Ads


Defending Our First Freedom

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:

10.25.2011 | 8:37am
Resh Galuta says:
It's not persecution not to get a government subsidy. Nobody has a right to government subsidies. If the increasingly-secular majority decides secular agencies should handle migration and refugee services and health care, that is hardly a threat to religious freedom. The Church is free to continue its charitable endeavors with the financial support provided by believers.

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.
10.25.2011 | 10:17am
DVO says:
With respect to Resh Galuta's comments, it looks an awful lot like persecution (or marginalization, if that word seems a little less loaded) if subsidies are discontinued for certain organizations who have been deemed worthy of such support in the past. This is particularly pernicious when no reasons are given (or are perhaps even required!) for the decision, leaving one to suppose this is in retribution for the organization's holding attitudes currently seen as unfashionable.
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.
10.25.2011 | 10:18am
First of all, ditto what Resh said that not getting government support =/= government persecution.

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.
10.25.2011 | 10:26am
Randy says:
Resh Galuta,

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.
10.25.2011 | 10:35am
Charles Lee says:
Spot on response, Resh Galuta. Archbishop Gomez, I'm struggling to reconcile your remarks with the message of the Gospel reading from the October 16 mass:

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?
10.25.2011 | 10:37am
PL June, MD says:
Resh Galuta, your first two sentences are correct - no one has the right to a government subsidy - including, I would add, the secular agencies that get them. Not getting a subsidy is not persecution; getting one is favoritism. However, being prevented from using the funds you have raised from believers to assist refugees and arrange adoptions and provide health care is persecution.

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.
10.25.2011 | 10:51am
Michael PB says:
Resh,

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.
10.25.2011 | 11:17am
David Nickol says:
What if the values of society in general are diverging significantly from the values of the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of sex and reproduction? When there was a conflict between Mormons and the United States government on monogamy, the Mormons lost. Certain the argument can't be that any particular religion must *always* be accommodated in every case.

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?
10.25.2011 | 11:46am
sue wilson says:
I THINK THAT MOST OF THE COMMENTS ON THIS POST ARE MISSING THE POINT. RELIGION, ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANITY, IS COMING UNDER MORE AND MORE ATTACK IN AMERICA.
"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.
10.25.2011 | 12:05pm
EdSchoen says:
It seems to me that the issue is not direct government interferance with religion. We all agree that the Church can continue its work, in its own way, with its own funds. The problem is that the government increasingly supports policies that offend people of faith. The First Amendment is a restriction on government action, and when the government acts in a manner in direct opposition to reasonable religious belief, we have a problem. Hence the current political dilemna. Secularists want the government to get more involved in our affairs because they have no religious conflict. For some, liberalism is their religion, so all is well. But people of faith want less government so as to reduce the potential areas of conflict. Thus both sides can claim to support "render to Caesar" because we do not agree on "what belongs to Caesar." In other words, the real issue is the appropriate role of government and whether its policies should honor religious diversity. In the U.S. we have for about 200 years; but today, not so much.
10.25.2011 | 12:09pm
" 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 "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.
10.25.2011 | 12:26pm
george says:
Archbishop Gomez raises some excellent points. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church in the United States seems to be remarkably ineffectual in responding to threats to religious liberty. The Constitution is just parchment. Rights have to be defended in the political arena.

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.
10.25.2011 | 12:27pm
JDD says:
Resh and David Nickol perhaps have inadvertently highlighted the root problem of relativism when it comes to these discussions.


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.
10.25.2011 | 12:55pm
Michael PB says:
Mr. Brian English is correct, if our polis followed the rule of the people's will, we'd be able to associate in any manner they so chose.

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.
10.25.2011 | 1:48pm
Leah,

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.
10.25.2011 | 1:51pm
Sue, I didn't read your post became you had the caps key locked. On the net, that's considered shooting. I've been on the net long enough to hear it that way in my mind's ear as well. Softly, please.
10.25.2011 | 1:57pm
Charles Lee notes: 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."

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?"
10.25.2011 | 2:03pm
Charles Lee, I believe that your argument misses the point entirely. When Christ instructed us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's, He was instructing us to recognize and perform our obligations to the civic community in a way that does not violate our Christian duty. Financially supporting or otherwise engaging in acts which violate the Christian moral code is a violation of our call to render unto God what is God's. As Christians, our role is to help people in a way that elevates and dignifies. This is obedience to God's law. Forcing the Church to choose between violating its code or abandoning its mission is cunning and evil.
10.25.2011 | 2:18pm
Patt says:
It seems that the Bishops blew their chance to speak up long ago. Where were they to condemn our "Catholic" pro-abort politicians? To deny them Holy Communion? Where were they to condemn the evil of homosexual activity? Where were they to speak out against co-habitation before marriage? Did we hear them warn the people not to vote for pro choice politicians? We got silence-- very few said anything. The few who spoke up, were ignored by the majority of liberal bishops.
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...
10.25.2011 | 2:36pm
Secularism as propounded by secular leftists is a complete bastardization of the intention of our Founding Fathers. Secularism is not neutral. It is a totalitarian ideology that embraces statism to stifle dissent, and is a threat to our liberty, religious or otherwise.
10.25.2011 | 2:58pm
Margaret says:
Not everything listed by the Archbishop involves government funding:

"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.
10.25.2011 | 3:13pm
Richard says:
I suppose that over the years the secularism of the United States has become so pervasive that those who don't want the Churches help have made it clear that we are no longer welcome.

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.
10.25.2011 | 3:32pm
maineman says:
I'd go a bit further than that, Mike. Secular-humanism is not just an ideology but a theology. JDD points out the fundamental problem with the myopic bigotry of folks like Leah and Gesh.

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.
10.25.2011 | 4:36pm
John Hinshaw says:
Well the seminar commenters are out again today. Thank you POTUS (and your loyalists who cruise this website to provide cover) for granting us faithful the right to sit at home(preferably late at night, so no one can be offended) and pray to our God. Just so we don't dare express our faith by actions benefiting the poor and victimized. For the government to find a more compassionate agency (at cheaper cost) to provide a necessary service to the marginalized is NOT subsidy. Despite the deficient history taught in our government schools, seperation of Church and State was designed to protect the faith from just this kind of intrusion. The corruption of government stinks from the beginning of human history and virtually every example of corruption in the Churches has occurred when government was there to corrupt them.
10.25.2011 | 5:17pm
Richardf says:
I get where all the railing about secular humanism and relativism are coming from. Our country has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, and history teaches that with material goods comes a loosening of morals, etc. So many here are concerned. I am too but I also think the notion that there is some public threat to the religious liberty as contained in the Constitution, is hogwash.

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.
10.25.2011 | 5:24pm
Billy says:
What about all the times that the churches forced votes - that imposed their religious beliefs on everyone else?

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?
10.25.2011 | 5:42pm
Joseph says:
I fight for religious freedom every election in the ballot box.
10.25.2011 | 5:50pm
maineman says:
Nonsense, Richard. The friction comes from a conflict between those who believe, as have most humans since the dawn of civilization, that our universe and the order within it derive from something that transcends us and those who think we are just a material accident and can create our world as we see fit. If that sounds familiar and Biblical, it should.

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?
10.25.2011 | 6:33pm
"And now the very agency that did this, is descrying attacks on religious freedom?"

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.
10.25.2011 | 10:42pm
Mark VA says:
Archbishop Gomez wrote a courageous article, asking questions that need to be considered by all Americans of good will.

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.
10.26.2011 | 12:00am
edmond says:
Laws supporting abortion and contraception clearly prejudice catholics because the practices are clearly against doctrine. Some religions or non-religions like atheism accept abortion and contraception for whatever reasons. The convenient "one-size-fits all" excuse cannot apply. There is a violation of the equal protection clause.
10.26.2011 | 7:11am
Fr Michael says:
If there is a Threat to Religious Liberty (yes), I wonder when our dear Bishops will muster the Courage to deal with the fake-Catholic Politicians who are implementing the Culture of Death.
Where is Secretary Sebelius' Bishop?
The Establishment of yet another "Committee" by our dear Bishops does not impress.
10.26.2011 | 10:21am
Resh Galuta says:
@JDD

"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.
10.26.2011 | 10:56am
ppeter says:
Archbishop Gomez's efforts are noble and should be applauded. Religious freedom is indeed being swiftly eroded in this country.
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.
10.26.2011 | 10:59am
MarkusS says:
JDD, the problem with your point is that the First Amendment call for religious freedom but doesn't explicitly put a limit on it or confine it within a mainstream framework.

