You’d think that they would be able to think 15 minutes into the future and see that there might be a downside to them someday, but false teachers were rejoicing that the government is trampling religious freedoms in the name of health care. Did it occur to these phonies that if they wanted to provide these benefits they could have done it without the government forcing them to? Oh, that’s right, they want their religious views forced on others.
Via On Your Knees, Pro-Lifers: Mainline Version:
The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, seconds the latter’s glee over the recent decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to run roughshod over religious liberty in the interest of contraceptive orthodoxy
. . .
Take note, United Methodists: your GBCS wants the government to be able to force you to support practices, and spend money to support practices, that are contrary to your faith. Any Christian, whether conservative or liberal, who does not believe that this decision, if allowed to stand, will not come back to eventually haunt us is living in a dream land. But then, we’ve known that about Jim Winkler for a long time.
It makes me want to rejoin the Methodist church just so I can leave it again.
The false teachers from the UCC are just as excited to give up their freedom.
These spiritual idiots are always glad when it is our freedoms that are being trampled upon, but take any of their freedoms, real or perceived, and the hissy fit is on!
Exactly. They blather about made-up rights to oxymoronic same-sex marriage and abortion but throw away real rights like religious freedom.
Not a new observation, but a profound one nonetheless.
It’s been my complaint for some time now about the Left’s tiresome judicial activism – the drive to get the court system to recognize “rights” that don’t exist while also getting it to ignore rights that do.
What does it tell you about a group of people who think the Constitution enshrines the right of a woman to kill her baby, but not to protect that same baby with a firearm?
Excellent point! I need to make a post with that.