What Every Christian Ought to Know About President Obama’s Healthcare Mandate

Jim Daily, President of Focus on the Family has written a compelling piece on the title to this post. I commend it to you.

It was difficult to click on a website, turn on the TV or venture into the social media space over the weekend without encourtering news of President Barack Obama’s attempt to blunt criticism that his healthcare plan would force religious groups to violate their deeply held morals and values by paying for contraceptive drugs that could cause abortions.

As you’ve probably read, seen or heard from that coverage, the administration’s self-described “accommodation” has not gone over well with institutions or people of faith. That’s because, for us, this is matter of morals, not money. Principles like how we view human life and whether we are truly free to live and practice our religious convictions speak to the very essence of who we are as people and as a society. They are woven through every aspect of our lives. They are not issues for America; they are the ethos of America.

There are many compelling points to be made that the president’s revision does not adequately address the concerns of Catholic charities and other religious groups—including evangelical organizations like Focus on the Family.

Under the revised mandate, employers who have “a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan” will not fund these services directly. Instead, the insurance plan will cover these services to all female employees. Still, all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

Also of concern is that private business owners who provide healthcare services for their employers have no exceptions. A Catholioc business owner would have tofund contraception; an evangelical business owner would have to fund possible abortion-inducing drugs. To think you’ve placated Christian groups by giving them what they want, while denying it to other people, disregards a core tenet of our faith: the needs of others are always to supersede our own.

Then there’s the issue that the drugs mandated for coverage by the Obama administration go beyond contraception as most Americans understand it. That is, they don’t just prevent the fertilization of a woman’s egg. Drugs like Plan B and Ella, which are mandated for coverage, can cause an early abortion by preventing the embryo from attaching to the uterine lining. This is terminating a human life.

That brings up a point that should be pondered by fair-minded Americans who hold even vastly different views on the sanctity of human life: This mandate elevates contraception and abortion-inducing drugs to the level of preventative healthcare. They are not. Plan B should not be considered equivalent to the polio vaccine. Pregnancy is not a disease. Perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the White House’s “accommodation” reasoning—no matter, frankly, what in the end that accommodation turns out to be—is that religious liberties are not something any president has the legal authority to recognize or deny. As Christians, we believe these rights come from God; but you don’t need to believe in God to recognize such rights are protected for all citizens by the Constitution.

There is a limit to what government can compel us to do—or not do—particularly in matters of faith and conscience. It is in the best interest of all Americans, of every ideological stripe, that this limit, this line, not be crossed.

This is not about politics. It is about more than one government policy. It is about what’s proper – and it is never proper for government to force the people who elected it to violate their consciences.

Yours in Christ,
Jim Daly's signature

A Fox in the Hen House

A Calculated Confrontation

If you ever wanted to see a clear example of President Obama playing politics as usual …

the absurd forced contraception and abortion insurance issue is it.

This is a perfect example of the president deceiving the people.

First of all, Obama is being dishonest when he says that his opponents will attempt to play politics with this issue. Not only is he playing politics with the issue, he introduced the issue with the intention of using the issue to rally his far left base, and divide the electorate, and he is deliberately manipulating the electorate.

Apparently, the far left who are in charge of the mainstream media and President Obama, decided to introduce contraception as an issue for Obama to run on in the coming election in their campaign strategy planning. Running on Obama’s record is not an option for them. I saw this first in the recent Republican debate when George Stephanopolous asked; “do you believe the states have the right to ban contraception”

It is not a mere coincidence that both Stephanopolous and Obama would bring this issue front and center for anything other than political purposes. In the face of the real problems facing America, this is unquestionably a sham issue. This is the Democrats attempt to change the subject.

MSM and Obama Are Clearly Under
The Control Of The Extreme Left


A Silly Question

The calculation was that Obama would nudge the electorate with the issue, get everyone upset on both political extremes. The far left which is disenchanted with Obama would now have an issue to fight for. This is good for fund raising and getting his base mobilized. He then would offer a compromise and now has

has scored a victory on an issue that was not even an issue in the first place. And for sure we won’t be talking about unemployment, jobs, putting Americans back to work, or the runaway budget deficits or worse yet Obama’s failed policies.

This Cap Sunstein “Nudge” concept may have worked perfectly here unless Obama and the silly game he is playing wakes up conservative Catholics, and the Tea Party Movement is once again mobilized to defeat him.

Obama must think Americans are ignorant.

