Comments on Infringements of Religious Freedom

The purchase of insurance itself necessitates a conviction that sickness, disease, and accidents are natural occurrences controlled by an assumed absolute law of randomness and are therefore, in that view, simply unavoidable. This is not the view of those who depend upon God exclusively for their own care and protection. They instead follow a line of thought which manifests God’s natural harmony and the expectation of it, in every aspect of their lives.

A secondary assumption in favor of insurance would be that, given the occurrence of such an event, the monetary costs of attending to the results would be prohibitively expensive. Those who truly practice pure spiritual healing continually demonstrate, as a way of life, that God’s law of infinite supply is continually provable and proven in human experience. Witness Christ’s feeding of the multitudes, for instance.

Those who practice purely spiritual healing exclusively, do not at all believe either of these two human premises to be true. They generally strive to live their lives contrary to them. Therefore, the concept of required health insurance itself is contrary to their system of religious belief and practice. In this writer’s opinion, this law is an infraction of the right to practice religion as we personally see fit.

Here is a huge inconsistency which needs to be addressed on the mandatory health care (Obamacare) front, but which has been totally ignored in the media:

On the basis of being “conscientiously opposed to the acceptance of public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or that makes payments towards the cost of, or provides services for, medical care” on the basis of one’s own religious considerations — ministers, members of certain religious orders not under a vow of poverty, and Christian Science practitioners have already been, for many years, able to exempt themselves from Social Security Tax by filing with the IRS, a form 4361.

I am a Christian Science practitioner.  So, I understand that I am entitled to exempt myself from one form of public insurance, and that those in my profession have been able to do so for many decades, but yet I and they are not entitled to exempt ourselves from another new form of required public insurance, Obamacare. Lobbyists representing my faith and profession have been working in Washington, but the administration in charge of the creation of Obamacare is not willing to budge on total exemption from health care insurance requirements due to personal religious convictions.  What do you suppose might be their position on retaining the old 4361 exemption from Social Security? I think I can guess what they are thinking. The loss of yet another religious freedom is coming, urged and backed by the injustices of Obamacare.

Can we Americans not see a problem with personal religious liberty being walked on? Or, is it, like many other issues, OK in your eyes, because these issues do not happen to affect your own personal life?

Share

Leave a Comment

Filed under Christian Science

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

HTML tags are not allowed.