Skip to content

Incense on the Altar

February 18, 2013

Today the discussion of almost any issue is distorted by the great lie of Relativism. Relativists claim that there is no truth, just opinions. This is logically impossible, since by definition truth is a statement which corresponds to reality. To say there is no truth is to say there is no reality. Not only that, the statement “there is no truth” cannot be true if there is no truth. Of course, the Relativists don’t really believe that all opinions are equal. They think they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong, and not only wrong, but mean-spirited, bigoted, hateful, discriminating, unscientific and stupid.

Relativists claim to be promoting tolerance, but they are not themselves the least bit tolerant. They use their positions in academia, in professional organizations, and in government to force their opinions on others and silence their opposition. They invent rights and then use these invented rights to impose the tyranny of relativism. They try and sometimes succeed in passing laws which will make disagreeing with them illegal.

The modern Relativists remind me of the ancient Romans. Most of them didn’t really believe that the emperor was actually a god and they didn’t really care what the Christians actually believed All they wanted was for the Christians to make a sign of submission to the ideology of emperor worship – to throw a little incense on the altar. A simple act, no big deal. After all, what did it matter if there is no truth?

But those early Christians understood exactly what was at stake. It was a huge thing – a betrayal of everything they believed in. They refused. They were tortured and martyred and we remember their names to this day.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued new regulations governing what must be included in mandatory health insurance coverage purchased by employers. HHS claims for itself the right to define what constitutes a religious organization. According to HHS’s supposed accommodation, religious organizations – as defined by HHS – don’t have to include abortifacient drugs (the morning after pill), sterilization and contraception in their mandatory health care coverage, because — and here is that handful of incense on the altar of the omnipotent state — the insurance companies will provide the coverage at no cost.

Of course, these things cost money, but HHS argues that these services are ‘preventive care,’ not that they will prevent disease; rather, they prevent the birth of babies, including babies already conceived. Since having babies costs more than killing them, HHS argues the insurance companies should be happy to provide this coverage without passing the cost on to their clients.

HHS can’t see why we should object. They really think that an accounting gimmick is enough to sooth our consciences. All they want is a small act of submission.

But what about the many religious institutions that are self-insured? Their employees who want this free coverage will, according to HHS spokesperson Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, be able to arrange it through outside insurance companies, at no cost to themselves and without financial or even administrative support of the faith-based institution. In other words, a woman will be able to go to an insurance company she has no policy with, and pays no premium to and get free coverage. These companies will not receive the financial savings that supposedly will occur when the babies are ‘prevented’ from being born, which means that their clients will have to pay for it. And what about the private businesses whose owners object? There is no relief for them.

We must resist this by every means possible. Can a religious institution breath a sigh of relief because they aren’t going to be shut down by draconian fines, while knowing that the cost of killing babies is simply being passed on to someone else? If pro-life persons, organizations and businesses are forced by law to provide health insurance or face massive, punitive fines, they must have the right to purchase that health insurance from companies that do not cover abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization, period. No exceptions.

I

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. February 18, 2013 9:39 am

    May 10, 2009 Hate Crime Legislation – Back Door to Censorship By James Simpson

    Herbert Marcuse opined that the prevailing Western social order is repressive by definition and discriminates against minorities simply by existing.

    This creates a phenomenon he called “repressive tolerance” because even though other views are allowed within Western culture — you know, by that insignificant little old thing called the First Amendment — the Capitalist view is still permitted. It goes without saying that Marcuse considered that to be unacceptable.

    Instead, he proposed what he called “partisan tolerance,” i.e. tolerating the views of those “repressed minorities” only — who Marcuse assumes share his partisan hatred for everything noncommunist — while actively muzzling the views of the majority.

  2. April 23, 2013 6:00 am

    Awesome! Its genuinely awesome article, I have
    got much clear idea about from this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: