Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Baptist Leader: If Obama Mandate isn't changed, Christians will go to jail.
LiteSiteNews ^ | February 8, 2012 | Ben Johnson

Posted on 02/10/2012 7:05:58 AM PST by no dems

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, February 8, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) — One of the most influential evangelical leaders in the United States says Christians should go to jail rather than comply with the Obama administration’s mandate to provide all contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their health care plans.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), told LifeSiteNews.com "we will not comply" with the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring religious institutions to cover abortifacient products such as Plan B, Ella, and the IUD.

"We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail," Dr. Land said.

Dr. Land wrote an op-ed on Tuesday with Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research at ERLC, calling his fellow Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians throughout America to oppose any infringement on the First Amendment.

(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: christians; hhsmandate; mandate; obamacare; persecution
....calling his fellow Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians throughout America to oppose any infringement on the First Amendment. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That's what it's all about. It's not about a "woman's right to choose". It's about infringement on the First Amendment. The Catholic Church today; who tomorrow? Latter Day Saints (Mormon)? Baptists? Pentecostal/Charismatic?

1 posted on 02/10/2012 7:06:07 AM PST by no dems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: no dems

How “true” Christians could vote for Obozo in the first place was/is a mystery to me. Now, after this, how can any true Christian believer vote for B. Hussein Obama?


2 posted on 02/10/2012 7:07:56 AM PST by no dems (I'm more concerned with America's future than I am Newt's past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Has anyone taken a moment to think that if the gov starts accommodating Christians now, what will they accommodate for islam tomorrow? We gotta be careful here folks.


3 posted on 02/10/2012 7:12:49 AM PST by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Drudge headline...sorry

WH CAVES: OBAMA TO ANNOUNCE ‘ACCOMMODATION’ ON CONTRACEPTION RULE...

So you see, this settles it. He can make ‘accommodations’ and still get what he wants. Just like the waivers he allowed some.


4 posted on 02/10/2012 7:16:41 AM PST by TribalPrincess2U (NOT VOTING gets 0bamao re-elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

This will prove to be a suicidal roll of the dice by the Obama Administration, as I thought it was from the beginning.
THis goes way beyond “tone-deafness”,even though in the final analysis it will LOSE Obama more votes than anything else his
Administration has done. And its not just “true Christian believers” who are profoundly turned off by this blatant overreach of Federal power, it’s potentially millions of others. I’d be very surprised NOT to see the Administration
reverse itself on this, claiming it didn’t foresee the enroachment on religious freedom. I hope by the time that happens, the damage will already have been done and they won’t be able to recover from it.
This ONE example of “who they are” will do more damage to them than ANYTHING. THey have really stepped in it.


5 posted on 02/10/2012 7:22:13 AM PST by supremedoctrine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

This is NOT about separation of church and state. It is a bout our freedom from government mandates steeping on our first amendment rights. As much as I hate Islam, they have religious freedom in the USA and I would fight to the death for it.


6 posted on 02/10/2012 7:23:17 AM PST by Coldwater Creek (He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty Psalm 91:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Catholics and Protestants are leading the charge here.
Has anyone heard anything from Romney and the SLC lds?
We know that Romney required the same under his heath care legislation, which is probably why he isn’t saying anything but the leadership of SLC lds being quiet.
Just wondering.
BHO may have had a plan, but he has stepped in big time......


7 posted on 02/10/2012 7:25:32 AM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

And....what waivers will he give the Muslim community? Or has he already done this?


8 posted on 02/10/2012 7:27:21 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: no dems
Baptist Leader: If Obama Mandate isn't changed, Christians will go to jail.

While I admire this guys fervor, and certainly am against this as strongly as anybody. I'm not sure I understand how anybody can go to jail under this. It's my understanding that what the mandate does is force all insurance policies to pay for birth control. Therefore if all policies must pay for birth control by law, the organization (say the Catholic Church) would simply no longer be able to provide health insurance to their employees (because they refuse to purchase any policy with birth control). Then under Obamacare, all the individual employees of that organization would be dumped into one of the state exchanges where they could purchase insurance or if they didn't, get hit with the fines from the IRS. I assume somewhere down the road, if they didn't pay the fines they could go to jail, but more likely, the IRS would just garnish their wages or levy assets for that amount. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

9 posted on 02/10/2012 7:28:04 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Civil Disobedience


10 posted on 02/10/2012 7:30:30 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

How many Christians already pay for insurance through their workplaces? How many of them are out protesting or refusing their employer provided coverage? Hubby once worked for a hospital/insurance conglomerate that was named after a popular Christian denomination. But I didn’t see that their policies were all that religious.

I guess my point here is that you don’t hear about Catholics who have employer provided coverage complaining that they are helping to pay for abortions and birth control of other employees. Can Catholics or Baptists or whomever deny their employer provided coverage and become a part of a Church insurance policy?


11 posted on 02/10/2012 7:31:26 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

People need to start understanding that this President doesn’t make accommodations to us. We make accommodations to him.


