Always let your conscience be your guide.
These words, voiced by a wise and well-dressed insect, first echoed across the silver screen in 1940 to the delight of audiences across the nation. And, while not perfect, the advice is generally sound. While there are any number of people around happy to steer you this way or that on all manner of decisions, the responsibility for our actions is ultimately ours. That can also include consequences, both good and bad.
It makes sense then that in a free society the government would allow the people as much latitude as possible to follow the dictates of that conscience when taking action. That's what the Founding Fathers intended when they framed the Constitution. That's why they included the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, limiting the actions that Congress could take to infringe upon the rights of the people both to speak and act upon matters of conscience. Sadly, it seems that no branch on government holds those protections as binding in a modern age, least of all the President.
The latest evidence of this disregard came as the Attorney General filed suit against a group of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of Mercy. This charity, like many religious groups, wants no part of the mandate to provide contraception to employees, whether through funding of their own or through a third party exemption. Either method, they insist would violate their religious principles. The President, through the Attorney General, insists that no violation of conscience exists. The Little Sisters disagree, and are willing to fight for their beliefs. It's a battle neither side feels they can afford to lose.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a standard liberal refrain was "you can't legislate morality." Conservative myself, it was a refrain I agreed with. In more recent times, it seems that liberals concern themselves with little except legislating morality, after defining it to suit their preferences. Several years ago, while the battle over "gay marriage" was still largely in the debate stage, the standard retort to anyone opposing the position was that if you opposed gay marriage, simply "don't get one." I attempted to explain to many at the time that adopting such unions inevitably resulted in the loss of freedoms of other citizens in favor of privileges for the minority. I was met with anything from polite skepticism to mockery at the time. Since then, I have been shown correct by any objective standard as people in California have had several referendums nullified, denying millions of people due process. In states that have adopted such unions, business people attempting to avoid participating in such unions on religious grounds have been threatened with loss of business licenses, fines, and harassment. Clearly, relying on a personal conscience is frowned upon.
Government frowns begin early, as school literature takes a definite positive position towards gay parenting and relationships. This is rather strange, considering that the CDC reports that overall those practicing the gay lifestyle are still many times more likely to be involved in the transmission of STD's than their straight counterparts, and the most comprehensive study done to date on gay parenting shows significantly higher incidences of promiscuity, abuse, and depression in children adopted by two gay parents.
Any specific at this point is merely a symptom, however. The problem is that the government is acting not simply as a legal authority, but also as the arbiter of public morality. This is a task that it was never intended to assume. Assuming the Affordable Care Act is not overturned, agents of this government will have nearly unlimited access to the most personal details of everyone in the country. That combined with the desire for control they have already exhibited, can only end in the worst kind of tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment