The above title is the same as the article posted on National Review Online that covered an interview with Carl Anderson by Kathryn Jean Lopez.
The thrust of the interview is that 25% of Americans are Catholic and see a great danger in the Obamacare mandate forcing abortifacients upon people, and organizations, tied to faith. In other words, the First Amendment.
The objection of forced participation by those of faith is reaching critical mass (no pun intended) as more and more Catholic Church members are become active in their civil discourse. It brought an interesting question to mind when I was reading the interview -- How is this different than an individual seeking protection from forced enlistment in the military based on their faith, or beliefs? Other than the conscription into the military that is!
Conscientious Objector's have long been around historically.
In 1974, the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Sean MacBride said, in his Nobel Lecture, "To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is 'The Right to Refuse to Kill.'
Again, how is the opposition to killing an unborn child different than opposition of taking up arms in compulsory military service?
I think that a change in legal strategy is warranted or enhancement of the First Amendment legal argument to include the right to object to Obamacare under conscientious objector status. Liberals love that argument and provide safe haven for draft dodgers, maybe they will accept us as one of their own. Nah, forget I said that....Only when pigs fly.
Let me preface by stating that I do not favor taxpayer funding of elective medical procedures or medications.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I cannot subscribe to your analogy as presented as the two are not identical regarding injury to the individual.
An individual who does not believe that military service is compatible with his or her conscience or religious beliefs, is directly deprived of their liberty. Not in a tangible notion, not merely with taxpayer apportionment towards defense, but physically deprived against his will.
The segments of the ACA which are touted as an infringement on the 1st Amendment, are applied only towards those religiously affiliated business enterprises which both serve the general public and employ the general public. The injury here is directly emotional, and indirectly financial, but enables no direct or physical deprivation of liberty, as no citizen is required to partake of procedures or medications against their will.
A more apt analogy, if I may respectfully submit, is between this issue and that of tax paying citizens who are required to apportion their earned funds towards a defense apparatus against their religious belief system; begging the question....from a legal standpoint, if the faithful could be exempt from their taxes funding abortion or related prescriptions, shouldn't they also be able to abstain likewise regarding the military?
You are correct. Your analogy is more apt to the point I was making. I was looking at the issue from the perspective of a cynic and using the logic as a liberal would in an argument as they have with anti-war stance supporting a person who has faith opposition to killing. The more subtle point is they (libs) will use an argument for something they favor (anti-war) with something they detest (faith) in order to get what they want from a legal standpoint. When I say lib, I mean those who are ardent secularists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general point, but secularism and religion are not confined to or defined by political parties.
ReplyDeletethe liberals have screamed "seperation of church and state" over anything and everything Much less significant that this.
ReplyDeleteIt's absurd to see it as anything else. obama the muslim activist is stomping all over Christians. It's simple.