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

Skip to comments.

The Wait Is Over: Supreme Court Ruling Emboldens Us to Continue to Carry On
LCMS.org ^ | June 30, 2014 | Rev. Matthew C. Harrison

Posted on 07/01/2014 4:47:41 AM PDT by rhema

Two years ago, I sat on a panel before Congress, testifying to the importance of religious liberty in America today.

It seems like a long time ago.

Since then, we have seen and heard a steady stream of news, from the church and the culture, about the Health and Human Services’ mandate and the Affordable Care Act, abortifacients and the conscience, religious freedoms and what this means for women.

Thankfully, the wait is over. The Supreme Court has ruled, and the verdict is in: In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious liberty, specifically in regard to closely held corporations (those with a small number of shareholders and offering no public stock, such as corporations that are family-owned, not operated by boards).

While we rejoice in this strong upholding of religious freedom, this decision does not signal an end to this discussion. It simply emboldens us carry on, doing what we do best as Christians: praying, confessing the faith and living it out in our daily callings.

We pray that Americans, whose consciences are burdened because they have been forced to violate their religious beliefs, would know God’s comfort and forgiveness.

We confess that life, which begins at conception, is a gift from God and ought to be held in the highest regard in this country.

We live, knowing that the First Amendment guarantees us not only the right to worship, but also to practice our faith as Lutheran citizens of this great nation, serving our neighbor where the Lord has placed us.

We do all of this, even as we rejoice with the Greens of Hobby Lobby, with the Hahns of Conestoga Wood Specialties and with our millions of brothers and sisters in the United States who believe just as strongly in the religious liberties guaranteed in our Constitution.

Today we are thankful for this step toward maintaining the integrity of our religious freedoms inherent in the First Amendment, but we will also remain ever mindful. The issue is and will continue to be purely and simply about religious freedom.

And so we pray. We confess. We live.

“We fought for a free conscience in this country,” I told the committee two years ago, “and we won’t give it up without a fight.”

I meant that, and I pray you do too.

The Rev. Matthew C. Harrison
President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholic; christian; conestogawood; congress; constitution; firstamendment; hhs; hobbylobby; lcms; lutheran; obamacare; prolife; scotus

1 posted on 07/01/2014 4:47:41 AM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

bump


2 posted on 07/01/2014 4:52:08 AM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Amen!


3 posted on 07/01/2014 5:01:30 AM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

The irony of this whole thing is that the law that the decision was based on was passed by a Democrat congress, and signed by a revered democrat President named Bill Clinton.


4 posted on 07/01/2014 5:03:06 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

And it had, I’m guessing, about the most bipartisan support of any controversy-prone measure passed in the last few decades: 97-3 in the Senate, unanimous voice vote in the House.


5 posted on 07/01/2014 5:08:20 AM PDT by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Yesterday, the USSC sent down a powerful message that US law and our Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to freely exercise their right to conscience....and that the govt cannot tell them to do something that violates their deeply-help beliefs.

Taking the ruling one step further----hundreds of taxpayers protested against immigrants being dumped in their California city....where taxpayers would be forced to subsidize people here illegally, whose only aspiration is to falsify official documents to ride the US gravy train, and to send US tax dollars via "remittances" back home to corrupt Central American govts.

Taxpayers have the right to decide what happens to their tax dollars....to use their tax dollars for patently illegal purposes is a violation of their consciences.

6 posted on 07/01/2014 5:32:27 AM PDT by Liz (Another Clinton administration? Are you nuts?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

I am not elated by this decision, not because think it’s wrong. It’s absolutely right. What bothers me is that it was even necessary, and that so many people, who vote, think it’s wrong, and will vote accordingly, and that so many members of the governing class will also act accordingly.

Those of us who believe in America and Americanism do not share values with those who support the current governing class. We can’t have a dialogue with them, we can’t persuade them. The only remaining question is how do we defeat them?


7 posted on 07/01/2014 5:37:41 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhema

...Catholic kudos to the reverend...


8 posted on 07/01/2014 5:48:45 AM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork; rhema; sickoflibs; GOPJ; NYer; The Mayor; ken5050; Grampa Dave
The irony of the USSC decision is that the 1993 religious freedom law the decision was based on was passed by a Democrat congress, and signed by a Democrat President Bill Clinton.

