I still can't figure out how this Progressive gets theah from heah - Granite Grok

I still can’t figure out how this Progressive gets theah from heah

Let’s be clear – it seems that for Progressives, politics drives their very being, and they pursue avidly.  It fills their souls so much that they can’t begin to grok that when conservatives talk about religious values, progressives think that use of personal religion conscience is only a dodge from agreeing with something in the political realm.  They truly do not understand or accept that that conservatives really do refer to “religious values” being outside the political – they don’t care in their striving to have The State be the be all and end all of life.   EVERYTHING is political for Progressive – and they refuse to see otherwise or accept that for a lot of people, politics holds little value at all as their “managing principle”.

And so when Sally Kohn wrote this screed she called “When Religion and Liberty Collide” in the Daily Beast, several things came to mind as I read it.  However, to set the stage, what is the let’s stage for this fisking. The latest news is not so hot for Obamacare (and Zandra Rice-Hawkin’s claim that people just LOVE Obamacare) – Rasmussen:

  • 38%  – believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.
  • 51%  – employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage.
  • 11% are not sure.

I would be one of the…51% – Obamacare continues the Progressive process of making companies merely unowned (so far) entities of the State.  “Benefits” in the American economy used to be voluntary – it was whatever the owners wish to offer to entice good workers to work for them rather then someone else (either in addition to their wages (as in the Federal Government’s Price Control regime at the time) or in lieu of even higher wages).

However, Kohn believes that in her capacity of being an apologist for Obama and Obamacare, she logically claims that company owners are forcing “religion” down their employees throats when they deny them contraceptives and abortifacients.  Her Gordian Knot of nonsense attempts to make whole any Obamacare regulation be the fault, not of the legislators and political philosophy, of a theocratic uproar by those that are abusing their employees (emphasis mine in her text).

When Religion and Liberty Collide

How right-wing conservatives are using the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case on contraception to force their religious views on the nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

— First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

When early American settlers fled Europe to seek the shelter of new shores, the religious freedom for which they were searching had two components. Indeed, our founding fathers and mothers were pursuing freedom *of* religion—the freedom to practice whatever faith they chose, free from retribution or discrimination by the government or their fellow citizens.

That was true – the Pilgrims, in addition to being part of a commercial contract, were also seeking “asylum” from the State sponsored and demanded religion (e.g., Church of England in England, Lutheranism and other denominations in Germany et al, Catholic in others).  Others also came for that reason – to practice their beliefs without coercion.  And Kohn’s next paragraph is true – in part.

But the earliest of our national brethren were also motivated by freedom *from* religion. In the 1600s and 1700s, enforced uniformity of religion was common throughout Europe—an extension of the belief that there was one true religion and it was the job of government to enforce it. Persecution of religious minorities was common, whether it was Protestants persecuting Catholics or Catholics persecuting Protestants or both persecuting Mennonites. Yes, the settlers who came to America wanted to express their own religious beliefs, but an equal if not greater motivation was escaping the reality of religious tyranny embedded in government.

She conveniently leaves out that many of the colonies were also of the same mindset – how else to explain some of the Blue Laws that still exist?  There is a reason why the word “Puritanical” is still in use.  But this NEXT line completely ignores this

To put it mildly, our forbearers would be appalled by how right-wing conservatives are trying to use government to force their religious views on all of us.

Really??  I would make the opposite claim – that left-wing Progressive Socialists have already used Government to force their secular humanist views on us all.  I would point out that the Government that passed the Obamacare Law was completely owned by the Democrats – the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office.  Further it was the Democrat Progressive pink tinged HHS Secretary’s department that wrote the regulation that forces companies to include contraceptives and abortifacients into their health benefits (and now, making those benefits a GOVERNMENT MANDATE upon all companies above a relatively small size).

All Democrats and Socialists – not a single right-wing conservative amongst them.

So Progressives decided that their Morality would be codified into law – trumping that of the individuals.  Kohn actually pointed this out in the phrase “and it was the job of government to enforce it“. So, in trying to make the argument that it those of the Right causing the problem, she neatly encapsulates the raison d’etre for many coming to the New World in the first place – and correctly notes that it is now it is OUR Government now acting like the Old World Governments that our forebearers ran away from! 

And watch this next sleight of hand in her trying to switch the identity of the villains and starts the case that Secular and economic values should be the basis for all decisions:

Make no mistake, this is what Hobby Lobby wants to do—use government to push a conservative religious agenda. After all, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, signed by the President and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, which would among other things ensure that all health insurance plans in the United States offer basic levels of coverage, including coverage for contraception. That is a secular goal rooted in basic principles of public health as well as economics (that it is more cost effective to cover birth control than maternity care and pediatric care) not to mention a basic respect for a woman’s right to control her own reproductive choices. And the law provides for individual freedom *of* religion—individuals are, of course, free not to access contraception, and religious institutions are even exempted from contraception coverage requirements.

Yes, Obamacare was passed by using a technique that was ONLY supposed to be for budgetary purposes, after “bribing” certain Democrats to vote for it, getting no Republicans to vote for it at all, and found “Constitutional” only that a person can be taxed for NOT participating.  She accepts as a matter of secular and Progressive matter-of-fact that Government should now make formerly voluntary commerce mandatory and now make formerly voluntary benefits fall under the regulatory regime.

I really do think that her argument, both cutesy and lame, that birth control is a higher priority and goal than giving birth, as if being pregnant is a disease than a joyous occasion.

And then she tries to say that a woman should control her reproductive choice.  Nice to see, once again, the involuntary “all in – no choice” that HER freedom is at the expense of someone else’s loss of freedom.  And no, this is NOT “the price of civilization” in this context – this is the price we are going to pay for further going down that on-ramp of Tyranny where we are denied to make our own choice.  I have yet to figure out, in this all Progressive #WarOnFreedom, that Progressives just tritely ignore that little detail?  I am against abortion on pr inciple – a new life is separate from both the mother and the father from its DNA and upward.  I would allow for rape, incest and certainly for imminent the life of the mother for the “choice” of an abortion.  But why should I have to be forced to pay for that?  Why should I be forced, on traditional moral grounds (unless that is her intention, to trash MY values for her’s instead – which is a form of tyranny).

…And the law provides for individual freedom *of* religion—individuals are, of course, free not to access contraception,

Right – so “progressive” of her to grudgingly allow for a religious objection for someone NOT to use contraceptives (gee, such an improvement over the Communist Chinese law of one child families, Sally).  As I said at the top, here is the beginning of the case where Progressives like her do not wish to admit that “other than political” views are important – that to we of faith, being forced into this collusion IS a sin whether they OK that or not.  And she voids the First Amendment’s Free Expression clause – that her Progressive Morality Steamroller has free expression to flatten our Right to practice our religious beliefs as we see fit.  And like Obama (e.g., freedom of worship only in the 4 walls of your house of worship; hang your religious values at the door as you go outside), she wishes for Government to restrict where religion can practiced (“and religious institutions are even exempted from contraception coverage requirements”).

In essence, she is saying that your religious values in how you live your life, in the public square, are of no concern to Progressives.  In effect, they are ANTI-RELIGION (gee, who else said that last century??) and proud of it.  Their intent, her intent, is to not just redefine the role of God and religion in our lives, but to redefine that Government is God and that our values and Rights stem from Government.  Which should also mean, in this life and death scenario, in this Governmental sexual license trumps personal religious values, that we see her giving her assent to the continued subversion of the US Constitution.

Hobby Lobby wants to go one step further. This corporation, which already takes advantage of special government benefits by incorporating as a private business in the first place (entitling Hobby Lobby to tax benefits and liability shelters to which individuals alone are not entitled), wants to use its government-created corporate status with the help of government-run courts not just to express its religion on a poster or what have you but to force its employees to comply with the supposed religion of the corporation’s founders. This is, plain and simple, a corporation trying to contort government to impose the religious views of some onto many. This is precisely what our nation was founded against.

There is no special government benefits here – anyone can also set up their business just like the Hobby Lobby founders (and a whole raft of others).  This is merely the law that sets up proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, C Corps, non-profits, and other for-profit entities.  For her to claim this is, well stupid.  This part of her screed is simply another shot at the Citizens United decision concerning free speech.