12 posted on 02/10/2012 7:33:11 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

What business owners or corporate boards do with insurance coverage for their employees is their business. Once again: The Point Is infringement on the First Amendment Rights of people of faith. What the owner of a machine shop does is up to him. But, for the government to force a church to go against it’s doctrinal tenets is unConstitutional.


13 posted on 02/10/2012 7:38:03 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RC2
I'm in a hurry this morning...Another headline will explain that...

>ObamaCare Architect: Catholic Institutions Should Provide Birth Control as 'Moral Imperative' to Stop Population Growth...<

All except muslims?

14 posted on 02/10/2012 7:42:27 AM PST by TribalPrincess2U (NOT VOTING gets 0bamao re-elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

Well, Islam is covered by the First Amendment just as much as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology...... Besides, do you think our Marxist Muslim President will infringe on the rights of Muslims? He did NOT acknowledge National Day of Prayer but he made a big deal over a decree of “well wishes” to the Muslims of America during Ramadan.


15 posted on 02/10/2012 7:43:29 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: no dems

But it does include all of those entities now, its just that Catholicism is up front and center on this because of their contraception stand... even if Catholics’ view on contraception was like most other people’s the issue, hopefully would be the same, infringement on the first amendment.


16 posted on 02/10/2012 7:44:45 AM PST by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

Get rid of illegals and you cut the population by 20 million. How many lettuce pickers do we need?


17 posted on 02/10/2012 7:45:10 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: no dems

I agree with you that this is a separate issue. I just was wondering how Christians with consciences deal with this issue. It’s bothered me for years.


18 posted on 02/10/2012 7:45:26 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine

in the final analysis it will LOSE Obama more votes than anything else his Administration has done.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I think you’re correct. The “choice” folks would vote for him no matter what. But, hopefully, this will open the eyes of many people in America who still feel that the First Amendment must be protected and they will NOT make the mistake of voting for Obama again.


19 posted on 02/10/2012 7:47:19 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: svcw; All
Has anyone heard anything from Romney and the SLC lds? We know that Romney required the same under his heath care legislation, which is probably why he isn’t saying anything but the leadership of SLC lds being quiet.

Glen Beck, who is a member of the LDS Church is livid over this. Romney says he vetoed that aspect of RomneyCare in MA. But, what he doesn't tell you is that the MA Legislature overrode his veto and it is still law today. Thanks Mittens.
20 posted on 02/10/2012 7:51:06 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: apillar

I think that any Denomination could word their insurance policy the way they want. They could add an Amendment or Addendum to their policy making this part of it an “Exception”. (All insurance policies have “Exceptions”) Then the fecal material will hit the fan as we watch to see how far is the Obama Administration is willing to take this thing.


21 posted on 02/10/2012 7:55:21 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: no dems
It's time for ALL CHRISTIANS, to stand up together against the the muslim would-be dictator!
22 posted on 02/10/2012 7:55:21 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

I wouldn’t beleive anything Romney says about anything let alone this issue.
I meant the lds leadership, not a talk show guy.
Not read anything coming from them as from other groups.


23 posted on 02/10/2012 7:58:44 AM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: supremedoctrine
Maybe he's gone too far this time. His social/religious/moral policies have always seemed to me to be many times worse than his purely economic and foreign affairs actions.
24 posted on 02/10/2012 7:59:08 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: petitfour
I just was wondering how Christians with consciences deal with this issue. It’s bothered me for years. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Trust me; I understand that. What bothers me is how people can go to church on Sunday to sing, shout, clap, dance and Praise The Lord, and then go into the voting booth on Tuesday and vote for a person and a Party that espouses same sex marriage and the killing of little babies.
25 posted on 02/10/2012 8:00:10 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: no dems; apillar
It's my understanding that what the mandate does is force all insurance policies to pay for birth control. Therefore if all policies must pay for birth control by law, the organization (say the Catholic Church) would simply no longer be able to provide health insurance to their employees (because they refuse to purchase any policy with birth control).

I think that any Denomination could word their insurance policy the way they want. They could add an Amendment or Addendum to their policy making this part of it an “Exception”. (All insurance policies have “Exceptions”)

Would an insurer be legally permitted to enter into a contract with an exception that excluded birth control?

26 posted on 02/10/2012 8:01:16 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: no dems
What business owners or corporate boards do with insurance coverage for their employees is their business. Once again: The Point Is infringement on the First Amendment Rights of people of faith. What the owner of a machine shop does is up to him. But, for the government to force a church to go against it’s doctrinal tenets is unConstitutional.

The question (or argument) I have not read yet is what about the right of the individual in regards to freedom of religion?

Isn't it just as unconstitutional for an individual who does not work for a religious organization if they are forced to pay for a policy (from an employer or government entity) that goes against their doctrinal tenants?

27 posted on 02/10/2012 8:02:06 AM PST by KittenClaws (A closed mouth gathers no foot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: no dems
What bothers me is how people can go to church on Sunday to sing, shout, clap, dance and Praise The Lord, and then go into the voting booth on Tuesday and vote for a person and a Party that espouses same sex marriage and the killing of little babies.

Perhaps they believe that their observance on Sunday whitewashes the sin they commit on Tuesday...in any event, "I NEVER knew you..."

28 posted on 02/10/2012 8:03:14 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Oh, my bad. No; I’ve not heard anything from the LDS Leadership and probably no one else has either. Since Romney has become a prominent figure in America, I have found that Mormons (LDS) are not above lying, and being being dishonest and two-faced. I thought all Mormons were honorable people. I found out differently. Like Black Religious Leaders, the LDS leadership will probably turn their head and keep their mouth shut to get one of their own in the White House.


29 posted on 02/10/2012 8:06:12 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: no dems

No problems and yo are correct about the lying.


30 posted on 02/10/2012 8:08:37 AM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: no dems

islam already has an exemption in obamaCare. There is some clause called (religious exclusion or something like that) except they are the only ones who can use it.


31 posted on 02/10/2012 8:11:36 AM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All

This issue changes the dynamic of the GOP nomination significantly if it continues, which seems likely. Uhbamuh will accommodate as liberals always accommodate, by changing the wording slightly while demanding the same thing. If Catholics are actually paying attention, they will not be fooled and since we know Uhbamuh will never get rid of something he really wants, this could be an issue in November. And Santorum may be best positioned to carry that fight into the fall.


32 posted on 02/10/2012 8:14:11 AM PST by WillVoteForFood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: no dems
What its about is rail splitting; drive a wedge between women and the church!

Obama is loathesome.

Its now time for a litmus test:

Are you a democrat or are you a Christian?

Are you a democrat or are you an American?

33 posted on 02/10/2012 8:34:18 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pietro

When I find out that someone is a Democrat, I immediately lose respect for them.


34 posted on 02/10/2012 8:51:40 AM PST by no dems (Rick Santorum: The only viable alternative to Obama that we have left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; no dems

And a few hours after I posted, what do I see?
Obama has “relented” a little, and accomodated on this issue.
They will throw ANYTHING against the wall, and hope the wall is wet enough so that it will stick.
Didn’t stick this time, Barry, and you just lost the election.
REPUBLICANS-—do not let go of this issue.
Keep mentioning it, and mentioning how many are turned off by
the Bama Agenda, and WHY.


35 posted on 02/10/2012 1:29:24 PM PST by supremedoctrine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: apillar

This happened to the Recusants in England under Henry VIII. It can happen 2 ways:

1) You can’t comply so you pay the fine. The government keeps increasing the fine til you can’t pay it anymore, and everyone is afraid to speak up lest it happen to them; so they slap you in jail to rot. Or concentration camp like Hitler did.

2) You choose neither to buy the coverage nor pay the fine. The men in black show up in the middle of the night and you say bye bye to your house-cat on the way out the door not to return for the foreseeable future.

Really, there might be 3 ways:

3) Piss off Obama because he thinks he’s king now. And the men in black show up and ...... your house-cat doesn’t have time to kiss you goodbye in this case.


36 posted on 02/12/2012 1:25:58 AM PST by michigancatholic (How Catholicism Became Cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

No that’s the whole point of the HHS mandate. Catch up!


37 posted on 02/12/2012 1:29:22 AM PST by michigancatholic (How Catholicism Became Cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

BTW, this provides not only birth control of various kinds but also abortion, sterilization and the morning after (OOPS WAS I DRUNK?) pill.


38 posted on 02/12/2012 1:31:12 AM PST by michigancatholic (How Catholicism Became Cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: svcw

See. Achmed is covered by the usual policy.


39 posted on 02/12/2012 1:33:41 AM PST by michigancatholic (How Catholicism Became Cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: svcw

See. Achmed is covered by the usual policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go


40 posted on 02/12/2012 1:34:05 AM PST by michigancatholic (How Catholicism Became Cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: michigancatholic
It's my understanding that what the mandate does is force all insurance policies to pay for birth control. Therefore if all policies must pay for birth control by law, the organization (say the Catholic Church) would simply no longer be able to provide health insurance to their employees (because they refuse to purchase any policy with birth control).

I think that any Denomination could word their insurance policy the way they want. They could add an Amendment or Addendum to their policy making this part of it an “Exception”. (All insurance policies have “Exceptions”)

Would an insurer be legally permitted to enter into a contract with an exception that excluded birth control?

No that’s the whole point of the HHS mandate.

That's what I assumed.

Catch up!

If you must be snarky, your remark would be better directed at nodems. Catch up yourself.

41 posted on 02/13/2012 11:44:32 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
What? Christians aren't seeking "accommodation," we're demanding our Constitutional rights. Free exercise of religion, that's not an option or an accommodation.
42 posted on 02/13/2012 11:56:54 AM PST by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson