Religious Freedom Doesn't Mean Religious Silence

This article, especially these two sections of it, are both clearly part of my own thoughts on the latest attempts to silence those with religious conviction/beliefs. It is why any form of freedom of conscience ban must be fought against.

The rights of conscience, Pope John Paul II once wrote, are the "primary foundation of every authentically free political order." If that is so, then we better redouble our vigilance. Here in the United States, where we fancy ourselves religiously tolerant, recent high-profile cases suggest that First Amendment rights are widely misunderstood.

What is frightening to me is that so many just fall in line with the thinking that EVERYONE must accept and tolerate the murder of innocent children via abortion on demand, the destruction of marriage and family via no fault, forced, unilateral divorce and same sex 'marriage', and that anyone in health care MUST tolerate, accept, and possibly aid in Abortion, Euthanasia (via dehydration/starvation, Terminal Sedation, assisted suicide, or direct killing), EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research (even though it has proved NOTHING yet, vs the Stem Cell Research that HAS provided real answers...and eventually possibly Cloning.

The least that 'Tolerance' of today means is that if we do not agree with the above, we SHUT UP, and DO NOTHING. With any removal of Freedom of Conscience protection, that will change to demanding that we also participate in it, if we are in any way connected to Health Care, and it will not take long.  If our Federal Legislators don't uphold this, our current Court System may soon 'overturn' any protection we have via Court Orders--thus MAKING LAW, as has been done in the past.

It should be obvious that this is no way of building a pluralistic society that is free and peaceful. The American Founders knew better when they fashioned an amendment forbidding the national government from establishing a church, guaranteeing all people the right to practice their faith, and leaving the rest to local custom and personal freedom.

Recognizing the influence of religion, tyrants have always begun their quest for absolute power by coopting religious leaders. Where they have failed in that enterprise, would-be despots have neutralized them by undermining their authority or doing away with troublesome ministers altogether. History's tyrants recognized the progression that some of us have forgotten: Where people are free to act according their consciences, they will demand the right to determine their political destiny. Where they choose their political leaders, they will seek the space to exercise economic freedom as well. The many dimensions of freedom tend to rise — and to fall — together.

These are the connections that John Paul II, a churchman under Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, understood and articulated. Those who love freedom, be they of devout religious faith or none at all, should resist attempts to silence believers under the auspices of a perverted notion of separation of church and state.

If Nationalized Health Care comes in, there is even MORE danger for the terminally ill, the disabled, the children not deemed to be perfect while in utero (often mistakenly!!) as well as many accident victims who CAN recover with time and rehab!!!!

Living Wills are NOT the answer, as much that is on them CAN and WILL be distorted. A Will to Live (as from National Right to Life) and a DPA-HC are better protection, but again, only if you know that the person appointed will carry out your wishes.

Terri Schindler Schiavo is a clear indication of a Court ordering the death of a disabled woman. Do we really think that acting on our conscience is 'safe'???

Read again that last paragraph above from the article.

The rest of the article can be found here.