Is it Moral to Comply with the HHS Mandate?

Catholic Vote ^ | September 28, 2012 | Prof. Janet E. Smith

[frogjerk]

Certainly if they approved of paying for AID-S-C, their compliance would be immoral but what of those who do not approve? Suppose they have done every reasonable thing to overturn the mandate and to protest the mandate and have failed to find suitable alternatives? Would it be morally permissible for NFB employers to comply since they are likely to suffer severe consequences for noncompliance such as huge fines and possibly even going out of business, losing their own means of livelihood and endangering that of many others as well? (Several things may drive them out of business among them, a refusal to pay for healthcare may mean they would not be able to employ suitable individuals, or they may not be able to afford the penalties they would incur for non-compliance.) And there may be further harms, such as the employees needing to buy their own heath care and not being able to get the same quality they received with a group plan.

I'd like to know how the professor squares this reasoning with the closing of adoptions services by Catholic Charities in Massachusetts because of the homosexual mandate there. You cannot argue that did not potentially harm or hurt thousands of children. Yet the Church did it anyway, why?

[SaraJohnson]

Every Christian is forced every day to comply with leftist social control over our society. We pay taxes that go to an organization that pushes sluthood on girls and boys and kills unborn babies - planned parenthood and your local public schools.

Now they are ordering Christians to pay directly, with their own funds, for leftists to murder babies. In time, they will use their federal power over medicine to order Christian medical professionals to kill babies directly. They are also going to order Christians to fund and participate in euthanasia on the eldery and handicapped. They are going to decriminalize adults having sex with the children of Christians. In California it is against the law for Christians parents to discourage their children from partaking in gay sex.

It will get much worse because liberals seek and impose the opposite and then call it progress. Ultimately, Christians will be forced into choosing a live in ghettos or compliance with all degrees of evil. It will only be a small minority of hated “extremist” Christians - criminals -who don’t go along with any and all government orders. Those Christians won’t belong to churches which will go along with whatever degree of evil is pushed upon them by law.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, Black Agnes. Please think this through again. You are failing to distinguish between two different things.

What Jesus said about Caesar's taxes applied to Caesar's taxes, not to "any-and-every decree". When the decree is explicitly evil, then as St. Peter said, "We must obey God, not man." (Acts 5:29.) That's the point at which you refuse.

"...according to that argument any and all pro-life activity since then has been un-Christian."

Not so. I have made no argument against any-and-all pro-life activity. This is not a truthful and accurate account of what we said.

"So Christians should just shut up about the whole matter. Right?"

Wrong. We neither said nor implied this. Once again, this is not a truthful and accurate account.

"Because Christian abolitionists just gave up and went home after the Dred Scott decision. Right?"

Wrong. Once again, not a truthful and accurate account.

First, please, in good faith, address what I said. Addressing something I didn't say, is called a "straw man argument" and is not regarded as arguing in good faith.

Second, I am trying to make a distinction between the things we must oppose, vs the things we must refuse.

Let me try an analogy:

Say a home replair guy has just finished fixing your leaky roof and your damaged ceiling. You're just about to pay him $1500. You've also engaged in a general conversation about "all the troubles there are with kids these days." While you're rummaging in your purse looking for your checkbook, the roofer remarks,

"Yeah, kids are sure trouble. You know what I'm going to do as soon as I get that deposited in the bank? I'm gong to get a vasectomy. Plus I'm going to pay for a "morning-after" pill for my daughter. She came home drunk from a party and she admitted she probably had sex with some random guy. I'm gonna prevent any consequences from that."

What are you morally obliged to do?

Your alternatives:

• Verbally oppose the vasectomy and the morning-after pill. - Or -
• Refuse to make out the $1500 check. - Or -
• Block the door so he can't leave your house. - Or -
• Grab his truck keys out of his hand so he can't drive off in his truck. - Or -
• Something else?

I am making a distinction between different options. There may be distinction between "oppose" and "refuse." ALL the options would be attempts to stop evil. "Do Nothing" is not one of the options.

[Black Agnes]

I know YOU haven’t implied this. I’m sorry to have been misunderstood. And I certainly didn’t mean to offend you in any way.

I know MANY many ‘Christians’ who think ‘render unto Caesar’ means ‘acquiesce to any governmental dictate regardless of how evil or unChristian’. Because ‘Jesus said render unto Caesar’.

This is just dumb thinking on their part.

Just like ‘hey, they won a battle, we lost, let’s just pick up our toys and go home...’ like this lady is suggesting...

If we stop fighting. they win. FOREVER (at least until Gabriels trumpet sounds...)

Just ask mostly atheist East Germany how that one works...going to hell, intergenerationally now...because it was easier to lie back and think of England and allow their children to be indoctrinated atheists than stand up and face danger for speaking out. And their ‘taxes’ (it was communism, actually it was all their material goods) paid for it. Where’s that millstone scripture again?

Many ‘Christians’ are sending their KINDERGARDNERS to schools that teach ‘Gay History Month’ and discuss, precisely, what constitutes ‘gay’. Where’s that millstone scripture again? And the property taxes of these parents is being used to PAY for their childrens moral corruption. Rather than face any social consequences of protest, I know of one ‘Christian’ parent who DEFENDS this. ‘I’d rather them learn it in school than on the street’. Lie back and think of England! It’s easier!

When, exactly, do Christians draw the line against the willful monetary support of killing, maiming and corrupting children? It seems all that’s needed on the part of *most* Christians is a ‘legal ruling’ and anti biblical practices become magically ‘OK’ overnight. Caesar said so! Just because they’re ‘afraid’ of what will happen if they speak out...

[Mrs. Don-o]

I see what you're saying. And I, too, don't want to offend you, because I know your perspective is "we have to resist this." That's the real priority now.

It's just that the way forward is not clear. For instance, we have to vote against Obama, yet Romney's back to saying, "I'm a good guy, I do care about poor people, look at my insurance plan in Massachusetts, it proves that I care." Yeah, the Romneycare $50 copay abortion.

< If employers continue paying insurance premiums, they'll be paying for intrnsic evils described as "benefits."

If employers dumpinsurance, they've dumped the moral dilemma onto their employees, who then have the legal obligation to sign up for some damn policy or be individually penalized.

People are asking, "Do I need a vote, a lawsuit, or a gun?"

Myself, I'll be praying in front of the local abortion clinic. Which reminds me, I've got to get going and make some phone calls.