The problem for Obama is that this is a different electorate than the one that voted for him in 2008. This time around, the people are up to his manipulative skills; and they are mad as hell, and they’re not gonna take it anymore.

With our most precious religious and personal liberties at stake, there is much for God loving, and freedom loving Americans to stand up and fight for.

 Posted by at 7:25 PM

Obama Gone Wild! $800M for ‘Arab Spring’

Is this insanity, ignorance or un American? When Obama is in his campaign mode, he continues to speak of American who need major assistance from those who are doing very well. From the article below which used Reuters as their source, it would seem that the President is far most interested in moving money from America’s rich to Muslim countries, not known as lovers of the red, white and blue. Read the following article and see what your conclusion might be!

(Reuters) – The White House announced plans on Monday to help “Arab Spring” countries swept by revolutions with more than $800 million in economic aid, while maintaining U.S. military aid to Egypt.

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years — $1.3 billion — despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.

The proposals are part of Obama’s budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.

Obama proposed $51.6 billion in funding for the U.S. State Department and foreign aid overall, when $8.2 billion in assistance to war zones is included. The “core budget” for the category would increase by 1.6 percent, officials said.

Most of the economic aid for the Arab Spring countries — $770 million — would go to establish a new “Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund,” the president said in his budget plan.

Analysts said it was difficult to tell how much of the proposal was actually new money.

“As presented it’s very difficult to determine if the Arab spring fund is new wine in new bottles or old wine in new bottles,” said John Norris, a former U.S. foreign aid worker now at the Center for American Progress.

The Middle East and North Africa Incentive fund “will provide incentives for long-term economic, political, and trade reforms to countries in transition — and to countries prepared to make reforms proactively,” the White House budget document said.

The proposal said this approach “expands our bilateral economic support in countries such as Tunisia and Yemen, where transitions are already underway.”

It would also build on other programs for the area, including up to $2 billion in regional Overseas Private Investment Corporation financing, up to $1 billion in debt swaps for Egypt, and approximately $500 million in existing funds re-allocated to respond to the region last year, the budget document said.

It did not say how the Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund would be divided between countries, or give any other details of the plan.

Egypt has long been among the top recipients of U.S. aid, getting about $1.6 billion annually, mostly in military assistance. In fiscal 2012, $250 million of aid approved for Egypt was economic; $1.3 billion was military and there was a $60 million “enterprise fund” approved by Congress.

No U.S. assistance is moving to Egypt at the moment, U.S. lawmakers and their aides said last week. Some legislators favor cutting off aid to Egypt entirely if it does not drop accusations against American democracy activists and lift a travel ban on them.

Obama continued the practice of putting proposed foreign assistance for war zones in a separate account. This account, known as the “Overseas Contingency Operations,” includes $8.2 billion for the State Department and foreign aid.

It includes $3.3 billion for Afghanistan, $1 billion for Pakistan, and $4 billion for Iraq, where U.S. troops have left the country but the State Department has picked up some of their functions such as police training.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-foreign-idUSTRE81C1C920120213

Two Important Posts Below

The first post reminds us of Obama’s promise to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term, a domestic issue of no small concern.

The second post describes Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel’s decision that must be made soon and very soon concerning Iran. Will Israel attempt to take out Iran’s attempt to achieve the bomb, or will she sit back and wait for the 21st Century Holocaust that will make Hitler’s pale in comparison?

Read both and be informed!

Do You Remember this Obama Promise?

Jason Mattera, 01.24.12
Daily Events

“Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.”

If you don’t recall that “pledge,” no worries: Neither does the Obama administration. After all, this was a statement made in none other than Barack’s first State of the Union address. That means, according to the Associated Press, the deficit should be nearing the $500 billion mark by now. Instead, the deficit is expected to hit another $1.2 trillion in 2012.

Not that we’re surprised by this outcome, of course. Only in the liberal world do you tackle reckless government spending by… adding more reckless government spending to the books. In a nutshell, the Democratic Party has overseen the three largest budget deficits in U.S. history and, overall, the country is set to face deficits with multiple zeroes for four years in a row.

But I’m sure that red ink was all George W. Bush’s fault. Along with the Japanese earthquake, naturally.

And then there’s this doozy from Obama’s first State of the Union speech: “My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs.” Somehow the $500 million Solyndra boondoggle slipped through the bureaucratic cracks, huh?

Bottom line: Whatever Obama serves up tonight in what we’re hoping is his last State of the Union address, it will be talk… and more talk. That’s it. He doesn’t want to work with Republicans in Congress. And Republicans shouldn’t want to work with him, as we have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t know how to be a proper steward of taxpayer money. So whatever words appear on the teleprompter tonight and come forth, Republicans should compare and contrast (publicly and loudly) the President’s past promises to what has happened in reality.

And speaking of the Republicans, how does radio host and bestselling author Mark Levin rate the GOP leadership in Congress? Um, poorly. Very poorly. Watch Mark tell the Republicans that they need to start fighting and stop capitulating.
—Jason Mattera

Hypocrisy In High Places

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin posted on 01/20/2012 her thought provoking article in Human Events. She appropriately titled it “The Land of Obama Make-believe.” I offer it in its entirety.

Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals.

And where’d he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain’t child’s play, you know.

Obama touted a White House foreign tourism initiative on Thursday with Cinderella’s castle as his backdrop. “America is open for business,” he proclaimed chirpily to the rest of the globe.

Tell that to the Keystone managers in Canada whom Obama and his State Department rebuffed — after years of planning and review — in order to appease militant environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. The Animatronic Divider robotically lambasted Republicans for pushing him to make a decision this week. But Senate and House Democrats issued the sharpest rebukes to White House obstructionism:

“President Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America’s energy independence,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said.

“The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence,” Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented.

“This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security,” Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando’s fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there’s no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.)

On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 — hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It’s Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year. Even more comically, the ad touted his exemplary ethics record by quoting a moldy three-year-old endorsement from left-leaning Politifact. And as bipartisan Capitol Hill outrage over the half-billion-dollar Solyndra solar stimulus bust mounts, Obama had the nerve to sprinkle his inaugural campaign spot with — wait for it — solar panels.

Instead of supporting new infrastructure jobs in America through an energy independence-enhancing project that has bipartisan legislative support on Capitol Hill, the president flew to Disney World to peddle looser visa restrictions in China and Brazil by executive order. He also will expand the Visa Waiver Program (a security loophole-ridden program that was suspended temporarily after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) to speed foreign travel.

In case anyone needs reminding, it was the relentless drive of the tourism industry and kowtowing State Department bureaucrats that led to the Bush-era Visa Express Program, which relaxed visa policies, eliminated in-person consulate interviews and opened the door to the 9/11 hijackers. Brazil is just the latest base for al-Qaida and other Islamic jihadi groups. It does not consider Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist groups, and it disbanded its anti-terrorism force in 2009.

The Visa Waiver Program and other efforts to expedite the tourist visa process also pose continuing security risks because — as the Government Accountability Office itself admitted last year — there is still no comprehensive, systematic way to track the 70 million-plus foreign visitors who enter the country on tourist and other short-term visas. Indeed, half of the nation’s estimated 20 million illegal aliens are visa overstayers.

How many of the new Disney foreign tourists whom Obama is touting as America’s economic salvation will fail to return to their home countries after their Obama World visas expire? We’ll likely never know. And Team Obama doesn’t care.

In his opening campaign ad salvo, Obama accuses his opponents of being “untethered to facts.” But this is an administration that believes lowering visa standards and risking homeland security to pump up Disney foreign tourism is a better path to economic recovery than supporting direct American job creation and enhancing energy security. Like the Disney characters he posed with this week, our cartoonish president is wholly untethered to reality.

Mark Levin: Liberals ooze of greed and envy

by Jason Mattera of Human Events
01/20/2012

Mark Levin and Jason Mattera

We know the Democratic playbook by now, right?

Liberals always fall back on the politics of greed and envy.  “Rich” people are to be blamed for everything: the bailout of banks, health care’s uninsured, laid-off teachers, soaring deficits, back-breaking debt, high unemployment, falling home values, and Michael Jackson’s death (too soon?).

How are Republicans responding to such leftist rhetoric?

Poorly, says Mark Levin.  Very poorly.

“The government is never big enough.  It never has enough money.  It never spends enough.  It builds all these monuments to itself; and then it complains it doesn’t have enough money,” argued Levin in his latest interview with HUMAN EVENTS.  And all this while the government is “destroying our financial system and draining wealth from the private sector.”

Levin, whose brand-new book Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America skyrocketed to No. 1 on Amazon.com, says that the Left tries to “destroy the individual” to distract the people from their agenda of an ever-expanding government.

