We are slowly losing our sense of religious liberty in America.
There is much evidence to suggest that our society no longer values the public role of religion or recognizes the importance of religious freedom as a basic right. As scholars like Harvard’s Mary Ann Glendon and Michael Sandel have observed, our courts and government agencies increasingly treat the right to hold and express religious beliefs as only one of many private lifestyle options. And, they observe, this right is often “trumped” in the face of challenges from competing rights or interests deemed to be more important.
These are among the reasons the U.S. Catholic bishops recently established a new Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. My brother bishops and I are deeply concerned that believers’ liberties—and the Church’s freedom to carry out her mission—are threatened today, as they never have been before in our country’s history.
Catholics have always believed that we serve our country best as citizens when we are trying to be totally faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Church. And since before the founding of the American Republic, Catholics—individually and institutionally—have worked with government agencies at all levels to provide vital social services, education, and health care.
But lately, this is becoming harder and harder for us to do. Just last week, the federal government declined a grant request from the U.S. bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services agency. We are not really sure why. No reason was given. Our agency has been working well with the government since 2006 to help thousands of women and children who are victims of human trafficking.
Recently, the government had been demanding that our agency provide abortions, contraception and sterilizations for the women we serve. We hope our application was not denied because we refused to provide these services that are unnecessary and violate our moral principles and religious mission.
And this is not an isolated case. Right now, the federal government is also trying to force private employers to provide insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraception—including for medications that cause abortions. This not only violates the consciences of Catholic business owners, it also undermines the religious autonomy of Church employers.
For several years now, it seems that whenever there is a merger or expansion involving a Catholic hospital, some legislator or government agency tries to block it unless our Catholic hospitals and doctors will start providing abortions and sterilizations. So far, these efforts at coercion have failed. What’s troubling is that these efforts continue, without regard to the historic contributions of Catholic health care or to the First Amendment.
More recently, the push to legalize “same-sex marriages” has posed a new set of challenges to our freedoms. Church adoption and foster-care ministries have already been forced to shut down rather than submit to government demands that they place children with same-sex couples or provide benefits for same-sex employees.
And in an ominous development, the U.S. Justice Department went on record this summer as saying that those who defend the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman are motivated by bias and prejudice.
Of course, that is our ancient Catholic belief, rooted in the teachings of Jesus and also the Jewish Scriptures. It is a belief held by many Protestants, the Orthodox, and also by Jews and Muslims, among others. But scholars like Princeton’s Robert P. George warn that this belief might now be labeled as a form of bigotry and lead to new challenges to our liberties.
We are also concerned about the signals the federal government is sending in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. Experts say that if the government’s case prevails, it will have broad new powers to regulate the inner workings of Church institutions—even to possibly interfere in areas of Church practice and doctrine.
All of this is troubling and represents a sharp break with our history and American traditions. Religious liberty has always been “the first freedom” in our Bill of Rights and in our national identity. Our country’s founders recognized that religious freedom is a right endowed by God, not a privilege granted by government. And they respected that what God has given, no one—not a court, a legislature, or any institution—can rightly deny.
In our history, religious freedom has always included the rights of churches and religious institutions to establish hospitals, schools, charities, media outlets, and other agencies—and to staff these ministries and run them, free from government intrusion.
And religious freedom has always included the churches’ rights to engage in the public square to help shape our nation’s moral and social fabric. We see this throughout our history—from the abolitionist movement, to the civil rights movement, to the pro-life movement.
America’s founders understood that our democracy depends on Americans' being moral and virtuous. They knew the best guarantee for this is a civil society in which individuals and religious institutions were free to live, act, and vote according to their values and principles. We need to help our leaders today rediscover the wisdom of America’s founding. And we need to help believers once more understand the vital importance of this “first freedom.” At stake are not just our liberties but also the future character of our democracy.
José H. Gomez is the Archbishop of Los Angeles.
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
Also, the argument that compelling other faith traditions to violate their tenets to conform to government regulation can be seen as legitimate justification for doing so with the Catholic Church is breathtakingly Stalinesque. (Apparently, the On The Square article of a few weeks ago regarding the plight of the Ukranian Orthodox Church didn't find as many readers as it should have.) I'll also point out there is a not so subtle difference between having one's tax money diverted into programs one might morally object to, and being coerced into active participation in said program. Many Catholic medical students, interns and residents can testify to their experiences in their Ob/Gyn rotations. It appears that not only will the "increasingly secular majority" force the Church to pay for birth control, but also to provide it. That may warm the heart of the neo-apparatchik but it makes my blood run cold.
Second, you described "abortions, contraception and sterilizations" as completely unnecessary for the trafficked women you serve. Trafficked women are victims of repeated rape and sexual assault. Regardless of your feelings about procreative unitive sex in marriage, these women are absolutely justified in seeking contraception in their circumstances. They are not having sex, they are being assaulted sexually.
Abortion in the case of rape is legal in the United States. It's one of the exemptions that many otherwise pro-life candidates support. Although you're free to dissuade these women from getting abortions, the government is perfectly within its rights to not contract with an organization that will sabotage the rights of these women to exercise their legal rights.
When government keeps growing and growing, it eventually gets impossible to avoid government involvement in business. The government has its hand in everything. If you have business competitors, in whatever business, and they take advantage of government subsidies or tax breaks that you can't in good conscience (because of the strings attached) then your business may not be able to survive. Increasingly, the choice will be between serving and obeying God, or making a living in your chosen profession. That's an terrible position to put people in. And it's so unnecessary. In most cases, it's unconstitutional as well.
Pharisees/Herodians: "...Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
Jesus: "...pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar -- and God what belongs to God."
That seems awfully clear to me. What the church chooses to do with its own denarius is its own business, and of course the church may "engage in the public square to help shape our nation's moral and social fabric". But when the church accepts government subsidies to conduct business, why would it not have to conform to the rules of the issuing agency?
The US Constitution not only guarantees freedom of religion, it nowhere authorizes the Federal government to provide health care or to tax in order to provide health care. Therefore, all the examples you quoted, except for the Quakers being taxed to support the military, are unconstitutional. If you believe that these are proper uses of the Federal government, then you should use the legal route and amend the Constitution.
I would also caution against your assumption that the current majority supports the recently enacted health care legislation. I have yet to hear a single practicing physician support it (though I am aware that some upper level bureaucrat physicians do), nor have I heard any patients or people on the street support it. It was passed by political maneuvering and many of its supporters were promptly voted out of office.
That argument goes two ways you know. There are individuals and secular groups that receive government subsidies who claim that it is an inalienable right as well.
Receiving a subsidy isn't a "special privilege" but a conscious effort on the part of the community to make it known that the group receiving funding is a part of the public square.
Religious groups, in a democratic setting, don't have to justify being recognized in the public square, for their are no "rights" to hide behind when the people are able to vote in or out these rights at their pleasure, just like some of these so-called secular groups- so called because no organization stays secular for long. I forgot who said this but, the secular state invariably becomes the ethical state. And to push religious groups out of the public square for both their actions and beliefs is an ethical statement that those group should react to with due concern and consternation.
If a religious group that had objections to blood transfusions ran a hospital, and you were taken to the emergency room of that hospital when you had lost a great deal of blood in a car crash, should you be denied a life-saving blood transfusion because the closest hospital happened to one that was run by a religion that did not believe in blood transfusions?
"FREEDOM" OF RELIGION HAS BECOME "KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, OR ELSE."
I FIND THAT MY BELIEFS ARE MORE AND MORE RIDICULED, DENIED, OR CONDEMNED.
APPARENTLY, MANY PEOPLE WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE EXACTLY WHAT EVERY PERSON SHOULD BELIEVE AND PROFESS; AND BEST YOU NOT PROFESS SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT APPROVED, OR HAS DISAPPROVED.
