Unfortunately Anthony, some portion of our taxes will always be spent on things
with which we disagree.You may disagree with war on general
principleBut lets look at some issues based on religion.A butcher or grocery store manager forced to sell meat on Friday during
lentA Surgeon forced to give a blood transfusionA doctor with an HIV
patientA worker called in on Sunday because of a crisisA restaurant
worker forced to pour coffee or serve alcoholWhat is the solution to
these situations?We call all find things to be upset about.And those causes do not become more noble just because one can link it to a
The thesis of this letter is ridiculous.Do I get to express and
defend my conscience when I pay taxes, supporting only those public expenditures
with which my personal sensibilities agree? Do I get to satisfy my
moral objections and withhold the portion of my taxes that i know will be spent
on a bloated military, corporate subsidies, and the degradation of our national
infrastructure?Moreover, since when is it acceptable to hide behind
a claim of "private conscience" to excuse the willful failure to either
do the job you've been hired to do, or otherwise obey the law of the
land?And when you encounter a claim of "personal conscience"
as a rationale for unreasonable behavior, who gets to decide whether this
claimed excuse is legitimate?Conservatives, you're not making
any sense here.
Mr. Black, your argument has been offered many times by those who are opposed to
the horrors of war, and to the bleak prospect of capital punishment, especially
in the environment of justice miscarried. Keep raising the alarm.
"Thomas Jefferson believed compelling a man to furnish money for that which
he abhors is sinful and tyrannical."A portion of my taxes paid
for a portion of the exprenses required for my country to wage a preemptive war
of aggression against another country based on trumped up, phoney evidence of
weapons that did not exist and reasons that were proven to be false. If I were
a cynical man, and I often am, I would suggest that this war was promoted and
promulgated by two specific men for egotistical revenge and/or to put maneys on
the coffers of amulti-national corporation that profits from war and maintains
great influence over one of these men. Over 4500 of our brave soldiers and
thousands of innocent citizens were killed in that conflict and our
country's reputation was dealt a body blow.If I had refused to
pay my taxes over the past decade in protest of that action by my country I
would have been punished, possibly jailed. I don't disagree with the
premise presented by the letter writer but I wonder just how far we are all
willing to promote that concept.
This letter is absolutely correct that central freedoms are under attack as
never before in this Country. Something must be done before it is too late.The left wing is determined to turn America into an atheistic welfare
state with abortion-on-demand. Indeed, the left seeks to destroy all ability to
follow religious practices which disagree with leftist dogma.The
left wants to destroy all religious influence on the public because it wants the
public to rely solely on government for sustanence, protection, and guidence.
The left would have man render everything unto Caesar, and nothing unto God.The actions of the left are a direct slap in the face to the Founding
Fathers. The Fathers believed that religious freedom was of the utmost
importance, which is why they protected it in the very First Amendment.The great masses must awaken in time to see what the left is doing before it
is too late. All patriotic Americans must use this Fall's elections to
throw all left wing extremists out of office.
"... their taxes subsidizing Planned Parenthood abortions..."What percentage of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood are tax
subsidized? I'll give you a clue - the number starts and ends with zero.
I, personally don't wish to fund nuclear weapons development.
I find it repugnant, yet I "get" to pay for it every two weeks.
The Pope has said that access to healthcare is an "inalienable human
right" and that all countries have a moral obligation to provide universal
healthcare. Do Catholics have a right of conscience on this issue to require our
government to do that? If not, then why do they have a right of conscience to
force society to support the Pope's views on contraception?
Censorship is alive and well at Deseret News. Mr. BlackThe Hyde
Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion period. Emergency contraception
is not abortion. It prevents fertilization. Planned Parenthood does not use your
money to fund abortions.But, you say money is fungible?The
same argument can be applied to tithes paid to churches. Life is
complex and diverse. Get used to it.Opposed to abortion? Don't have
one.Opposed to contraceptives? Don't use them. Religion
is not under attack.
Well, I guess one approach would be to make sure that no policy is offensive to
ANY faith tradition. So-- all food marketed must be certified kosher AND hallal
AND vegetarian. No alcohol or coffee. And no spaghetti, lest the Pastafarians
object to the symbolic cannibalism of their nondeity (or is that communion for
them?). No business or government office could be open on the Sabbath, which of
course starts at dusk on Friday and continues through Sunday. No technological
drugs or medicine at all to avoid offending the Christian Scientists. But then,
there wouldn't be any drugs anyway because budding scientists would have
their biology classes given up to creationism. And no high tech at all, really
(I forgot about the Amish). And no pledge to the flag-- can't offend the
Jehovah's Witnesses.Yeah, the best way to deal with the problem
of conscience is to find the lowest common denominator. That way no one is
forced to make any hard decisions or compromise their values.Funny
how contraception, a ban that the great majority of Catholics honor in the
breach, has become a flashpoint for religious conservatives, while immoral wars
get a pass.
Mr. Black,Chaplains whose religion oppose Same Sex Marriage, are not
only protected from performing these marriages, they are prohibited from doing
so! The military cannot force a chaplain to preach or do something contrary to
their beliefs.As far as Justices of the Peace, they are judges, and
their job is to interpret, and enforce law, not create it.
i wish I didn't have to pay for thing's i'm morally opposed too.
Catholic Charities would no longer be getting my (tax) money. I wouldn't
have to pay for wars. We lock up way too many people so I would only pay for
half of the prisons in America. These are all things i'm morally opposed to
so why am I paying for those? Or do I have to go to a building on Sunday for my
morality to be considered?
Conscience should play a MAJOR part in our lives. If WE believe that something
is wrong, WE have the obligation to resist that "something". If WE believe that the government should not force us to perform abortions, WE
have the obligation to NOT perform abortions.The same goes for
dispensing contraceptives. If WE decide that we will not prevent birth then WE
have the right to not dispense contraceptives.The result of doing
anything is to accept the fact that there are consequences. Our employer may
fire us if we don't perform our job to his satisfaction. We may be jailed
if the government thinks that we have broken a law. The important
point is that each of us has the right to decide for ourselves what we will do
in any circumstance even though we will suffer the consequences of our
actions.Speaking up allows others to know that what they are doing
is unconscionable to us. When enough people speak up, society will change.
I know of someone from my ward who refused to pay taxes. He thought it was
"against his conscience" to pay federal income taxes. I don't need
to go into details, but BOYYYY did he regret that decision!This is
just another lame rant against taxes and against Planned Parenthood. Nutcakes
like these want to talk about the evil Federal Government taking over and
fighting religion. In reality, this war against religion lies within their
isolated and dare I say, irrational, mind.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;However, It is fairly common
knowledge that congress does make laws that restrict religious practices. The
most notorious might be the law against human sacrifice. Further,
religious belief is not an excuse for disobeying any American civil law. A
priest should not exceed the speed limit just because he is going to a church
meeting. Further, the notion that a person today can actually know
the true motivation of people who lived hundreds of year ago in a different
world is nonsense. Further, if everyone could ignore the laws that
they find objectionable, our society would revert a free-for-all jungle. further, our government cannot give one set of freedoms to one group and
withhold it from others.Further, the voluntary acceptance of
American citizenship, requires the acceptance of American laws and membership
fees.Further, I object to my tax money being use to finance religion
and it’s commercial businesses.You may believe in Theocracy as
a form of government, but the first amendment says you can’t use the
government to help you achieve that goal.
I think some study might help the letter writer..."We believe in
being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying,
honoring, and sustaining the law."
Conscience and actions are two different things. Do you feel the same about
people who refused to serve in Viet Nam? How about polygamists in 19th Century
Utah, or even polygamists today? If there is a compelling state or public
interest, then some may be mandated to provide goods and services. They should
think about this when they voluntarily enter certain professions. They can
choose whether or not to enter those professions, but once they do, they take on
certain obligations. Thus, a pharmacist may be obliged to provide certain
medications as instructed by a medical doctor, and it is not the role of the
pharmacist to second guess the doctor's instructions. The pharmacist may
not be aware of all the circumstances of the patient, so how can the pharmacist
make the decision? Again, the choice is made when one enters a profession.
Doctors and lawyers are in this position all the time and they make decisions
based on the requirements of the patient/client. Don't like it? Do
To "CHS 85" but the abortions are funded by tax payer money. Look at it
this way. Planned Parenthood raises money from private sources as well as from
the government. Their clinics operate usinging all of that money, they
don't have clinics running on government money only. So, if the government
pays for the clerical staff and the building/office space, then the private
money does not have to be used to pay for that. Since their clinics are not
separated based on funding sources, the government indirectly pays for abortions
by paying for everything else so that the private money does not go for the
To RedShirt 12:28 p.m.So, if it could be proved that government
money and private money was not co-mingled, and each went only to the things it
was permitted to do, you'd have no problem funding Planned Parentood?
@RedShirt: So money is fungible. What's your point? Then my federal
income tax dollars are also paying some of the Pope's salary, because
federal grants to faith-based charitable organizations (like Catholic Community
Services) mean that they can channel more of their other private donations to
other church functions. Ergo, federal aid to faith-based secular charitable
initiatives is actually paying for sectarian religious activity. The money all
goes into the same pot, right? Any accounting that keeps the funds separate is
just sleight of hand.
Re:RedshirtThe same argument can be made with tithing money and for-profit
@RedShirtWell, like or not, Planned Parenthood operates within the
law as it was written and signed by President Nixon in 1970 (wasn't he a
Republican?). Planned Parenthood receives 1/3 of its funding from the federal
government directly or through grants. The grand total of that investment into
contraceptive, female health, and education is a whopping $360 million per year.
That is 1/3 of the cost of ONE B-2 bomber and about one year's operating
costs for ONE aircraft carrier (not including salaries of the crew). Far more
of my tax dollars are used to fund warfare, which I abhor, than your tax dollars
that are spent on Planned Parenthood.
It's interesting how selective the furor over religious liberty has been.
Rick Santorum represented Pennsylvania for many years, but did we ever hear a
peep from him about government forcing the Amish in his beloved Lancaster County
to put slow moving vehicle emblems on their buggies contrary to their faith
tradition? Or requiring photo ID? Has Charles Krauthammer ever been concerned
about the morality of agricultural subsidies to swine and shellfish producers?
Yet when someone dares suggest that a Methodist food service worker in a dorm
cafeteria at the University of Notre Dame ought to be able to have birth control
pills (prescribed therapeutically for ovarian cysts) covered by her
employer-provided health plan, it's an all-out war on religion by the
Democratic-Socialist-Atheist alliance. This folderol is less about conscience
than it is about scoring cheap political points against President Obama.
To "Furry1993" it is not so simple. I would want proof that there were
essentially 2 sections to Planned Parenthoods. 1 that is government funded and
does not perform abortions, and one that was 100% privately funded that did. No
money could cross between the two seprate organization.To
"Lagomorph" what you say can be debated because there are so many levels
to the Catholic Charities that government funding could be contained to a
charity, and not impact the general overhead of the Catholic church the way the
Government Money is applied to Planned Parenthood.To
"Truthseeker" what are you even hinting at, you make no sense.To "CHS 85" tell me where in the US Constitution there is a clause
that states that the government should fund abortion clinics. But to be clear,
you now agree with me that government funding of Planned Parenthood does
indirectly go to fund abortions. You also should realize that it is against
federal law to directly fund abortions, but is perfectly acceptable to use for
funding weapons of war. Where is the constitution on funding abortions?
Who gave the State the right to order a doctor to destroy a life when that life
had done nothing wrong?Who gave the State the right to tell a
pharmacist to dispense medication that would prevent a baby from being born?The duty of the State is to protect life, but Mr. Obama has decided that
the duty of the State is to force the destruction of life.People of
conscience will not obey Mr. Obama. People of conscience will not be
forced to kill just because Mr. Obama tells them that the law requires them to
prevent or to destroy life.
