tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post6834974927964458490..comments2024-03-29T05:24:27.224-04:00Comments on Doug Ross @ Journal: So much for the Democrats' vaunted "separation of church and state" [Cagle Cartoons]Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-50336848798916532912012-02-12T23:37:04.361-05:002012-02-12T23:37:04.361-05:00Where There F**K did President Barack Downgrayedd ...Where There F**K did President Barack <i>Downgrayedd </i>Obama get the authority to require private corporations to provide free products and services?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-41155087713036024572012-02-10T07:41:59.784-05:002012-02-10T07:41:59.784-05:00Obama will reluctantly cave, the liberal Catholic ...Obama will reluctantly cave, the liberal Catholic leadership will bring its congregation back to obama for the election, and if re-elected obama will then reinstate the mandate. The entire saga was predictable from day 1.clayusmcretnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-41978204464332071742012-02-10T00:47:11.158-05:002012-02-10T00:47:11.158-05:00Questions about the government requiring or prohib...Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate. When moral binds for individuals can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors. <br /><br />Here, there is no need for such an exemption, since no employer is being "forced," as some commentators rage, to act contrary to his or her belief. In keeping with the law, those with conscientious objections to providing their employees with qualifying health plans may decline to provide their employees with any health plans and pay an assessment instead or, alternatively, provide their employees with health plans that do not qualify (e.g., ones without provisions they deem objectionable) and pay lower assessments.<br /><br />The employers may not like paying the assessments or what the government will do with the money it receives. But that is not a moral dilemma of the sort supposed by many commentators, but rather a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers--who don't much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. That is hardly call for a special "exemption" from the law. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, whatever) each of us opposes?Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-18938611248720711612012-02-09T22:43:44.200-05:002012-02-09T22:43:44.200-05:00Bingo.Bingo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com