A crucial thing to remember, both about the mandate and the promised adjustments-to-come, is that it is deeply un-American in its hostility to diversity and pluralism in civil society. The mandate’s religious-employer exemption is limited only to inward-looking entities that hire and engage only their own. It embodies the view that religious institutions may be distinctive only insofar as they stay in their place ”” in the pews, in the pulpit, at the altar. It reflects a troubling tendency to impose ideological sameness and conformity in the public sphere, to insist that all groups and associations act like the government, in the service of the government’s goals.
The mandate prompted an impressively united reaction by those who cherish America’s tradition of religious freedom and accommodation. On the left and on the right, among Republicans and Democrats, there was an appreciation for the fact that this was an overreach. It was, and still is.
What is truly amazing is the liberal/progressive argument that the refusal by someone else to pay for their personal contraceptive is a denial of their “right” to practice contraception. It is a complete logical non sequitur. Yet the liberal/progressives make it with a straight face. But it is beside the point.
What gives government the right to mandate/require any employer to offer any sort of benefit let alone, if they decide to offer a benefit, the contents of that benefit? I would argue that government has no right to even require minimum wages.
Government seems to have adopted the tyrannical position that citizens and business exist for its benefit and the comfort of the ruling elite and their bureaucracy. Its not supposed to work that way, particularly in the United States. One need only read the Declaration of Independence.
Here is a great article on what Obama and HHS has done:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4777
From the article:[blockquote]
“Cram-down†is a perfect term for HHS’s policy, however. The whole point, it seems, is to override religious objections to such a policy to the maximum extent politically possible, out of an intense ideological commitment to contraception and abortion as “preventive health care.†It is vital, the ideologues say, to prevail over religious objections precisely in order to advance, and permanently entrench, this particular ideology and, further, to vindicate the power of government to impose such policies on everyone. Religious objections must be overcome, in part for the sake of overcoming religious objections.[/blockquote]
In the former Soviet Union, the Orthodox Church had “religious freedom” as long as it restricted its activities to worship indoor officially sanctioned buildings, were forbidden to teach the young, and couldn’t operate hospitals or provide social services. Kinda makes ya think, doesn’t it?