But then she finally gets to the point of her piece – and it takes a long, long leap of logic to get one to agree with this:

  • but to force its employees to comply with the supposed religion of the corporation’s founders

Well, at least her Progressive self and philosophy is at play here: “supposed“?  In this piece on religious values, this is extremely insulting – who is SHE to say what is real or not?    What Progressives do not understand, or wish to accept, that values other than political ones drive most people.  In this, Kohn is showing a fascist side “Everything for the State and nothing outside of the State”).  It is, in her way, the use of Alinsky’s Rules – demonize the Other.  Put them in a negative light, make them the bad guys – taking advantage of their poor employees (her way of calling them idiots, btw).  And her last line is completely wrong:

  • This is precisely what our nation was founded against.

NO!  It was NEVER founded, as she tries the rabbit out of the hat scheme, to prevent corporations / businesses from subjecting their employees to ‘religion” – it was always  about the role of Government to coerce its citizens / subjects to believe in a given way.  Which, I believe, is what I believe this to be. The Obama Administration, along with the militant gays, IS in the process of forcing the Progressive secular religion, from its High Government perch, to do just by just shutting down all outlets now permitted in law – either via the Obamacare way or just ignoring them altogether.   This is the same argument that HHS Secretary Sebelius and “Advisor” Jarret have tried to make: it hasn’t been Obamacare that has thrown people out of their current healthcare plans, it was those evil insurance companies.  They completely deny that it was Obamacare’s new “essential” mandates that made all those plans illegal.

Conservatives want government out of the economy, despite the fact that even the godfather of capitalism Adam Smith argued that government plays a critical role in establishing the playing field for private markets and fixing inherent inequalities in capitalism. And yet right-wing conservatives paradoxically embrace government when it comes to imposing their religion on the rest of us—in the case of trying to ban abortion or limit access to contraception or pushing restrictions on same-sex marriage. Freedom *of* religion would allow secular civic institutions to recognize all families while leaving various religious institutions and individuals to have their personal views and act (or not act) accordingly. But right-wing conservatives want to go one step further and use government laws to impose their anti-gay views on the vast majority of Americans whose values tell us that all God’s creatures are created equal and should be treated equally.

Dunno if this is just accepted knowledge (…”but there is so much they think they know but they don’t”) but to claim that “Conservatives want government out of the economy” is wrong.  In fact, most Conservatives DO believe that Government DOES have a role – but unlike Progressives and Keynesians, nowhere the level to which it has grown.  Just like person internal governance is best when set with a strong moral core with a limited number of laws, the same goes for the economy.  We have flipped, or close to that tip point, where the Government now controls commerce – one only has to review the interminable number of laws and regulations that never seem to end to see how far we have come in Government micromanaging companies – in fact, her whole screed here is about one of these micro-points – that companies are now to be responsible to prepare women for their most intimate personal moments.  Why should companies be responsible for that micro-level of “caring” for their employees?

And I’m not even going to address the “inequalities of capitalism” other than to say “Of COURSE it is unequal as to outcomes”; how many people have the makeup of a Bill Gates, a Lady GaGa, a LeBron James, et al to earn their money? Are we to punish their excellence because of our ordinary mundaness?  It seems that way – and Obamacare is just one feature of the Progressives mad intentions to eliminate, not inequality of opportunity, but the inequality of outcome.  You should not have that large car, even if you can afford it.  You can’t use more electricity than others because others can’t afford what you can.

And for her other examples of “right-wing conservatives”, well, pretty much all of the things she mentions – abortion, gay marriage (Sally, you aren’t allowed to snippet the Bible to support your secular humanist views) – have been around since the country was founded; these are not recent ‘right-wing’ concepts or creations – prohibitions against those have been around for thousands of years.  The only societies that had gotten rid of them started out as amoral societies – Soviet Union, the Eastern bloc, China, Cuba – where Government was to be the idol to which every knee shall bow.

