Politicized culture wars are debilitating because they almost always require partisans to denigrate the moral legitimacy of their opponents, and sometimes to deny their very humanity. It’s often not enough to defeat a foe. Satisfaction only comes from an adversary’s humiliation.
One other thing about culture wars: One side typically has absolutely no understanding of what the other is trying to say.
That is why the battle over whether religious institutions should be required to cover contraception under the new health care law was so painful — and why it was so hard to comprehend why President Obama, who has been a critic of culture wars for so long, did not try to defuse this explosive question from the beginning.
From the article:
[blockquote] It’s also why he was right, finally, to reach a compromise that respected the legitimate concerns of each side. He should have done this at the outset, but far better late than never. [/blockquote]
Except it’s no compromise. The fact that it is not extended to cover actual Churches should tell him something. No, the compromise allows him to either lie to himself or others or both. The compromise is pure deception and anyone who wants too can see through it. Or he does see through it and is willing to lie for the advancement of liberal agenda.
Here is what is really at stake:
[blockquote]No one can be rightly coerced by the state to be directly complicit in the commission of a wrong. This goes for any businessman, employer, insurance company, or individual, regardless of faith.[/blockquote]
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4716
In the past liberals have been in the forefront in protesting this sort of thing yet now they are not only silent, they are behind it. If they do so to support their man in the WH, what is their refuge when their opponents occupy that office? Having argued for unlimited federal power what do they do when that power recoils on them and the right advances their agenda on them?
As numerous commentators are beginning to point out, the faux accommodation also does nothing to protect the consciences of individual Catholic employers who might wish to provide insurance coverage they deem morally acceptable.
Nor does it help those churches that self-insure.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [b]prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b].” And so we have yet another example of the Obama administration attempting (quite intentionally) to undermine and eventually destroy the Constitutional rights of the American people.
The have done the same with the Second Amendment (Fast and Furious gun running), the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), the “commerce clause”, recess appointments and ‘czars’ to avoid Senate confirmation, and any of a number of other Constitutional protections.
For the left in general, and the Obama administration in particular, the Constitution is an obstacle which, if it cannot be overcome, must be shoved out of the way because it was written specifically to protect us against people such as these.
Gee, I though it was Dubya who was destroying the Constitution, taking away our liberties, imposing religeous viewpoints, being the imperialistic president…???
Bart Hall – for the left, the Constitution is a malleable document which should not be taken at face value – rather it is a “living document” which embodies “principles”. These “principles” happen to be liberal principles, and so, for liberals, the Constitution functions as a sort of Blank Slate justifying whatever policies they choose to push – whether those policies are an expansion of rights in one area or a curtailment of rights in another. So when a conservative debates the constitutionality of an action, s/he will actually look to the text of the constitution. When a liberal debates the same question, they decide which policy they want and accords with their values, then try to justify how what they want could possibly fit into the latest liberal constitutional theory.
They’re not called just “useful” … for a reason.
First re-interpret the Bible to suit your secular worlview, so the constitution is next. For a liberal who wants their way, nothing is sacred ecept for the current “cause”. If the author of this article was told what to write, or that it could only be written to make Obama or any other politician for that matter look good, the anger would be full blown and on display and rightly so. Why is OK to take the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States away from just conservative Americans? Oh! I forgot, the current cause is Obama and his socialist agenda.