Cal Thomas Column: Contraception Mandate Is Wrong Because Government Shouldn't Define What Is and Isn't a Church

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of "Obamacare" will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.

One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate." That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees' health care, "preventive services," including "morning-after" pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby's appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to "...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act." (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby's appeals continue.

The core issue as I see it -- and there are others -- is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.

Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.

The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.

In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would "dwell" in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, "I am going to church," it is an impossibility because they can't go to themselves.

The administration's efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.

That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)

View the original article here

David Limbaugh Column: Dr. Carson's Refreshing Jolt of Societal Medicine

President Obama must have been stunned at the "audacity" of Dr. Benjamin Carson in challenging his core assumptions right to his face in front of thousands of people at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Obama is not used to being challenged, especially in public, even if indirectly and without being specifically named. From the look on his face, it was obvious Obama was none too pleased with Carson's message or with his "presumptuousness" in presenting it in that forum, while he had to sit still and — remain silent.

I think we can best understand Carson's message in light of his opening statements, which laid the foundation for the thematic body of this speech.

He began citing scriptural passages that he said would put his upcoming remarks into context. Three of the passages were wisdom sayings from the book of Proverbs, admonishing that the godless destroy their neighbor with their mouths, that a man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor and that a generous man will prosper.

The final passage was God's promise in 2 Chronicles 7:14 that if his people will humble themselves and pray and seek his face and turn from their wicked ways, he will hear them, forgive their sins and heal their land.

Carson also decried the chilling effect of political correctness that makes people afraid to express certain opinions on important issues, lest they incur the wrath of society's thought and speech police — those who presume to be the guardians of all moral and acceptable opinions. He then proceeded to boldly articulate a number of ideas that clearly fall in this category of disfavored speech.

Specifically, Carson offered a ringing endorsement of America's founding principles and its unique constitutional liberties. He decried the moral decay in our society and our government's grotesque fiscal irresponsibility.

He took aim on our ever-expanding welfare state, not only by championing hard work, self-reliance and personal responsibility but also in invoking his own personal experience as an example.

He related how his mother worked multiple jobs to provide for him and his brother and imparted critically important values to them. She made them read and improve themselves and absolutely refused to let them make excuses and claim victimhood for their plight.

Carson, I believe, was illustrating that we have a moral problem in this nation and that the instilling of good values begins in the home and is neither the responsibility nor the prerogative of a caretaker government.

He denounced the practice — refined to an art form by President Obama — of politicians employing class warfare to deride the wealthy with accusations that they don't contribute enough while treating the less fortunate as helpless and expecting no contribution from them at all. This, I think, is where he was dovetailing the scriptural texts warning against deriding one's neighbor. He was saying, in effect, that political demagogues who pit people against one another on the basis of income and wealth harm society, including the very people they pretend to help.

In a television interview, Carson expanded on some of these thoughts, explaining that the Founding Fathers were afraid of an out-of-control government that would "get to the point where it couldn't subsist without taking everything from the people." Next, he linked, though not expressly, the scriptural passage on generosity in challenging today's conventional wisdom that the wealthy are necessarily greedy. He pointed to the remarkable generosity of some of America's historically wealthiest individuals. America, he said, "has always been a very generous nation. Look at all the foundations that have been created for the purpose of taking care of people."

He also expounded on his comments on political correctness, apparently criticizing the president's selective assault on religious liberty. He said, "If the president would exercise anywhere near the sensitivity about religious freedom in this country as he does about Islam and offending them, we wouldn't even have these kinds of problems."

There is also no question in my mind that in citing the passage from 2 Chronicles, Carson was expressing his view that America has strayed from its godly roots and replaced God's absolute moral standards with those that seem right to a man but are wholly destructive of our moral fabric. We must turn back to God, reject this man-made ethic grounded in covetousness, envy and greed, and recommit ourselves to godly values and right living.

In his speech, Carson did not criticize President Obama by name, but he roundly condemned his philosophy of and approach to governance. He did so with abundant forcefulness but equally strong respectfulness.

It was an admirable display of forthrightness and courage and a virtual seminar in how President Obama's political opponents should boldly, directly and publicly dispute his wrongheaded message and block his destructive agenda.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "The Great Destroyer," reached No. 2 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

View the original article here

Cal Thomas Column: Contraception Mandate Is Wrong Because Government Shouldn't Define What Is and Isn't a Church

Under pressure from religious and conservative groups, the Obama administration has offered another compromise on the issue of birth control coverage within the Affordable Care Act. While exempting churches and some religiously affiliated institutions, such as hospitals and universities, from supplying the coverage, the new proposal calls for their employees to receive stand-alone private insurance policies providing birth control coverage at no cost. Insurance companies will foot the bill, but only the naive can possibly think the cost won't find its way back to the institution in the form of higher health premiums.

Numerous lawsuits filed against this and other portions of "Obamacare" will proceed and for good reason: the federal government seems intent on setting rules on matters of conscience and worse, defining what constitutes a church, or religious institution.

One of the litigants is Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores, whose CEO, David Green, is an evangelical Christian. Green says, "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate." That mandate includes, in addition to contraceptive coverage in employees' health care, "preventive services," including "morning-after" pills and other drugs, which Green considers abortifacients. After Hobby Lobby's appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected, the Christian Post reports the company then made plans to "...shift the beginning of its employee health plan to temporarily avoid $1.3 million a day in fines for each day since Jan. 1 that it did not comply with the Affordable Care Act." (According to the new health care law, businesses with more than 50 employees that refuse to comply can be fined by the IRS $100 per day per employee.) Hobby Lobby's appeals continue.

The core issue as I see it -- and there are others -- is whether the government has the right to define a church as a building in which people congregate on Sundays and whether a private company headed by a religious person qualifies for conscience exemptions. For government to decide such things violates the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." and appears to put the state in the position of supreme authority and arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" religious faith and practice. The Supreme Court will likely have to resolve its constitutionality.

Permit me to offer the justices some assistance.

The early church was not a building with a towering steeple. The early church met in homes. If one accepts New Testament teaching (and what higher authority on the church could there be?), the concept of the church being an organism that resides in each individual believer is clearly spelled out in several passages.

Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Colossians (1:24) about the "body" of Jesus Christ, "which is the church." By this, he means the "body of believers" in whom Christ dwells. Wherever that body is, whether an individual, or a group of believers, that's the church. It was only later that this concept of church was turned into something with expensive buildings, tax exemptions and denominations.

The same theme can be found in Revelation where John is asked by Jesus to write letters to several churches. Those, too, were bodies of believers, not physical structures.

In the Old Testament, God told Solomon that while He was too big to live in buildings, He would "dwell" in the Temple Solomon built for Him. Ultimately, though, He said He had other intentions: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

That was and remains for believers the authentic church, so when people say, "I am going to church," it is an impossibility because they can't go to themselves.

The administration's efforts to effectively gerrymander lines between what it considers legitimate religious practice and the secular is what the Founders hoped to avoid when they linked the establishment clause with the free exercise clause.

That is why, among other reasons, government should not mandate birth control coverage as part of any national health care plan.

(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)

View the original article here

Chuck Norris Column: We Need to Choke the Life out of ObamaCare

Now that Obama has been re-elected and Democrats still control the Senate, Republicans no longer have the chance to repeal Obamacare.

But all is not lost. There's still an opportunity for America to stop this disaster by choking the life out of the federal monstrosity. Obama's signature legislative achievement is likely headed back to the Supreme Court.

Just last week, the high court ordered a lower federal court to take up a lawsuit by the patriots at Liberty University, who claim Congress violated the college's religious freedoms by forcing it to provide federally mandated insurance and requiring payment for abortion-related services.

Liberty University also argues that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it infringes on the free exercise of religion by forcing citizens to fund abortion.

"God created human life. Its sanctity and dignity are protected by God," said Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, who represents Liberty University in the case. "We have no right to take innocent human lives, and certainly we cannot be forced to fund the taking of innocent life — basically forced to fund murder. We can't do that. That's a line that we simply cannot cross."

Staver is absolutely right: There's no middle ground in this fight. Citizens and employers shouldn't be forced to choose between obeying the law and honoring the Sixth Commandment.

This month, federal courts have blocked the Obama administration from imposing its contraceptive mandate on Tyndale, a Bible publisher, and O'Brien Industrial Holdings, a Missouri mining company. The Christian-owned craft chain, Hobby Lobby, is fighting a similar legal battle against the mandate. The company says fines could reach as much as $1 million a day if it doesn't cover abortion-inducing drugs for its employees. About three-dozen Christian companies and colleges are fighting the mandate in court.

In June, President Obama said, "(Insurance companies) are required to provide free preventive care like checkups and mammograms ... ." The law also subsidizes care for people who pay more than 8 percent of their income for health insurance.

But Obamacare isn't "free." The money must come from somewhere. Even if patients don't pay for their health care directly, Americans face higher taxes to fund the facilities, doctors and services.

When consumers perceive health care to be "free," they use more medical services and create an overwhelming demand for them — which will eventually exceed supply. Then, government will be faced with a limited number of options: 1) ration health services, 2) increase the cost of your health care or 3) ignore the issue, as patients' access to health care is severely restricted.

We see these issues arise in other countries with national health care. Patients in Britain and Canada often face long wait times — even in emergency rooms — to receive basic care that's so accessible here in the U.S. In fact, Europeans and Canadians are known to travel to the U.S. rather than wait for their own health services.

My wife, Gena, and I have been to other countries that have socialized medicine, and it doesn't work out well for people. When we visited Russia some 15 years ago, a young lady in her 20s suffered from a toothache. When asked why she didn't see a dentist, the woman said the care is too expensive and even seeing a doctor could mean waiting eight months to a year.

To make matters worse, Obamacare calls for establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who make a wide range of health care decisions — including the ability to approve or deny medical treatments recommended by your doctors.

It's no wonder so many states are outright refusing to cooperate with Washington on this massive federal power grab.

Obama's takeover calls for states to expand Medicaid, creating serious fiscal liabilities for the states if federal taxpayers don't pick up the bill every year. Obamacare also requires states to develop governmental programs that will create online health "exchanges," itemizing available health plans.

For Florida alone, "startup costs 'are projected at $92.3 million' through next year, and annual operating costs to the state — based on experience in Illinois — could range from $57.4 million to $88.6 million by 2016."

States shudder at the thought of being saddled with the cost of running those exchanges, especially when they have so little local control under this federal program. They have until Dec. 14 to tell the Obama administration whether they will set up exchanges or default to a federal version.

In 2010, John Graham, director of health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute, urged states to boycott the exchanges.

"States establishing Obamacare exchanges are making a one-way, lose-lose bet," he wrote. "If Obamacare persists, exchanges will become bloated administrative nightmares."

Obama's federal takeover of the nation's health insurance is unconstitutional on its face. It exceeds Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states. It expands the federal government's authority beyond the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It threatens religious liberty, and it imposes an unconstitutional tax on Americans.

If we can't repeal Obamacare in its entirety, let's support each of these efforts to peel away every one of its unconstitutional layers to preserve our liberty, the quality of American health care and the fiscal stability of our nation.

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook's "Official Chuck Norris Page." He blogs at http://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

View the original article here