This is important. It may be the break freedom-loving Christians and others who are concerned about liberty have praying for. His Beatitude has been invited to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to discuss the recent HHS dictates that have raised the ire of the millions of Americans who are worried about the loss freedom that Obamacare entails. He will be joined by Christian and Jewish leaders who have likewise expressed concern.
Oversight Hearing Advisory: Examining Obama Administration Rule’s Impact on Freedom of Religion, This Thursday
Oversight Committee to Examine Obama Administration Rule’s Impact on Freedom of Religion
WASHINGTON. D.C. – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) today announced that the committee will hear from renowned faith leaders and prominent university officials about the Obama administration’s subversion of the First Amendment. On Thursday, February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building, the Oversight Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” The hearing will examine the Obama Administration’s decision to require all health insurance plans to offer contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and the resulting impact on religious liberty.
Witnesses:
Panel One
The Most Reverend William E. Lori
Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, CT
Chairman Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The Most Blessed Jonah
Archbishop of Washington
Metropolitan of All America and Canada
Orthodox Church in America
Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy
Union University
Ordained Baptist minister
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik
Director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought
Yeshiva University
Associate Rabbi
Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun
Dr. Craig Mitchell
Associate Professor of Ethics
Chair of the Ethics Department
Associate Director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Ordained Baptist minister
Panel Two
John H. Garvey
President
The Catholic University of America
Dr. William K. Thierfelder
President
Belmont Abbey College
Dr. Samuel W. “Dub” Oliver
President
East Texas Baptist University
Allison Dabbs Garrett
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Oklahoma Christian University
When: Thursday, February 13, 2012 9:30 AM
Where: 2154 Rayburn
For more on the hearing, click here.
Looks like he didn’t testify according to the witness list. The head of the LCMS was in his spot.
Even if Metropolitan Jonah could not make it to the hearing, the fact that he was invited is very important.
One woman witness? One? Me thinks the committee chair just wanted to hear people of his own ilk. Politics as usual and not important at all.
I am surprised that you feel this way. What we are facing here is a monstrous decision by the Obama administration to run over religious liberty enshrined in the United States Constitution–a decision that coincidentally mandates the provision of aborficiants as if they are contraceptives, a decision that gives lie to the 2008 promises by Mr Obama to the Catholics, a decision that will increase health care costs and diminish everybody’s liberties. And, you are complaining about the gender composition of the witnesses?
Carl, I think Amos is not concerned with the gender makeup of the witnesses in and of itself, but how this will convey the message that this is about anything other than freedom of religion and conscience.
The side that favors the mandate is trying very hard to portray this as an issue between patriarchal religious establishment versus enlightened feminism, and to have a bunch of men speaking against the mandate doesn’t do much to dispel that notion.
Even if there were twenty women witnesses there, the Left would be screaming that they weren’t “real women” at all. Look at what they did to Sarah Palin, a reformist governor who worked well with Dems in the Legislature, took on the oil companies, took down the good old boys in the state GOP, etc. They refursed to even consider her a “real” woman. (Of course that’s because she didn’t abort Trig.)
George, yes, that’s true for the hard left. The people we need to worry about are people who kind of swing in the middle.
***What we need, Helga, is someone in the White House who will uphold the Constitution and govern within its constraints!
Mr. Green, we haven’t had a President willing to do that since George Washington.
I think that I replied in haste. In retrospect, the gender representation issue is minor compared to his concluding statement “Politics as usual and not important at all,” which I was mostly addressing. To be fair, this hearing is part of the political discourse and thus partisan, given the current make up of Congress. Nonetheless, the immense weight of this issue as an attack on the Constitution and freedom of religion (not to say anything about many more babies being murdered) transcends any purely political consideration, such as the President breaking his promise to the Catholic Church in 2008.
Glad to see you have come to your senses Carl. 🙂
I am 66 years old and married during most of it.
I am 79 years old and married during most of it.
Newt Gingrich can say the same thing. So can Jimmy Carter.
Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm
“Newt Gingrich can say the same thing. So can Jimmy Carter.”
Your Grace, are you sure about Newt Gingrich?
Of course, I’m sure! Why Gangr….er Gingrich has even been married MORE, while he’s lived, than PdnNJ, or Carl Kraeff!
He’s so important to “The Defense of Marriage” that he just can’t stop doing it, again and again, as we say. Rick of Pennsylvania, too, defends marriage with not too frequent conceptions, right along with La Bachman, the other Rick (Rick of Texas), and a whole gaggle of true Christian conservatives with miraculously small and well-spaced offspring—enough so they can spend a lot of time pointing at those who make contraceptives available to others. Oh, the violated consciences and crushed religious freedoms! Of all the Republican candidates for President during the last fifty years, how many of them were Christian conservative enough to have really large families?
Some will say, those who insist on having a married episcopate, that married bishops will somehow set a better example for married folks than those awful celibates and monastics who make war on contraceptives without ever having had to meet a payroll.!
Bishop Tikhon keeps “forgetting” that the HHS Mandate also forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices! By including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as “Ella,” a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.
This consistent oversight on his part can’t be because he supports Obama and his administration or anything, can it?
Chris:
Maybe you are unaware, but abortions have been going on since the beginning of time. There are certain herbs that women can take that induce a miscarriage or extremely pre-mature birth. Women don’t need to go to a doctor, but study herbalism. Like any act of murder, it is a personal choice and not state mandated, as is all sin.
Diogenes, As my grandmother used to say, “what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?”
Please stick to actual issue: “tyrannical gov’t mandates that force sterilization and abortifacients (abortion drugs) coverage by religious institutions in DIRECT violation of their Constitutionally protected religious liberty.”
Chris:
The point is, as Bishop Tikhon pointed out, no one has to use abortion drugs, sterilization nor contraception. The RC church objected to save money on their premiums while standing on principle to the world. This has nothing to do with Obama nor the HC policies arrived at by negotiations between both Republicans and Democrats. Of course the HC Bill needs tweeking and this was. Actually Chris, as you believe, this is really a conspiracy by Obama himself destroy Christian values; yep, that’s it.
Diogenes, murders have been going on since the beginning of time as well.
This exchange with Diogenes points to the veracity of what Coulter observed when trying to discuss substantive issues with most liberals (or progressives, what they like to call themselves lately):
Diogenes, no, that is not the point. The Catholic Church was doing just fine insuring their employees until the HHS mandate came along. The mandate is not in the original bill. It comes directly from the Obama Administration despite dissension in his own ranks (Biden advised against it).
And no, there were no compromises in this bill. As Nancy Pelosi said, those who voted for it did not read it. All Republicans voted against it. It’s a classic example of the tyranny of the majority.
The Orthodox Church opposes it too, BTW. Are the Bishops wrong?
It is not really about saving money on premiums (whether government can even force a private entity to buy a product has yet to be decided by the Supreme Court; those cases are working their way up the ladder). It’s about the state claiming authority over the church to compel it to institute policies that violate its teachings.
Like George pointed out in his reason essay: the HHS mandates are no less egregious in our day than Julian the Apostate’s dictate that Christians have to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Yes, Diogenes, I read about a girl who induced a “natural” abortion using pennyroyal. I’m sure she’d love to tell you about her experience, but unfortunately, she’s dead.
She did kill her baby, but since the unborn child had implanted inside her fallopian tube, the baby would have had to be killed to save her life anyway. If she had gone to a doctor, even one in an abortion clinic, instead of trying to kill her baby herself, they may have done an ultrasound that would have found the ectopic pregnancy and they would have been able to treat her for it.
Sadly, Planned Parenthood and others who lobby for child-murder have consistently fought laws and regulations mandating ultrasounds like the one that would have saved this girl.
Fr. Hans:
There is no doubt that America has decided to allow murder with abortions. There is no doubt that America has lost it’s morality with re-defining marriage to include homosexuals. There is no doubt that America is moving toward forced & voluntary euthanasia. However, none of this is new! The Orthodox Church throughout history has always found itself at odds with the State. The Constitution of the United States is clear about the separation of Church & State any mandate threatening that can easily be over-turned in the courts – if necessary. The Orthodox bishops aren’t wrong, just playing into unnecessary politics. The concentration within EVERY Orthodox Church should be teaching their people what is right & what is wrong and have them PRACTICE IT. It doesn’t matter what the State may or may not dictate. Playing this political game of the “evil Obama” vs the “righteous Republicans” is just politics at its worst.
So what is your objection? That the Church is not challenging this in the courts? They are. (See: Google search.) Or is it that the Catholic Church is refusing to comply with the mandates until the courts decide? Or is it that the Catholic Church has indicated it will not comply regardless of what the courts rule?
It’s true that people in the Church have to live their faith better. But isn’t this what the Catholic Church is doing — practicing what they preach? If contraception and abortion is wrong, why would they comply with policies that promote it?
The point is: the RC’s could have ignored any mandate. Making a big public issue had it’s positive effects in saying, “Leave us alone or else!” Now, every religious institution will jump on this wave trying to get exemptions for everything. OK, after all, there is a separation of Church & State. Religious institutions save money on their premiums. Yet, the fact remains, the Republicans are blowing this out of proportion as the “Evil, Democratic Obama Admin” destroying the Christian faith which isn’t the case.
So your objection is what? — that this makes the Democrats look bad?
No, the right-wing agenda, which you know lots about, tries to present itself as the “Religious Right” when in reality it’s a lie. They are the people support wars, the killing of innocent people around the world, making the rich richer while doing nothing for the poor, etc. The Orthodox Church needs to be “A-POLITICAL” and not join on the band-wagon of any party.
Diogenes, I think it’s a mistake to conflate the Catholic resistance to the HHS mandates into right wing vs. left wing politics. The stakes are higher than that. That’s why you see Christians from all different communions supporting the Bishops, including the Orthodox.
