I have become increasingly convinced in recent years that the political Left isn’t concerned with liberty as much as power. Obamacare is a classic case in point. Mandate, after mandate, after mandate–and as I have said, using the regulatory power assumed by the Feds to reward friendly political constituencies. The “Free Birth Control Rule,” which includes many other procedures and services, was a case in point.
But now, that rule has been finalized and Obamacare is being wielded as a spear to frontally assault the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion by precisely, explicitly, and intentionally, forcing religious organizations (mostly Catholic in this case) to violate their own beliefs. That put me in mind of the events in the pre-Constantine Roman Empire. From my NRO piece, “Free Birth Control vs. Freedom of Religion:”
When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. Pliny, in keeping with the customs of the empire, did not care about forcing Christians to believe that the emperor was a god. But in public they had to behave as if they did. Thus, the Christians were in the dock not so much because of their faith in a risen Christ as over their willful refusal to declare themselves part of the reigning social order
So what’s the connection? The distinction–then and now–between “freedom of worship,” and “freedom of religion:”
I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine. I also recalled the times that President Obama and other members of his administration have supported “freedom of worship.” However, as in Pliny’s time, “freedom of worship” is not the same thing as “freedom of religion.” The former means that one may believe whatever one wants and worship privately without interference, whereas the latter allows one freedom to live in the world at large consistent with one’s faith tenets, even if they are not endorsed by the state.
This is different than the conflicts over medical conscience cases that have arisen heretofore when general rules and laws conflict with individual beliefs:
Rather, the rule targets the right of religious organizations to conduct their public activities consistently with their religious dogma and moral values — except within the narrow confines of an actual church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or monastery…Lest there be any doubt of the limited nature of the exemption, the proposed rule states, “Specifically, the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions.” Thus, the group health insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the same order’s elementary school probably would. Ditto a hospital established by the nuns.
Not only does the rule impose “a legal duty on faith organizations to comply with the values of the state whenever they engage in public action or charitable enterprise among the general society,” but HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius plans to force houses of worship to engage in speech to which they would object!
From Sebelius’s official statement about the promulgation of the new rule:
We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.
Thus, the Obama administration is attacking even freedom of worship by forcing exempt organizations to tell their employees where and how they can violate church teaching.
I conclude:
The birth-control rule is the latest and most egregious example of government forcing religious organizations to conform their operations to reigning secular moral values. In this sense, faith organizations are being compelled to participate in a metaphorical Caesar worship. As in the Roman Empire, the government will allow religious organizations general freedom of worship, but, increasingly, not freedom of religion. Pliny would approve.
Nor is this akin to a religious organization taking state money on condition of playing by the state’s rules.
So here we go again to the Supreme Court. And it was completely aviodable: Obamacarians could easily have exempted heterodox-believing religious organizations from the Free Birth Control rule. But Obamacare is about more than health care. It is about the exercise of power–and now, the hegemony of secularism everywhere outside “houses of worship,” and as we have seen, even within them. Thus, Obama does not seek to unite, but divide.
January 30th, 2012 | 4:04 pm
Dear Wesley,
I said to myself, self, I think we should go and check out a few of our regular blogs before we go out into the spiritual make believe world and start killing as Gangplank and Cait…. just to name a few in these wonderful exiting characters in this game called League of Legion, I mean of Legends. But seriously “I” was not really planning to write today.
Go Figure! Anyway I went here first while not planning to write this…..
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2012/01/christopher-a-novel-by-david-athey/#comments
then “I” marched here….
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/01/30/little-house-in-the-woods/comment-page-1/#comment-67261
And now here “I’AM” for the first time today and so why not say a few words “LORD”?
I hear ya Wesley! Not here Victor cause this is my blog and I’ll have you know that “I’M” the only prophet here if you get my drift and besides you’ve said enough already if you ask me, myself and i, if you know what I mean?
OK Wesley! I’ll just go and comment on our daily Gospel NOW but between you and me, I just want to say that “The Lord” sure does work in crazy ways! :(
Peace
[Reply]
January 30th, 2012 | 4:39 pm
If Wesley has a problem with birth control I would strongly suggest he not avail himself of it. Using mandated contraceptive coverage as a club to beat Obama with is, well, kind of silly. Wouldn’t he feel more comfortable sticking to the kind of nonsense he’s better at — like “intelligent design?”
HW
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Troll. It isn’t about “birth control.” Intentionally obtuse.
[Reply]
January 30th, 2012 | 6:21 pm
Again, this is really unfortunate. Increased access to contraception shouldn’t come at the price of religious liberty.
[Reply]
January 30th, 2012 | 7:56 pm
Simple solution:
no birth control provided, no medicare/aid funding
See, piece of cake.
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Sure, if you believe that if religionists ever control the government, they can say offer birth control, and no Medicare/Medicaid. I believe in liberty. You clearly do not.
[Reply]
David Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 9:14 am
@Wesley J. Smith, I advocate for the freedom to abort and harvest embryonic stem cells. I also think gays should have the freedom to marry, for example.
I also think religious mythologists should have the freedom of not accepting these ACA provesions. Of course, we, the people, then have the freedom to exempt them from the perks of society they may want to leech off of – like medicare and medicaid. No free lunch, we should have learned that from the Bush years.
Unlike you, I not only advocate freedom, but I am consistent and economically responsible over it, too.
I win.
[Reply]
SparcVark Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 12:19 am
@David, With the exception of hospitals and other medical care providers, these organizations do not receive Medicare or Medicaid funding.
[Reply]
David Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 8:53 am
@SparcVark, yeah, thank goodness hospitals employee very few people.
[Reply]
SparcVark Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 5:58 pm
@David, Some of the organizations complaining about the contraception mandate are Catholic hospitals, but some are universities. Are they in the clear since universities don’t get Medicare/Medicaid funding? Or would you then move to eliminate federal grants and loans for their students?
[Reply]
J. Bob Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 9:21 am
@David,
David, I wonder what the reaction would be if a Muslim hospital was denied Medicare reimbursements?
[Reply]
January 30th, 2012 | 11:24 pm
If Wesley has a problem with birth control I would strongly suggest he not avail himself of it.
And if you think birth control ought to be paid for, then you ought to pay for it.
It’s not medicine, it’s a lifestyle choice. It does not prevent injury or disease; it is not necessary to maintain or restore bodily integrity.
Religious belief should only be taken away for compelling reason. Obama wanting to indulge in a little graft to win Democratic party votes is not a compelling reason.
[Reply]
January 31st, 2012 | 4:20 am
If you’re always going to choose life, then stop eating meat! Stop killing animals! Choose life!
If you’re so compassionate to life, then stop eating plants! Choose life! Stop the mass slaughter of plant life! Choose life!
What was that? You place the value of your life above the life of a plant? You place the value of your life above the life of an animal?
Well, I have the right to place the value of my life above a parasitic clump of cells!
[Reply]
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 31st, 2012 at 10:24 am
Focus. Focus. Focus. Not rant, rant, rant.
[Reply]
January 31st, 2012 | 10:41 am
Seems to me…if having contraception paid for by your health insurance through work is so important to you, then find an employer that offers that. Don’t become a Catholic-school teacher and then barge in, trying to change things.
[Reply]
January 31st, 2012 | 12:50 pm
Somewhat surprised Wesley J. Smith is only now perceiving Obama’s dictatorial nature. It will emerge further if he is able to take more power. Yes, history is replete with the likes of Obama and his sycophants.
Pay no attention to the contestors who write their smurky little comments. They make nothing else of their lives.
[Reply]
J. Bob Reply:
February 1st, 2012 at 9:24 am
@William F Cavendeer,
I wonder what Fr. Jenkins & Board of Notre Dame is thinking about their “honorary initiate”.
[Reply]
February 1st, 2012 | 9:44 am
I also think religious mythologists should have the freedom of not accepting these ACA provesions. Of course, we, the people, then have the freedom to exempt them from the perks of society they may want to leech off of – like medicare and medicaid. No free lunch, we should have learned that from the Bush years.
Unlike you, I not only advocate freedom, but I am consistent and economically responsible over it, too.
I win.
Yeah, but it’s easy to “win” when you get to make up your own facts.
[Reply]
February 1st, 2012 | 7:17 pm
Well, I have the right to place the value of my life above a parasitic clump of cells!
If you don’t want babies in your body, then don’t put them there.
Really, if we are going to abandon the idea that we’re all created equal – the founding principle of American justice – in favor of deciding whose “rights” are expendable, you might want to be very careful: numerous philosophers have defined the capacity for empathy as what separates humans from animals. Those of you who confuse human babies with “parasites” could find your incapacity for empathy could be used to declare you “sub human”. Would you still be willing to see people have the right to vote on who is and is not “sub human” if there were a real chance YOU would be the one whose skull would be punctured so that some other person could have the “right” to indulge in silly, frivolous, selfish behaviors?
[Reply]
February 10th, 2012 | 3:01 pm
[...] of pages of new rules affecting the conduct of businesses. Many rules are still unknown; indeed, new ones are being discovered daily. How are businesses to consider expansion without clearly delineated rules for doing so? [...]
February 11th, 2012 | 6:04 am
[...] of pages of new rules affecting the conduct of businesses. Many rules are still unknown; indeed, new ones are being discovered daily. How are businesses to consider expansion without clearly delineated rules for doing so? [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact