A question about "Abridgement of Religious Liberties"

[JaneQPublic]

If it is an "abridgement of religious freedom" for the Government to require Catholic organizations that provide health insurance to include contraception coverage, then was it also an “abridgement of religious freedom" when the Government told Mitt Romney's ancestors that they couldn't marry more than one wife?

From what I read, Mitt's forefathers found it necessary to emigrate from the U.S. to Mexico to practice their religion, since the Government in the U.S. "abridged" their freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit.

Seriously, someone needs to ask Mitt this question and give him the chance to both defend his own ancestors' polygamy and show that he's not a flip-flopper on the issue of religious freedom.

[msongs]

1. well the bible clearly states marriage is between one man & one woman...right? hmm nt

[MNBrewer]

5. That's one of the definitions it has

[gratuitous]

2. The "abridgement of religious liberty" excuse is stove-piping

Even on its own terms, the nitwit bishop who was trying to inveigh against this didn't make any sense. He was trying to claim that folks were being forced by government fiat to purchase something they didn't want (i.e., birth control pills). But nobody's being forced to buy birth control pills. Nobody's being ordered to buy them. Nobody is being forced to take them against their will. In this "argument," the availability of a coverage benefit is being equated to being forced to use that benefit, which is nonsense.

For some reason, however, the Obama administration has been persuaded by this foolishness, and is seeking to accommodate this stupid position adopted by a whopping 1% of Catholics who wouldn't vote Democratic if their miserable life depended on it.

It is anybody's guess why the administration is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Moonwalk]

3. No guess. It's an Election Year....

...and you don't want to give "fear fodder" to the enemy. Its not the 1% Catholics that are worrying, t's the percentage of fence-sitters who will hear the "restricting religious freedom!" and panic that's worrying. Just like with Prop. 8 where they had that ad saying that kids will be forced to hear stories about princes marrying princes even if parents don't want them to hear such stories.

The fear here is that if Obama can force Catholic insurance to provide what it doesn't want to provide for religious reasons, that Obama will force others to do all kinds of things they don't want to do because it goes against their religion.

Don't look for logic in this, by the way. Sky-is-falling-panic knows no logic.

[louslobbs]

4. +1 n/t

Lou