My conscience objects to sunday closures, gambling prohibitions and war. But if
you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
Where does conscience come from?Ages ago, Herod told his soldiers
that he was conscience. The believed him and all boys two years old and younger
were killed.Hitler told his soldiers to turn on the gas and to turn
up the furnaces. Most of his followers believed him and 6,000,000 Jews were
killed.A few years ago "State Senator" Obama voted that
doctors could NOT help a child who survived an "aborted" abortion. The
child had to be left to die.Now, those who carry out the
"law" tell us that doctors must perform abortions and that pharmacists
must dispense drugs that prevent conception or destroy life that has been
conceived.Who gives us conscience? Is it the government? I
don't think so. The Declaration of Independence tells us that our CREATOR
gave us unalienable rights, including the right to life.Every one of
us has to decide whether "conscience" comes from, Washington or from
God. Before deciding that conscience comes from government, please reflect on
Herod and upon Hitler.
Could someone please find one example of a doctor who was forced to perform an
abortion against his will?
Who gave the State the right to order armed forces to destroy lives that had
done nothing wrong?The duty of the State is to protect life, but Mr.
Bush decided that the duty of the State was to force the destruction of life.People of conscience should not have obeyed Mr. Bush.People
of conscience were forced to pay for killing just because Mr. Bush told them
that the law required them to destroy life.
Could someone find the name of a President who is trying to force a religion to
pay for abortions, to pay for abortifacients, and to pay for contraceptives
under the guise of providing health care? Could someone find the
name of a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" who has no
understanding of the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"?Could someone find the name of a President who told the Catholic Church
one thing and then did the opposite?I'm help you find that
name: Barrack H. Obama, 44th President of the United States.
Where is the protest over insurance companies providing Viagra to old men?If men could get pregnant mandatory laws providing contraception would be the
To "Roland Kayser" I couldn't find a doctor who was forced to
perform an abortion, but the prescedence has been set with a nurse. See
"Catholic nurse forced to participate in abortion, lawsuit filed" at the
Catholic News Agency. A nurse was forced to participate in an abortion contrary
to her beliefs.
@ John Charity Spring 7:56 a.m. April 12, 2012And what about the
jingoism, quasi-morality, economic numbskullery that the right wing touts?"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful.- attributed to Seneca the Younger (4BC - 65
Let me correct the John Charity Spring post at 7:56 a.m. today:This
letter is absolutely correct that central freedoms are under attack as never
before in this Country. Something must be done before it is too late.The right wing is determined to turn America into a theocracy. Indeed, the
right seeks to impose religious practices on every citizen.The right
wants to impose religious influence on the public because it wants the public to
rely solely on religion for sustanence, protection, and guidence. The right
would have man render everything unto God, and nothing unto Caesar.The actions of the right are a direct slap in the face to the Founding
Fathers. The Fathers believed that individual freedom was of the utmost
importance, which is why they protected it in the Bill of Rights.The
great masses must awaken in time to see what the right is doing before it is too
late. All patriotic Americans must use this Fall's elections to throw all
right wing extremists out of office.You see -- I can play the game
too. Personally, I think that all extremists, left and right, should be
To J Thompson | 7:23 a.m.The answer you provided to your questions
is incorrect. President Obama did none of those things.
No, J Thompson, the question was can someone name a doctor that has been forced
to provide abortions. But I don't care if you can provide this example. Because I know that if you do that doctor was working for a facility
that provides abortions. Maybe you guys don't understand, but when you work
for someone you have to follow their rules. You will not find any doctor in
private practice that has ever performed an abortion against their will.But it doesn't matter. You've lost anyway. I'm
implementing the Hitler rule. The rule that says whenever you bring Hitler into
the discussion you automatically forfeit. And yes, when you compare
the Holocaust to condoms that rule comes into play. Sorry for your
forfeit. Better luck next time.
"Consider citizens with misgivings that their insurance premiums will pay
for government mandated coverage of free abortion pills, sterilizations and
contraceptives,"SERIOUSLY? While I also disagree with your
premise about tax supported endeavors (I really do hate war and am sad that part
of my tax obligation goes to it), how can you possibly include insurance
coverage to something you object to? Health care is personal! I
have a dear friend who follows the principles of Christian Science. She and her
husband always accepted the insurance coverage offered by their employers. They
never used it, but knew that others who believed differently would be blessed
through it.Selfishness and pettiness are ruining society.