Sunday, February 12, 2012

Conscience vs. Religion - Some ponderings on Obama care and government mandated abortion coverage by the Catholic Church.

No that wasn't a typo.  The latest fuss between Obama and the Catholic Church has to do with the government forcing them to cover contraceptives and the governments latest definition of contraceptives includes abortion causing drugs.  This reminds me of the speech Obama gave to congress that was interrupted with the famous "You Lie" from Representative Wilson.  The video snippet is here.  Of course Obamanomics requires employment to be given to illegals, and Obamacare requires health coverage, which now means abortion, thus, Representative Wilson looks to be the one who was correct, although some clever person might draw the distinction between the government paying for something and the government requiring someone to pay for something without a tax collector as an intermediary.

My Librivox catalog just announced a new audio version of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.  I will give their snippet:

"Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War. (Summary by Wikipedia)" - Librivox

Before going further, I will note that abortion coverage is mandated by government in various places, like China, yet there are many Christians there who are loyal people within the People's Republic.  If I go back further, we find God's people serving the homicidal Babylonians as loyal citizens, so I am not one to advocate civil disobedience of any kind.

By now the fuss should be known to the world between Obama and the Catholic Church, but I should highlight the previous famous dispute with the leftists over adaption services.  I haven't been following this, but it seems they are being driven out of one state after another.  It seems to me that the conscience of pederasts counts, but the conscience of Christians does not.

But then there is this commentary in The Economist. It is a bit condescending towards religion, as usual, but the summing up of the attitudes is what I am interested in:

"The bishops, naturally, went berserk, but so did conservatives. Making Americans buy health insurance was bad enough, an encroachment on personal liberty, they thundered. Making Americans pay for something they believe to be morally wrong is utterly beyond reproach. Government overreach had reached its most extreme form."

As with all leftist articles, there seems to be not the slightest concept that someone other than themselves might actually have a conscience.  Or perhaps they view that humans have various intense passions, but they alone possess conscience.  But to go further and link conscience to religion?  I should note that many of the leftists religious organizations do seem to link religion to conscience, although I would claim that their religion is an atheist front for leftist politics.  The alleged compromise involves the Catholic Church handing over health care coverage to insurers who provide abortion coverage, but don't charge the Catholic Church.  Again, this presumes that there is no conscience in the Catholic Church ... or at least no one who is bright enough to see through a tiny bit of smoke and mirrors.

My dilemma is that if I were living in a communist dictatorship, protest would be out of the question and this kind of heavy handed trampling on religious liberties would be expected.  Yet America is supposed to be a land of religious liberty.  It seems to me that the leftist gambit - to claim religious liberty while imposing a dictatorship of conscience - is to divorce conscience from religion.  In this view, religion is only about ritual and faith, but everything regarding human behavior - i.e. conscience - is distinct and the exclusive property of leftists.  I wonder what Thoreau would say.

A related fuss happened here in California recently.  A Susan Komen foundation - which is dedicated to treating breast cancer - recently tried to pull its funding from Planned Parenthood.  A sense of the news is here.  Planned Parenthood is, of course, a slaughter house and America's primary abortion provider.  Mona Charen gives a bit on their credibility regarding breast cancer treatment.  This is going to make everyone in this country even more cynical when a charity that exploits conscience by advertising itself as a promoter of life sends its funds to a group dedicated to death.  If there is anything good that comes of it, perhaps it is to make everyone aware of the smoke and mirrors being used by leftists to cheat people's consciences.


Delirious said...

It is for this same reason of conscience that our church fights against same sex marriage. Same sex marriage goes against the very tenants of our beliefs about family and marriage. In our sacred temples, we perform marriages, and there is this fear that the government will try to force us to allow same sex marriages in our temples, just like they have tried to force the Catholic church to support abortion. With the most reason ruling about same sex marriage by the California supreme court, I have pondered of our votes even count anymore. This certainly is not the type of government our founding fathers envisioned...

Rummuser said...

I find the whole thing very amusing. We are supposed to be a backward country. We do not have health insurance, not enough medicare for the vast majority of rural Indians, not enough money to worry about these things, yet, abortion is legal, family planning is a state encouraged initiative, and the population explosion has been contained. We have all the religions of the world present here and not one has taken objection to any of the initiatives, at least not in public. What they do with their conscience is their business.

Vid said...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"- First Ammendment

If, according to the Catholic religion, you can't use contraceptives, forcing Catholic establishments to give out contraceptives violates the first ammendment by not allowing them to practice their religion freely.

Looney said...

@Delirious, I am sure there are plenty of people seeking a pretext for a fight of that sort. Somehow I feel that religious freedom could be greater in China than America before I die, but not because China changes all that much.

Looney said...

@Rummuser, I am told that the new Obama-care legislation includes a requirement for the government to engage in "tooth-level surveillance". There is certainly some nostalgia for when the government didn't have unlimited resources to regulate everything in people's lives!

On the other hand, I suspect your bureaucrats are envious about such powers!

Looney said...

Vid, I certainly agree with you.

I suspect Islam is opposed to contraceptives also, especially those of the abortion inducing sort. The government has been selectively granting waivers from their rules, and I doubt they would touch Islam. Then there are the unions who are granted waivers to pursue their own systems. Keeping in mind that Obamacare can drive a company into bankruptcy, there is this article as an example of who gets the waivers.

Max Coutinho said...

Hi Looney,

Before I begin disagreeing with President Obama on this issue, I'd like to say one thing: if I were an American, I'd re-elect him (for a number of reasons, that are not relevant to the subject at hand).
However, I do think he shot his administration's foot with this one.

The argument that 98% of catholic women use contraceptives doesn't cut it. Contraceptives are not expensive, so I don't understand why they need to be covered by the Health System. If a woman wants to poison her own body, she should do it at her own expense, period. Unless, in the US contraceptives are so expensive that it justifies a health coverage.
Abortions shouldn't be sponsored by the government because doing so means to use the money of those tax payers who are against abortion to finance what can be seen by many as a crime against humanity. But again, if women wish to submit their bodies to such procedures then they should do it at their own expense, for it is a question of personal choice.
Last week, a Portuguese TV show debated the following question: is abortion a political issue or an ethical issue?
I will address this fabulous issue later on in my blog but it is always interesting to talk about it.

Oh the world knows well about the fuss between President Obama and the Catholics - we do watch the news, and the world has its eyes on America, you know lol...

Still, I am hoping that this administration will come to its senses cause it may cost them a lot. I know that there are only around 77,7 million Catholics in the US but they are not a group the Obama Administration should mess with.

Please, do not get me started on the Leftists...
Komen Foundation did not deal with that fuss very well. If I were the head of that foundation I wouldn't have caved in and I would still get those donations (perhaps not from the liberals...anyway, why do people think that only the liberals have money to donate?).

Boy, am I ever glad you wrote this piece :D.


P.S: I totally agree with Vid on this one.