Skip to comments.DOJ Argues against Religious Exemption from Obamacare Mandate
Posted on 09/08/2012 12:43:59 PM PDT by John Semmens
The Thomas More Law Centers lawsuit on behalf of Legatus, the nations largest organization of top Catholic business leaders was sharply challenged by Department of Justice lawyers. The lawsuit is seeking a religious exemption from being required to fund the birth control and abortion services dictated by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
DOJ attorney, Stuart Delery argued that the claimed freedom of religion infringement is without merit. The plaintiffs remain as free as ever to attend the church of their choice and to personally adhere to whatever dogma they choose to believe. What they are not free to do is refuse to pay for the medical treatments that the government has declared their employees are entitled to receive.
Delery said a careful reading of the Constitution finds no clause that restricts the governments right to implement the health care regulations it deems warranted. On the contrary, the very first sentence of the document instructs the government to promote the general welfare.
The DOJ lawyer also contended that the plaintiffs case fails even within the context of their own religious tenets. Jesus, their religions guiding light, bade his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Is not the money they object to paying for the mandated health services clearly Caesars? Isnt it the US Government that issues the money, regulates its value, and directs how it may lawfully be used?
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
john..........darn....i ate it up....now I’m spitting it out. Kudos!!
Then the Muslims have to follow it as well?
So now the U.S. government is teaching the Church what it’s doctrine is?
Whoa, ya almost got me again.
Sad, isn’t it, when satire is soooo close to reality, one always has to check for the “satire” keyword!
John, you have an uncanny ability to turn your writings into “reality”!!
render unto Caesar what is Caesars.
And render unto God what is “In God We Trust”.
Why is this sarcasm.
Islam bombed America and won.
In 1983, in 1993, and in 2001.
Congress got on its knees and gave up,
giving Islam exemption from ObamaCARE as
the pOTUS began plans with al Qaeda
for the destruction of America and Israel.
And Congress remained on their knees.
What an outrageous statement. The above argument is essentially that you can believe your religion, but you can not exercise your beliefs. It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The constitution does not say you have the right to believe your religion, it says you have a right to the "free exercise" of it. Any law that makes you incapable of freely exercising your religious beliefs is thus utterly unconstitutional, and consequently, null and void. If you can't freely live your religion you don't have the right to the "free exercise" thereof.
The last part of the lawyers statement is also frightening. He says:
What they are not free to do is refuse to pay for the medical treatments that the government has declared their employees are entitled to receive.
So what DOJ is arguing is that if you must choose between obeying God or the government, then you must choose to obey the government....
. Hmmm...sure sounds like the free exercise of religion to me. What a communist utopia the administration is making the US into!
are we really all that far from it now?
Oh, this is satire? You got me. It sounds just like the things that the Obama Administration has argued in court before. This article is indeed uncannily realistic. It might even become a real news story in the near future.
Of course not. Maobama has instructed an exemption for the Mohammedans to everything he imposes upon Christians and Orthodox Jews.
Please do not Ping me with semi Satire BS. Thank you.
Super job, John. Thanks again for the ping.
In other words, GOVERNMENT IS A RELIGION, and people who have a religious faith in government are practicing that religion.
The clause refers clearly to the welfare of the United States. If the framers meant to refer to the people, they would have used the word people, just as they did in the first amendment.
You must have vast knowledge of the political world to be able to write satire in such an excellent manner.
Thanks for the ping!
Dammit John - I nearly bit through my tongue before I noticed it was your work. Let’s pray Obama loses and the Dims take a trouncing in both Houses lest you have to drop “satire” from the description...
Good one, John.
John, this is the closest you’ve come to actual facts IMHO. Thanx for the post!
Good one John. Thanks for the ping.
a careful reading of the Constitution finds no clause that restricts the governments right to implement the health care regulations it deems warranted. On the contrary, the very first sentence of the document instructs the government to promote the general welfare.
Not true. The powers of the federal government are “enumerated”, meaning if a power isn’t specified, it belongs to the States and to the People.
For a an excellent and clear exposition of what really comprises constitutionality, see http://www.americanclarion.com/11714/2012/08/27/god-given-rights-man-made-anti-rights-safety-nets-immoral/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.