The USCCB today released a letter of congratulations to the newly re-elected president of the United States, as is their tradition on the day following presidential elections. New York’s Timothy Cardinal Dolan Dolan wrote on behalf of all the bishops:
Dear President Obama,
In my capacity as President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to express my congratulations on your re-election as President of the United States. The people of our country have again entrusted you with a great responsibility. The Catholic Bishops of the United States offer our prayers that God will give you strength and wisdom to meet the difficult challenges that face America.
In particular, we pray that you will exercise your office to pursue the common good, especially in care of the most vulnerable among us, including the unborn, the poor, and the immigrant. We will continue to stand in defense of life, marriage, and our first, most cherished liberty, religious freedom. We pray, too, that you will help restore a sense of civility to the public order, so our public conversations may be imbued with respect and charity toward everyone.
May God bless you and Vice President Biden as you prepare for your second term in service to our country and its citizens.
Sincerely yours,
Timothy Cardinal DolanArchbishop of New YorkPresidentUnited States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The opening and closing paragraphs are nearly verbatim copies of the letter from Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George to President-elect Obama in 2008.
The middle paragraphs, however, differ. Whereas Cardinal George wrote, “We stand ready to work with you in defense and support of the life and dignity of every human person,” Cardinal Dolan writes, “We will continue to stand in defense of life, marriage, and . . . religious freedom” (emphasis mine in both cases).
The bishops wanted to work with the president in 2008; on the crucial issues Cardinal Dolan names they are now, of necessity, standing in defense against him.
November 7th, 2012 | 11:09 am
Thank you, Cardinal Dolan! What a classy letter.
November 7th, 2012 | 11:23 am
We will continue to stand in defense of life, marriage, and our first, most cherished liberty, religious freedom.
To quote Churchill, it’s kind of, “In defeat; defiance.”
Many of us don’t believe that Obama is against life, marriage, and religious freedom. There are some very significant disagreements on these issues, but not as extreme as the letter seems (to me, at least) to imply.
We pray, too, that you will help restore a sense of civility to the public order . . .
Is this a subtle hint that Obama is to blame for whatever lack of civility exists?
I disagree with Abe Joseph that this is a classy letter. It seems just a bit too political to me.
November 7th, 2012 | 11:48 am
I look forward to monitoring the success of the pending lawsuit in defense of religious freedom.
November 7th, 2012 | 12:22 pm
I don’t know if a defensive position is what we should adopt. We should be actively working to dialogue with politicians on these issues. Being firm on where you stand and not being willing to talk about it is different than holding to your convictions while working cooperatively with those that don’t. The majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, favor civil unions, and want religious liberty for ALL religions. But the two parties we are stuck with don’t reflect that middle ground. I am glad so many religious organizations have filed lawsuits regarding the HHS/contraceptives issue, but we have to continually be willing to engage in earnest dialogue with a win/win mentality.
November 7th, 2012 | 2:08 pm
“Many of us don’t believe that Obama is against life, marriage, and religious freedom. There are some very significant disagreements on these issues, but not as extreme as the letter seems (to me, at least) to imply. ”
By any objective measure, Obama has pursued abortion at any time, any cost, installed the mechanisms for the soft denial of care in his healthcare takeover, insists that homosexual attraction is the same as marital love and issued edicts which not only compel religious organizations to violate their consciences-after providing express assurances to the contrary.
Facts, as they say are stubborn things. There’s plenty of beliefs that lack objective support the ones you have expressed here are just a small part of that set.
November 7th, 2012 | 2:39 pm
I believe the letter intends to inform the POTUS that as our political leader we respect his authority, and at the same time implies that this re-election should not be seen as a mandate for the Democratic platform, in fact to the contrary. It is now his time to trully stand up for those most vulnerable among, not bowing to special interest groups. Leadership is not demonstrated in following the polls to the lowest common denominator, but rather in taking a people to a new pinnacle of greatness.
I expect and pray for increased levels of involvement in local state and federal government by all people, particularly Catholics.
November 7th, 2012 | 3:30 pm
By any objective measure, Obama has pursued abortion at any time, any cost
Adam Baum,
Recall that what I was responding to was this statement: “We will continue to stand in defense of life, marriage, and our first, most cherished liberty, religious freedom.”
If Cardinal Dolan has chosen to say unborn life instead of life, it would have been a significantly less grandiose statement. Obama is pro-choice, possibly even pro-abortion, but he is not against life. And abortion, particularly the time when a woman may have an abortion, is governed by federal and state law. Obama has never done anything as president or in his time as a US Senator or a state senator to attempt to change the time at which a woman can have an abortion. I understand why people who do not like the status quo on abortion do not like Obama, but he has done nothing his entire political career other than to defend the status quo. That is true even of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (By the way, I believe only one other state has passed a Born Alive Infant Protection Act. If declining to pass such an act is so heinous, how do we explain the fact that the vast majority of states don’t have them?) I don’t even know what you mean by “any cost.”
installed the mechanisms for the soft denial of care in his healthcare takeover
It is bizarre that an attempt to provide health coverage for an additional tens of millions of Americans could be viewed as a sinister plot to deny people health care! And nothing was taken over in the “takeover.” Ask the people of Massachusetts.
insists that homosexual attraction is the same as marital love
I don’t know that advocating civil marriage for same-sex couples goes quite that far, but if it does, so be it. My understanding is that even the Catholic Church has no objections to love. It is sex acts they don’t approve of. And of course the use of contraception by 90% or more of Catholic married couples is immoral by the very same reasons that homosexual acts are condemned.
and issued edicts which not only compel religious organizations to violate their consciences-after providing express assurances to the contrary
Under the contraceptive mandate, no one is compelled to violate his or her conscience. Most people (including a majority of Catholics) approve of the contraceptive mandate. And any religious organization covered by the mandate that does not want to provide insurance that will potentially have contraceptive coverage added to it can simply not provide insurance. They will incur fines, but the fines will be less than the cost of providing insurance. I don’t want to go out on a limb here, but the regulations in question are not yet written and will not take effect until August 2013. I will not be at all surprised to see something worked out that satisfies everyone.
Seeing Romney versus Obama, or Republicans versus Democrats, or conservatives versus liberals as good versus evil is not even in accord with the recent comments by Archbishop Chaput about neither party being a home for Catholics in his book review of The Unintended Reformation that is a topic of another recent post here.
November 7th, 2012 | 4:22 pm
Hello David,
“Under the contraceptive mandate, no one is compelled to violate his or her conscience. Most people (including a majority of Catholics) approve of the contraceptive mandate.”
Well, the bishops and Rome respectfully disagree with you. And so do I. And so does any reasonable analysis of the moral act, under which providing such insurance coverage to employees is at best material cooperation with evil, and worst, formal.
There’s no point on dwelling on the poor state of catechesis of American Catholics, the majority of whom are effectively unchurched. Regular mass attending Catholics oppose the mandate, and that’s not a coincidence.
“And any religious organization covered by the mandate that does not want to provide insurance that will potentially have contraceptive coverage added to it can simply not provide insurance.”
And therein lies the rub, David.
I have good friends working for Catholic institutions who will be losing their health insurance coverage because their employers are being forced to drop health insurance. They’re now thrown on the mercies of the individual health insurance market, where they’ll have difficulty in most cases finding a policy they can afford.
It’s a shame that you seem unable to spare any pity or concern for such people.
“I will not be at all surprised to see something worked out that satisfies everyone.”
The administration had little incentive to do so before the election, and now has none. Too many of its key constituencies support the mandate unaltered. And they’re the ones that provided his margin of victory yesterday.
November 7th, 2012 | 4:28 pm
“installed the mechanisms for the soft denial of care in his healthcare takeover”
As a former Medicaid/Medicare auditor who has seen first hand how government healthcare works, I’m afraid that this is right.
How legislation is sold is not how it operates. Semantics count. In my state, we launched something called “Health Choices” and it meant mandatory enrollment in an MCO (HMO). So you had a choice-if there was more than one MCO in your area-but that was the only choice-you could choose a different plan-it was one size fits all-and in my area, I routinely heard from providers that the biggest obstacle to improving population outcomes was patient care.
My review of the so-called ACA is that it is designed to limit health-care expenditures from the perspective of the payor, (the government and employers) not from the perspective of the patient. I think there are people out there who look at the cost of healthcare on their books and will do ANYTHING to reduce it. There’s way too many times where there is entirely to much unaccountable, bureaucratic discretion granted to the HHS secretary or some board.
Of course I don’t expect to convince the gullible or those who have an idolatrous belief in the unbounded sagacity, sincerity and incorruptibility of their state god and its contraptions. I just wish statists would have to deal with the actual machinery of government enough to know its limitations.
November 7th, 2012 | 4:30 pm
Errata:
So you had a choice-if there was more than one MCO in your area-but that was the only choice-you could NOT choose a different plan-it was one size fits all-and in my area, I routinely heard from providers that the biggest obstacle to improving population outcomes was patient COOPERATION.
November 7th, 2012 | 6:14 pm
Well, the bishops and Rome respectfully disagree with you. And so do I. And so does any reasonable analysis of the moral act, under which providing such insurance coverage to employees is at best material cooperation with evil, and worst, formal.
Richard M,
Actually, I don’t believe the bishops (the USCCB) have actually made the argument that to comply with the contraceptive mandate would be proximate material cooperation with evil, and I would disagree with them if they did so. I’ll be happy to correct myself if you can bring the “cooperation with evil” argument to my attention. In any case, when I said no organization would have to violate its conscience, I meant that dropping insurance coverage for the organization’s employees is an option, and although some claim that incurs a great expense because of the fine/penalty/tax, in truth it is cheaper to pay it than to provide insurance.
It’s a shame that you seem unable to spare any pity or concern for such people.
I think it is almost unthinkable to be without health insurance, which is why I support “Obamacare.” (And I would note that the USCCB supported it in principle. They only suspended their support because they were not satisfied with provisions keeping federal funds from being used for abortions.) So if you respect the opinion of the USCCB, they are on my side insofar as the idea of Obamacare goes. They would, I am sure, support it in a minute if some stronger anti-abortion language was introduced and the contraceptive mandate was dropped.
Anyone whose employer drops coverage because of the contraceptive mandate will be able to buy private insurance on the insurance exchanges. I don’t have the facts and figures in front of me right now, but for a significant number of people, buying their own insurance will actually be cheaper than continuing with employer-provided insurance. Most employers require employees to pay part of the cost of their insurance, and for lower income individuals, the government subsidies in Obamacare will result in people who lose their employer-provided insurance actually paying less for equivalent coverage they buy themselves.
As I said earlier, it amazes me that opponents of Obamacare see it as some kind of stealth program to deprive people of medical care, when the actual purpose is to expand medical coverage to as many Americans as possible. Obamacare is not a secret plan to make it easier to pull the plug on grandma.
November 7th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
but he is not against life.
Well, unless that life is between his drone and someone on his kill list. Then all bets are off.
November 7th, 2012 | 6:35 pm
Richard M,
I just ran across this cost analysis of insurance under Obamacare, which is certainly not the most authoritative source, but until I find a better one, it will have to do.
November 7th, 2012 | 8:06 pm
Well, the election is over and we can all come together as american citizens and start discussing and solving our problems. Catholics lost nothing this election. We still are and always will affirm the Sanctity of Life and Marriage. Now it’s not time to feel bad about ourselves because of some percieved loss, but to continue affecting the world with our prayers and compassion.
I found Cardinal Dolan’s letter appropriate. And Godbless Obama!
November 7th, 2012 | 8:36 pm
It seems strange to me that the Catholic Bishops have been virtually silent for years on the issues of contraception and abortion as long as they could look the other way. Now that it is being thrust down their throats, they begin to choke. The American church has been afraid to address these issues with the laity…how do you expect the public to care when “Catholics” use birth control and many are pro-choice and verbal about it. Finally we are receiving a small measure of moral teaching from the pulpit. Too little too late….sin is subjective don’t you know?
November 7th, 2012 | 8:53 pm
David,
This is not a good vs evil issue. For example
Both candidates state that their economic “vision” would help the most needy.
Both candidates believe their policies toward energy put the USA on a path toward energy independence and security.
Both candidates insist their international policies will strengthen America’s position as a world-leader in bringing freedom to the disenfranchised.
Both candidates think they are doing what is best for the country.
However, only one of them wholeheartedly agrees with, supports, encourages, stands behind and financially assists an industry responsible for 55+ million legally extinguished human lives.
The other supports limited, legal abortion, given certain environmental factors.
That’s not a good vs. evil issue, that’s an evil vs. evil issue.
Acknowledging that in other ways, they both seek the good of the entire country, including the alien, the poor, the suffering, do you pick the one who gives $500 million to an organization that encourages the destruction of conceived life or the one who will probably put that organization “out of business”?
It certainly is, A Brave New World.
November 7th, 2012 | 9:53 pm
David Nickol is probably right that the bishops have not argued that complying with the mandate would “proximate material cooperation with evil,” but that doesn’t mean they haven’t said it would be wrong. They have said that, as explained here:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/why-catholics-canrsquot-comply-with-the-hhs-mandate
MG
November 7th, 2012 | 11:15 pm
Dear David,
As of April 10, 2012, Raymond Cardinal Burke, the “Chief Justice of the Catholic Supreme Court”, answered your question about material and formal cooperation with evil. I’ve copied the link to a website that has the audio file of an interview with His Eminence so that you can hear in his own words and read along with the transcript. If you need more than this man’s articulation of the official Catholic teaching on contraception, there are plenty of documents at your fingertips if you google search for two minutes.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-cardinal-if-catholic-employers-provide-contraceptive-coverage-1
Scroll down a little to find the MP3 file and click the play button. This is very short and to the point.
Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”
Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”
I realize that this is a passionate issue, but it’s not really a complicated issue thanks to the Church’s clear teaching: don’t do it. If you struggle to understand WHY you should not do it, then I encourage you to seek counsel. There’s nothing wrong with struggling to understand why, but now that you know, you are obliged to obey. At this point we would say, Credo, help my unbelief.
On another note, I admire your desire for people to have better access to health care. That is a good mentality. I hope this information helps inform your overall views of health care and the dignity of men and women.
May God bless President Barak Obama and the United States.
in Christ,
Jamie
November 8th, 2012 | 1:33 am
Political power was one of the temptations of our Lord Jesus Christ. So too Catholics, even Bishops, are tempted to join political efforts to “make the world better”. What could be more tempting than the idea that one might save millions of innocent unborn babies if only “our side” makes the right political moves?
As usual, Christ calls us to a more humble and difficult way. Be a good Catholic. Help others become good Catholics.
Good Catholics don’t have abortions, nor use contraceptives, nor marry against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Keep the faith, go to Mass, do good work, give all glory to God.
November 8th, 2012 | 10:38 am
@David Nickol
You’ll pardon me, if I rely on a substantial professional background in insurance, finance and government, a professional license, an advanced degree in finance, and multiple professional designations to inform my judgment and don’t accept your unsupported assurances that Obamacare is some benevolent gift we should all be grateful to our betters for having imposed upon us.
You have not offered, nor have I observed any credentials or insight that leads me to believe your judgment is informed or credible on such matters, much less expert.
November 8th, 2012 | 11:45 am
“Many of us don’t believe that Obama is against life, marriage, and religious freedom…
By any objective measure, Obama has pursued abortion at any time, any cost, installed the mechanisms for the soft denial of care in his healthcare takeover, insists that homosexual attraction is the same as marital love and issued edicts which not only compel religious organizations to violate their consciences-after providing express assurances to the contrary.
Facts, as they say are stubborn things.”
Adam Baum, you are making the mistake of thinking that facts are more stubborn than human stupidity or human selfishness.
Nothing short of internment in camps or government execution of religious individuals is going to change David Nickol’s mind. “Mere” fines and restrictions have not. Hosanna Tabor and the findings of the Supreme Court did not. The HHS mandate did not. Millions of believers directly saying that our rights are being violated have not.
November 8th, 2012 | 11:49 am
Bernard Gasper,
I do not pretend to be an expert, but I am not sure what it is that I have said that you take issue with.
If I have a favorable opinion of Obamacare and you have an unfavorable opinion, we’re in the realm of opinion, not fact, and one doesn’t need credentials to have an opinion. And, of course, although there are many people with impressive credentials who think Obamacare is extremely misguided, there are others with just as impressive credentials who think it is a giant leap forward.
November 8th, 2012 | 12:05 pm
“Is this a subtle hint that Obama is to blame for whatever lack of civility exists?
I disagree with Abe Joseph that this is a classy letter. It seems just a bit too political to me.” –David Nickol
So wait, you can’t decide if there is subtle blame for lack of civility, but in what you characterize as a vague letter, you find too much politics?
You don’t seem to be accusing the bishops of politics a few posts later when you claim they “in principle” agree with Obamacare.
Why the double standard, David?
Doubtless if Dolan had directly declared he voted for Obama and all good Catholics should you would conveniently not find such a statement “too political”.
Your colors are showing, boyo…
As for the Obamacare, it is certainly well-intentioned. Most things that cause financial ruin ultimately are–no one is objecting to providing essential healthcare for the uninsured. Indeed many on this very board who object to Obamacare volunteer time and money to help such people through private charities like the Saint Vincent de Paul Society.
What we object to is the manner in which it tries to do so, because we understand fundamental human psychology (that which is “free” will be used even when it is not needed) and economics (the law of unintended consequences).
For reasons enumerated by countless doctors and accountants across the internet, the unintended consequence of nationalized healthcare will be to delay timely care for those who need it and reduce the value of care by de-incentivizing careers in healthcare.
An example…there was a very good intention behind red light cameras being installed nationwide. Everyone wished to stop people from running them and causing accidents. But the unintended consequence was that they caused even more accidents, as people would speed up and rear-end cars while trying to avoid the lights turning from yellow to red. The second unintended consequence is that many politicians found a quick and easy revenue stream, and came to prey on citizens, manipulating length of the yellow lights purely for profit.
Obamacare creates a monolithic, nation-wide, well-funded opportunity for fraud and abuse. It allocates billions to a specific cause and robs us of the fiscal flexibility to respond to other emergencies down the road. With all that money tied up in healthcare, what’s left to deal with storms like Sandy? Or the possibility of a nuke detonated in New York?
November 8th, 2012 | 12:11 pm
James Hickman,
Your cordial message was a breath of fresh air. Thanks for the references to the interview with Cardinal Burke.
November 8th, 2012 | 12:46 pm
Hello David,
I apologize if my comment to you seemed terse or not cordial; others must speak for themselves. I think what bothers many of us (certainly me) is that you really don’t seem energized about the evils of abortion and this administration’s enthusiastic complicity in it – and that strikes me as very un-Catholic. Who is the least among us? Who will defend them? Is that not what we are about?
One other point, if I may:
“In any case, when I said no organization would have to violate its conscience, I meant that dropping insurance coverage for the organization’s employees is an option, and although some claim that incurs a great expense because of the fine/penalty/tax, in truth it is cheaper to pay it than to provide insurance.”
That’s true enough – and that is exactly what Catholic institutions like these schools, hospitals and universities in my area are planning to do, and why my friends are going to lose their employee health insurance.
But think about what you are saying here for a moment. If Holy Cross Hospital near me here in Silver Spring, Maryland wants to do the *right* thing by its employees, Catholic and non-Catholic, and provide them with affordable employee health insurance, the federal government is now telling them that they MUST provide health insurance that fully pays for abortifacients like Plan B and Ella, to say nothing of other contraceptives and sterlizations. (Don’t confuse the issue with Obama’s new compromise. Money is fungible, and there is still a cooperation with, and endorsement, of a positive evil here). They are, in short, going to be punished for trying to do the *right thing*, the right thing they have been doing for decades, and not just because they want to compete for good employees. Instead, they must now either violate their consciences, or throw their employees onto their own resources to find health insurance for themselves and their families.
Talk about a perverse disincentive. Of course, the top people in this administration don’t think that way. They live in their own echo chamber.
November 8th, 2012 | 2:00 pm
Adam Baum, you are making the mistake of thinking that facts are more stubborn than human stupidity or human selfishness.
Artaban,
There is no need to be uncivil. Regarding the contraceptive mandate, I consider it an important issue and to be a matter somewhere near the border of government intrusion on religious freedom. I am just not convinced it’s on the wrong side of that border.
Also I have enough faith in our democratic system and the courts to trust that if the mandate violates the constitution or the RFRA, it will be struck down.
It us not up to you or the USCCB to decide whether something is unconstitutional or not. It’s up to the courts. Don’t you believe our courts will uphold the law and the constitution?
I regularly check Religion Clause Blog, which is an unbiased listing of just about every religious freedom case in the whole country. I do not notice any trend at all away from religious freedom. This is a country where the government bends over backwards to respect the right of religious freedom of even men and women in federal prison. (There are amazing number of cases involving the religious rights of prisoners.)
I understand why Catholics are unhappy about the contraceptive mandate, but it will get a fair hearing in the courts—when it is written!—and if it is upheld, then it is legal and constitutional. It will not be the end of religious liberty in the United States, or even the beginning of the end. It will be one important case that the courts decided on behalf of the government.
Do you honestly not trust the current Supreme Court to decide the issue fairly?
By the way, I have no special inside knowledge whatsoever, but I would not be at all surprised if the final versions of the regulations are different from what some expect and fear. I wouldn’t want to bet a large sum of money on it, but I don’t think the odds are zero.
November 8th, 2012 | 4:16 pm
“There is no need to be uncivil.”
David, the comment you cite as uncivil was not directed personally at you. I apologize for not creating a clearer distinction between it and the following one where I do mention you personally.
I do get the strong impression that nothing will change your mind on the issue of religious liberty short of Nazi-style despotism. I too follow religious liberty cases, and have a file of them that convince me it is under threat. I could also cite you assaults on Catholic schools in court that were struck down decades ago, but which I’m not sure would be so today.
One link for you with many different concrete instances:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6548/
“I do not notice any trend at all away from religious freedom.”
Do you still feel that way after reading the article?
If so, how is that possible?!
“Don’t you believe our courts will uphold the law and the constitution?”
They didn’t do that in the Dred Scott case, now did they? Heck, they still have never formally overturned that decision.
As in any thing, some judges will, and others won’t. After Roe vs. Wade and the historical instances where other politicians have subverted and corrupted Supreme Courts (several countries in Latin America, FDR’s attempted Court packing scheme) I don’t know how you can have what appears to be a faith in the infallibility of SCOTUS. Courts are made of sinful human beings, like every other institution, and like every other institution benefit from oversight, checks, and balances. Hence the wise limitations and means of bypassing them set by the Founding Fathers.
As inscribed on a D.C. monument, “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”
November 8th, 2012 | 7:48 pm
How is finally addressing the president on Church moral teachings political? If Cardinal Dolan were political he would have never invited the President to the Al Smith dinner. As George Weigel said, we are in a new cultural moment. The Bishops’ Conference is oblivious to this fact. The president plays hardball with a smile. That is the real comparison to be made with Pres. Roosevelt. I don’t even know how to talk to Catholics anymore about anything of religious or moral substance. If abortion isn’t the bottom line on morality then what is? But there is one thing I suspect all Catholics could agree upon. The Old Constitution is dead. One side mourns, the other is “liberated.” Liberated from rule of law and restraints on State power. The letter is Roman diplomacy. I suspect at least that is required by the Holy See. There isn’t much to make of it otherwise. The Cardinal Archbishop has issued the president a warning not to speed again. He can’t really do anything about it. Catholicism no longer has public moral force in America. The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General have completed that denoument. Per the the president’s orders.
November 8th, 2012 | 7:50 pm
Postscript: Remember — the Archbishop of New York admitted that the President lied to him in Novembe of 2011. Is anyone writing here denying that?
November 8th, 2012 | 11:28 pm
Is anyone writing here denying that?
Graham Combs,
Yes, I am. The interview is here. This was before the “accommodation,” although I am of course aware Cardinal Dolan and the bishops were not at all satisfied by it. I would note that the final regulation still has not been written, and religious organizations are exempt until August 2013. This is the reason several of the lawsuits filed by Catholic organizations have been dismissed. Lawsuits are premature before the regulation is (re)written.
November 9th, 2012 | 12:53 am
I do get the strong impression that nothing will change your mind on the issue of religious liberty short of Nazi-style despotism.
Artaban,
Are you actually suggesting that we are anywhere close to putting people in concentration camps? I have not even endorsed the contraceptive mandate. I have just expressed a belief that the courts will make a decision based on the Constitution and RFRA, and I trust them to make the right decision. If they should uphold the mandate, that does not mean Catholics will be marched to death camps.
Do you still feel that way after reading the article?
If so, how is that possible?!
Yes, the article hasn’t changed any of my feelings. One of the things about that kind of argument that prevents me from taking it seriously is that it uses religious liberty victories to try to convince people what a terrible state we are in. Hosanna-Tabor was a unanimous victory in the Supreme Court for the “ministerial exception,” and the author wants us to believe we should be upset that the government brought the case at all! About half the article is a recounting of religious liberty victories, and most of the other issues mentioned have not been settled yet.
I am not going to go through the article point by point, but take this one example of making things sound as bad as possible:
That makes it sound like the federal courts are heartless and hostile to religious liberty. However, note the following:
Her suit was dismissed on a point of law. If there is no right to private action under the Church Amendment, a federal court couldn’t allow the suit no matter how compelling the woman’s story was. There was no legal basis for the lawsuit that she filed.
As inscribed on a D.C. monument, “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”
And I agree with that. Vigilance requires treating every case seriously. But it should not motivate people to claim the sky is falling.
November 10th, 2012 | 12:38 am
“Are you actually suggesting that we are anywhere close to putting people in concentration camps?”
We already have pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact