better”.
If we weren’t forced to buy insurance, nobody would have to debate over whether religious institutions had to pay for immoral treatment.
Well, the Obama administration is just as eager to martyr them as they are to be martyred.
They would feed them to the lions, but PETA won’t allow it.
Liberal leaders who happen to be Democrat politicians should have been excommunicated years ago for their stance on abortion, etc.
Another thing to think about ... Is Obama's mandate against Christians a preface to accepting Sharia Law in the U.S.
e.g. couldn't the maggots say it's ok to stone a woman for premarital sex... beheading someone who disagrees with Muhammad's teaching.
More likely than jail is financial ruin via the tax laws. Death by a thousand cuts.
Amen! Alleluia! Axios! to the honorable Baptists and their pro-life, God-pleasing allies. We need about a hundred million more like that!
Amen! Alleluia! Axios! to the honorable Baptists and their pro-life, God-pleasing allies. We need about a hundred million more like that!
Can opt out, as a conscious objector, this immoral Government?
May God be with all of us who name the Name of Jesus Christ. May we all be willing to follow His call......even if it means persecution.
And if Obama is reelected, that very well may be where we're headed.
“Dr. Land told LifeSiteNews he hopes Baptist ministers will “preach from the pulpit just how serious and dangerous this initiative by the Obama administration is,” and “encourage their parishioners to contact their congressmen and their senators and the president and let them know how deeply unhappy they are with this decision, and they want…legislation guaranteeing that it won’t happen again.””
Are Muslims really exempt? Because if they are that sounds like Religious discrimination to me right there. If the exemption is based on the fact that Muslims exclude all others that says a lot. You’re basically punishing the Catholics, Protestant’s and Jews that actually help each other and work together to help all people. Think about it— a nun tries to comfort an AIDS patient near death who isn’t Catholic and her church must violate it’s conscience. The Muslim who doesn’t care about that patient gets an exemption?
I am very pleased that the Orthodox bishops in America are also taking a stand on this, http://assemblyofbishops.org/news/releases/protest-against-hhs
And we will march together again, or see each other in the catacombs.
Dr. Land is not black, therefore he can't quote King. Land must be a racist. (/sarc)
ping