Why Everyone Should be Against the HHS Mandate…

When the government agrees with you, it’s easy to allow them to take power over what seems innocent, just, and right.  When they don’t, it’s easy to cry tyranny.  Perhaps a better way to be is to allow the government none of the power to overshadow our lives, be it something that is agreeable or not.  Obviously there should be punishments for blatant, outward sins against another.  If someone is murdered, if someone steals, if someone spreads a horrid rumor in order to harm another, of course there should be ruling authorities to punish and stop wrong doers.  But what if it is something not so obvious?  Birth control itself has many controversy on whether or not it causes abortions.  It’s not just about how some believe life begins at conception either.  Does birth control prevent ovulation therefore no baby can be aborted due to the thinning of the lining of the uterus?  Some would argue yes, others no.  The point is, it is an ambiguous point.  Therefore, as free American citizens, we should be free to choose for ourselves what this means.  There are devout Christians who use birth control with no problems of the conscience.  There are those, however, who would have a great crisis of conscience if they were to use birth control.  The ultimate choice shouldn’t lie with government enforcement of one side of the debate over the other.  The government should be neutral, not looking to benefit from the majority, but to help protect all from unnecessary and burdensome rules that would keep freedom at bay.

To illustrate, what would happen if the HHS mandate stated that all homosexuals must be reformed to the heterosexual way of living, be actively involved in heterosexual dating or long-term relationships, and that the taxes paid by the homosexuals and everyone else would go to programs reforming homosexuals to make them conform with the majority of society, as this is the right thing to do for all Americans.  There would be an outcry from the Democrats and the liberals alike.  It is not the government’s place to decide what is best for the individual.  Even now with the gay marriage lobby it is heard time and time again that the government should stay out of the bedrooms in America.  But what is the difference between the chants of those who wish to have same-sex marriage, that they should be free to choose who they will spend the rest of their lives with, and those who say that they should be free to choose where their money is being spent and they find it morally objectionable to fund abortions, abortion causing drugs, sterilization, and birth control?

This isn’t just about the government deciding that these drugs and procedures in the HHS mandate are morally correct and right, this is about forcing those who would comply and go against conscience or defy and be penalized by the government losing their freedom to live as they wish.  America is not a democracy, it is a republic, which is designed to protect the individual from the masses.  Perhaps there are those in our government who have forgotten that.  It isn’t about regulating people with overreaching laws but about allowing people to live without having a government regulate and legislate their lives.  For those who agree with it, the HHS mandate is wonderful and forces those stuck up, uptight, religious wackos to pay for things that the rest of “normal” society wants.  Truthfully, however, if the pendulum sings the other way and the people in power forcing the decisions now are replaced by those of another persuasion, what power have they now been given?  Who is to say they won’t ban the HHS mandate and even ban all birth control, sterilizing medications, and abortion?  This isn’t just about “getting one side’s way”, this is about giving the government way too much power over what should be individual’s decisions.  These are not the marks of a free society.  These are the marks headed towards a dictatorship.  Comply or face the penalty wasn’t the battle cry of the Revolutionary War.  It was give me liberty or give me death!

Liberty is not about the majority getting its way.  It is about allowing the individual the freedom to live their lives without overreaching, burdening government control.

Don't Tread on Me

Advertisements

Offensive in the Eye of the Beholder

Everyday I hear things that are offensive to me.  From the walk through Walmart to conversations at a restaurant, there are horrific uses of my religious beliefs for others slang terms.  There is no apology, no call for a paradigm shift that would be inclusive of my beliefs that would show toleration to how I live.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  I am told by those who are the most “tolerant” that  my beliefs are archaic, intolerant, and possibly violent.  I really am just the girl next door.  I am the preacher’s daughter and the preacher’s wife.  I am a Christian.

This, however, seems to be more threatening to some than the most violent criminals in prison.  Battling church’s and even individual Christians at every turn, more and more atheist groups, claiming separation of church and state, are trying to force churches underground, with government support, stating that it is illegal to speak of God in public because it is against the Constitutional freedom of others.  The Constitution was written at  a time when people were coerced to go to church by the government and told how they were to believe and how they were to worship God.  The point of having religious freedom is not to have freedom from religion but to have a freedom to practice religion the way we choose.  I should be just as free to talk about Christ if the subject came up as I am to talk about the cloth pads I use instead of disposable.  It’s about the freedom of choice.  In fact, anyone who truly values their freedom here in the United States should value and treasure the gambit of religious beliefs, from atheism to Christianity, from Judaism to Islam.  The point of “separation of church and state” is to keep the state from mandating a religion, even if that religion is atheism.  So, in fact, each time the court orders an individual to halt any type of religious action, no matter if it is Christian, Wicca, Mormon, or Sikh, it is violating the rights of those it is supposed to protect, not upholding the Constitutional “right” of “separation of church and state”.  (I’d still like to know where in the Constitution that phrase comes from.)  It’s not about whether or not an individual is offended.  If that is the litmus test, then a lot of people should halt their manner of speech as I am offended!  However, I recognize it’s their right, though I disagree, and I will not bother with it so long as it doesn’t become an issue.

Where it becomes an issue is if I am required or mandated to become a part of something that is not my belief.  If, in my speech, I want to thank Jesus Christ for my many blessings in life, that is actually no problem.  Those who are listening can either decide to agree or not to agree, but it doesn’t force them to do anything more than listen to my testimony.  If it is too offensive, they are free to get up and leave, tune me out with the use of an iPod, or start up a conversation with the person next to them.  I have done that on many occasions, from political speeches that I couldn’t stomach to teacher’s lectures that bored me.  However, if I forced someone to hear this or they would be arrested, detained, or otherwise put through the government judicial system, this would be a problem.  The line that the government wouldn’t mandate a single religion would be crossed and that would be a violation of the Constitution.

However, the opposite is true in our country today.  Crosses are being taken down from public and private lands because it offends those who may be of another religious persuasion.  The court then rules against one religion and for another in those cases.  Other examples can be found here in a report put out by foxnews.com.  It’s a fascinating read.