Federal court rules against EWTN on contraception mandate

[Vendtre]

Some companies feel that allowing their company provided insurance to cover birth control they are somehow endorsing the use of it.  Makes no sense to me why they think that way or why anyone would be against birth control 

[thereselittleflower]

3 hours ago, Vendtre said:

Not to be the dissenting voice, but can one really be both anti-abortion and anti-birth control? 

It's not really about whether or not one agrees with an anti-artificial bc stance.

It's about government trying to control our religious freedoms, and make laws that force one to act contrary to one's conscience.

Most people don't realize the history of artificial bc in this country, and don't even realize it was illegal 100 years ago.

Most people don't realize that Christianity totally abhorred it for 2000 years and completely and totally repudiated it and taught against it.

Most people don't realize the reason it is legal today is because eugenicists needed it to be legal, and so began an assault on the teachings of all of Christianity.

They picked the Anglican Church and their important Lambeth Conference which happened about every 10-20 years.   In the previous conference, the Anglican Church had stood on the ground all of Christianity had stood on for 2000 years and completely and totally rejected, once again, all forms of artificial contraception.  

Then the eugenicists infiltrated the Anglican Church, got one of their own into a position to influence the next Lambeth Conference, and he succeeded in getting them to change their stance and break from 2000 years of unanimous teaching.  They changed their teaching to allow artificial contraception only in cases where the woman's life or health was in danger. (sound familiar?).

Why was this so important to the eugenicists?  

Because they wanted to be able to make abortion legal, and they knew they could never make abortion legal unless they could make contraception legal and they knew as long as the churches continued to teach against the use of artificial contraception, then they could never get contraception to be legal.

Once the Anglicans changed their teaching, all protestant churches quickly followed suit, and the Orthodox Church followed several decades later.

That Lambeth Conference was in 1930.

As we know, it was a few decades later and abortion was also legal - again only in cases where a woman's life or health was in danger.

So, those who are against artificial contraception feel they have very strong and good reasons to be, and this is about our religious freedom being trampled and denied.  So whether or not one agrees with a  particular belief is not the real issue, but religious freedom is the real issue and the government abridging our religions freedoms and dictating against our conscience.

 

 

[bfloydo]

8 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

•  

  "We are extremely disappointed that the Court has refused to protect our religious freedom," 

  Do not all people protect their own unique religious/ spiritual freedom -- with their own Knowledge, Conscience, and sometimes Actions? Has the court infringed on any individual or their freedom? Has the court ordered the church to change its doctrine or beliefs: such that one must use contraception? Is there a way to appease both? --- perhaps, dropping the current insurer and letting the individual chose their own plan.?. Should the Church yield authority to those that God has placed above it's own authority? Does the Churches insurance policy restrict its holders from that which is Gov. mandated?

 You be the Judge: Let Scriptures, Prayer for discernment, and your God given Conscience be your Guide.

 Dont get me wrong here, I do not like churches in general ... I believe they inhibit more than they enhance my personal relationship with the Lord. I do very much enjoy fellowship in any setting, as it is back and forth discussion. Fellowship, Individual study, and Prayer for discernment are the methods I very much prefer, over being preached at.

[thereselittleflower]

 

3 hours ago, Vendtre said:

We should let all babies live, and a good way to do that is to prevent them from being conceived to people who don't want them. 

Birth control is the most effective way to stop abortion.

 

3 hours ago, Teditis said:

Well I guess that you're right and I would prefer the use of birth control over abortion.

But the best form of birth control is abstinence, isn't it?

 

The reason we have legalized abortion is because we legalized bc first.

Again, this is not about contraception but about our religious freedoms.

If you feel that it's ok to for government to legislate and require christians to be forced to act against their conscience in this instance, then you have to say the same thing about the government forcing christians to pay for and provide abortions, or marry same sex couples, or provide christian services to same sex couples, or employ people who stand openly opposed to these christian values by their own lifestyles.

You can't pick and choose which service to allow or disallow according to your own sensibilities.

Either religious freedom means something always, or it means something never, and the courts will use the type of logic being presented in this thread against what you don't want as well, and you will have agreed with the precedent that allowed it.

 

 

[Guest Teditis]

3 hours ago, Vendtre said:

None of that is a good reason to be anti-birth control.  

If a happily married couple either want no children or no more children they should be able to make that choice without living a celebate marriage

Well, my post was in response to your previous post about people dealing with sexual immorality issues.... not so much birth control.

 

But as for married couples, there are natural means for controlling the conception of offspring that have worked for thousands of years.

Personally, I'm not against artificial birth control in most instances but when it comes to abortion inducing drugs, morning after pills and such,

I'd draw the line.

But more to the article, I think that private companies should be able to pick and choose what benefits packages they offer to their employees.

Making someone pay for another's elective medical treatments seems excessive to me.

If a religiously affiliated organization/business wants to use their company for purposes that are God-oriented, then they should be allowed to.

The government shouldn't be interfering with people's religious choices for the most part.

[ayin jade]

If a couple truly wants no children, there are surgical things that can be done to both male and female. 

But its not the issue of bc that is the source of concern. Its the attack on religious liberty.

[thereselittleflower]

1 minute ago, ayin jade said:

If a couple truly wants no children, there are surgical things that can be done to both male and female. 

But its not the issue of bc that is the source of concern. Its the attack on religious liberty.

 

Quote

But its not the issue of bc that is the source of concern. Its the attack on religious liberty.

 

 

EXACTLY!

 

[Vendtre]

I do not think there is a connection to providing a comprehensive insurance policy and religious liberties.  The two are unrelated in every way 

[bfloydo]

16 minutes ago, Teditis said:

 

But more to the article, I think that private companies should be able to pick and choose what benefits packages they offer to their employees.

 

Making someone pay for another's elective medical treatments seems excessive to me.

If a religiously affiliated organization/business wants to use their company for purposes that are God-oriented, then they should be allowed to.

The government shouldn't be interfering with people's religious choices for the most part.

 Who is the Gov.? Individuals elected by a majority of individuals.  What is the Gov.? An individual or group of individuals elected by the majority. Like it or not(  and for the most part Politicians/ Politics gives me great grief... All the Blatant Lies, Power Struggles, and total disregard for simple truth  ---blah  ). We the people( and God's purpose ) have voted them to have the Authority they have.

 Who determines what is God oriented ? Both individuals and groups .... Should we allow groups to distribute Guns and Bombs to use in Extremist Jihad? Should Cows not be used for human consumption? Should we have not went or stayed as long as we did, in Vietnam? --- ~ 2,000,000 Vietnamese Killed, ~58,000 Americans killed.

 Our government makes many choices I ( as an individual ) totally disagree with, but I cant escape the fact that we the people elected this authority. Perhaps this is why we are told to subject ourselves to it. More importantly we are told We should do this for the Sake of Conscience --

[ Submit to Government ] Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 13:5

Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake

 

God Bless

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, Vendtre said:

I do not think there is a connection to providing a comprehensive insurance policy and religious liberties.  The two are unrelated in every way 

Forcing a religious company to provide health care insurance that covers (ie the company pays for) something they have a religious moral objection to IS an assault on religious liberty.