Watch part four of our interview with Mark Levin:

For what we consider individual success and productivity, liberals must create “devil terms,” he added.

“Oh, you’re a selfish profiteer.”

While Levin hopes our republic can be restored, he’s not so sure it will happen.  “It’s getting close to … where I wonder.”  Levin says that the country must answer this fundamental question:  Do we want to live in America, or do we want to live in an Ameritopia?  If the former, he notes, then we have a lot of unconstitutional laws to unravel.

Decades’ and decades’ worth.

“So many decisions made about our lives today are out of our control.  They’re made by bureaucrats and judges and temporary politicians who try to make permanent changes to our society.”

Levin’s pessimism’s is derived from the fact that the utopians have done an enormously effective job in conditioning the American psyche to devalue the Constitution and replace it with the bonds of government entitlement.

Heck, Obama employs this tactic every day.  “He’s attacking who we used to be, and saying who we need to be.”

That brings up a good point:  What incentive does a person beholden to the entitlement system have to vote for a constitutional conservative after being trained by the utopians to vote to take more private property away from others in order to keep the obscene government gravy train flowing?

You’ll have to watch the video above to see Levin’s answer.

Obama Kills 20,000 Keystone XL Jobs

Posted by LaborUnionReport (Diary)
Wednesday, January 18th at 8:30PM EST
(Labors’ Union Vows Not to Forget). We shall see.

After months of playing political ping-pong with 20,000 potential (mostly union) jobs, the Obama administration decided on Wednesday to kill the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried crude oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries.

According to a State Department release [emphasis added]:

Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.

Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada’s permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project…

For more than three years, the State Department has conducted its “transparent, thorough, and rigorous review.” However, apparently, the Obama Administration believes that three years wasn’t enough to be transparent, thorough, or rigorous enough.

As Forbes’ Christopher Helman noted in November:

In the process of selecting the proposed route, TransCanada plotted and studied 14 different pipeline paths and submitted 10,000 pages of environmental studies. They’ve already studied this thing to death.

What’s worse is the fact that Obama’s purely ideological decision does not serve the national interest at all. In fact, since China will be the likely recipient of the Canadian oil, in addition to the destruction of possible jobs, Obama’s decision harm—not help—the nation’s interests.

According to a State Department release [emphasis added]:

Today, the Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation, which was predicated on the fact that the Department does not have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess whether the project, in its current state, is in the national interest.

Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough, and rigorous review of TransCanada’s permit application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project…

For more than three years, the State Department has conducted its “transparent, thorough, and rigorous review.” However, apparently, the Obama Administration believes that three years wasn’t enough to be transparent, thorough, or rigorous enough.

As Forbes’ Christopher Helman noted in November:

In the process of selecting the proposed route, TransCanada plotted and studied 14 different pipeline paths and submitted 10,000 pages of environmental studies. They’ve already studied this thing to death.

What’s worse is the fact that Obama’s purely ideological decision does not serve the national interest at all. In fact, since China will be the likely recipient of the Canadian oil, in addition to the destruction of possible jobs, Obama’s decision harm—not help—the nation’s interests.

As a result of the Obama’s job-destroying decision, Laborers’ union president, Terry O’Sullivan issued a blistering statement:

The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero. We are completely and totally disappointed. This is politics at its worst,” LIUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan said. “Once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers – even though environmental concerns were more than adequately addressed. Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this.”

The project would create thousands of good jobs at a time when unemployment in the construction industry is 16 percent with 1.3 million men and women jobless.

Environmental groups have used the Keystone XL as a disingenuous proxy for arguments about global warming. The pipeline would carry up to 900,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada’s Tar Sands to the U.S., reducing reliance on oil from hostile nations. While environmental groups decry Tar Sands development, the Canadian government and Trans-Canada, the company developing the Tar Sands, have made clear the oil will be developed – and possibly sold to China – regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.

[snip]

The Administration and environmentalists have blown the whistle on workers trying to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads,” said O’Sullivan. “Instead of celebrating their victory by hugging a tree they should hug a jobless construction worker because they’re the ones who are going to need it.” [Emphasis added.]

Below is Speaker John Boehner’s reaction to Obama’s decision:

 

This is a Constitutional Crisis of Major Proportions

This is of such significant importance that I have chosen to share my letter from Mark Mix.

Dear Dan,

“This is a constitutional crisis,” I argued on Fox News in one of many interviews I’ve conducted since Friday.

As you may have heard, your National Right to Work Foundation filed the first legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s purported “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

This is just about as big as it gets for those of us dedicated to defending liberty.

You see, last week, lawyers for the NLRB notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that Obama’s three “recess” appointees to the Board were now parties to the Foundation’s ongoing legal battle against another Obama Labor Board power grab.

Foundation attorneys seized upon the opportunity to defend the U.S. Constitution and our system of checks and balances.

Our Founding Fathers brilliantly devised a system that empowers Congress to hold the President accountable — a system President Obama has defiantly violated to pay back his Big Labor benefactors.

The “advice and consent clause” allows the Senate to ensure that Presidential appointments to powerful executive positions are qualified and not beholden to special interests like Big Labor.

The President may fill vacancies while Congress has recessed, but Obama’s latest move even runs afoul of the rule cited by an Obama Administration lawyer at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 — “the recess has to be longer than 3 days.”

The closer you look at Obama’s latest power grab, the more it stinks.

The White House never even submitted the proper paperwork to the Senate Labor Committee to let the Committee members conduct background checks and interview two of the nominees — including a lawyer for the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE).

This is indeed a constitutional crisis, and I’m proud to be a part of this vital fight to defend the Constitution.

But as with any crisis, the battle is going to expensive.

Our staff attorneys will need significant resources to conduct the legal research and file briefs necessary to defeat this unconstitutional power grab, as our public relations team continues to expose the Obama Administration’s outrageous move in the media.

So please, click here to make an emergency tax-deductible contribution of whatever you can afford right away.

You can bet the Obama Administration is going to defend this egregious abuse of authority with all they’ve got.

Our country’s constitutional balance is in jeopardy. Thank you for helping us fight back.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. Your National Right to Work Foundation has filed the first legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s purported “recess” appointments to the NLRB.

Please make an emergency tax-deductible contribution of whatever you can afford to support the Foundation’s efforts to defend the U.S. Constitution from President Obama’s flagrant abuse of executive

A Major Victory for Religious Liberty

Thursday, January 12, 2012 | 13:56 PM
By Albert Mohler, President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States handeddown one of the most important decisions on religious liberty in recent decades. For the first time, the Court held that there is indeed a ministerial exemption that allows churches and religious organizations to discriminate in ways that other employers cannot. The Court’s decision was unanimous, and the affirmation of religious liberty and the right of churches to hire religious teachers without state interference is fundamentally important.

The case emerged when a teacher in a Lutheran church school in Michigan was terminated by the church. She sued, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sided with her, bringing a suit against the church. The teacher was a “called teacher” in the church’s program, which meant that she had the responsibility to teach the church’s beliefs. The EEOC and lower courts had held that there is no ministerial exemption that would force the EEOC to drop the case. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that logic, calling the view put forth by the EEOC and the Obama Administration “remarkable.”

The Chief Justice reviewed the history of religious liberty in the United States and England, noting that the founders of the United States wanted to ensure that the state could not interfere in the churches’ hiring of ministers. Pointing to the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, Roberts wrote: “The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.”

Directly rejecting the arguments of the EEOC and the findings of the lower court, the Chief Justice stated: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

He also wrote: “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

In a concurring opinion Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Court should have gone further, granting to religious organizations the sole and final authority to determine who is and is not covered by the ministerial exemption. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan wrote a second concurring opinion, arguing that the issue of ordination should not be the determining issue, since ordination practices, titles and other designations of ministers differ by church, denomination, and religious group.

In his opinion, the Chief Justice also stated clearly that the EEOC has no right to declare that a church has wrongly terminated a minister. In his words, “it is precisely such a ruling that is barred by the ministerial exemption.”

By any measure, this is an important and vital decision. One way to consider its importance is to ponder what the opposite finding would have meant. In this case, this would mean that there is no ministerial exemption, and that churches, church schools, Christian colleges and seminaries, and any number of church-based employers, would be forbidden to hire and fire on theological and doctrinal grounds.

In other words, the government would be able to direct and limit  churches and church schools in matters of hiring those with teaching and ministerial responsibility.

This would mean, effectively, the end of religious liberty. Thankfully, the Court preserved religious liberty, and did so in an opinion that is clear in its findings and declarations. Add to this the fact that the decision was unanimous — and be thankful.

The entire Opinion of the Court in the case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, along with Concurring Opinions and the Syllabus, are available here.