Contribute for Conservatism!

Share this post

About the author

Steven Osborne

Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.

Comments

9 Responses to "Rubio Introducing Religious Liberty Bill in the U.S. Senate"

1. 

   Mormor February 2, 2012 00:48 am

   Apropos

   A mosque in Chantilly, VA, was vandalized this weekend.
   Religious liberty and freedom, I suppose.

2. 

   ToR February 2, 2012 01:30 am

   You don’t have the right to force me to be indoctrinated by religious organizations.

3. 

   MD Russ February 2, 2012 17:29 pm

   What we have here is an example of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment at work, which Rubio would thwart. Steven, Obama hasn’t ordered any organization that they must violate their conscience or religious principles and, you are correct, he can’t force them to do that. What he can do is to deny Federal taxpayer funds from being granted to organizations that want to impose their religious beliefs on those of us who pay those Federal taxes. That is unconstitutional and Rubio knows it. He is just pandering to his base, another Profiles In Courage moment, not.

   Do you people at Liberty University actually take any real college courses or do you spend all your time waiting for The Rapture?

4. 

   Steven Osborne February 2, 2012 20:47 pm

   @ MD Russ

   Your intolerance is duly noted and unappreciated.

   Actually, yes the President is attempting to force these organizations to violate their conscience. Under Obamacare, there are certain provisions which require religious employers to provide a particular type of insurance for their employees and this will include providing coverage for contraception and certain abortion inducing drugs. So various religious organizations, including a certain University in Lynchburg which you hold in such contempt, will likely be forced to violate their conscience. The only way to qualify for the current religious exemption will be to only provide services to members of one religious sect. President Obama is attempting to cut poor people off from services provided by committed religious organizations, it is sad that he acts like he cares for the poor.

   The Founders also disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment.

5. 

   MD Russ February 2, 2012 22:09 pm

   Steven,

   Intolerance in the the defense of liberty, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, is no vice.

   While I question why anyone employed by Liberty University or similar organizations would need, desire, or utilize contraception services which you find so odious, there is a simple remedy for employers who wish to violate the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment as upheld in Roe v. Wade: simply opt out of the ObamaCare individual mandate and pay into the insurance pool instead of paying premiums for their employees.

   As for your contention that the Founders disagree with my interpretation of the First Amendment, I direct your attention to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and numerous references to the matter in the Federalist Papers, particularly those authored by John Jay. The fact that a student at Liberty can so blithely ignore these primary history sources causes me to hold the institution not in contempt but in utter disdain.

6. 

   ToR February 2, 2012 22:12 pm

   Here’s the way it should work:

   If you don’t allow access to birth control for anyone in your organization then you shouldn’t get federal funding, for anything. No research, no grants, no student loans, no nothing. We’ll see how long Liberty and the others are around.

   Or, maybe we should go with Chris Christie’s proposal, should we put this to the voters?

7. 

   MD Russ February 2, 2012 22:37 pm

   ToR,

   Some times I get really concerned when I find myself on your side of an argument. But you are on the right track: we already put this to the voters (by way of their elected state legislators) in 1791 when we ratified the Bill of Rights. Since then, we have had over 200 years of Supreme Court case law that supports what the Founders intended. I would say that the voters have already spoken. The only people who take issue with what the Law of the Land is are the same ones who would argue with a Stop sign.

8. 

   Steven Osborne February 2, 2012 23:48 pm

   @ MD

   Sound scholarship requires context.

   The “establishment clause” of the First Amendment was and is meant to prevent the federal government from setting up a “Church of the United States.” This provision was put in place to avoid a state church. The early Congress actually did some things that we would consider overtly religious today, they did not see themselves as violating the First Amendment, because they weren’t.

   Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, made reference to a “wall of separation” that would exist between the church and a potentially hostile government.Jefferson would actually attend church services in the Capitol building as President.

   The Founders wanted to ensure that the church could exercise and assert its independence in society. Forcing religious organizations to violate their conscience by providing certain health insurance plans, actually violates the intent of the First Amendment.

   You also seem to ignore another section within the First Amendment which states that the “free exercise” of religion cannot be prohibited. The Obama Administration is violating this as well.

   I will also say this. I know that the “dumb evangelical” meme is popular among the secularist crowd, but that dog won’t hunt. It is a common tactic when one cannot win an arguement on the merits to simply label ones opponent as stupid; however, being a demogogue does not make ones arguements any more true.

9. 

   aaspo March 25, 2012 23:14 pm

   Religious liberty was front and center at a big rally in Front Royal, Warren County, on Friday, March 23. It made the front page – as lead article – in the weekend edition of Northern Virginia Daily. (see below)

   Unfortunately, judging from the tenor of some of the posted comments, the constitutional issue – which is at the core of the protest and objections to the HHS mandate – escapes too many. Seems supporters of religious liberty have their work cut out for them to educate observers on the fundamentals of the founding of this country.

   Protesters: Health care law attacks religion
   200 to 300 denounce ‘contraceptive mandate’
   By Joe Beck — jbeck@nvdaily.com

   FRONT ROYAL — A rally led by a Front Royal-based Catholic organization drew 200 to 300 people to the front of the Warren County Courthouse on Friday in protest over parts of President Obama’s health care reform law. Read full article….

   http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2012/03/protesters-health-care-law-attacks-religion.php#comments