Before we beatify Clinton and the Democrats---let's remember that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed in 1993, was intended to redress an earlier court ruling against Native Americans who’d used the hallucinogen peyote as part of a religious ceremony.

Hardly a Democrat declaration of reverence for pro-life Christians.

9 posted on 07/01/2014 5:49:47 AM PDT by Liz (Another Clinton administration? Are you nuts?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

It’s sad the court had to rely on RFRA when the 1st amendment would have sufficed. We were ONE VOTE from losing religious freedom. We shouldn’t be cheering this ruling as much as prepping for when we lost more of our rights.


10 posted on 07/01/2014 5:52:04 AM PDT by Solson (The Voters stole the election! And the establishment wants it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhema
Time to overturn Roe. This court recognizes that abortion is inherently immoral.

Too bad the women supremes can't get pass their sex.

11 posted on 07/01/2014 5:53:05 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Time to overturn Roe.

...just thinking...that might be the spark that ignites the violent culture war that everyone here seems to think will happen...at one time I just passed that off as overblown rhetoric, but now I’m not so sure, what with demographic changes and all...


12 posted on 07/01/2014 6:00:04 AM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Who beatified anyone?


13 posted on 07/01/2014 6:01:15 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rhema
I think the Hobby Lobby ruling was pathetically & arbitrarily limited, ignoring equal protection for those just outside the limits of the ruling's protection. The justices are afraid to attack the unconstitutionality of our entire health care nightmare.

The only logical solution is for businesses to stop offering health insurance as a benefit, & insurance being offered universally to individuals nation wide under a free market system.

If businesses want to offer “cost of living” benefits to employees they are free to do so. Bonuses also serve the same purpose. There is no reason your employer should have any involvement in your health insurance, nor is there any reason your employer would want the cost of administering such a benefit, when it would be far simpler/cheaper to just give each employee a cash benefit, paid monthly.

No, I don't suggest people have to buy insurance from Obamacare. It needs to be repealed immediately. It is part of the problem, not a solution. We need an open market like car insurance, without Federal interference.

14 posted on 07/01/2014 6:03:59 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Solson

“We shouldn’t be cheering this ruling as much as prepping for when we lost more of our rights.”

I agree, and said so in a later post.


15 posted on 07/01/2014 6:16:12 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rhema

That shows how far a society can fall in a measly 10 years.


16 posted on 07/01/2014 6:35:49 AM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I heard on radio this morning that liberal pundits were pointing out that the decision came out on the gender divide.

Their conclusion is that, basically, it is about the mens’ war on women.

That is such a lie.

What the gender split on the ruling actually suggests is that it is more likely that a hedonistic liberal woman will seek and find a highly visible judgeship (unseating the traditional man’s role) in today’s culture (or lack thereof) than one who is a God-fearing conservative.

The God fearing women just aren’t seeking to overturn tradition. Nor are they being sought by the powers that be for traditionally male roles today. (Acceptions permitting.)


17 posted on 07/01/2014 6:44:17 AM PDT by Repent and Believe (Promote good. Tolerate the harmless. Let evil be crushed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.

For almost 100 years the courts had made rulings as if the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Blacks, but if the word “person” means “legal person”, then it never applied to Blacks because Blacks had already been declared by SCOTUS to be LEGAL non-persons, in Dred Scott.

And then in 1973 along came Roe, which in effect overruled those other rulings by claiming that the 14th Amendment DIDN’T apply to “legal non-persons” such as Blacks and (as they ruled in Roe) fetuses.

Since 1973 there have been SCOTUS rulings based on the understanding that the 14th Amendment DOES apply to Blacks though. Those rulings refused to acknowledge and accept Roe’s new interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

So what we’ve got is the 1973 Roe decision claiming the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to “legal non-persons”, surrounded by 100 years before it and 41 years after it where the SCOTUS-ruled “legal non-persons” (Blacks) are presumed to have the 14th Amendment apply to them.

The way to challenge Roe v Wade, IMHO, is to claim that some Black person has no citizenship because Roe decided that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and the Dred Scott decision that Blacks are legal non-persons has never been overturned.

Nobody would be willing to do that because the media would present the filer as a racist, when in reality the filer would simply be taking the Roe decision’s claims seriously so that the court is forced to admit that Roe is dead wrong - which all the judges/justices already know, as evidenced by SCOTUS’ refusal to consider that totally new interpretation of the 14th Amendment when considering “civil rights” cases.


18 posted on 07/01/2014 6:55:08 AM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Repent and Believe
Can someone explain to these women that they don't have babies without males....

and that males have an interest in their children.

The there's sickos and sheep like Obama that think baby killing is a good thing.

Stop having sex ladies and you want have inconvenient babies!!

19 posted on 07/01/2014 7:32:25 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Democrats supported it because they viewed it as a means of thwarting Christian influence in the nation.


20 posted on 07/01/2014 7:33:52 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
It was limited -- that's why they won!

The truth about Hobby Lobby. Although they offer other avenues of contraception to their employees, they would not support the mandated abortion and abortifacients (Morning after pill and other products that destroy an embryo -- already fertilized.).

It's that simple because they are a closely held (family) business that believes and lives their religion in their business. They even play religious music in their stores. (And not just at Christmas!)

God bless them.

PS. This does not apply to corporations, etc. as the libs would have you believe.


21 posted on 07/01/2014 7:46:01 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liz

All the more delicious.


22 posted on 07/01/2014 9:14:35 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Solson
It’s sad the court had to rely on RFRA when the 1st amendment would have sufficed.

The RFRA reversed a decision by Justice Scalia, and reinstated the interpretation of the First Amendment that had been followed by the Warren Court.

23 posted on 07/01/2014 10:08:54 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.

There's also the major premise, the central plank: that there is an expectation of privacy between patient and doctor that the government cannot intrude upon…
Yet ObamaCare requires government involvement in that relationship, imposing itself into the heart of that matter.

I would so love to see a case that forced the USSC to choose: abortion xor socialized medicine.
(I would love to see the terror and running-around...)

24 posted on 07/01/2014 10:13:06 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.

Wrong, for at least two reasons: (1) Yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision did not construe the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment; it was construing a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contained its own definition of the word "person," a definition which included corporations. (2) Roe did not define "person" as used in the 14th Amendment to mean "legal person"; it defined it to mean "born person."

For almost 100 years the courts had made rulings as if the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Blacks, but if the word “person” means “legal person”, then it never applied to Blacks because Blacks had already been declared by SCOTUS to be LEGAL non-persons, in Dred Scott.

You're again wrong for two reasons: (1) Dred Scott did not say that blacks were not "persons"; it said they were not "citizens of the United States." (2) The 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott by granting citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States."

25 posted on 07/01/2014 12:32:44 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
If businesses want to offer “cost of living” benefits to employees they are free to do so. Bonuses also serve the same purpose. There is no reason your employer should have any involvement in your health insurance, nor is there any reason your employer would want the cost of administering such a benefit, when it would be far simpler/cheaper to just give each employee a cash benefit, paid monthly.

You'd have to change the tax laws for that to make any sense. Now, if a corporation gives an employee a cash bonus, the employee pays tax on it, but if the corporation buys the employee health insurance, the employee is not taxed on the cost or value of the insurance.

26 posted on 07/01/2014 12:36:59 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I wasn’t talking about Hobby Lobby. I was only talking about Roe.

Why was Dred Scott not allowed to become a US citizen even though he was a human being who was born in the United States? What was the legal reasoning/justification for saying he could never be a US citizen, could never have standing to sue in court?


27 posted on 07/01/2014 1:55:34 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Ah, but Roe has that covered. The ruling is so internally inconsistent that it allows ultimate invasion of privacy even while claiming its decision is in SUPPORT of privacy.

For instance, Roe affirms that government DOES have a legitimate concern for “potential life”. It uses that so it can redefine conceived lives as merely “potential life”. But in redefiniing fetuses as “potential life” and then saying that is their business, they are effectually saying that sperm and ova are their business because they are “potential life”. ANYTHING about a person’s health can be the government’s business because it involves “potential life”. If I have some health condition that could affect my ability to conceive, for instance, it would - because of Roe - be the government’s business because it affects “potential life”.

And the precedent they used in order to come up with this conclusion was a case where it was decided that the government could not forbid a married couple from using birth control - because it wasn’t the government’s business. From that they came up with permission for conceived children to be killed but the government to have the right to poke its nose into “potential life” - which can include ANYTHING health-related.

Roe has got to be one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS.


28 posted on 07/01/2014 2:04:17 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Roe has got to be one of the worst decisions ever made by SCOTUS.

I quite agree.
It's a toss-up, IMO, with Wickard — because Wickard basically said that the ability to regulate commerce is unrestricted.

29 posted on 07/01/2014 2:12:56 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Why was Dred Scott not allowed to become a US citizen even though he was a human being who was born in the United States? What was the legal reasoning/justification for saying he could never be a US citizen, could never have standing to sue in court?

Technically, he wasn't denied standing; the majority in Dred Scott said he wasn't a "citizen" and therefore couldn't sue under the provision of Article III governing suits between "citizens of different states." The majority's rationale was that, since the Founders permitted slavery, they must have intended that black people could never be citizens, because citizens have rights and slaves have no rights. The dissent, pointing to English and colonial cases which defined a citizen as anyone born in the country, said that blacks could indeed be citizens, at least in free states. The 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott and codified the position of the dissenters in that case.

30 posted on 07/01/2014 2:48:14 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

From the Sanford v Dred Scott decision, at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=29&page=transcript :

“The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.”


31 posted on 07/01/2014 2:58:48 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The 14th Amendment says that “persons born in the US (etc) are citizens of the US and of the States. It also says that no State may deprive any PERSON of due process and the equal protection of its laws.

The Roe court claimed that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment means persons who merit legal protection, not biological persons.

So the first part of the 14th Amendment, according to the Roe court’s definition, says, “All persons who merit legal protection born in the United States (etc) are citizens of the United States (etc)”

But the latest Supreme Court ruling had said that Blacks do not merit legal protection; they are property.

According to the Roe court’s definition of “person” as used in the 14th Amendment, the Dred Scott decision was that Blacks are NOT “persons” - not persons who merit legal protection. So even if they were born in the US they didn’t meet the 14th Amendment requirement that they be “persons who merit legal protection”, regardless of where they were born. If the 14th Amendment had said, “All rabbits born in the United States are citizens of the United States”, it wouldn’t apply to dogs born in the United States. Where the creature was born makes no difference if they don’t first fit the class of animal described, who would be citizens if born in the US.

The Roe court says that the animal that would be a citizen if born in the US is a “person who merits legal protection”. And according to the Dred Scott decision, that is NOT Black human beings.


32 posted on 07/01/2014 3:11:01 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I should have said “The latest Supreme Court decision BEFORE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED had said that Blacks do not merit legal protection; they are property.”

If the 14th Amendment had meant “persons who merit legal protection” when they used the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, then they never meant Blacks to be included - because Blacks had already, just very recently and conspicuously, been ruled to NOT “merit legal protection”.


33 posted on 07/01/2014 3:15:55 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

It the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” meant “person who merits legal protection” as the Roe court claimed, then it never applied to Blacks - who at the time had just recently been ruled to NOT “merit legal protection” - and did NOT reverse Dred Scott, and did NOT give US citizenship to Blacks. And furthermore, it did not give them due process or equal protection either - no more due process and equal protection than fetuses, who are also deemed to be human beings who do not merit legal protection.

IOW, if the word “person” in the 14th Amendment means “person who merits legal protection”, then it never applied to Blacks and Blacks are in the same legal class as fetuses.


34 posted on 07/01/2014 3:25:41 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I'm not going to defend the legal reasoning of Roe v. Wade-- a particularly bad piece of judging by any standard-- so I'll leave this discussion where it is.
35 posted on 07/01/2014 4:48:50 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I guess I/we can agree to agree on that.


36 posted on 07/01/2014 5:44:29 PM PDT by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
What bothers me is that it was even necessary

Remember the words of President Reagan: "Freedom is only one generation away from extinction."

Liberty is never "settled law" as long as there are criminally minded statists lurking in the weeds--or the White House.

37 posted on 07/01/2014 10:06:50 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
...Catholic kudos to the reverend...

Yes the LCMS (Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod) is theologically very conservative. A bit heavy on the law for my taste but closer to the Mother Church than the liberal wastrels of the ELCA.

38 posted on 07/01/2014 10:10:33 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

At this point, the ruling is moot. Until the President decides to enforce his own law, and implement the employer mandate, these two businesses are not required to provide ANY health care insurance, and so of their own free will..


39 posted on 07/02/2014 5:24:27 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | 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