Whoa. MSNBC must have lost its mind today when author/guest compared President Obama’s encroachment of religious liberty to the first steps taken by the Nazis in Germany.
Something tells me that this is the last time “Bonhoeffer” author Eric Metaxas gets on the air on MSNBC. Especially because the truth hurts.
Breitbart reports:
“I met the president. I gave him a copy of my book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which he said he’s going to read,” Metaxas said during the interview. “In that book, you read about what happened to an amazingly great country called Germany…”
“In the beginning, it always starts really, really small. We need to understand as Americans — if we do not see this as a bright line in the sand — if you’re not a Catholic, if you use contraception — doesn’t matter. Because eventually, this kind of government overreach will affect you.”
Check out the vid. Poor Chris Jansing was so shocked that I believe it melted her brain because she doesn’t really react in shock.
But what does she ask about when she’s told the Obama administration is following the example of Nazis? She asks how Democrats acting like Nazis may hand Republicans a political issue. Because that’s the important question.
February 10, 2012 at 5:22 am
Sophia's Favorite alleged that "'employer insurance must cover contraceptives' and 'employers must pay for contraceptives' are the same sentence." I don't think that is so. "Employer insurance" is typically insurance provided to employees through insurance companies like Cigna, Aetna, Prudential, etc. It is my understanding that these insurance companies would pay the insurance claims for employees who choose to use contraceptives, not the employer itself. Of course, there are some large companies who might *choose* to self-insure and pay their employees' claims out of their own self-insurance fund rather than use an insurance company intermediary, but that would be the employer's choice, not a government mandate. There are also employers who *choose* to pay some portion of the insurance premiums for their employees, but again, that is the employer's choice. Whatever the case, "an employer paying for insurance premiums" and "the insurance company paying for contraceptives" are neither the same sentence nor are they morally equivalent acts.
February 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Essentially many people — right or wrong — don't believe that contraception is immoral, despite the Church's teaching. And many of these folks work for Catholic organizations. It's not "an attack on religious freedom" to accomodate their desires. It's an act of toleration, even if one thinks contraception wrong. Let the Church teach abstinence. (I believe it already teaches tolerance but this voice seems to be drowned out. ) Letting religious institutions restrict the insurance insurance plans offered is not going to teach anyone anything except how politicized (in a bad way) some religious groups have become.
Religious institutions do not pay, insurance companies do:
Insurers will create policy not including contraceptive coverage in the contract for religious organizations that object. Second, the same insurance company must simultaneously offer contraceptive coverage to all employees, and cannot charge an additional premium.
So religious institutions must pay insurance companies and insurance companies must offer restricted plans. I don't see the problem. One doesn't get to tell one's vendors how to run their business.
And as for the tone taken by some prominent members of the Catholic community, one can hope that in the future cooler heads will prevail.