This desire to impose religion on others is even embedded within the constant desire on the part of many conservatives to critique and other-ize President Obama’s religion, simultaneously claiming he’s a Muslim while condemning his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In the right-wing political vision, religion isn’t a shining hill of pluralism but a dark cave of conformity in which all non-believers are condemned.

Just a quick question for Kohn – if Obama was as sincerely religious as she claims, why does he misquote the Bible and Constitution (and take them out of context)?  What drives him to not listen to those complaining about his religious oppression of their views – and simply go “yes, my bad”?  If he and his minions hadn’t decided to step on the religious values of others, this would never have happened.

Thomas Jefferson might not have been able to foresee gay marriage—the man didn’t even have enough democratic imagination to see the hypocrisy in his ownership of slaves—but you can be sure that he would be mortified to see any religious community in America try to use the government he and others created to impose religion on others.

And certainly, if he saw the actions of the Obama Government, and the rulings of its judges, he’d be aghast at its current imposition of a “godless religion” – a religion of Man.

In the groundbreaking 1947 Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court determined that the Bill of Rights applied to state governments as well as the federal government, Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another … in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ … That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

Ah yes, the Letter to the Danbury Baptists by implicit inclusion.  Well, that single mention of “separation of church and State” did speak to the Establishment clause and the Free Expression clause.  It NEVER meant, as many are trying know, to define Establishment as the total absence of religion from the public square.  It was never the abrogation of religious values simple because those values were taught in a church.  And never were they supposed to prevent we citizens from freely practicing our faith anywhere at any time – in our most intimate moments, in the privacy of our homes, out and about in the public square solely because it is collectively owned – and I don’t believe in the commerce sphere as well.  Religion is NOT, as Obama and Kohn would have us believe, only a Friday night, Saturday or Sunday morning activity.

REAL religious values are not religious at all – if truly believed, if truly internalized, they are no more a separate abstract from our being than breathing in a breath of fresh air.  In short, those values drive all else in regards to our behavior.  Taken this way, it is easy to see where the Obama Administration IS trying to bridge that gap from Government, crossing the Civil Society space, and right into our very souls.  It is nothing less than a crass political attempt to replace a God based belief system with a Progressive one.

It is no less perverse than King Nebuchadnezzar’s attempt to bend the religious faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to himself and his values – and away from their God.

The “separation between church and State” which Jefferson articulated and the Supreme Court affirmed wasn’t just about freedom *of* religion—the state leaving churches and the individuals within them free to express whatever religion they desired. There was the other side of the coin, too —freedom *from* religion, freedom from the state passing laws to aid one religion or any religion or prefer one over another, and by natural extension, freedom from anyone using government to impose their religious views on anyone else. Freedom *from* religion is at the core of our nation’s founding and is the essence of our laws and practices ever since. Right-wing conservatives professing to uphold and impose traditional values in America are perversely undermining the values on which America was founded.

No, that holding, that we were founded on the idea of “freedom *from* religion” is risible but is now in wider usage – that a subset of citizens should be protected from the rest of us expressing our sense of faith (re: creches on public lands for Christmas).  Any little jot or tittle is to be fought with all their might – for our right to practice our religion should never trump their sense of a religion “nullness”.  Yet, in their striving, they have all the affects of a religious zealot in going after what they consider to be anathema (especially since “atheist churches” have sprung up – I yet have come up with a reasonable idea of how they’d be any different than a country club (er, without the golf?)?)

No, saying that our founding was built on the idea of “freedom *from* religion” goes against all actual history.  And I would challenge her, based on our law’s foundation of Judeo-Christian beliefs, to show me where our laws are not.  Would this mean that none of our laws could be based on any of the concepts enumerated in the Ten Commandments – silly as it seems, does that mean we can lie, cheat, commit adultery, and even kill without consequence?  I could EASILY extrapolate that if she really wants us to be “freedom *from* religion” that I would be free from those strictures, else I can claim that HER law DOES stem from a religion.

And that would be as stupid as her claim that Hobby Lobby is forcing its founders religion on its employees (which, she fails to mention, can voluntarily leave at any time) via the manipulation of a “Constitutional” law.

>