THIS, BY THE WAY, GOES BEYOND SOCIALISM AS FAR AS GOVERNMENT CONTROL. IT IS WRONG.
CHRISTIANS AND CHURCHES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO CHRIST, AND A COMMAND FROM HIM--TO TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION, CARE FOR THE NEEDY AND SICK, AND MAINTAIN THE MORAL STANDARDS SET FORTH BY CHRIST.
ARCHBISHOP GOMEZ IS ENTIRELY CORRECT IN HIS CONCERN THAT LIVING AND GIVING AS CHRIST COMMANDED IS BECOMING A TARGET FOR ELIMINATION IN OUR COUNTRY. AND THAT PERSECUTION IS VERY DISHEARTENING.
The "business" the Church is conducting is for the benefit of the public, and in the vast majority of cases, involves a "business" the Church was involved in for centuries before centralized secular governments got involved.
These issues are simply attempts to drive the Church's voice out of the public square. No one is being deprived of anything if the Church continues to provide its services in conformity with its beliefs. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child, they can go to one of the scores of adoption services that are not run by the Catholic Church. If a woman wants birth control covered by her insurance plan, she should not work for a Catholic institution.
Take the recent adoption of same sex marriage by the New York Legislature. Almost 40 perecent of the people in that state are at least nominally Catholic. One would think that the Church would exercise substantial influence, but it seemed to be unable to mobilize any effective resistance. Where were the massive political rallies? Where was the fundraising? Why wasn't it made clear that legislators would be held responsible for their votes?
It is hardly surprising that politicians believe that the Catholic Church is a safe target. And that is bad news for people of every faith.
We are not arguing from a blank slate here - and we must not. We must not fall into the pattern of letting the conversation be immediately framed this way. "Why should *your* beliefs override mine?" must be replaced by discussion of why one belief really *is* more compelling, more correct, than another.
As a Catholic, for example, I really do disagree with the belief against blood transfusions. I think that belief is wrongly founded, and indeed fundamentally wrong. I have no problem with arguing against it, based in no small part on the scenario that David presented. I also think that abortion is morally, *and intrinsically* wrong, and have no problem arguing against it and fighting for legislation against it. I don't have to pit my belief against another belief; rather, I pit that other belief against reason and first principles and try to articulate why it is in error.
Not all beliefs are equally good, equally reasonable, equally well-founded!
The Christian's mistake in this case would be to try to argue their moral stance apart from natural law.
The secularist's mistake is in thinking that their moral position is the fair and somehow morally neutral one.
But it is not so, and this is an attempt to marginalize, bend and inure the Church to the Urbanus who are making everything personal, political. And once this occurs, Christians have an obligation to protect life at all cost from the urbanus who wish to claim the secular as their own.
You see, that's the problem many of us have with modern pro-abortion feminism, which is laid so bare in your response.
Catholics believe that those victimized by sex trafficking should be removed from the harmful situation and given love and support, and the opportunity to live a full life away from their oppressors.
You, and apparently the HHS, believe that these young victims should be given abortions and contraception, and then get back to work for their pimps.
Abortion and contraception are always detrimental to women, and are false solutions to real problems that do nothing to address the root cause of the problems they are meant to alleviate.
Jesus: "...pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar -- and God what belongs to God."
I've never seen this quote to be about a tax dispute. I'm surprised Lee thinks it is. Perhaps he mistakes the ending phrase and should ask himself, "What belongs to God?"
They were busy being politically correct, of looking the other way, of ignoring the morally corrupt society we live in, afraid to make waves. They have watered down the Faith for the majority, made the flock complacent and indifferent and now they want them to act. It could be too late...
"Right now, the federal government is also trying to force private employers to provide insurance coverage for sterilizations and contraception—including for medications that cause abortions "
"And in an ominous development, the U.S. Justice Department went on record this summer as saying that those who defend the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman are motivated by bias and prejudice."