Now if your complaint is that this makes the Republicans look good, well, that’s politics. If the calculation was only political, then the Obama administration should have walked away from this as soon as they saw it was a non-starter. But they didn’t and they don’t intend to which lends credence to the argument that more than politics is at stake.
Here’s another document just released by the Becket Fund. Orthodox signers include Fr. Chad Hatfield of SVS, and James Kushiner of the Fellowship of St. James. Read the document closely. It is sound. The document is titled: Unacceptable (downloadable pdf only).
(Anyone wanting to sign a petition that supports rescinding the HHS mandates can sign the Becket Fund petition. They are trying to collect one million signatures.)
Fr. Hans Jacobse says:
February 22, 2012 at 2:58 pm
‘So what is your objection? That the Church is not challenging this in the courts? They are. (See: Google search.) Or is it that the Catholic Church is refusing to comply with the mandates until the courts decide? Or is it that the Catholic Church has indicated it will not comply regardless of what the courts rule?
It’s true that people in the Church have to live their faith better. But isn’t this what the Catholic Church is doing — practicing what they preach? If contraception and abortion is wrong, why would they comply with policies that promote it?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We should join forces with any and all groups who make common cause with us, at least on as many issues as we can. But while it’s good for us to acknowledge all the good deeds done by people and their organizations, it’s distressing to note that Fr Hans equates roman catholic legal responses with legal responses made by The Church.
They are not equal and not the same. The roman church is christian, no more and no less than the anglican church or the lutheran church, but these communities are NOT The Church, either individually or all together. They are heterodox and/or heretical, and are absolutely not The Church.
It’s only us orthodox who are The Church, God help us sinners, and we have definitely NOT engaged the courts or the culture in general on this or on any other matter. May the Lord forgive us our indolence and inspire us to action.
Of course, anyone who admires the heterodox so much as to consider them as being within The Church is free to participate in their sacramental life and even join them outright. But that would require the orthodox to acknowledge such moves as nothing less than apostasy from orthodoxy, and a step away from The Church.
We really must be more precise in our thoughts and — most especially — in the expression of our thoughts.
Monk James, change that first sentence to “That the Catholic Church is not challenging…” and it should clear up your misconception that I am equating “roman catholic legal responses with legal responses made by The Church.”
BTW, I don’t think that the Catholic Church hierarchy is going to court, only Catholic organizations.
Just a reminder that next week the full OCA Synod meets. This will be their first meeting since last fall. Doubtless the forced “evaluation” of Met. Jonah will be first and foremost on the agenda. Let us keep blessed Jonah in our prayers that the Holy Angels will continue to guide and guard him in the midst of unholy foes.
I’ve created a new image to call attention to this particular meeting. It is entitled “Crows” and may be viewed here: http://s1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/Heracleides/
Herc, the website says this will be the Lesser Synod (plus Bishop Melchisedek for some mysterious reason) and the Metropolitan Council.
Regardless, I would love it if we could all pray for Met. Jonah and the OCA before the meeting. The meetings open on Tuesday, February 21.
By God’s great mercy, that day on the New Calendar is the feast of no fewer than four saintly bishops, three of whom were patriarchs of the ancient sees. They are St. Zacharias of Jerusalem, who was taken captive during the Persian invasion but returned alive with the Life-Giving Cross, St. Eustathios of Antioch, who bravely fought the Arian heresy and withstood a false allegation of unchastity, St. George of Amastris, who was a faithful monastic bishop and defender of the poor and falsely imprisoned, and St. John Scholasticus of Constantinople, patron of church administration and author of the Cherubic Hymn and the “Mystical Supper” prayer in the Divine Liturgy.
Also, on the Old Calendar, it will be the feast of St. Theodore Stratelates, the Prophet Zacharias, and St. Sabbas II, archbishop of Serbia.
We should beseech all these saints for their prayers for Met. Jonah and the Holy Synod.
Ah – my mistake. I was getting my info. from the Diocese of the West website and misunderstood.
Herc, regardless, it’s a good thing you mentioned the meeting, because we need to pray for all of the bishops and central administration. There’s been a lot of sin and strife, but praise God, Met. Jonah is still alive, well, and in his rightful place, and everyone involved in undermining his leadership over the past year has time left to repent.
How many crows in a murder?
The usual suspects, er, entire Synod…. the three on the left are the auxiliary turkeys, er, crows. Cough, cough.
I thought it rather appropriate for the “Jonah” bird to be white, not just because he has a white klobuk, but also because his name is a Hebrew name meaning “dove”.
Slight correction: It will be the Lesser Synod and MC. Here is the gist of what they will address:
Lesser Synod:
– hear reports from the officers of the Church on a number of pastoral, administrative and financial issues;
– review ongoing legal matters;
– review the 16th All-American Council’s initiatives, resolutions, and Strategic Plan goals;
– consider plans for the consecration of Archimandrite Alexander [Golitzin], Bishop-elect of the Bulgarian Diocese, slated to be celebrated in Toledo, OH May 4-5, 2012; and
– set the agenda for the Holy Synod of Bishops’ spring session May 7-10, 2012.
– meet with members of the Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee [SMPAC] to review updated policies and procedures, job descriptions and mandates, and ongoing cases.
Metropolitan Council:
– remarks by Metropolitan Jonah and the report of the OCA Chancellor, Archpriest John Jillions, who also will offer a report on the SMPAC.
– reports by Fathers Tosi and Vitko.
– reports by the Metropolitan Council’s committees on Charity [Archpriest John Reeves], Council Development, Crisis Management [Dr. Dimitri Solodow], Ethics [Archpriest David Mahaffey], Human Resources [Priest David Garretson], and Internal Governance [Dr. Solodow].
– The Legal Committee also will offer a report on the Statute issue from the 16th All-American Council and other current and ongoing issues.
– finance report, review of the 2010 Statement, and the External Audit report.
– Finance Committee’s 2012 budget changes
– report on financial development.
– reports on the recent meeting of the diocesan chancellors and treasurers, the Pension Board, and the OCA’s ministry departments,
Outside of any real SMPAC work, deciding when the bishops will arrive, stay, and depart for Golitzin’s consecration and nailing Velenca’s hide to the wall, both agendas are fluff and busy work.
The one thing they should be spending most of their time on is how much the budget needs to be cut and how they will raise the non-assessment funds for any income offset. They better not run out of time at every meeting and tell us by the end of the year that there is no way they can reduce the assessment next year.
We are watching and taking notes MC and Synod. We are not in any mood for more bait and switch routines. Clear out your busy work agenda and cut spending and reduce the assessment. That is what the AAC directed you to do. Now do it! And may the Lord bless your real work.
Darn straight on all of that, Jacob.
They have cut Fr. Garklavs and his $140,000 salary loose, right?
Yes. One would assume since Fr Alexander starts his new assignment as rector of Holy Trinity Church in Parma in March. Unless of course the OCA is supplementing his income, kinda like after a player is traded and the team that trades him picks up part of his salary as part of the trade.
Cut the assessment MC in a significant amount.
Just a reminder to everyone to say a prayer for the Lesser Synod and MC meetings going on today.
Jacob, my hope is that they will check the anti-Jonah insanity at the door and get down to business. And that Fr. Garklavs will stay in Parma for a good long time.
Helga:
The Synod has been complaining that they can’t find the right hierarch for Dallas. The logical solution is for + Jonah to go there and resign as Met. Then, a temp. admin be appointed, + Melchizedek or the bishop in waiting, Golitzen. If people aren’t aware, Golitzen’s addition to the Synod increases the IQ of the Synod by 75%. Then the OCA can AGAIN to begin to get back on track of being a real American Church and not some phony attempt at American Russification of the OCA. And while were at it, tell the Greeks to go pound sand in trying to control all the Orthodox in America & worldwide.
I agree with Diogenes on this one: “Then the OCA can AGAIN to begin to get back on track of being a real American Church and not some phony attempt at American Russification of the OCA. And while were at it, tell the Greeks to go pound sand in trying to control all the Orthodox in America & worldwide.”
Time to get busy about Christianity and preaching and teaching the Gospel, not continue the ethnic festivals in liturgical practices, conferences, and other “churchly” activities. Our society is burning, thirsty for Truth, for Christ, for Moral Leadership, while many bishops keep fiddling with meaningless things….
I agree…..its about Christ not Baklava or Piergoes or Slavonic…let the Church be a Church in America…not an ethnic club..
Diogenes, while I agree that Bp Jonah would have been a worthy successor to Vladyka Dmitri of blessed memory, the scenario you lay out is quite possibly the worst possible idea we have heard in a long time. We in the South don’t need to have others lecture us on what the purpose of the OCA is, for a long time (perhaps since the very inception of the OCA), we actually knew what the Church was about, hence the explosive growth of the DoS, especially within the last 12 years, when it doubled in size.
If anything, the ideas of some, that we should elect Bp Mark Maymon to replace Arb Dmitri (quite possbily one of the greatest bishops in North American history) shows the vacuity and paucity of vision that still exists on the national stage.
George:
Just a couple of things. 1st, + Dimitri received the popular vote to be Met. in 1970. The bishops rejected him and went with + Theodosius. This was probably the right move at the time with autocephaly being received and someone who could interface with American/Slavs he being one of them. + Dimitri began a missionary activity to Spanish speaking peoples and became the Bishop of Dallas. His bishopric became the Anti-Syosset. + Dimitri insisted on doing things “his way.” He insisted on the KJV to be used; he insisted on many things going against Syosset and his fellow bishops. However, he did spread Orthodoxy across the South via many convert priests – many without any Orthodox theological education. Many of the established parishes were nothing more than home churches with 2-3 people. Yet, many of these home-churches grew. So it is wonderful that Orthodoxy is taking root in the South and growing. Much thanks to convert clerics who brought their disgruntled flocks with them. Now, I do not have personal knowledge of how + Mark is doing, but the top guy doesn’t think he’s doing well. That said, the top guy should go there. After all, that’s what he was originally chosen for, not Met.
Where may we read about these complaints of the Holy Synod? To whom do they complain, I wonder?
Diogenes, there is no ‘bishop in waiting, Golitzen.” First, the name is spelled G-o-l-i-t-z-i-n.
Next, as an American with no ethnic pretensions, you may refer to him as “Bishop-elect,” or ‘Very Reverend Archimandrite Alexander (Golitzin)”, or even “Father Alexander,” without fear of being “discovered” to be abnormal or not a regular guy.
“The Greeks” have no designs on America or the OCA. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the high blessings of the Greek Foreign Office and the Turkish government, does indeed pursue the policy of universal hegemony, because the Patriarchate is NOTHING without it.
“The Greeks” are pre-occupied with the results of generations-long and addictive tax-avoidance and its effects on their economy.
Doesn’t “pounding sand” refer to marching in the desert, especially in the military?
And no one, no, not even the relatively minuscule group of Great Russians, such as Archbishop Tikhon, Metropolitan Platon, and the Priests that arrived after WWII, such as Fathers Benigsen, Schmeman, Meyendorff, Kisselev, Yonov, succeeded at any time in any “Russification” program directed at all the Ukrainians, Slovaks, Carpatho-Russians, Galicians, Lemkos, Hutzuls and yuppy Americans that make up the main ethnic mix of the OCA.
According to his diaries, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, considered a leading light by Frs. Schmeman and Meyendorff and many others, returned from a trip to the U.S.A. in the 1920s, appalled at the low, low level of intellect and spirit in the North American Metropolia.
Let’s never ever forget what all American Orthodox owe to the Russians. If it had been left up to ANY of the other ethnic Orthodox faith communities, there’d be nothing heard in English in any of the American temples. The battle for English is won, won for a long time. But anyone who’s been Orthodox for a year or two and has an average Intelligence can pray at a Divine Liturgy in Chinese or Swahili and still know EXACTLY what is going on. Of course, they don’t have to worry about pretending to listen to the sermon….
The “main-line” Protestant Churches after WWII took major strides toward creating Yuppy and “Child-Centered” churches. The OCA is at that point now, and they may evolve as did the “Main Line” Protestants.
One encouraging thing was the Social document of the Russian Church a decade or so ago. It demonstrated a piety and and intelligence that once was produced by American Christians. However, many concerned with ethnically American purity of the OCA, can’t bear to even think of such a thing as listening to the Russian Church or its leadership on anything. Admittedly, much of the resentment is traditional OCA Little Russian resentment of a Great Russian episcopate and leadership—resentment of “Moskali” (Ukrainian) and of the Katsaps (non-Great Russian Uniates).
I’m grateful to be of mixed English and German ancestry and to be descended (as are all Fitzgeralds) from Gerald the first Earl of Kildare, an Anglo-Norman overseer sent to oppress the Irish.
I also appreciate that the Russians have their “Steppe” as we have our prairies, in other words, large horizons and no fear of the ethnic disappearance as has threatened the dispersed Little Russian tribes, and, especially in America, the Greeks, Armenians, Albanians etc., who are always, rightly or wrongly, afraid of being ignored or wiped out not like Russians or Americans.
Your Grace, as usual, your breadth of historical knowledge is a welcome addition to the Orthodox blogosphere. Can’t say I always agree politically, but wow, you do know your stuff!
A homogeneous assignment, indeed! A former Chancellor and the Executive Officer of the Sacerdotal Septuagint!!!
This is baloney! These House Committee talks are nothing more than the Republicans making an issue where there is NO issue. The U.S. Constitution is clear regarding the separation of Church and State. The State cannot impose policies upon any Church which goes against it’s religious teachings. The Republicans are trying to incite conservative Christians to go against the Obama Admin. when in fact, the Obama Admin. follows more of the Christian values than the Republicans. The Healthcare initiatives were decided upon by both Republicans & Democrats to cover ALL Americans, not just a certain select. Furthermore, SIN is a personal “choice.” To abort a child is a choice; no one has to do this. For us, it is murder. Contraception is a “choice.” SIN IS A PERSONAL CHOICE; a wrong choice!
The Republicans will continue to try and incite and create issues against against the Obama Admin. since they have very little chance of winning the Presidency in 2012. Look at the GOP policies: “Give more to the rich and create more poor.” – Christian values? “More wars and killing” – Christian values? “Get rid of all social programs helping the old & poor” – Christian values?
Diogenes, your response is confusion incarnate. Your third sentence alone is perhaps the most confused of all. The HHS mandates PRECISELY do just what you say the Constitution prohibits.
I’m getting just so fussy. George feels Diogenes’s message is confused. OK. But I’d save a phrase and figure like “confusion incarnate” for something like a Holy Synod, or an Ashley Nevins…not for anyone’s response to anything which can’t even be imagined to have the flesh that would make “incarnate” appropriate here. And, Diogenes’s message is surely not entirely confused. The first sentence in the last paragraph may prove to be very accurate, after all….I don’t think Diogenes (any relation to Heracleides?) is confused on that one.
Nope, never heard of him.
George:
A claim in any court of law will support the U.S. Constitution over any dictate of a govt dept. It’s all moot!
Diogenes–I do not think that your message is confused; it is dead wrong, that’s all. If you cannot see how the Obama administration is running roughshod over the First Amendment, there is no hope for you.
Carl, you are right on. It is purely a violation of the Constitution, which is nothing new with this President. In fact Obamacare is unConstitutional. The American people don’t want nationalized heathcare and never have. It was basically showed down our throat.
Diogenes wants to cede all moral authority to the state. The Church can preach what it wants, it just can’t practice what it preaches until the state approves it first.
Bp. Tikhon thinks the Catholic reaction is a Republican conspiracy. He’s unaware that the mandates to which the Catholic Church objects were written by the Obama administration and do not appear in the Obamacare legislation itself.
Fr.Hans, i’m sure you didn’t mean to act dishonestly in bad mouthing what I said. I referred to a previous statement by Diogenes, which statement implied no conspiracies (or any processes involving thought as such) at all! Conspiracies? Diogenes said, on the contrary: “The Republicans will continue to try and incite and create issues against against the Obama Admin. since they have very little chance of winning the Presidency in 2012.” I don’t see any reference to the divided reaction of Catholics, nor did I imply that any Catholic reaction to anything
I’ll say it in simpler language, less susceptible to spinning: The Republicans don’t have any chance of winning the Presidency in 2012, so there’s nothing left but to react negatively to anything coming from the incumbent.
For years Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) has regularly and viciously attacked and accused conservatives, not only of being ignorant, stupid, angry, etc., but dared to suggest that their anti-abortion stance and passionate defense of the unborn and the sanctity of life was just a tool in the neoconservatives’ “propaganda kit.” Not sure he has the temperament, discernment, or credibility necessary when evaluating the abortion issue in public discourse.
Posted by Bishop Tikhon on September 9, 2005 on the Indiana Orthodox Listserv:
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0509B&L=ORTHODOX&T=0&O=D&P=1657
No wonder he fails to see the obvious pro-abortion government mandates that the Obama Administration so passionately embraces and now foists on all religious institutions in America. No wonder he excuses, justifies, and minimizes the impact of Obama’s direct violation of the Constitutionally protected religious liberties of all Americans.
Speaking as someone who knows a thing or two about Neoconservatism, I can honestly say that Neocons for the most part don’t care about the social issues at all. Their number one concern is the well-being of the State of Israel. They unwillingly make common cause with social conservatives only because the latter believe in a strong military.
For an accurate and comprehensive summary of the problematic requirements of the HHS mandate please see:
Six Things Everyone Should Know About The HHS Mandate
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2012/02/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-the-hhs-mandate/
Many here were quick to point out that the coverage of contraception was an attack on the Roman Catholic Church(?) and by extension an attack on the free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution. I’ll admit my naivete (ignorance), but how did that policy prevent Catholics from practicing their religion, especially when a high percentage of Catholics freely choose to disobey Catholic teaching in this matter anyway. The individual still chooses to practice their religion, without restriction, as their conscience and individual conscience dictates.
If we are so quick to go to the political barricades over this, shouldn’t we at least consider some of the political positions of Republicans that Diogenes points out as contrary to Christian values. I’m certain that the killing of innocent civilians in our Middle Eastern wars is against the religious dictates of some.
Logan, the issue does not concern the freedom of “Catholics to practice their religion.” The issue concerns forcing the Catholic Church to implement policies that violate their moral teachings.
I take it that you are of the Democrat Party.
Logan,
This is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional issue, although there is no question that the Republicans have seized upon it and are attempting to use it for partisan advantage.
A few points that should help clarify:
The vast majority of the Roman Catholics fully supported the Obama health care initiative on the grounds of social justice. This particular mandate, however, was not written into the law itself (except by implication in that the law gives HHS wide latitude to write specific rules).
The difference between this mandate and the taxes we pay that support causes that may go against the religious convictions of some is that this is not a tax. It is a mandate to purchase a product (health insurance) on the open market that must by government order include paying for “services” that violate the conscience of some.
Lastly, although many have painted this as a specifically Roman Catholic issue, it is by no means limited to Roman Catholic institutions. The real, full question is whether the government can require ANYONE to purchase a product that violates the dictates of their conscience. It is a very slippery slope.
Nope. . . independent, although I’ve voted Republican more times than Democrat.
I think that is a separate issue and one which will be decided by the Supreme Court later this year (and which is the proper way to decide constitutional questions.) Don’t be surprised when even this conservative court lets the mandate stand. Historically, the Supreme Court, a number of times, has upheld the constitutionality of laws that purported to violate one’s conscience.
If so, it will be the first time in history that such a ruling concerned the mandated purchase of a product. It will be interesting to see what happens.
No one mandates the use of contraception.
Does not the health plan just require that the cost of dispensing contraceptives is absorbed by the insurance company, so that they are free to anyone who DECIDES to use them?
