Earlier this week, in describing the ambitions of the Progressive Project, as embodied in Barack Obama, I wrote, “Obama wants government to weaken, and eventually replace, civil society, create greater dependency, and expand the states reach into every nook and cranny of life, including into the internal life of the church.”
It’s with interest, then, that I note that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a woman for whom Obama has had nothing but praise and with whom he has worked very close, was asked this question by John McCormick of The Weekly Standard: “The Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., is a self-insured institution. Should the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., be required to pay for these morning-after pills and birth control if they find that morally objectionable?”
In response, Pelosi said, “Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”
This is liberalism/progressivism in its purest and most undiluted form. It does, in fact, want to weaken and eventually replace civil society and expand the reach of the state even into the internal life of the church. And it no longer even attempts to disguise its aims.
The American people can’t say we don’t know what the end game here is.
True, but we should have known years ago when Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the country. But we still voted for him, big time. I hate to say it, but we deserve him. And lest you think this was a one time aberation that will be corrected in 2012, recall that we essentially voted for defeat in Iraq in 2006 by voting in Democrats who expressly wished for defeat. Maybe most of us want the country fundamentally transformed, or we have just changed as a nation and no longer care that much–it is just so damn cool to have a charismatic Black president who says everything we want to hear.
…or maybe the case is, we don't so much as *deserve* Obama, as he *reflects* our degraded national character. That's the crux of what has been bothering me since election night 2008. I've been fighting off for many months the thought that Obama & his political magicians know the American electorate far better than we do. I think there is exactly zero chance that Team O wagged this contraception dog without knowing ahead of time that they stood to win, and gain, politically.
the Obama administration is on clear record trying to dissolve church's and synagogues and mosques subsuming them into secular mores by their (so-far) failed attempt at the Supreme Court to challenge the ministerial exemption *within purely internal church functions* for the plethora of unending diversity and anti-discrimination regulations churned out by Leviathan and its administrative state. n nBut liberal Jews for social and class reasons cannot and will not see the danger, unfortunately.
besht2003- I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the most recent Supreme Court decision. nThere is solid reason to have all religious institutions respect various laws , especially if it has nothing to do with the doctrine of these institutions. As a matter of fact, they are subject to many laws- it just so happens that the Supreme Court gave a 'ministerial exception' in discrimination cases and expanded it to include employees who are not ministers. nSo, in spite of your many cogent postings, in this one, I respectfully disagree.
"There is solid reason to have all religious institutions respect various laws , especially if it has nothing to do with the doctrine of these institutions." n nWhat "solid reason(s)?" And, " if (it) has nothing to do with the doctrine of these institutions," would we be having this discussion? n
Wagging the dog. There are no economically sound arguments for linking health care to work!
You're right, but the system is established and well-entrenched. n nPersonally, I don't have a religious reason for opposing the contraception mandate. But I don't think that the government should be in the business of deciding what is and is not a valid religious objection to something. Moreover, the notion that health insurance should cover contraception at all is alien to the idea of insurance. Insurance is supposed to cover unpredictable and costly events, not ongoing foreseeable expenditures. Routine medical expenditures – including annual physicals, contraception and the like – should not be part of covered benefits; heart attacks, cancer, broken bones and the like are the events that require and should have insurance. Yes, I know, the mantra is that prevention saves money. Maybe so, but there is little actual economically sound evidence to support that contention. We should all see to our routine health needs in order to preserve our own health, i.e., take personal responsibility. n nThis "basic" benefit plan under Obamacare is going to end up being the Thing That Ate Detroit. Because there is nothing so expensive as that which is "free".
Love your last paragraph!
NO employer, or individual in any capacity, should be forced to provide any product – for free or at a price – by the Federal government. Any such action – of which there are admittedly many under current laws – is unconstitutional and violates our basic rights to individual liberty, property, and free trade. n nIt's something of a wonder, given how far Obama and cronies have pushed us in the direction of a totalitarian dictatorship (admittedly with plenty of acquiescence and sometimes active aid of Republicans), why there isn't a widespread movement calling for them all to be tried and imprisoned, or at least large general protests. No doubt, the public school system and media have done their jobs well over the past three generations softening up the hazy-thinking citizenry to tolerate just this sort of thing.