I agree with DVO: these developments make my blood run cold. They seem to be multiplying rapidly.
We have been chased out of nations before. Our Jewish brothers too. So we are used to packing our bags.
With that being said, what is next for Gods mission and our Catholic faith?
Instead of staffing and building a hospital in inner city Detroit that would want us to provide abortions, and pills that prevent the birth of children, we will build five hospitals in Tanzania. We will staff it with our priests, sisters and laity and we will spread the Good News there.
Instead of building a school in the barrio of Los Angeles, who would want us to keep Jesus out of the class room we will build five schools in Kilimanjaro and staff it with our priests, sisters, and laity and we will spread the Good News there.
Keep your money, we don't want it. I give to the poor in this country, but the fact is that nobody has to starve here. In Africa thousands of children die everyday and the church needs to turn our help to those who will not spit on Jesus as he hangs on the cross.
One thing that is very misunderstood is that God created hell because he loves everyone. By ignoring God, ignoring his precepts and commandments by being disobedient one is saying, "I do not want to be with you, I want to be away from you. Leave me alone". Through the mercy and love of our Lord, you are going to get exactly what you asked for.
They are practitioners of relativism, which is at the core of Secular-humanism. Relativism is a feature of the material realm and is limited to that aspect of reality. Theirs is, therefore, a materialist faith, which is why what matters to them most is the material: skin color, sexual identity and sexual behavior, freedom from the "yoke" of the "material" in the womb, who has how much stuff, etc.
However, Secular-humanism is not merely a materialist faith based on myopic relativistic tenets that deny the necessary existence of the absolute, it happens to be the state religion in most countries in the west, including the U.S.
So what you have are the practitioners of state-sponsored religion trying to marginalize the most threatening competing religion, Christianity. Since the demographic breakdown is roughly 1/4 v. 3/4, we are witnessing the behavior that is designed to perpetuate the tyranny of a minority.
Those who think this will not get much worse before it gets better seem to me to be living in a fantasy world.
Recently an American bishop was charged with a crime for willfully ignoring a threat to the safety of children. And the jurisdiction was not some liberal bastion such as San Francisco. Archbishop Chaput had an actual committee for legislative affairs in his office in Denver and routinely inserted himself in political and civic discussions. He did so, of course, in the name of theology and doctrine but just as with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their ilk, the real motive was power and control. Much of that dynamic was brought about by the very corruption previously mentioned, but much of it also stemmed from people of faith feeling marginalized even among their historically connected fellows. So what Gomez is really addressing is an increased friction between people of faith and the existing power structure, but the friction is generated from BOTH SIDES.
Earlier 1) laws outlawing abortion were essentially religious ideas - forced on everyone else. The 2) "blue laws" were also Christians, forcing their beliefs on others.
And now the very agency that did this, is descrying attacks on religious freedom?
In essence, the conflict is entirely generated by one side of the spectrum and it is between those who are grounded in reality and those with delusions of grandeur.
And the Archbishop argument is just plain specious. Is medicine to blame for the abusive malpractice of one physician?
You are confusing democracy and Constitutional rights. Religious people have just as much right to vote as atheists. It the law reflects those beliefs because the religious people are numerous and/or persuasive, that is the way the system is supposed to work.
The government trying to force believers to engage in conduct they regard as evil violates the Constitution. It doesn't matter how many people support what the government is doing.
However, as a Catholic, I would also like to echo what Patt wrote. This is not a new problem, it is only starting to become more acute and better defined. The lukewarm stand of far too many bishops in the past is now beginning to pay dividends, but not to them. Perhaps now some of the bishops are finally starting to feel that a "delamination" process is truly under way.
As for today, it will be interesting to see if the bishops will manage to retain, or lose control of, the Catholic health care system in our country.
Where is Secretary Sebelius' Bishop?
The Establishment of yet another "Committee" by our dear Bishops does not impress.
"I don't have to pit my belief against another belief; rather, I pit that other belief against reason and first principles and try to articulate why it is in error."
Articulate better. Until you can be more convincing, the Church will just have to comply with the law. That's how democracy works.
However, the statist idea that increasingly centralized power is the solution to every problem is driving this erosion, and, unfortunately, the US bishops have been strong proponents of statism, with their naive appeals to central power to right every imaginable wrong by any means deemed necessary at the moment.
Now the federal behemoth is turning on its own. It increasingly sees other institutions, especially our Church, as threats to its monopoly on goodness and justice.
Our religious freedom has eroded because the Constitution that enshrines it has been violated over and over again, always in the name of the highest ideals of social justice.
We have lived by the sword, and now the sword is being turned on us.
So you get all kinds of crazy scenarios that come up like Muslim taxi drivers refusing rides to blind people with guide dogs and claiming religious freedom. I've even seen a criminal case where a man convicted of marijuana trafficking was claiming religious freedom based on his Rastafarian beliefs. (I believe the court ruled against him but only because he was trafficking large amounts and thus it couldn't possibly be for his own personal use). I also wouldn't be surprised to see religious freedom raised in an honor-killing or female genital mutilation case.
So what is it that you want? Mainstream Judeo-Christian religious freedom? That would be fine as long as a majority of professed believers actually agreed with the religious teaching. That may be the case with abortion but certainly is not with contraception, not even close.
Natural law is more of a red herring than anything, because as far as I can tell, it seems to be whatever the church says it is. You dont get to define a law for atheists and agnostics to follow without giving them a place at the table first.
Caesar's coin, Caesar's rules. Caesar was a Protestant when he landed at Plymouth rock, but has evolved to be a rational humanist. Catholics are late comers to the party and have never been completely accepted in this society.
As for the US Gov't requiring all medical practitioners and facilities to provide abortions and contraceptive...Uncle Sam funds 95% of all health care through Medicare, Medicaid, and tax breaks for employer furnished health insurance. Which the catholic hospitals gladly took. Again, Caesar's coin, Caesar's rules.
As to requiring catholic medical care facilities to provide abortions and contraception, and euthanize the elderly and terminally ill, Obama has made it clear he considers the nation's health care system to be a defacto government entity. All of it, today, right now. He is going to run it by a secular, atheist set of values.
I do agree with Richard at 12:13PM: American catholics can go to Africa and work with the primitive hunter/gatherer cultures there. You clearly are not wanted here.
"So you get all kinds of crazy scenarios that come up like Muslim taxi drivers refusing rides to blind people with guide dogs and claiming religious freedom."
Absolutely - and I think this Muslim belief you've cited is an erroneous one and I don't support it. But I don't argue against this belief simply because it doesn't jive with my own - I argue against this belief because I don't think it has a sturdy grounding at all.
I don't advocate for religious freedom for every single religious belief out there. That would be a type of relativism.
"So what is it that you want? Mainstream Judeo-Christian religious freedom? That would be fine as long as a majority of professed believers actually agreed with the religious teaching. That may be the case with abortion but certainly is not with contraception, not even close."
I'm not playing percentages. I want good law that brings about maximum human dignity, both to individuals and to society as a whole. Catholicism might even further express it as wanting us all to become fully who and what God created us to be. I find good arguments, and am convinced, that both abortion and contraception - to use your examples - don't achieve this and in fact are detrimental to this. It has nothing to do in the final analysis with wanting my beliefs imposed on others; that assumption is often the real red herring in this type of discussion.
In the final analysis, hopefully both atheists and theists are advocating for their positions for the only reason they *should* be advocating for them - because they think they are actually true, and helpful for the human person. For a Christian to want a moral law to prevail *solely* because it's the 'Christian one' would be a terrible piece of reasoning and at its root not even an authentic understanding of Christianity. Likewise, for an atheist to object to a Christian position simply because it's the Christian one, (and therefore opens the door to all kinds of problematic principles such as a Creator of order and moral laws..,) would be lousy reasoning - and lousy atheism.
"Natural law is more of a red herring than anything, because as far as I can tell, it seems to be whatever the church says it is. You don't get to define a law for atheists and agnostics to follow without giving them a place at the table first."
Depends what kind of discussion you want to have. Are we having a discussion about truth? Then if one is trying to make a case that they think something is actually true, then yes both parties lay out first principles. It's incoherent to begin a discussion on morality for example by saying, "Okay, first off, let's assume that there is no God. Okay, now Christian - you go first. Why do you support ___ moral view?" Rather, the Christian must be allowed to explain the reasons for holding foundational beliefs about the universe - just as the atheist is allowed to explain their foundational positions - and let the more convincing explanation for the human condition prevail.
One could re-word your statement to say that 'atheists and agnostics' don't 'get' to define laws for non-atheists to follow, taking as their starting point a table wiped clean of any mention of God. Again, it's simply an error - not necessarily a malicious one, but an error nonetheless - to promote this as a neutral starting point for discussion. And that discussion *is* how we arrive at laws.
MarkusS, the church is quite frankly made up of human beings who have continued to articulate positions which I find convincing. You may not agree with natural law as the church describes it, but that doesn't mean you don't have your own natural law by other names and definitions. Saying that natural law is just something that the church defined is missing the fact that it is something that the church has observed and articulated. Set out to poke holes in the articulation all you want, but not in the very idea of natural law.
Religious people have the right to vote. But does that mean they can vote their religious beliefs into law?
As a practical matter, perhaps they can. But not morally: they should always stop to consider whether their vote in this or that specific case, is merely the imposition of their religious beliefs on others.
If so? Then they should not vote. To respect the religion of others.
Otherwise? You are ending American freedom of religion, after all. Even as you pretend to defend it.
"Articulate better. "
Ah! - If only I could quit my day job, I would.
How do you define a religious belief? Are laws against murder an expression of a religious belief? What about laws against theft? Are you really claiming that people who have certain moral standards cannot express those standards through legislation?
People have a right to cast votes in order to shape the type of society they want to live in. That ability is only limited by certain constitutional restrictions.
"Otherwise? You are ending American freedom of religion, after all. Even as you pretend to defend it."
How am I doing that? You really think that religious people being required to abstain from voting protects religious freedom?
Not if the law is unconstitutional.
Each of us, including Christians have the right to express our opinions and views and particularly through the ballot box. We can in such a way in some measure reflect our positions. We can also seek by argument and polemic to present our ideas to seek to try to show what we regard as their deep logic and rationalism and that is a challenging but essential exercise for those who love life and want good things to come out of it. These are just some of our rights that make us truly human.
When we are denied such basic rights purely because they are regarded by some or even the many (it matters not) as in some way tainted because our position that is disagreed with has connection with some kind of a "religious identity or root" we are being subjected to a totalitarian mindset, and for example the record of secular totalitarianism is not that enviable. A lot of what you are pointing to seems to me be in essence the attempt by the some or the many to move us into that spectrum. It is as much a belief as any other albeit shorne of religious language. Just look up in the dictionary what the elements of a religious belief are.
However, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, and the totalitarian model of such secular or any religious mindsets for that matter in the end becomes increasingly obvious and set for a fall as history shows time and time again.
Thank goodness.
Unfortunately religions seem to be gaining more influence in this country although the Catholic Church may be losing out to more fundamentalist denominations. It is truly frightening to contemplate the threats to our liberties if religion gains too much power. Our founders were deists not Christians and I respect the Archbishop for not claiming otherwise.
In the distant future our beliefs in the Christian story will be looked upon as we look upon the Greek and Roman myths.
And if they do not want Catholic hospitals to have to preform sterilizations or abortions then do the moral thing and don't take government money. If someone offered me money to do something I felt was immoral, even me as an "unprincipled" atheist, would say no.
Also, why is Catholic morality so single minded focused on sins committed with your clothes off. There's no complaints about tax payers money going to perform capital punishment, waging an unnecessary wars in Iraq, governors restricting the rights of workers to organize, unregulated banks. These are all positions that are at variance with Catholic moral teaching. Instead all the archbishop could come up with are examples involving sexual "sins". Why is it that religious liberty for Catholics only seems to involve sexual prohibitions?
As to the other moral actions you bring up, Scripture does not speak directly to them. We are to honor life, but the death penalty for criminals is also supported. Jesus was not a political figure and did not speak to unions etc., other than to say "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's." The apostle Peter told the Sanhedrin, however, that Christians must place God's commands before any law that would contradict them.
Hospitals and schools in this country were begun by Christians. They want to serve all people (even atheists! add a smile here, Michael). However they cannot deny God's commands. As to whether they should accept Federal funds (and I don't know that they do) many communities would be left without any hospital if the Catholic hospitals were forced into closure.
You are confusing two issues. Why shouldn't Church-related institutions receive public funds for providing public services? We do not insist that people have to be baptized into the Church before helping them.
The issue that is now arising is that the government is stating that if you want to continue to receive public money for providing the public services you have traditionally provided, you have to start doing these other things that conflict with your Church's teachings. How is that fair?
"There's no complaints about tax payers money going to perform capital punishment, waging an unnecessary wars in Iraq, governors restricting the rights of workers to organize, unregulated banks."
You have to look at Catholic websites more often. There are major disputes about all of those issues, with the death penalty the one most recently raised because of the Troy Davis execution.
Another one who thinks the Inquisition killed 5,000,000 people. Sorry, you and your atheist-statist comrades are the champions in the untold blood on your hands department.
"The Catholic charities have done a great deal of good but today I think their support from the Church is minimal compared to support by the government and therefore they must accept reasonable regulations by the government."
History is not the only thing you are misinformed on. And how is forcing a Church-affiliated entity to perform acts the Church regards as immoral "reasonable regulation?"
"It is truly frightening to contemplate the threats to our liberties if religion gains too much power."
Right, just like Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority took over the country in the '80s.
"Our founders were deists not Christians"
Our Founders had a wide variety of religious beliefs; one was even (gasp!) a Catholic.
"In the distant future our beliefs in the Christian story will be looked upon as we look upon the Greek and Roman myths."
Your type has been predicting this for over 200 years. You have a worse track record than the Rapture People.
You wrote, "Abortion in the case of rape is legal in the United States. It's one of the exemptions that many otherwise pro-life candidates support." Well, I happen to think that is an inconsistent position. On one hand, it's not okay to kill children who were not planned for or actively desired...on the other hand, it is? That is their issue to sort out, and I believe if they really treat it with intellectual honesty, it will inevitably fail.
Making clearly ignorant statements about the clerical abuse crisis really isn't helpful to your argument. Even 30 years ago when the abuse was at its height, the abuse was no more "rampant" in the Church than it was in any other institution. Today, children are far safer in the Church than they are in any other institution.
" The triumph of corporate dominance has put democracy down the tubes."
What does the "triumph of corporate dominance" have to do with government agencies, through the actions of unelected bureaucrats, trying to force Catholic institutions to engage in conduct that violates their beliefs?



It is also not persecution to be treated exactly as other religious organizations are, even if one has been accorded special privileges in the past. In the proposed health care legislation, Jehovah's Witnesses are required to pay for blood transfusions and Scientologists are required to pay for Ritalin. Quakers already pay taxes to support the military, and people who believe it is murder to eat meat are required to subsidize factory farming. The Church can pay for birth control pills. Nobody's forcing them to take them.