Supreme Court Takes Up Obamacare Lawsuit Over Birth Control Mandate - America's Newsroom

(NYT) Crying Wolf on Religious Freedom

Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty
Editorial Board
March 22, 2014


This week, the owners of two secular, for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees — by refusing to permit them contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court has consistently resisted claims for religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and apply broadly when the exemptions would significantly harm other people, as this one would. To approve it would flout the First Amendment, which forbids government from favoring one religion over another — or over nonbelievers.

The showdown will take place Tuesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments on two consolidated challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The owners of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker, want to be exempted from the sound requirement that employer health plans cover without a co-payment all birth control methods and services approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

There are several reasons why the court should find that the law does not apply, starting with the fact that secular, for-profit corporations are not “persons” capable of prayer or other religious behavior, which is a quintessentially human activity. Also, as an amicus brief filed by corporate law scholars persuasively argues, granting the religious exemption to the owners would mean allowing shareholders to pass their religious values to the corporation. The fundamental principle of corporate law is a corporation’s existence as a legal entity with rights and obligations separate from those of its shareholders.

The claim that the contraception coverage rules put a “substantial burden” on religious exercise is very weak. The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose and to argue (incorrectly) as much as they want that some of the contraceptive drugs and devices on the F.D.A.’s list actually induce abortions. If an employee decides to use an insurance plan for such contraceptives, that would be a personal decision. It does not burden religious exercise.

For the rest, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/crying-wolf-on-religious-liberty.html?hp&rref=opinion

Mr. (Dr. Prof.) Robert Louis Wilken on First Documents that Examined Religious Freedom, Indulgence & Clemency

December 14, 2012 | Political turbulence in the Middle East poses a grave threat to some of the oldest and most vibrant Christian communities in the world. Within the West, debates about the roots of freedom have often sidestepped the contributions of Christians and Christian ideas. Against this backdrop, the Religious Freedom Project launched a major initiative on "Christianity and Freedom: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives," a two-year exploration of Christianity's contributions to the construction and diffusion of freedom in its political, religious, and economic dimensions, in interaction with other religious traditions and secular ideas and institutions. Robert Louis Wilken is a Distinguished Fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and William R. Kenan, Jr.


Professor of the History of Christianity Emeritus at the University of Virginia. Wilken is the author of ten books, including The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God (2005), Remembering the Christian Past (1995), and The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (2003). He received his PhD from the University of Chicago, and has taught at Gregorian University, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of Notre Dame, Fordham University, and Lutheran Theological Seminary.

So why isn’t a publisher of Bibles eligible for a religious exemption from HHS?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329655/obama-s-bible-issue-kathryn-jean-lopez

 

October 8, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Obama’s Bible Issue 

 

So why isn’t a publisher of Bibles eligible for a religious exemption from HHS?

 

By Kathryn Jean Lopez

 

‘Tyndale was left with no alternative but to go to court,” explains Mark D. Taylor, president and CEO of Tyndale House Publishers. On the day before the first presidential debate, the company, which Taylor’s parents started when he was eleven years old, filed the 31st lawsuit over the Department of Health and Human Services’ abortion-drug, sterilization, and contraception mandate.

 

Tyndale publishes Bibles. But that doesn’t make it a religious endeavor. Not in the federal government’s book. Not as of August 1, anyway. That was the day that the HHS mandate — a regulation further defining the health-care legislation that then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was right to tell us Congress would be passing before anyone knew what it actually contained — went into effect. Family businesses like Tyndale — which happen to be run by religious folk who want to live their lives true to what they believe — don’t qualify for any kind of “accommodation” or exemption.

“The law does not give any religious-freedom exemption to faith-based operations like Tyndale,” Taylor, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, points out. “Instead, it imposes crushing fines on employers who are doing nothing more than following their consciences against abortion-inducing pills. The government is supposed to promote conscience protection, not attack it. The best solution is for Congress or the administration to respect the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by eliminating the abortion-pill mandate. But if they refuse to do their duty, we hope the courts will rule that the mandate is unlawful.”

Tyndale, Taylor says, has always existed “for an explicitly religious purpose — to publish the Bible and other Christian publications, and direct the proceeds to ministry and charity.” And this is quite evident from a visit to Tyndale’ s website or to the religion section of most bookstores.

“The government’s policy that publishing the Bible is not a religious activity is disconnected from reality,” he says, echoing conversations I’ve had with other plaintiffs in recent months, including the president of the evangelical Wheaton College, who — like most Americans — wasn’t particularly animated on the issue of religious liberty until he realized how fragile our liberties are if we’re not vigilant. “Never before has the federal government had the nerve to insist that all for-profit businesses are purely secular and cannot have a religious purpose,” Taylor continues. “Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: The federal government is not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

The mandate became a practical issue for Tyndale on October 1, the first day of the plan year for the company’s health insurance. (Most companies’ plans start in January, or we’d be seeing right now more injunction requests like the ones filed by Tyndale and by the Hercules HVAC company in Denver, a business run by a Catholic family.) “Out of our religious conscience we have chosen not to comply with aspects of the mandate that promote abortion-inducing pills,” Taylor explains. “But no organization could deal with the crippling, draconian financial and legal penalties on faith that this mandate imposes” — fines of $100 per day per employee. “That is why Tyndale was left with no alternative but to go to court.”

Despite the cogent explanations of people like Taylor, the Department of Justice has been arguing (for example, in pushing back against Hercules in court) that Americans surrender their religious liberty when they choose to participate in “the marketplace of commerce” as employers. And a judge in Missouri has announced in the case of another Catholic business owner, Frank O’Brien, that the HHS mandate is not a religious-liberty violation because O’Brien “is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion.” That’s a pretty restrictive view of religious liberty.

Taylor is not deterred by the Missouri ruling or the administration’s posture. “The Obama administration is simply wrong to argue that one’s faith may be exercised only in private or in churches. We are confident that courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, will uphold and affirm our God-given religious freedom,” Taylor says.

When, in the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney was asked what his idea of the role of government was, he replied: “The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people.” These are not new ideas for Romney. He has brought up religious liberty many times over the years — on the campaign trail, in speeches, and in campaign commercials. When he first ran in the 2008 Republican primaries, he addressed the issue of “Faith in America” in depth, remembering that our first president considered religion the “indispensable support” for the health of the republic, and pointing out our obligation to protect religious freedom as the first freedom, provided by God, not the government.

The Tyndale case is a reminder of why this is not just talk. The current administration has taken steps that are eroding Americans’ religious freedom. And that ought to be a concern for all of us, regardless of whether or not we’re Bible readers.

“According to the Declaration of Independence,” Taylor reminds us, echoing the Republican presidential candidate, “the role of government is to secure for the people those freedoms endowed to us by our Creator. The Bill of Rights enumerates many of those freedoms, including religious liberty. I would hope voters would evaluate whether the present administration is defending freedom or trampling on it.” If they do, their electoral choice will be clear. This is about more than party politics. It’s about foundations: Tyndale’s, and ours as citizen stewards of liberty.

— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online. This column is available exclusively through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association.

inShare0

Bp. Jackson (Harvard Law Grad): Obama's Contempt for Religious Freedom

http://newsninja2012.com/bishop-e-w-jackson-sr-at-aim-conference-obamas-contempt-for-religious-freedom/

Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr. at AIM Conference: Obama’s Contempt for Religious Freedom

 

September 29, 2012 Accuracy In Media

In remarks to the AIM conference, “ObamaNation: A Day of Truth,” on September 21st, Bishop Earl Walker Jackson Sr. said that Barack Obama has launched an ”assault on religious liberty” and that we are being led by people “who don’t respect the constitution.”



Bishop Jackson was a Republican Party primary candidate for the United States Senate in Virginia in the 2012 election. He is the founder and current president of S.T.A.N.D. (Staying True To America’s National Destiny), a conservative non-profit organization dedicated to restoring America’s Judeo-Christian ethics. He is head pastor at Exodus Faith Ministries, located in Chesapeake,VA.

In an impassioned address, Bishop Jackson argued that the mainstream media, in lockstep with Barack Obama, is determined to undermine the tradition that our rights as Americans come from God, and not from the government. Referring to the fact that Obamacare forces Catholic religious institutions to violate their own religious beliefs by providing insurance coverage for contraception,Jacksonsaid that Barack Obama will “give you one year to change your conscience.”

Update: Pastor Files Defamation Suits Against Former Parishioner-Blogger

Beaverton Grace Bible Church, Oregon

          Yesterday, we covered the developing story of an Oregon Pastor, Chuck O'Neal, of Beaverton Grace Bible Church, who filed a defamation suit against a former parishioner who blogged about the Pastor’s and church’s issues—unfavorably blogging about them.  We would like to get the pleadings of the Pastor.  We'd like to add it to growing binders consisting of state and federal cases pertaining to the First Amendment.  There is an entire progeny of cases on the First Amendment. We are predicting that O'Neal will end up with egg on his face and that this case will die in the cradle of preliminary skirmishings.

          Here’s our media roundup at:          

“News Roundup: Pastor Files Defamation Suit Against Former, Blogging Parishioner” at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/news-roundup-pastor-files-defamation.html and

“1st Amendment, Blogging, and Pastor O'Neal's Lawsuit Against Former Blogging-Parishioners” at http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/1st-amendment-blogging-and-pastor.html.   

          A subplot in the larger story is that Chuck O’Neal allegedly received pastoral support and advice from a Pastor on staff with John MacArthur’s community.  Allegedly, one of MacArthur’s Pastors counseled O’Neal to lodge the suit.  Dee at The Wartburg Watch raised the main narrative, but also this subplot about MacArthur’s involvement was involved.  Dee had communications with Phil Johnson, an assistant to MacArthur.

          On one level, Phil Johnson disavows involvement of MacArthur’s people with Rev. Chuck O’Neal and Beaverton Church.  Here’s Dee’s post at: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/05/15/phil-johnson-responds-for-john-macarthur-and-grace-community-church/

Phil Johnson Responds for John MacArthur and Grace Community Church

Tue, May 15 2012

By dee

I emailed Phil Johnson this morning. He promptly responded with the following statement.

---

"In a story currently circulating on the Internet, a claim is being made that the elders of Grace Community Church (John MacArthur, Pastor) advised a church in another state to file a defamation lawsuit against a former member.

For the record, we would not approve of such a lawsuit, for multiple reasons.

'First, Scripture expressly teaches that it is better to be defrauded than to take a fellow Christian to court: "Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? . . . It is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" (1 Corinthians 6:7). Here is what John MacArthur says about that passage:

Christians who take fellow Christians to court lose spiritually before the case is heard. The fact that they have lawsuits at all is a sign of moral and spiritual defeat (hettema, a word used of defeat in court). A believer who takes a fellow believer to court for any reason always loses the case in God's sight. He has already suffered a spiritual defeat. He is selfish, and he discredits the power, wisdom, and work of God, when he tries to get what he wants through the judgment of unbelievers.

The right attitude of a Christian is to rather be wronged, to rather be defrauded, than to sue a fellow Christian. It is far better to lose financially than to lose spiritually. Even when we are clearly in the legal right, we do not have the moral and spiritual right to insist on our legal right in a public court. . . .

. . . If we cannot convince the brother to make things right, and if he will not listen to fellow believers, we are better off to suffer the loss or the injustice than to bring a lawsuit against him. "Do not resist him who is evil," Jesus commanded, "but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also" (Matt. 5:39-40). Contrary to the world's standard, it is better to be sued and lose than to sue and win. Spiritually, it is impossible for a Christian to sue and win. When we are deprived wrongfully we are to cast ourselves on the care of God, who is able to work that for our good and His glory. [The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Chicago: Moody, 1984), 139-40.]

Second, Jesus was very clear about what Christians should do even when we are vilified by unbelievers: "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad" (Matthew 5:11-12). "Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also" (vv. 39-40).

That is our official position, and it is not merely theoretical. Having been at times targets of malicious slander in various gossip-forums on the Internet, we do appreciate the frustration of dealing with relentless character assassination.

But the example we were given to follow by Christ Himself deals with exactly such situations: "While being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously" (1 Peter 2:23).

Phil Johnson - Elder, Grace Community Church

---

Phil also told us in the email that they hope to speak with Chuck O'Neal this AM. They attempted to contact him yesterday but were unable to leave a message in the voice mailbox which was full. I, too had the same experience yesterday.

We are gratified that Grace Community Church handled this matter with the expediency and the concern it deserves.

Once again, we are grateful for folks like Julie Anne who stand tall in the face of intimidation. We believe that the Lord will honor her for her courage in confronting the apparent lack of grace and love in her former church.

Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling: Hosana-Tabor v. EEOC

http://reformedforum.org/ctc219/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ReformedForum+%28Reformed+Forum%29

The State and Religious Liberty

Today we welcome Dr. David Skeel and James Sweet to speak about recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that impact the church. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC was a recent case that raised several important questions. Oyez.org asks, “Does the ministerial exception, which prohibits most employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions, apply to a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches the full secular curriculum, but also teaches daily religion classes, is a commissioned minister, and regularly leads students in prayer and worship?” Our guests discuss the decision and explain its significance for Christians.

David Skeel is the S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Pennsylvania and an elder at Tenth Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Philadelphia. He has written an op-ed on the case for the Wall Street Journal. James Sweet is counsel and Director of Special Projects for Westminster Theological Seminary and former chairman of Drinker, Biddle, and Reath.