default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

The War on Religious Freedom - Conservative Politics

The War on Religious Freedom

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:11 am

I am concerned that far too many people don’t consider the long-term ramifications of the Obama Administration’s policies on our religious freedoms. Of even greater concern is the possibility that many liberals view these policies as an intentional, plan to put more power in the hands of government, at the cost of religious freedom.

For example, many liberals don’t understand that our Constitution protects Catholic institutions such as hospitals, schools and charities from being forced to provide abortifacient birth control to employees. The fact that the Obama Administration is insisting on it anyway leads me to conclude that many liberals, perhaps including President Obama, justify their opinions and actions by the amount of progress made toward wresting control from the people and religious institutions and transferring more control to the government.

I believe that many liberals know full well that such policies are unconstitutional, but the end justifies the means. Given their narcissistic worldview, liberals expect the Catholic Church to knuckle under and toe the line. Man has replaced God and so the Church must worship at the throne of Man.

Obamacare’s abortifacient drug policy would never have been conceived, except that 40 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court made it possible for our civilized nation to legalize the untimely death of preborn babies.

This kind of slow-creeping evil won’t stop at picking apart the right to life. In a premeditated effort to control the minds and hearts of men, left-most liberals seek to weaken the influence that our country’s churches have on the populace. Even our president, allegedly a constitutional scholar, has subtly used the phrase “freedom of worship” instead of the original “freedom of religion.”

The path to the public’s acceptance of the words of obfuscators is well planned. For decades, the Left has planted falsehoods in the minds of our young, so that most of them now believe that the Constitution actually contains the phrase “wall of separation between Church and State.” It does not. (The fact that some of you will now go online to search for this phrase in the Constitution is a testament to the poor civics education that was inflicted upon you.)

When the majority of present and future generations are taught to believe that the Constitution protects them from religion instead of protecting religion from them, the path to transforming “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” is an easy downhill jaunt. Why undergo the messy work of amending the Constitution when the same end can be accomplished by using consistent doublespeak talking points over the course of decades?

Along the same lines but in regard to the subject of “gay marriage,” I propose that the Left has good reason to insist that this moniker is far superior to “civil union.” Many conservatives and moderates don’t understand why what it’s called should matter to the Left, given that gay couples would be on equal footing with married heterosexual couples either way. I think I’ve figured it out.

Given all that I wrote above, it makes logical sense for gay couples to hijack the word “marriage” because churches perform marriages and many gay couples would prefer to be married in a church. Thus if we called it “the right of gays to marry,” the Left will see to it that churches, including the Catholic Church, end their discriminatory policies and perform gay marriages.

A preposterous conclusion? Yes, if we have freedom “of” religion, but since that freedom has been watered-down, forcing churches to perform gay marriages is a perfectly logical next step for the left-most proponents of the gay rights movement. In fact, I am certain that some readers already believe that a religion’s right to uphold its own set of beliefs is secondary in importance to the protection of future civil rights such as gay marriage.

Our forefathers would shake their heads in amazement. After all, we’re all free to join the religion of our choice, so if we disagree with the tenets of one religion, we can readily move to an alternative religion. It probably never dawned on our forefathers (nor on most of us today) that any of us ought to be free to force our personal beliefs upon a religious institution under the guise of “freedom.”

Freedom of religion should protect our religious institutions from the kind of assaults being waged against them, but that protection is much weaker than in the past. It doesn’t help the Catholic Church that many so-called left-leaning Catholics are attempting to work from the inside to “modernize” the Church into an institution that devout Catholics would not recognize. Thankfully, Christ promised the apostles that although many heretics would work to destroy the Church, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  

The same can’t be said about America. Liberals are slowly but successfully ripping this country apart at the seams and perhaps some day all sheeple will be subject to the throne of government. God help us.

Peter Lachance is an executive coach residing in Lower Makefield Twp., PA. He has been involved in local politics for over ten years. He is inspired by his fear that America is becoming a “dumbocracy” because of “low information voters” whose ignorance results in unintended consequences. He can be reached at:


Religion and Public Life in America, R.R. Reno, Imprimis, April 2013 issue:

Related Articles:

Obama’s Attack on Freedoms of Religion and Conscience, Peter Lachance, conservative blog, February 16, 2012:

More about

More about

More about

Welcome to the discussion.


  • PeterLachance posted at 12:37 pm on Fri, Jun 7, 2013.

    PeterLachance Posts: 50

    Talk about unclear! I am not sure where you are going with this. Is it that you believe that employees of any faith ought to be free to force their moral beliefs upon the owners of the company for whom they work? I don't get what else the Atheism response means.

    The government is not endorsing one religion over another when it respects the First Amendment rights of any one (or more) religions to be free from performing rites that they abhor. That is a serious twist in logic.

    Yes, I believe my article is crystal clear that if we call civil unions "marriage", then decades (or less) into the future, the government will make it discriminatory for churches not to marry gay couples.

    The solution is easy. Stop re-defining marriage and pass laws that allow civil unions to enjoy all the federal, state and local tax benefits that a married couple would enjoy. But that isn't what Liberals are doing, is it, when they instead push for "marriage equality?"

    Must I remind you how close the government came to enforcing ITS convictions upon religious institutions? It's a perfect example of what happens when morals run amuck and the amoral seek to destroy the rights of others who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

    I don't "force" my pro-life belief on others and neither does the Church. However we have a right to lobby on such issues in the political realm.

  • Centrist posted at 10:14 am on Wed, Jun 5, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    You are kidding right? The freedom OF religion vs. freedom FROM religion argument is a falsehood perpetrated by the far right who have not researched case precedence. The Supreme Court has ruled that atheism is protected under the Establishment Clause (Kaufman, James v. McCaughtry, Gary). Whether you feel otherwise is immaterial you might want to take it up with them. Admittedly freedom from religion does not mean being free from being exposed to religion in our society. It does mean one is free from the rules of other religious beliefs and one is free to follow their conscience while continuing to follow the law.
    Your article and Gordianus response opened the door on the gay relationship issue. I gleaned from your article that if the government condoned ‘gay marriage’ that this would be an indication it was stifling your religious freedom. Did I misinterpret your motive? Please clarify Could someone answer if there are other Christian denominations in which ‘gay marriage’ would be acceptable and if so what makes the edicts of one religion more valid than another? Why under the Establishment Clause should the government endorse one over the other?

  • PeterLachance posted at 11:49 pm on Tue, Jun 4, 2013.

    PeterLachance Posts: 50

    Mama's Boy. Thanks for your comment. I am not sure you get my drift.

    The First Amendment has nothing at all to do with freedom FROM religion. It has to do with freedom from the government nominating a national religion.

    For the life of me I can't understand what divorce rates have to do with this article.

    Let me reiterate: my concern is that the government eventually support the notion that all churches must permit gay marriage regardless of their teachings on the matter. After all this administration attempted to force all churches to pay for abortion-causing drugs, then it backed up and exempted houses of worship, then it GOT backed up to the wall and exempted religion-based institutions from the requirement, kind of but not really.

    I think my point is pretty clear, and it applies to all religions, not just the R.C. Church. It just so happens that my church made the loudest objections. Whether you like it or not, the R.C. Church will not change it's mind on this issue. Ever.

  • Centrist posted at 10:45 am on Tue, Jun 4, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    For the religiously minded divorce rates will not vindicate whether gay marriage is acceptable or not. Statistically evangelicals from the bible belt have the highest rates of divorce but I am rue to ascertain the higher divorce rate is a product of belief as it is with the age they marry and the lower income levels.
    Also divorce statistics are difficult to measure. It is not cut and dried tally of how many marry versus how many divorce. The demographic of the population such as how many are available to be married versus how many are available to divorced need to be considered...a much more difficult metric to grab.

  • Mama's Boy posted at 9:00 pm on Mon, Jun 3, 2013.

    Mama's Boy Posts: 12

    The duty of a government is to protect everyone. Hence, the importance of freedom of religion and freedom from religion should be considered concurrently. Mr. LaChance spoke exclusively for the catholic church, but what about other religions such as Judaism or Buddhism that may not have similar teachings. What about those who are atheists? Faith begets from the call of an individual, not government policies. Those who are afraid of their children being misled should review their method of teaching instead of criticizing government's job in protecting the innate rights of the citizens. Gay marriages, which may be new to society, should not be a subject exclusive to the church as there are many marriages performed outside the church. Can one argue that marriages by a church is holier that those not? Do we have divorce statistics to back such a view?

  • Centrist posted at 12:59 pm on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    Well…I would agree with you if you allowed someone the same latitude. For instance if an employer had a moral problem paying for a health care issue regarding overweight people who have Type II diabetes due to poor eating habits and a sedentary lifestyle, why should the employer (or the rest of society) have to pay for any of their drugs or doctor visits? It is their choice to live that way no? Let them burden the cost. Using your example of having an employee pay for their birth control pills, likewise, the overweight employee can cut back on their food intake. With the money they save they could join a gym. My guess is this simple fix would be a vast savings for the American public and reduce the burden on our medical infrastructure. Why stop at diabetes, how about smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, pregnant unwed mothers any of which could be considered morally reprehensible to an employer.

  • Centrist posted at 12:17 pm on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    Yes...I agree...basic scientific tenets...such as the earth being the center of the universe...evil spirits that cause people to become sick...and the earth being 6000 years old with all species being created separately during that time.
    The Church should never have pardoned Galileo in 1992.
    If it were not for the Judeo Christian model we would really be in a pickle.
    Somehow I recall in my studies that most shifts in scientific thought needed to be hard fought sometimes at the expense of death before the religiously minded eventually accepted the inevitable. Mendel not-with-standing.

  • PeterLachance posted at 10:49 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    PeterLachance Posts: 50

    Per Religion News on Feb 1, 2013:

    If the faith-based organization is self-insured — a problem that was the focus of objections after the first round of proposals last year — then the eligible organization would notify a third-party administrator to work with the health insurer to provide separate policies at no cost, according to the HHS.

    “The costs of both the health insurance issuer and third party administrator would be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees that insurers pay,” said the HHS."

    So yes, you are correct that after a Herculean lobbying job, church organizations got the mandate's exemption broadened to exempt religious-affiliated schools, hospitals and charities. However they still pay for the coverage in an indirect fashion, i.e., we all do.

    Fact is, the Obama Administration was so arrogant as to ignore the First Amendment and it had to be kicked in the teeth before it got sense knocked into it.

  • Centrist posted at 10:12 am on Fri, May 31, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    What? Why should the Roman Catholic Church’s contribution to the modern hospital over a thousand years ago have anything to do with health care now? Is there some royalty that needs to be paid? If so my ancestors perfected roads before Jesus was born possibly I could get a refund on all the tolls I paid on the PA Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. Bottom line….Catholic hospitals along with other religiously based organizations are exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Admittedly the exemption had to be fought for after the bill was implemented.

    The blog article says nothing about whether gay relationships are morally right or wrong only that the word ‘civil union’ equates to the word ‘marriage’. It does not. Whether you believe the prospect of gay marriage is a sign of a decadent society on the decline is immaterial to the blog. Maybe in a future article you could address why gay marriage indicates the downfall of our republic…please consider other issues that were thought to have indicated the same such as the freeing of slaves (13th Amendment), the right for all races to vote (15th Amendment), the right for women to vote (19th Amendment) all of which pale in comparison to Obamacare that will eventually rent the fabric of space-time.

  • PeterLachance posted at 4:31 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    PeterLachance Posts: 50

    From a friend of mine who does not have an account here:

    Great article, Peter. The left (I don't like the term "liberal" to describe them; the term refers to freedom, not domination of society by one point of view) with, ironically, religious certainty, wants to override individual freedoms like religion, but not limited to that. Another example is the trashing, for ideological reasons such as hatred of free market capitalism (every bit as much a part of what made America and the West as religious (Judeo-Christian actually) freedom) of basic scientific tenets (like accepting "man-made climate change" as a fact when this has not been demonstrated in a classic scientific sense, but is the outcome of "models" that already assume the wanted answer). We see this also in politics every day, in the lack of patriotism (such as those who willed the U.S. and its allies to lose in Vietnam), legalized discrimination such as "affirmative action", political correctness, etc.

    The 2 main causes of the ascendancy of leftist indoctrination are the education system and the mainstream press, especially NPR (which, disingenuously, accepts taxpayer funding but does not provide "equal time").

    Solutions are elusive.

  • PeterLachance posted at 3:44 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    PeterLachance Posts: 50

    Thanks for sharing your opinion. Seems to many of us conservatives that no organization, non-profit or otherwise, should be forced to act against the moral convictions of its owners. The silliness of all this is that contraceptives are accessible and cheap, so the argument that making them free via employer health insurance is necessary is spurious.

  • Gordianus posted at 2:42 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    Gordianus Posts: 14

    It should be remembered that the Roman Catholic Church created both the modern hospital and university many hundreds of years before the American Republic came into existence. Were it not for the preservation of learning fostered by the Church the very idea of a republic or a democratic state would be the province of archeologists. A little humility on the part of our dysfunctional government is in order here. The Church is far from perfect, but its track record is far beyond comparison with the modern state.

    Regarding so called gay marriage, only a society in which marriage itself has become meaningless could so easily bestow that title so thoughtlessly. We are the victims of that modern tendency to see decadence as progress, and progress as inevitable.

  • Centrist posted at 1:50 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    As far as the gay marriage vs. civil union argument the two are nowhere near the same. The author uses the ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck’ idiom when in truth the marriage/civil union comparison is like mistaking an ostrich for a duck. On the State level there are few differences, however on a Federal level the differences are profound hence the push to overturn one DOMA provision. I copied the following “Civil marriage brings with it many legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections. Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs”.

  • Centrist posted at 12:11 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    it should be noted that faith based non-profit religious groups are exempt from the contraceptive mandate...i did not reference that in my response.

  • Centrist posted at 10:56 am on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    Centrist Posts: 46

    The most recent articles I have read in regards to the contraception mandate show a broadening of the definition of faith-based non-profit organizations that find a sub-set of contraceptive drugs as morally unacceptable (the Catholic Church and it’s affiliate organizations fall into this category). However this expansion was leveraged by over 50 lawsuits, which could have threatened the bills implementation. One needs to decide whether the original mandate was a sinister act to undermine religious freedom or an unforeseen consequence of a bill so large in scope that the full ramifications were not known.

    The contraception mandate was brought to light when Hobby-Lobby owned by a religious fervent family refused to pay for that subset of contraceptive devices and drugs that purge a fertilized egg from the body on religious grounds. Subsequent challenges to the mandate have failed given Hobby Lobby is a secular for-profit company.

    I have a problem with the term ‘war on religion’ since it seems that the free practice thereof has not been infringed and more often the opposite dynamic is true where religion seeks to infringe on the rights of others especially in the area of moral application. I do not know who said it but “good moral judgments depend on good facts”. I question what is considered 'fact' by some religious people.