Why Stand We Here Idle?
Americans are squandering the freedoms won at such a high price by our Founding Fathers. We are insulting the memories of men who sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor then, as well as every man and woman who has ever sworn an oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies in the United States military.
Every man and woman who has sacrificed their life in Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other places in military service to this country has done so having sworn to protect our Constitution – to the exclusion of anything else – and we stand here idle while domestic enemies illegally redefine it, bastardize it and belittle us with phrases such as “have a fetish for the Constitution.”
As I have written over the past several days, in attempting to force church-based organizations to provide free birth control, abortion services and more to female employees over the objections of the churches based on religious beliefs, President Obama is directly and unmistakably attacking the 1st Amendment and our religious liberty.
The 1st Amendment does two things with respect to religion; protects the People from Congress formally establishing a State religion, and protects religions from government infringing the free exercise of their beliefs and worship. Worship is more than just praying and involves how people live their lives and what churches teach their flocks and the things churches, as a group or institution, do and don’t do.
Democrats claim that some 99% of women will use birth control over the course of their lives, but that is irrelevant. They claim it is a “woman’s health issue,” and that is irrelevant. They claim 77% or more of Catholic women believe in and/or use birth control against the teachings of the Church, and that is irrelevant. All of those things can be true and still none of those things matter.
Christian churches are based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and not polls or the shifting sands of societal beliefs. And it is not up to our federal government to dictate what a church should and should not believe or on what information they should base changes in doctrine, dogma and Canon Law.
In this debate I am reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers, and I believe it to be more important now than ever to remember what we were given by our Founders and at what cost.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson might say to President Obama in this case:
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
President Obama is trying to force the Catholic Church to “furnish funds” for birth control, abortion services and the morning after pill, either directly or indirectly through their health insurance carrier and I agree with Thomas Jefferson; no matter the justification it is sinful and tyrannical. The ends do not justify the means.
James Madison, the undisputed Father of the Constitution and the man who kept the only known record of the Constitutional Convention, said:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
-James Madison.
And yet President Obama would not just spend his constituent’s money on objects of benevolence, but also dictate to them how to spend their own money, for what purpose and on what items and use the force of the tyrannical government sword in order to compel compliance.
Since the Constitution does not magically change over time, according to who wins an election or by a politician waving a magic wand over the land, what amendment did Americans pass between 1787 and now to allow our federal government to do what James Madison could find no authority in that document he proposed, co-authored, debated and implemented?
Again, Thomas Jefferson may have had a few choice words for President Obama and his ilk with everything they’re trying to foist upon Americans and the attendant tyranny and oppression:
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
Even if you feel birth control is a women’s health issue, which it isn’t any more than free condoms are for men to avoid STDs, it wouldn’t matter because it is not the federal government’s business to restrain or aid the people – not as the Constitution is written anyway and not under the American model of government.
Liberals are free to form groups and associations to provide all of women’s health care needs. George Soros can fund a foundation of women’s health services. Liberals can fund and build clinics and so much more without using tyranny and oppression to attack religious liberty and the 1st Amendment.
At the end of the day I am reminded of a quote from one of my favorite Founding Fathers:
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775
February 13th, 2012 at 2:58 am
If contraceptives or abortions are funded from taxes, then an individual taxpayer or employer, who may consider abortion to be murder, may potentially, deny complicity as an accessory by claiming that he only ‘rendered unto Caesar’.
This does not apply, in the case of providing health insurance by contract with a private company.
Why should some institutions be granted supposed exemption, when other individuals, who may have similar beliefs, not be granted exemptions, also.
The Catholic Church supported Obamacare, vociferously, despite undoubtedly having access to the same legal asessment of its (un)constitutionality that other prominent opponents publicized.
Does this mean that the Catholic Church was unaware of the constitutional violations inherent in Obamacare, but chose to support it anyway, because they also believe in coercive socialist policies for purposes related to wealth redistribution?
Their current opposition, while welcome, seems to me to illustrate a certain hypocracy. They went along with it, ignoring the unconstitutional violation of the rights of others, until Obama stabbed them in the back.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:25 am
It is my undestanding that the Catholic Church itself did not necessarily support Obamacare but only groups within the Catholic Church such as Catholic Charities – but I may be wrong an am still checking for their original position on Obamacare. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s does not apply in any way to modern America. Caesar was a monarch and literally owned everything. Obama is not Caesar. Your money is your private property – the fruits of your labor – and is not Caesar’s property.
Catholics are admonished to follow civil law in general; however, like all Americans have a duty to stand up when civil law itself is a violation of more fundamental law or our Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution. No form or level of government in America has the legal, moral or ethical authority to force any individual, group or organization to violate the Supreme Law of the Land.
As far as hypocrisy goes, all men are sinners and hypocrites – all. Best we can do is ask for forgiveness. But, having said that, as Jefferson said men will suffer evil while evils are sufferable. Everyone has their breaking point and maybe this was the Church’s breaking point.
March 24th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I would also point out, John, that many corporations, including places like McDonald’s, have been given wavers because they complained it would be a hardship; why aren’t churches and charties or organisations granted religious exemption, when it is a Constitutionally protected freedom? Why the fuss over churches and their organisations, but not deals made for nothing else but political expediency?
Why is the imposition of morality from one side (access to birth control and the morning after pill), tolerable, but a conscientious objection from parts on the other side intolerable? Just for the record I think the Catholic prohibition on BC is silly, but I respect their right to it, as long as it doesn’t force me to do anything I deem improper.