Sunday, October 21, 2012

the economics of the beast

Wessely J. Smith at The Corner writes about the abortion mandate that Obama has imposed as part of Obamacare:
Less attention has been paid to the impact of the Rule on faithful business owners who don’t wish to be complicit in what they consider to be sinful behavior.  Not prevent others from so engaging, not prevent access, but not having to provide it themselves–an approach perfectly consistent with America’s traditional comity about such differences.  But the Department of Justice has argued in legal briefs in the early cases–one preliminary win and one loss for religious liberty so far–that there is no religious liberty in the context of operating a business, because seeking profit is an exclusively secular endeavor.
In other words, the Obama administration has been arguing that the government has complete control of our ability to engage in commerce regardless of religious issues, suggesting that this may be Constitutional:
And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and [he provides] that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, [either] the name of the beast or the number of his name.
Rev 13:16,17
Of course, the history of religious persecutions contains many instances where economic restrictions were one of the prime weapons to use against unfavored religions. If freedom of religion doesn't include the right to survive then it isn't much good, is it?

No comments: