<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Distinction With A Difference</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/07/10/distinction-with-a-difference/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/07/10/distinction-with-a-difference/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 03:31:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Nickol</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/07/10/distinction-with-a-difference/comment-page-1/#comment-66683</link>
		<dc:creator>David Nickol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/?p=44991#comment-66683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;What is central to the debate concerning the contraceptive mandate is whether the federal government can force institutions and individuals to violate their consciences. &lt;/i&gt;

The answer is yes in some matters, no in others, and in the case of the contraceptive mandate, the answer is we don&#039;t know yet. People making conscience claims, no matter how sincere, are not guaranteed to win against the government. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://religionclause.blogspot.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Religion Clause Blog&lt;/a&gt; is a great source of tracking winners and losers. 

&lt;i&gt; . . . this Administration is sending the message that while it allows conscientious objectors from military actions . . . &lt;/i&gt;

This is an odd example now that we have an all-volunteer army. In any case, the military conscientious objector must be opposed to all wars. If someone currently in the military is not a pacifist, but he believes the war in Afghanistan is immoral, he can be sent to Afghanistan no matter how much it offends his conscience. 

I am hoping that some way around the contraceptive mandate can be found, but it bothers me when the issue is discussed as if all religious organizations or individuals had to do was establish that something troubled their consciences and that very fact alone obligated the government to accommodate them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>What is central to the debate concerning the contraceptive mandate is whether the federal government can force institutions and individuals to violate their consciences. </i></p>
<p>The answer is yes in some matters, no in others, and in the case of the contraceptive mandate, the answer is we don&#8217;t know yet. People making conscience claims, no matter how sincere, are not guaranteed to win against the government. The <a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Religion Clause Blog</a> is a great source of tracking winners and losers. </p>
<p><i> . . . this Administration is sending the message that while it allows conscientious objectors from military actions . . . </i></p>
<p>This is an odd example now that we have an all-volunteer army. In any case, the military conscientious objector must be opposed to all wars. If someone currently in the military is not a pacifist, but he believes the war in Afghanistan is immoral, he can be sent to Afghanistan no matter how much it offends his conscience. </p>
<p>I am hoping that some way around the contraceptive mandate can be found, but it bothers me when the issue is discussed as if all religious organizations or individuals had to do was establish that something troubled their consciences and that very fact alone obligated the government to accommodate them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