It takes two to tango. Mandating that the insurance company PROVIDES contraception at its own expense does not force anyone to practice contraception against his or her will.
Only some Catholic authorities limit the individual’s freedom vis-a-vis contraceptives, condemning their use, and denying choice of them. If they would forbid consuming hens’ eggs, the hen would not be guilty of violating any Catholic’s freedom by continuing to lay them.
Your Grace, there is no such thing as an insurance company absorbing the cost of any incidence of coverage. The cost of the coverage may not have a separable premium charge, but the cost for that coverage is in the premium somewhere. The actuaries have to include the cost or they are not fullfilling their legally mandated fiduciary duty to the company, the stockholders and the insureds to make certain that there will be sufficient money to pay claims.
As an insurance professional for over 30 years I’ve seen the following: Government madates always raise cost (despite promises by the government to the contrary) and almost always end up with fewer insured (despite promises to the contrary).
All politics aside, both the Insurance commissiner of the state of Kansas and the department’s chief actuary said in a public meeting last year that the actuarial assumptions underlying Health Care Reform were unsupportable. The only way the plan could be paid for was to either ration coverage or masively increase taxes. The insurance commissoner is a supporter of the plan BTW despite being a Republican.
The whole bill is a mess of smoke and mirrors that relies on forcing people to buy a product that they may not want or need. The mandate to buy, the massive tax increases and the rationing of care require the use of government force. There is no where in the U.S. Constitution accept perhaps as a pneumbra of an expansive reading of the commerce clause that the federal governement has the power to do such a thing.
Rationing of care will almost certainly fall heaviest on the most expensive care items which are usually those needed by the elderly. To think that such rationing will not lead to the deaths of these folks is simply riduculous.
Michael, being in the healthcare field myself, I concur with you everything you wrote above. The only way this abomination passed is because of the failure of our public schools to teach Civics. Enough people are essentially brain-dead when it comes to the Constitution, Anglo-Saxon common law, and natural law. There are no “positive rights,” but merely “negative rights.” I have the right to vote, I don’t have to vote; I can own a gun, but you can’t force me to buy one; I can read Lady Chatterly’s Lover should I want to but you can’t come into my house and put in a porn DVD and force me to watch it.
“Only some Catholic authorities limit the individual’s freedom vis-a-vis contraceptives, condemning their use, and denying choice of them.”
This seems a highly misleading characterization of what the Catholic Church does. The CC teaches that the use of artificial contraception is immoral. Just like, for example, it teaches that viewing pornography is immoral. To teach that an act is immoral is not a limitation of anyone’s freedom nor a denial of choice. Would anyone say the Catholic Church limits an individual’s freedom with regard to pornography, or denies anyone the choice of it?
“Does not the health plan just require that the cost of dispensing contraceptives is absorbed by the insurance company, so that they are free to anyone who DECIDES to use them?”
Your Grace, if you were in the health care field (as I am) you would know that the latitude granted the Dept. of Health & Human Services to create rules under this law is so broad that there is little HHS cannot arbitrarily choose to make a part of the “law” simply by issuing a rule. There are literally dozens of new rules written every week. all of which carry a cost that will be borne by those forced to purchase health insurance. Surely you realize these costs are not “absorbed” by anyone except the employer/consumer. Mr. Bauman pretty well tells the entire truth of the matter above.
But yes, you are correct. Those who object to the use of contraceptives are not required to use them. The point, however, is that they are not “free to anyone who decides…” You and I will be paying for them, including abortive ones. My local quickie-mart carries pornography, but I am not required to purchase it for for others so they can have it “for free” with the cost “being absorbed” by me – at least not yet. But if this precedent is allowed to stand there is nothing to preclude such a convenient financial arrangement in the future. Whatever government deems good for society (and such is increasingly anti-Christian/nihilistic) can and will be enacted into law.
Those who mock at the principled objections being raised because they do not happen to share the official Roman Catholic teaching are fooling themselves into believing that this is not a flank attack on all Christian belief and practice everywhere. Progressives don’t care what we ‘believe’ as long as they ensure we are conformed to their world which is ‘this world.’
The “it doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t affect me” attitude is hardly befitting of Orthodox Christians (who of all people should understand the interconnectedness of human persons). It is a grave sin we will live to regret.
Regarding Brian’s discerning and insightful observations that:
I say, Amen, Amen, Amen!
Brian, you are 100% correct.
Besides the horribleness of forcing the Catholic Church to subsidize that which they believe is evil, there is an additional evil, one that should shock secularists as well. Obamacare itself is no different from Komeratsu v. US (323 US 214, 1943), a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese Americans in detention camps. This ruling (and the earlier Executive Order that was issued by FDR) upheld the notion that the Federal government can place an affirmative mandate on citizens, depriving them of their Constitutional liberties. In other words, it forced individuals to do something because of something intrinsic to them, rather than protecting them from outside predatory forces which may act on individuals because of certain intrinsic differences. Instead of protecting Joe Blow from a burglar, affirmative actions such as the original order make Joe Blow turn his how over to a burglar because the Executive or Legislature passed an “Anti Joe Blow Law.” Under this precedent, Jews could be forced to wear yellow Stars of David in order to identify them.
In Komeratsu, the Federal gov’t forced Americans of Japanese descent to report to the local Civil Control Station (i.e. detention camps) or face the consequences. Remember, we are talking about American citizens who were not guilty of any crime, being forced to march to a concentration camp simply because of the color of their skin.
BTW, Komeratsu was never overruled and thus under stare decisis, it has the force of legal precedent. One could argue therefore that Obamacare is legal because of this earlier precedent, however, for some curious reason, the Obama Administration never mentioned Komeratsu in passing this legislation.
One wonders why.
Where does His Grace think the money for an insurance company to provide contraception “at is own expense” comes from?
From a purely financial decision, and the last time I checked insurance companies are big business driven by profits, it is a great deal cheaper and more cost effective for our benevolent health insurance providers to be mandated to cover the minimumal cost of contraception than it is for them to pay for abortions. Thus the ” at their own expense” will not effective their bottom lines. If it did they would be screaming with their lobbiest flooding the airwaves with all manner of dire warnings of doom and gloom. Maybe if they didn’t cover Viagra there would be less need for contraception?
Also the premise that this is the first time in history that government has mandated the purchase of a product overlooks the mandate to purchase car insurance, which is also a product.
Driving is a privilege, adequate health care should not be.
If that were true, then there would be no reason to mandate that health insurance companies provide free contraceptive coverage. They would see the business sense themselves and do it unprompted.
But the logic only works if you assume that anyone who does not get free contraception from an insurance company will not use contraception at all. That is obviously not even close to true.
Amos, as Helga said, driving is a privilege, not a right. There is no positive right to drive. If there was we would be “disenfranchising” the blind, epileptics, etc. These people still have the right to vote, own guns, attend the church of their choice, etc. For anybody to be deprived of these rights then the government has to make a case as to why they cannot vote, own guns, serve on juries, etc.
Regardless, you elide pass the principle which is that the issue is not whether contraception is cost-effective (and given the rise in STDs, sterility, morbidity, abortion because of BCP-failure, a case could be made that the opposite is the case) but whether a government body can force a private individual/institution to pay for that which is antithetical to their beliefs, or simply superfluous. Why does an elderly couple have to purchase health insurance that pays for contraception? Or a monastic order? For that matter, why should a gay bar be forced to do so for its employees?
I’m confused, you’re saying health care is not a privilege, but a right?
Sorry for the confusion. Healh care is not a right but a privilege.
geo michalopulos says:
February 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm
‘Healh care is not a right but a privilege.’
Not so! At least not in America.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that God gives Man ‘certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.
This doesn’t mean that we have the right to come into existence, but only that we have the right not to be deprived of life once we exist, and least not by anyone other than the Creator acknowledged in the Declaration as the One Who endows us with life.
While ‘liberty’ and ‘the pursuit of happiness’ are not as directly necessary for life as is health care, it’s unavoidably true that our remaining alive is, to a very large extent, dependent on our remaining in good health.
Remembering that these three rights mentioned here are only three AMONG the rights with which our Creator endowed us, and acknowledging that good health is needed to support our life, it is inescapably implicit in the Declaration’s identification of life as a divine right of Man that health care is also a right.
And in the same way as We The People are expected to provide, by statute and government agencies, the circumstances and wherewithal to assure our ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’, we are also expected to provide, by statute and government agencies, health care for ourselves and each other.
BTW: I consider myself a strict constructionist regarding our foundational documents, which is why I can state pretty firmly that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution does NOT guarantee to individuals ‘the right to bear arms’, since ‘a well ordered (civilian) militia’ is no longer needed and in fact no longer exists. We now have salaried and professional military structures, God help us!
And no, I’m not a Democrat or a liberal, but I’m not a Republican or a conservative, either. I’m a Christian.
Monk James, those rights you mention are negative. They inure to us because we are human beings created in the image of God. We have them, period. They can only be deprived by due process. Yes, we have the “right to life,” but we don’t have the “right to food,” yet we can’t live without food.
What part of INDIVIDUAL rights do progressives and leftists not get when it comes to the Bill of Rights? The 2nd Amendment confers an individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, not a collective militia right. The militia language was an example of what individuals may use their individual right to bear arms for. It’s one area of usage (a very important one since it’s a very effective means of the people to defend themselves against tyrannical government power), not a limiter of usage.
Amendment II
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Let’s use Right to Use Water as an example:
“Good hygiene, being necessary to the health of individuals, the right of the people to keep and use water, shall not be infringed.”
Does that mean that individuals are only supposed to use water for maintaining good hygiene (showers and washing their hands)? Of course not! It just means that “good hygiene” is one of many important uses. That’s how the Second Amendment was written and is properly interpreted.
