We already have pursuant to Executive Order 9066.

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:

In one case from Mt. Sinai hospital in Brooklyn in 2009, a nurse was required to assist in an abortion procedure against her conscience, and the federal courts denied her any legal remedy whatsoever.

That makes it sound like the federal courts are heartless and hostile to religious liberty. However, note the following:

In the latest ruling released last week, the appellate court found that there is no right to private action or private remedy under the statue cited by Cenzon-DeCarlo in her suit — the so-called “Church Amendment.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Your cordial message was a breath of fresh air. Thanks for the references to the interview with Cardinal Burke.

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?