The Bible says that God created
the conscience expressly to direct the actions and decisions of humankind toward righteousness, and to assist mortal flesh in turning away from the types of abominations liberals tend to promote and condone. Yet, it seems as if the Obama administration is desperately trying to usurp the role of God-given conscience and replace it with government-given diktat.As a body, the Catholic Church is being prodded by decree toward purchasing insurance policies that fund abortion and birth control, both of which Catholicism adamantly opposes. Therefore, the war being raged against Judeo-Christian ethics is a prime example of how both corporate and personal conscience is under attack by the left.
For example, in some liberal circles government approbation on abortion and insurance-paid birth control are not sufficient. It seems as if liberals will not be content until Catholic hospitals and Christian employees are denied the right to refuse to support or participate in procedures that go against their religious and personal convictions. Even Chicago Catholic Archbishop Cardinal George issued a “dire warning.” He said he believes that “if Obama’s regulations on health insurance are allowed to stand, all Catholic hospitals and schools will be destroyed through fines, sold-off to non-Catholics, or closed down within two years.”
Meanwhile, not fully content with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” being repealed, America’s “first gay president” and his administration are now in the process of attempting to expand the attack on religious freedom by denying those serving in the United States military the right to respond to the stirrings of a principled conscience.
The President’s view on same-sex marriage recently emerged fully “evolved.” As a result, the Obama administration “strongly objected” to an ‘unevolved’ stipulation in the House Armed Services Committee 2013 $642 billion National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4310), which includes a clause that hopes to “protect the rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members.”
Despite the threat of a White House veto, the Republican-controlled House approved the bill, which would ban the use of military property for same-sex marriage ceremonies, and shield military chaplains from negative consequences for remaining true to their faith.
Section 536 clearly states that “no member of the armed forces may ‘discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement’ that is prohibited by the previous clause.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget opposed that wording for being what they called “overbroad…in its terms…[and]… potentially harmful to good order and discipline.”
In essence, the language merely grants military clergy the freedom of choice to not officiate over the marriage of gays that chose to marry. Moreover, it also bestows the same measure of respect Barack Obama has enjoyed since his Illinois senate years as he was in the process of “evolving” (read: flip-flopping for political purposes) on the issue of gay marriage.
Additionally, Section 537 states that a “military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of, the Department of Defense may not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.”
The OMB construed that clause to be an attempt to “deny Service members, retirees, and their family members access to facilities for religious ceremonies on the basis of sexual orientation,” and interpreted it as “a troublesome and potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty.”
Next, the Senate Armed Services Committee will begin considering the defense bill. At that time, it’s almost certain the version the Democrat-controlled Senate presents will be free of “troublesome” right-of-conscience provisions. Therefore, in the spirit of what the left considers Constitutional fidelity and religious liberty, in the future, those chaplains who believe homosexuality is a “dishonorable passion” could be forced by government edict to preside over same-sex unions, effectively denying military clergy the right above all else to submit to God and His Word.
It is clear that for some liberals having laws that authorize killing the unborn simply do not suffice; the ultimate goal for some is to force pro-life people, by way of legislation, to contribute in some way to that killing. Likewise, neither does the Obama administration consider it “troublesome” nor “potentially [an] unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty” to also force religious institutions and individuals to support liberal policies that go directly against their core convictions.
America had best beware of any president or political party seeking to commandeer the directives provided by inner conscience. Allowing politicians to do so puts freedom in jeopardy and ultimately divests the individual of their God-given right to behave according to their own personal principles. Moreover, it gives government the power to legislatively force Americans to suppress the directives of God and mandate that the conscience-driven endorse what to many is morally wrong.
Jeannie DeAngelis
No comments:
Post a Comment