When does our religious freedom give us the right to prevent someone else from exercising his or her divine right to personal safety, health and welfare?
How, indeed, does our religious freedom give us the right to prevent someone else from exercising his or her divine right to personal safety, health and welfare, even if their ideology is contrary to our own?
Who can by any right, without question or exception, proclaim religious freedom and yet prevent someone else from exercising his or her divine right to personal safety, health and welfare, even if their beliefs are different than your own?
Why our religious freedoms are different for those of one philosophy or another that decries someone else for exercising his or her divine right to personal safety, health and welfare, is a question of leadership regarding those willing to deny someone else the personal safety, health and welfare benefits just because they practice some dissimilar principles?
What do we teach, preach and proclaim about any religious freedom?
Where, when, how, who, why and what are the religious freedoms granted by divine right or by what mankind speaks of that which is good for us and with respect to all things created?
That said, anyone preventing or advocating a denial of someone else exercising his or her divine right to personal safety, health and welfare ought to question their own religious freedom that allows them to find the divine guidance or profound wisdom from their Creator/God and not some self made Politian/Man, to understand that everyone has merit.
Being as or so created equal does, indeed, mean being equally responsible toward each other with respect to everyone’s safety, health and welfare regardless of our cultural differences, religious persuasion or political agendas.
If there is any debate or argument to dispute this personal observation, please comment and indeed, we will share, repost and repeat the conversation in search of additional remarks in due diligent consideration of all parties concerned.
Court Orders New Look at Health Care Challenge
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 26, 2012 at 9:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms.
A federal district judge rejected Liberty’s claims, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit was premature and never dealt with the substance of the school’s arguments. The Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June.
The justices used lawsuits filed by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business to uphold the health care law by a 5-4 vote, then rejected all other pending appeals, including Liberty’s.
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty’s claims before rendering a decision.
Liberty’s case joins dozens of other pending lawsuits over health reform, many involving the requirement that employer insurance plans cover contraception, which are working their way through the federal court system.
The case is Liberty University v. Geithner, 11-438.