Letters to the Editor

Time to scream about issue of church and state | Letter to the Editor

Ever since I can remember there has always been a small but  very vocal segment of the population trumpeting the idea of “separation of church and state.” These folks base their belief in this notion on their interpretation of correspondence between President Thomas Jefferson and the members of the Danbury Baptist Church. In their view the result of said correspondence was that government is protected from interference by religion or the church. That now generally accepted interpretation is used by the secular left to protect our schools and other public places from all those religious fanatics.

I have read the First Amendment several times and no matter how careful I am I just cannot find anything about the separation of church and state. As a matter of fact, the only wording I can find is one that protects the church and people of faith from the government intruding into the practice of their religion – not the other way around.

So…enter stage left…President Barack Hussein Obama and his secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sillybillyus…or something, whatever…anyway, imagine the surprise  when President Obama announced that under his Obamacare plan employers, to include religious entities, will be required to provide healthcare to their employees to include birth control, contraceptives and even the so-called “abortion pill.”

Now the Catholic Church became very upset about this and started making a lot of fuss about it. Seems they have a problem with providing these “health services” as they violate the tenets of the faith. Well it seems to me that we should all be upset and making a fuss about this because it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I ask you, where are all those voices screaming about separation of church and state?

After a bit Barry, oops, I mean the president, realized that he would have to do some damage control ‘cuz folks started saying crazy things like “We are all Catholics now” and making an even bigger fuss. So the president comes out with a great compromise. Employers will still have to provide these services, but if you are a religious organization, you won’t have to pay for it…your insurance company will. Yep, those big nasty insurance companies will have to give the services to the employees free of charge to boot! What a deal, huh? I ask you, just how stupid does the president think we are?

Who pays the premiums to the insurance company? Right, the employer does. So, in effect, the employer is still providing those services that they object to on religious grounds. If the organization objects to and doesn’t pay the premiums how fast do you suppose insurance companies will start dropping coverage for faith-based organizations because of the cost of all the free services?

This great compromise brings up a couple of constitutional questions: where is it written in the U.S. Constitution that the president can mandate a private company provide any product or service? Where does he get the power to fine a company that does not comply with his mandate?

The media has been trying, with some success, to get us to think that this is all about contraception and women’s health; don’t buy into that folks. This is about our Constitution and our basic rights. Here is a refresher of the first for those of you who have not read it in some time. (Seems that would be you Mr. President)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is past time to wake up my fellow Americans. While you’ve been sleeping, “The Fundamental Transformation of America” has been rolling on. It’s not too late to contact your representatives and senators and tell them to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. Do a little screaming of you own about the separation of church and state.

Tim Personius

Buckley

 

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Jul 23 edition online now. Browse the archives.