Chris Banescu says:
February 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm
‘What part of INDIVIDUAL rights do progressives and leftists not get when it comes to the Bill of Rights? The 2nd Amendment confers an individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, not a collective militia right. The militia language was an example of what individuals may use their individual right to bear arms for. It’s one area of usage (a very important one since it’s a very effective means of the people to defend themselves against tyrannical government power), not a limiter of usage.
‘Amendment II
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
‘Let’s use Right to Use Water as an example:
“Good hygiene, being necessary to the health of individuals, the right of the people to keep and use water, shall not be infringed.”
‘Does that mean that individuals are only supposed to use water for maintaining good hygiene (showers and washing their hands)? Of course not! It just means that “good hygiene” is one of many important uses. That’s how the Second Amendment was written and is properly interpreted.’
The logic here is flawed by one error in positing, and that is that hygiene (as the condition of the 2nd-amendment analogy) still exists, but the militia (as the condition of the 2nd amendment) does not.
The analogy, then, while internally true, therefore fails to validate the truth of Mr Banescu’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, whose condition no longer exists.
George Michalopulos says:
February 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm
‘Monk James, those rights you mention are negative. They inure to us because we are human beings created in the image of God. We have them, period. They can only be deprived by due process. Yes, we have the “right to life,” but we don’t have the “right to food,” yet we can’t live without food.’
Christian thought ascribes these and many other rights to Man by virtue of God’s creating Man in His own image and likeness. The Declaration of Independence does not, saying only that Man’s Creator endowed them with ‘certain unalienable rights’.
It is so obvious to all moral traditions, christian and otherwise, that Man has a right to have food (as an unavoidable corollary of Man’s right to live), that no moralists have ever condemned anyone who stole food in order to live, Les Miserables notwithtanding.
This is along the lines as to why I have difficulty understanding conservatives who are so against universal health care, or even the expansion of health care access. Their reasoning is often because health care is not a right, or it’s not specifically stated in the constitution. If we could reduce poverty, reduce hunger, improve the health of our citizens, why wouldn’t we want to do that? Many conservatives would answer that with because we have lazy people who don’t deserve it and would be getting something for nothing. The Democrats have at least tried, although their record has certainly been less than stellar.
Obamacare won’t succeed in universal health care anymore than Johnson’s Great Society programs succeeded in eliminating poverty. Forty years after the Great Society we see the decimation of Black families in American inner-cities and the institutionalizing the inter-generational poverty.
Obamacare is nothing more than the government takeover of healthcare through control of the pricing mechanism. That’s why participation has to be mandatory. It will destroy quality and effectively diminish the care the poor receive today along with everyone else by rationing care. It will work just like the NHS in England where everyone qualifies for care but many die before receiving it. See: Better Health Care?
Rationing is inevitable because the burgeoning costs of any state administered system is going to crash headlong into the spiraling deficit. This is unavoidable. America’s health care system will degenerate into the English system just as England is beginning to dismantle theirs.
Monk James;
Correct. And the reason it doesn’t is because the Founders understood that if the State (or King) were seen as the source and origin of human rights, then the State (or King) could also take them away. That’s what is meant by the concept of “negative rights.” It circumscribes the authority of the state over the individual.
For Fr. Hans. You point out that Obamacare won’t succeed. I’m interested in what you think should be done. Should we care if the lives of some are “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short,” while opulent for others?
Logan, we do care. One reason the health care system is groaning is because the poor use the emergency rooms for routine care. Not good, but a whole lot better than nothing.
You also have to remember that the rich and privileged already have “opulent” health care. Why do you think members of Congress exempted themselves from Obamacare?
Don’t forget that even Obama won’t use Obamacare. He’s exempt too. You didn’t know this, did you. See: EDITORIAL: No Obamacare for Obama
Do you think that maybe they know something you don’t?
That aside, it won’t work because of the reasons I stated earlier. Merely repeating the fairness argument is no magic wand. Just look at Canada and England.
There are costs associated with the preventive service and with the services of doctors who order them and pharmacists who fill the orders. After all, a morning after pill, BC pills and IUDs are not like manna from heaven. No miracle involved here.
The argument for preventive services is that they save money in the long run. The key here is “in the long run.” In the meantime, somebody has to pay for these services.
If the insurance companies are not allowed to pass on the costs to consumers, this HHS mandate would be illegal (could be construed as an illegal tax that was imposed unilaterally by the executive branch or as illegal taking of property.)
If the costs are passed onto consumers, then the insurance premiums for all would go up. That means that individuals and churches would be forced to pay for services that is against their religion. In effect, their freedom of religion would be abridged.
Fr. Hans, I have the same health care coverage that Obama does, and while good, I wouldn’t characterize it as opulent. I noticed you didn’t answer what you would favor? This leads me to opine that those who criticize Obamacare the most have nothing to offer in its place. I would gladly vote for someone who would replace Obamacare with FEHB that your article mentioned, or even opening Medicare up to those uninsured (on a voluntary basis.)
The reasons you give for not having universal health care–the expense, overburdening the system and rationing are solvable. Stop starting trillion dollar wars and spending $700B a year on the military would help with our deficit problem. We could easily train all the health care professional we need. We are a rich and resourceful nation.
Let’s say you really do have the same health care as Obama . In due course you won’t if Obamacare stands. Your health care will diminish, his will improve since he as an exemption and you don’t. (They are the “elites” Logan. Don’t be fooled.)
As for not having anything to offer in place of Obamacare, there are a ton of ideas. None of them were considered. Did you look at the numbers Chris Banescu posted? The passage of Obamacare was not advise and consent. It was the tyranny of the majority.
Here are a few sources with alternative ideas: The Heritage Foundation and The Manhattan Institute. There are a lot more. Just hunt around on those sites and you will see ideas and critiques that the mainstream press does not cover (too complex for a nightly news audience).
Overburdening the system is solvable? If government controls health care you have only two options: raise taxes or limit services. There are no others. Taxes can’t be raised any higher than they are now without pushing the economy into a decade long stall (our debt is too high). The only other option is to ration services, the solution that Canada and England implemented. Their systems are a disaster.
Obamacare will end up like the Great Society, legislation ostensibly passed to help the poor ends up making them poorer although the people who administer the programs make out well. You see, Obamacare is really not about helping the poor. It’s about expanding the reach of the state into every area of private life.
(Liberals don’t care about the poor as much as conservatives do. They care more about whether their friends believe they do. See: Conservatives More Liberal Givers.)
BTW, doesn’t it give you pause that Obama and Congress exempted themselves from the system? Don’t you ask yourself why they did?
Fr. Hans, thanks for your gentle rejoinder instead of that other term used by someone else for believed dissimulation. Additional research shows that I have the same health care plan as members of Congress, but not the President, who as commander-in-chief is covered the same as military personnel. However, when he leaves the Presidency, he reverts back to the health care plan I’m covered by.
And thanks for the links. I did read the health care plan suggested by The Heritage Foundation. The comparison with the FEHB I didn’t think was quite accurate as the amount paid by FEHB to buy coverage is not limited, as long as the insured pays their 1/3 share. The heritage Foundation proposal would limit the overall government contribution to a defined amount. This would not bode well for the future, as health care cost will only increase due to technology and medical advances.
However, I’m glad, as you have shown me, that conservative think tanks are putting forth ideas on expanding health care. I wonder if it were not for Obamacare, would there even be such discussion among conservatives? Why haven’t Republicans and conservatives campaigned on these ideas for the last 60 years? Even now, will they become part of the Republican platform? If the choice is between Obamacare and no universal health care coverage, what choice do you think the majority will make? Oh, by the way, when you refer to the “tyranny of the majority,” isn’t that a hard right code phrase for the “tyranny of democracy” and the notion that our republic has been ruined by democracy?
I only point these things out as it it difficult for me to see how we can pick and choose among what another poster referred to as “Christian values.” Even worse yet, is the inference that you must be conservative politically to be the right kind of Christian.
Logan, if Obamacare is not rescinded, the only health care plan you get is the one the government mandates. Oh sure, it might be through Aetna or some other major carrier, but all the payments and benefits are decided in Washington. If it were any other way, Obama and his Congressional cronies would not have written in an exemption for themselves.
And what will people chose if faced with the choice between Obamacare and no health care at all? Put that way they will choose Obamacare.
If you ask people who have coverage if they want to sacrifice it for Obamacare they will say no because they don’t want to end up with a system like in Canada or England, and most know that Obamacare will not care for the poor any better and probably worse than they have it now. They are not persuaded by appeals to “fairness.” They know those appeals are calculated to stir the emotions and numb the mind and they see through it.
No, I don’t think our Republic is ruined by Democracy. I believe what threatens us is when people cede their freedom to the state for a mess of pottage. Look at American inner cities and what Progressive ideas have wrought — a permanent underclass, horribly deficient schools, erosion of families, and more. Why apply failed ideas nationally?
No. Tyranny of the majority is the spectacle we saw to get Obamacare passed. Hopefully it gets rescinded. The next election will be telling.
You still haven’t answered my question though. If Obamacare is so good, why did Obama and the Democrats exempt themselves from it?
Fr. Hans wrote: “You still haven’t answered my question though. If Obamacare is so good, why did Obama and the Democrats exempt themselves from it?”
I think Brian was correct that Obama had little to do with Obamacare–I always thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the result was so bad because of his inept or lack of leadership in the matter. However, to your question. I have no idea, although I don’t think you mean that only Democrats, to the exclusion of Republicans, are exempt. Wouldn’t anybody that has coverage now, be in fact exempt? I assume you mean we all will be eventually forced out of our plans and have no choice but the government plan, while Obama and the Democrats have another government plan? (As stated earlier, I’m on a government plan right now and am well satisfied with it.)
Would Father Hands please provide links to articles that will back up your views?
Aarrgh! No edit button! Fr. Hans. I mean, “Father Hans.” Looking to read more. Thanks.
If the insurance company has to pay for birth control and pills that cause abortions, it will simply pass these costs on to the consumer through higher prices. That means that an Orthodox institution would be forced to pay for abortions which is definitely against the Orthodox Faith. The Catholics and our Bishop’s Assembly is right on this issue. It is a very serious violation of our First Amendment rights. Besides, why does anyone have a right to free birth control or abortions? At best this shows that Obama has no respect for freedom of religion. At worst, this is a cynical effort by Obama to turn attention for his complete failure as president.
Archpriest John W. Morris, Ph.D.
I believe that Rick Santorum — the former Pennsylvania senator who is now running for president — was correct yesterday (February 18, 2012) when he told a group of people in Columbus, Ohio that President Obama’s policies are based on some “phony theology” and not the Bible.
The fact that President Obama is trying to impose his own non-Christian beliefs on the church and its worshipers — including his recent mandate and “compromise” on birth control — conveys his flagrant disrespect of both the church and the U.S. Constitution.
George Patsourakos says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:34 pm
‘I believe that Rick Santorum — the former Pennsylvania senator who is now running for president — was correct yesterday (February 18, 2012) when he told a group of people in Columbus, Ohio that President Obama’s policies are based on some “phony theology” and not the Bible.
‘The fact that President Obama is trying to impose his own non-Christian beliefs on the church and its worshipers — including his recent mandate and “compromise” on birth control — conveys his flagrant disrespect of both the church and the U.S. Constitution.’
Here, the problem is that Santorum thinks that Obama’s position is theological. It is not It is a feminist position, and about 90% of feminist positions are wrong and mistaken in every possible way..
Before long, the occasionaly bizarre representations of Santorum and of all these Republicans will effectively shoot themselves so badly in the foot that none of them will be able to walk.
I suspect that the ‘two-party system’ is fatally flawed. We Americans need other ways of proposing candidates for national office.
Monk James, Obama’s position is theological because it makes assumptions about the nature of humanity that are incorrect. Any anthropological statement is (since the Incarnation at least) a theological statement. That seems to be what Santorum is saying. Santorum is correct.
More than that, of course, it is a action founded on a statist political idelogy. Statists assume that the state is sovernign over humanity, God and everything else. This is usually associated with the ‘left’ but there are plenty of ‘rightest’ statists.
The dicotomous opposite is that the individual is sovereign over the state. Not too many of those cosidered on the ‘left’ allow this but a few probably.
Both are wrong of course. As Orthodox we need to be more discerning and attempt to take a both and approach to governement rather than and either or.
In our system of government the supreme authority for forming a government and for the actions of our government is supposed to be the will of the people with care being taken not to trample those who disagree.
Statists simply don’t acknowledge the authority of the people either as a whole or as unique persons as their whole ideological objective is the subject the people to the will of the state. The state becomes a god. That too is theological.
You are correct about feminism: it is nothing but nilhistic garbage pure and simple. It is nothing but destructive in intent and practice.
All of you people are going down the wrong path on this. Yes, even though the insurance companies will directly pay for the contraceptives in question, the cost will be passed down to the insured. The main issue is that the use of contraceptives, like an abortion, is a PERSONAL choice. All sin is!
Now, the real issue is the RC Church is trying to lower it’s premiums. I don’t blame them – why not? So, stand on religious values and the Constitution – smart. All the healthcare reform laws were universal and everyone knew tweeks would have to be made. I will remind everyone here AGAIN, the new health care in initiatives were voted in by Republicans & Democrats after much deliberation and NEGOTIATIONS. And, EVERYONE in America wants and needs universal AFFORDABLE healthcare – not just the rich. If we can spend billions & billions on murdering people in Iraq & Afghanistan, we surely can afford universal healthcare.
Diogenes–Now that you have conceded that costs will be passed onto consumers, do you think it is a small matter that those Americans who consider the so-called contraceptives to be a sin will now be forced to help pay for them in spite of their religious convictions? Why can’t these “preventive” services be paid directly by those who wish to buy them? What happened to choice? What happened to the idea that folks would not be force to participate in conduct that they consider to be sinful? Don’t you see that this is an outright attack on the exercise of religion? THis action by Obama administration is not a mistaken exercise in trying to push health care down the throats of Americans but is intended to advance its agenda by:
1. Pandering to women who use these “contraceptive” devices by making these devices/services free to those who wish to use them. This is an attempt to win the culture wars by casting the opponents as miserly, women hating, fundamentalist zealots, now that the Democrats can no longer “win” the abortion debate.
2. Continuing to assault the rights guaranteed in the Constitutions so that the equation will decisively shift to favor government over individuals.
Diogenes, may I remind you of the statement of the Speaker of the House at the time the health deform bill was passed (paraphrasing). “We don’t need to know what’s in it. Pass it then we will find out what’s in it” It was designed behind closed doors and dumped into the legislature with demogogic rehortic that if you were opposed to it you were a bad, bad, even evil person. It was passed largely on party lines with debate limited by the majority Democrats to as little as they could get away with and despite the opposition of most folks in the US. Your statement that is was a negotiated bill with full and equal input from all prespectives is simply delusional or you are being intentionally Orwellian in your newspeak.
What’s in the bill are a few things that needed to be done although they could be done better at the state level.
What’s in the bill are a whole lot of taxes that have nothing to do with healthcare (like the 7.5% tax on the sale of every home).
What’s in the bill are a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to allow proponents to make the statement that the plan is revenue neutral.
What’s in the bill is a lot of baloney like the moribund/dead, CLASS provision (if you have to look up what CLASS was, you don’t really know the bill or anything that you are talking about).
To believe that the acutal health care provided under this bill will be afforadable is to believe a lie. As an insurance professional for 30 years I can say with certainty the acutuarial assumptions the polticians are using are unsupportable. Various insurance commissioners and acutaries testified to that lack. I have seen some of the major assumptions myself and they are foolish at best. The pols don’t care–they know better and the use of appropriate and resonable assumptions would have left them with no bill they could sell. Because of the grossly inadequte acuarial assumptions, the acutal health care coverage will not be affordable. To pay for the care will require massive tax increases and/or rationing of care. The care rationing will fall principally upon the elderly because the elderly use the most. The massive tax increases will fall on the fewer and fewer people actually working and paying taxes.
People have been conditioned to believe that health care should be free. That there is an unalienable right to such care granted by the sovereign state. Nonsense. In all such utopian schemes everybody is equal its just that some are more equal than others.
As the contraceptive mandate illustrates such ‘rights’ only lead to tryanny as we are subjected to greater and more extensive regulation and burdened with greater and greater taxes; greater and greater debt. The problem for those who object now like the RCC is that there was little or no opposition from them at the time of the passage of the mystery bill. They bought the ‘social justice’ crap.
Let me say this: There is no such thing as fairness. If there were we’d all be consigned to hell. The serach for fairness, the demand for fairness in this world or any other is simply an attempt to make a ‘heaven’ on earth. It is a form of chiliasm.
At some point the choice will have to be made–sacrifice to Caesar or worship the Incarnate Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There is no fence and even if there were it would be made of razor wire.
Diogenes claims that:
This is pure fantasy. This is not supported by the facts. In the Senate NO Republicans voted for it. In the House 39 Democrats voted AGAINST it , while only one Republican House member endorsed it.
Passed the House by 220 to 15? Passed the Senate 60 to 39? Gee, last time I looked, a majority was a majority was a majority. Previous to the Bills passing, there was much negotiation between the Republicans & Democrats behind closed doors. How the Republicans voted publicly is another matter. In fact, the Democrats bent over backwards to INCLUDE what the Republicans wanted in the healthcare bill. Once it was passed, the Republicans jumped on the bandwagon to oppose the bill as if they had nothing to do with it – hypocrisy!
Diogenes you are a LIAR and a deceiver. You continue your leftist/liberal revisionist propaganda. Republicans did NOT support or vote for Obama’s and the Democrats’ H.R.3590 – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Here’s the actual final vote tallies:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/votes
US House of Representatives
Votes breakdown on On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
Aye Votes = 219 (219 Democrats, 0 Republicans)
Nay Votes = 212 (39 Democrats, 178 Republicans)
US Senate
Votes breakdown On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3590 as Amended):
Aye Votes = 60 (58 Democrats, 2 Independents)
Nay Votes = 39 Republicans
you may remember Diogenes that the American people were so overwhelmingly opposed to the actions of the Congress that the majority party was thrown out in massive numbers as soon as the people could register their disapproval. Yes, it did pass by slim majorities but only over the objection of the people. Let’s not forget that.
Diogenes, did you write your comment with the intent to lie, or to deceive the reader? No matter what your opinions are, you have as much right as anyone else to say what you want to say without having your character attacked. Banescue strikes again. His attack on Diogenes is out of line.
Speaking of lying and deceiving, just who exactly are you “Jane“? Last time the issue of your identity came up you claimed: “I would have said it with my name, but I don’t use my name because the immoral bishops in question had something to do with why I post as Jane Rachel.” https://www.monomakhos.com/2012/01/is-it-wrong-for-christians-to-sue-each-other/#comment-17875 I suspect your hatred of me has less to do with the things I post, but rather with something else that may have happened in the past related to the OCA spiritual and financial scandal. But heck, what do I know. I’m just an “angry” conservative.
To Chris: I think you’re just angry. Nothing wrong in being passionate about your beliefs, or even calling people out when they ignore the obvious, or tout the illogical. Diogenes expressed his opinion that Republicans were hypocrites during the healthcare debate. I don’t think it was hypocritical, but rather a shrewd strategy in which they suckered the Democrats in making concessions, knowing that they (Republicans) would never go along. As a result, we ended up with a health care solution that nobody is happy with, and which as Diogenes suggests may have been the Republicans’ end game all along.
Logan,
Diogenes said, and I quote:
That is an out and out lie and a distortion. The actual voting record I researched and posted directly contradicts what Diogenes claimed. How is that not lying and deceiving? Does the English language and the plain meaning of words not matter anymore?
I guess speaking the truth and backing it up with facts makes conservatives “angry.” This is the same smear the Tea Party was attacked with. That’s all liberals, leftists, and progressives have to offer in these debates: (a) distort the facts, (b) attack all messengers, and (c) emote and deflect. The issue then becomes not the lies and distortions of the leftist/progressive, but the “attitude” of the messenger who dared categorically expose and refute them. Got it!
Here’s the actual vote tallies (by party) in case you missed it.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/votes
US House of Representatives
Votes breakdown on On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments: H R 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
Aye Votes = 219 (219 Democrats, 0 Republicans)
Nay Votes = 212 (39 Democrats, 178 Republicans)
US Senate
Votes breakdown On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3590 as Amended):
Aye Votes = 60 (58 Democrats, 2 Independents)
Nay Votes = 39 Republicans
To Chris: You said:
I, for one, have posted things without adequately researching how factual my opinion is. Sometimes, I just know it. I don’t think that makes me a liar. You posted the facts and we all can draw our own conclusions–it’s not necessary to go beyond that.
I enjoy your posts, as I do many others here. While not often in agreement on some issues, I do gain from the interaction.
I am a real, regular, not-“important” person who got burned pretty badly in the Orthodox Church by leaders, not by the scandal directly . My parish and priest back then supported Archbishop Job as if he were a living saint, and I had a sick feeling he wasn’t who they said he was, so yes, that is one of the reasons I want to post anonymously. The scandal, which I suspected was about coverup and scapegoating from the get-go, alienated me from my priest and my parish. There is a lot more to that, but I’m just trying to answer your question honestly without talking about it more than need be. I never believed what was presented by Mark Stokoe, so when Monomakhos began posting against ocanews and others began commenting in support of what I believed to be true, against all that had been said by you and others over on ocanews, I was overjoyed to see I was not alone. I am convinced Monk James, Bishop Tikhon and the guy calling himself “Amos” are telling the truth when they say Fr. Robert Kondratick is innocent of the charges brought against him and that the allegations are false and I am convinced the testimony and evidence they present is true.
I’m not angry with anyone for what happened to me any more, well, I am still angry sometimes because it was pretty painful, but it’s going away with time. I am angry at corrupt leaders who led, and lead, the people astray, and people who attack, discredit and falsely accuse other people. Being angry with people does not mean I hate them. It’s possible to be angry and not be filled with hatred.
My middle name really is “Jane” so I use that in order to be as close to using my real name as I can. I use “Rachel” because she cried quite a lot for her children and is probably still crying. I do believe you are angry. You may have noticed that George disagreed with Diogenes and even challenged him but George never attacks people the way you do. I most certainly DO NOT HATE YOU!!! And yes, my aggravation with you, so far as I’ve read your comments, does have everything to do with the way you post. Not with your points. I liked the C.S. Lewis quote. It has nothing to do with whether you are a conservative or not. I couldn’t care less. But your opinions would be much more easily read if you just stated them. You surely must be able to see how you have attacked others’ characters, especially if you use George as your guideline for how to be polite. George is a cool dude. He makes his points in a way that makes the reader think about what he’s saying. I’m being honest, Chris. Calling another person A LIAR like you did is offensive in any language.
But Diogenes did lie! I just documented and confirmed it. (Thanks for your clarification on not hating me. 🙂 )
You may now return to your regularly scheduled program…
I read these posts and am convinced more than ever that religion and politics should be kept separate, as many of the early founders believed. Has the state gone too far and would have indirectly forced the Catholic Church to violate their own teachings, thereby limiting the free exercise of their religion? I don’t know. As with all constitutional questions, that’s for the Supreme Court to determine. Otherwise, contraception is an issue of individual morality, and I don’t care for organized religion to indirectly use the state to determine morality for me. We’ve had that in the past when contraception and birth control information were illegal in accordance with prevailing religious views. How many women had unwanted children or died in childbirth as a result of unwanted pregnancies? These are difficult issues and are better left for the individual to determine based on their beliefs, as opposed to state involvement favoring one side or the other.
Fine by me Logan. Then if you’re so laissez faire about it, why won’t the HHS leave the Catholic Church alone? After all, what do they care what the Church teaches.
I guess the reality is that they really DO care what the Church teaches, don’t they?
Logan46, what the founders wanted was that religion be kept free from the control of the state. Even the most deistic of them desired that the faith, the ethics and the morals that proper religion engendered be vigorous as a check against the depradations of the state.
To read it backward as you are doing is just to buy into the false dicotomy of the modern world. As if God can be separate from anything.
Go here and read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
Chris, relax, you are taking this way too serious and going way off topic. You almost sound like Al Green.
Diogenes, reevaluate your faith in the state.
Count your relevancy blessings. The only Orthodox jurisdiction invited. This is more important for the discouraged OCA than anyone else involved. The issue matters, the OCA being encouraged matters more in the context of Orthodoxy in America. If it was a choice between the OCA Met and the Greek Archbishop it is obvious who is representing Orthodoxy better. At least Jonah, with all of his troubles and faults, wants to move the EO forward in America.
Hopefully, Jonah is representing a new and better future Orthodoxy than what has happened over its corrupt, ethnocentric and ghetto history here. Solve the Canadian bishop issue and his enabling followers problem and the OCA then has a pretty good take off strip free of major obstacles. Right now is the best it has been in a long time in the OCA and so I hope all of you take advantage of that.
Unity without corruption as the unity brings about stability and stability brings about opportunities. With the right leadership that stability when matched with the right vision, priorities, strategy and plan can be turned into powerful future forward growth that encourages Gods people more than a Met commission selection. Personally, I would take my church growing over its senior leader being on a commission, but having both would be even better.
It would be interesting if Jonah had a diocese all to himself to rule over. Then he could implement his vision and make it work on a smaller scale before all the other bishops. The bishops seem to independently rule and so it should not be that big of a problem for the other bishops if he sees success and they keep doing what ever they are doing in the comparison. For instance, he could be the undeniable turn around bishop for Alaska. Everyone wins. Alaska wins. Jonah wins the competency and experience. All of you win by selecting a proved leader who can take a church forward. Then again, you can always select a monk in a minor monastery with no real executive church leadership and development experience to take you forward.
If you prove your leadership integrity, competency and skill before you become the senior leader it makes it a lot easier to turn the church into your same success. I mean, you wouldn’t want anyone without previous executive level church leadership experience and church development success taking over a very large church in the midst of a major crisis, right?
You can have the greatest vision for Orthodoxy in America in its 200 year history here and it makes no difference if you do not have competent leadership to implement it and carry it through. A smart church has competent senior leaders who have vision, priorities, strategy and plan to implement and carry through. You can tell that they do by the outcome of those churches. Not to hard to miss, right?
Orthodox, ever wonder what they are doing right and why your jurisdictions cannot duplicate their success in an Orthodox context? I know that you do think about such things and in the privacy of your own thoughts you often wonder about why your church is not more alive, dynamic and growing. I also know the emotional and mental rationalizations your mind has to go through to discount, ignore, push down or put out of mind the comparison you see to other alive, dynamic and growing churches. I mean, how can a church like Saddleback start with about 12 people and end up 25K in just a few years??? It happens all around you with other churches in your cities and you all see it. Did they do it with bad leadership selections or with good leadership selections?
Orthodox, you can’t hide what concerns your mind from me. I see right into the Orthodox Mind and through your church. In simple terms, it is very self conscious and insecure about itself in the free world of freedom of religion comparison the EO cannot control or escape. Frankly, it hates the comparison for what the comparison both reveals about Orthodox relevancy and causes them to feel insecure about. I am not making the comparison. That comparison existed long before I ever came along to remind you of it. Why do I remind you of it, you ask? I remind you of it to remind you of who you claim to be and who you really are by comparison. That is what Christ does with all of us in the Gospels. The Orthodox, I remind them, are not immune to comparisons. They may delusionally think they are what all those other churches are to be compared to determine their rightness before God, but the reality of it is that if any one of them took on your model of church they would die and not live. If dying is the comparison and role model then Christ was not resurrected.
They will know we are Orthodox by our love. That is a comparison that tells us how well you love by the outcome of your love seen in the real world towards others not of your love. Your relevancy to the real world is your love. It can be compared, measured and determined how effective, real and true that it is. Christ constantly compared and He was the walking expose’ of comparison. He was walking protest by comparison. You could easily tell how effective Christ was in comparison to those held in the comparison. What, you don’t think God does the same today by comparing dying churches to alive churches? Did God all of a Orthodox sudden stop making the comparisons? I know exactly what goes through the Orthodox Mind in the comparison.
Thinking for yourself without someone or something else thinking for you is hard work, but the return on the work invested is a church that works smarter as it works hard. Thinking for yourself thinks about the kind of leader it wants to lead the church. It does not select a leader in an act of insecure desperation and when the Lord can be trusted through the church long enough to find a competent leader. The church is not headless without Christ and it can survive until a competent senior leader is found by church spiritual competency in maturity taking its time in selection. If you in fear run out and grab what is all you got then you end with a all you got church. A church that moves from an incompetent and corrupt senior leader to an inexperienced and incompetent senior leader is telling you what about it? It is telling me it did not learn its competency in Christian maturity senior leader selection lesson.
Poor senior church leadership selections make church a lot harder. Church is hard work enough to work dumb and hard both at the same time and when the intelligent alternative is a church that can work smart and hard at the same time. Smart churches have smart leadership who work both smart and hard. Dumb churches have dumb leaders who make the whole church work harder for the church being so dumb for choosing such leaders.
A dumb church keeps making the same dumb leadership selections over and over again. I fully understand the mistake and intelligence is shown when that church does not then again make the same mistake in the next selection. Any church can select the wrong senior leader. That is not the point. Its really simple, the smart church does not make dumb leadership selections and if it does it removes them and replaces them with smart leadership decisions. The work smarter church learns its lesson. The dumb church does not.
I believe security in the Lord learns its lessons easier than insecurity in the Lord does.
I believe security in the Lord makes better decisions than insecurity in the Lord does.
I believe the smart church is secure in the Lord first and not in any leader first.
You can tell what is the smarter church. It is the relevant one with experienced and competent leaders who understand relevancy and how to take a church into future relevancy TODAY. Those leaders were selected by a spiritually competent and mature selection process.
Ashley Nevins
He does Ashley – do pay attention.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not “Obamacare.” The president himself had little to do with this law. If you doubt this statement I would advise you to attempt to write or even reasonably supervise the writing of 2,409 pages on any subject in your spare time while running a full-time presidential campaign and attempting to govern the United States. The law was largely written well in advance of either his candidacy or his presidency. All he did was campaign to create a mandate for its passage on any possible terms. He was, if you’ll recall, willing and eager to sign any such law that could pass both houses of Congress.
This Act is not – nor has it ever been – about Health Care, nor is it about the poor. Medicaid already covers the poor, and denying access to care based on ability to pay has long been against the law. In fact, billions were spent in the previous administration creating and funding Federally Qualified Health Centers in order to improve both quality and access to care of the poor and the uninsured (And to be fair, billions more are currently being spent by the HHS both to increase the numbers of FQHC’s and to expand the capacity of those that already existed, although the funds to operate them once they expand and increase will come from the states – not the Federal Government). That leaves those who were always comfortably insured and the working poor who have no insurance at all. Of the employers of the latter, well over 1300 have been granted exemptions by HHS. Many of these waivers are for limited benefit or so called “mini-med” plans—rock-bottom plans that provide a very limited amount of coverage (sometimes as little as $2,000 a year) to beneficiaries and are used heavily in low-wage industries like the restaurant business. New federal rules require such plans to offer a minimum of $750,000 of coverage annually, and the waivers exempt the mini-med plans from this minimum on a case-by-case basis. So, those with the least access to insurance will largely remain in the same sorry state, and as supporters of the Act admit, universal health insurance will be a myth – even under the law as it now written.
No, this law is about what has long been considered the “Holy Grail” of Progressives – not Democrats necessarily (although the lies Progressives tell make them appear to be more in line with the goals of honest Democrats), but PROGRESSIVES. The Holy Grail is the ability to control 1/5 of the U.S. economy as well as anything and everything that can be construed as “health care,” including “preventive health care” which ultimately includes virtually every aspect of life and therefore also the economy. This law is about one thing and one thing only: CONTROL. And they know full-well that once it is fully enacted and becomes an expected benefit it will be impossible to reverse (think of the hue and cry over even the tiniest of proposed Medicare cuts; think of Greece). Honest Democrats with hearts for social justice are being played for fools in a game rigged by Progressives whose goals can only be truthfully described as nihilist. I can understand and appreciate hearts inclined toward social justice, but this Act has nothing in common with these inclinations.
Brian wrote: “Honest Democrats with hearts for social justice are being played for fools in a game rigged by Progressives whose goals can only be truthfully described as nihilist. I can understand and appreciate hearts inclined toward social justice, but this Act has nothing in common with these inclinations.”
Interesting you used term “honest Democrats” as distinguished from “Progressives.” As a political neophyte, I’m not sure a know what a Progressive is, though from what you wrote it sounds bad. Historically, I thought early 20th century Progressives helped bring about much needed reform (although I’ve already learned that Margaret Sanger had a sinister side.) How do Democrats and Progressives differ?
Logan46, IMO honest democrats want what is best for the folks using governement with restraint to help protect the most innocent and vulnerable while allowing a great deal of personal freedom. Precious few of those left I think.
Progressives are out and out statists who want all power to the state to control the lives of everyone for the benefit of the few while demogogically proclaiming their virtue as protectors and benefactors. Statists exist in both the Democart and Republican parties. The statists of the Democrats tend toward absolute tryanny of the state while at the same time encouraging and enabliong the vices of the rest of us, the lusts of the flesh etc.
The statists of the Repulican are more akin to the facist economic arrarngement in which the economy is control by a highly favored oligarchy of businessmen working closely with the government.
Facism was building quite a beachhead in this country until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Then it went underground. BTW one can be facist without racism or anti-semitism although some form of institutionalized bigotry and persecution will likely occur at some point if just to keep the masses in line..
Many people (with the cooperation of the statists on the left confuse free market, competitive capitalism with fascism despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed).
“The statists of the Repulican are more akin to the facist economic arrarngement in which the economy is control by a highly favored oligarchy of businessmen working closely with the government.”
That sounds more like what Obama is doing. He uses the government to reward his supporters. He learned from the most corrupt political machine in American history, the Chicago machine.
Logan, I will attempt to answer your question although it will not be in political terms per se. I will answer as a Christian, not a political scientist (which I am not).
The term “honest Democrats” describes those who ask why what they believe to be simple justice is a bad thing – why (in this case for example) should the poor not have the same access to health care as the rich in such a wealthy country as ours. I personally believe that most average Democrats are honest in their social justice beliefs. and there are many Democratic politicians who also fall into this category. They perceive injustice and feel that it is government’s duty to right it. They are patriotic Americans who care about the country and its people. Senator Hubert Humphrey and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan are good examples, but there are many, many others. I am not saying I advocate all their views. I am saying I can respect them.
Progressives are a different breed altogether. They are (although they rarely admit it openly) God-haters, haters of His authority, the nature of His creation and the created order, His commandments…you name it. If it is His doing they hate it. And it is not just any “god” (Hindu, Moslem, etc.) whom they hate but specifically the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are the Anti-Christs of our time, willing (albeit still largely deceived) accomplices of the Devil who are literally hell-bent on the destruction of everything good in order to re-create the world in their own image. They truly believe that what is evil is good and what is good is evil, and they are more than willing to employ the tactics of the ‘father’ to achieve the power to exercise their will unfettered by anything except their own depraved reason.
No one who understands where the path of Progressivism leads would choose to follow them, but even as many Russian people were deceived by the social justice rhetoric of the Bolsheviks, so many will not realize the true aim of Progressives until they themselves become an obstacle to the new world of ‘justice’ that has enslaved them in totalitarian dependence conformity, and fear.
“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…“
This sounds like something Glenn Beck would say… Ah, yes, a couple of googles later, here’s a link to an interesting article titled, “Glenn Beck and the War on Progressives” by Mike Madden:
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/11/progressives_3/
Not only Beck, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Charles Murray, Malcolm Muggeridge, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Walter Russel Mead, Paul Johnson, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and many, many others. All of them use their own language and write in their areas of expertise of course, but many of their ideas and critiques are similar.
The one thing that unites them is that they reject the idea that man is the final touchstone of truth and morality. Progressive ideology allows the idea to stand and affirms it as Brian rightly states.
And this idea, as Solzhenitsyn so categorically and eloquently stated in his Templeton Prize address called Men Have Forgotten God, is the one around which the history of the West in the last century turned.
Make sure to Google them too.
Jane,
Here’s a link that may help with the distinction. Progressives do not directly align themselves with any political party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rupert-russell/will-obamas-presidency-en_b_159459.html
I reiterate that I wrote that comment “as a Christian, not a political scientist.” Just as it would be silly to say that all those who call themselves Democrats are the same, so it would highly inaccurate to say that all those who call themselves “progressive” are the same. They are not. I suspect most Republicans as well as Democrats and virtually everyone else would describe themselves as progressive. After all, who would not be in favor of progress?
What I mean by the term “Progressives” is precisely what I described in the previous post. Interestingly, it also correlates with the other topic of evolution because it is an ideology expressing absolute faith that mankind is progressing toward perfection – perhaps even immortality – independent of God. They are not openly opposed to faith in God as long as nothing about that faith is manifest in reality (morality, etc.), for it is their belief that such things prevent man from progressing toward perfection. Progressive ideology is not identified directly with politics, although it has a strong political dimension by virtue of its aims. It is recognized by its advocacy (whether political or merely social) of anything that is contrary to the teachings of the Christian Faith – whatever serves to distort the image of God in man (always in the name of “justice and human rights”). Examples include abortion, homosexuality, homosexual ‘marriage’, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, tampering with the genetic code, the absolute marginalization of religious belief from public discourse, pornography, gay and lesbian adoption rights, and the list goes on to include anything and everything that is contrary to sound doctrine. It is their opposition to the image of God and their faith in the self-deification of man that distinguishes them as true Progressives and anti-Christs.
As an aside, I would caution anyone reading these comments to be wary of putting too much faith in the Constitution of the United States as a protection from what I describe as the ideology of Progressives. The founders of this country were wise, but their ideas were far from perfect. After all, the fact of slavery was written into the Constitution itself. They also never envisioned the depravity of the times in which we live. What they assumed when they used the words “equal protection under the law,” among other things, is far removed from the assumptions of today. By all means be a patriotic American and attempt to hold back evil, but take care to be a Christian first, taking refuge in Christ rather than the Constitution. As Mr. Bauman has wisely commented, we will wind up sacrificing either to God or the state. Remember that abolitionists and those who ran the Freedom Trail were confronted with the same choice.
Michael and Brian:
Links to articles would be helpful. More information from outside sources, please. Thanks!
Brian wrote: “Honest Democrats with hearts for social justice are being played for fools in a game rigged by Progressives whose goals can only be truthfully described as nihilist. I can understand and appreciate hearts inclined toward social justice, but this Act has nothing in common with these inclinations.”
Brian is absolutely correct.
Many people also confuse fascism with national socialism. The Nazis did not invent “national socialism”; they merely borrowed a name already in use. Most governments tend towards national socialism, using state power to further economic interests. What fascism added were certain essentially romantic beliefs about the nature of the nation, the need for a leader who embodies the values of the nation, and the incompatibility of liberal democracy with national aspirations.