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.
10.26.2011 | 1:15pm
Mr. Marx says:
"...the federal government declined a grant request from the U.S. bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services agency."

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.
10.26.2011 | 2:06pm
JDD says:
MarkusS says:


"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.
10.26.2011 | 2:07pm
Billy says:
English:

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.
10.26.2011 | 2:13pm
JDD says:
Resh Galuta says:

"Articulate better. "


Ah! - If only I could quit my day job, I would.
10.26.2011 | 3:59pm
"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."

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?
10.26.2011 | 4:04pm
"Until you can be more convincing, the Church will just have to comply with the law. That's how democracy works."

Not if the law is unconstitutional.
10.26.2011 | 5:36pm
Nicodemus says:
Thank you Jose for your most instructive article.

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.
10.27.2011 | 1:10am
Sue wilson says:
Mike, thanks for the tip. I had all-caps on because the font on my I-pad was too small to make out without my reading glasses. All-caps mode I could see what I was typing.
10.27.2011 | 2:59am
TCH says:
The Catholic Church is a human institution with an incredible history of success as an organization but also with untold blood on its hands over the centuries. 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.

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.
10.27.2011 | 10:05am
Michael says:
No, the only "right" that's being "infringed" upon is the right for the Catholic Church to impose its morality on society as a whole. Catholic are free not to use contraception, not to have abortions, not to engage in gay marriage and no one is forcing them to do any of this or even change their teachings on it. And people are free to disagree with their teaching and free to criticize it because modern society also enjoys freedom of speech.

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?
10.27.2011 | 10:45am
Sue wilson says:
Michael, it just seems like Catholics and other Christians focus on sexual sin. That's because it is the responsibility of Christians and church bodies to warn the cultures of the world, including our own, when the people of the world pursue sin (of whatever nature). Currently, our culture is pursuing its sinful nature through sexual immorality (vs the immorality of theft, lying, stealing, etc.). Calling your friends and saying "Let's go rob a bank" is not acceptable behavior in our culture as a whole, so it seems that sex is all the church cares about.
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.
10.27.2011 | 11:29am
"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."

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.
10.27.2011 | 11:50am
"The Catholic Church is a human institution with an incredible history of success as an organization but also with untold blood on its hands over the centuries."

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.
10.29.2011 | 1:51am
enness says:
Leah, while I think Stephen was overreaching a tad, I understand the point he was trying to make. Please examine it alongside your own assumptions. Who would approve of BC and abortion more than those who try to keep a woman in sexual slavery? The fewer children they have to worry about, the better, right? The less they have to confront a woman's humanity and the great injustice to her.

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.
11.1.2011 | 10:53am
cd says:
Mene Mene Tekal Parson. The persecution of the harlot institution has to happen. Revelation 17 and 18 states it clearly. She persecuted the holy ones, and now she cries when it is her turn. She says "I sit a queen. I am no widow." That is why in one day her plagues will come. Pay back to her a double portion. Just as she has measured out it will be measured out to her.
11.1.2011 | 1:15pm
Pat says:
I agree with Resh Guluta.The Church should stop taking Federal money. The Feds have been telling us what to do from the first day we started to take it,and it has been downhill ever since .
11.2.2011 | 6:06pm
That is an astounding stretch of the intellect, linking the struggle for LGBT human rights and reproductive rights to a perceived decline in democracy. Maybe the pedophilia rampant within the catholic clerical ranks should be included as a reason for democracy's decline. Get a clue, Mr. Gomez. The triumph of corporate dominance has put democracy down the tubes. If you want to promote social justice and democracy, focus on the real problems, not your moral pinatas.
11.3.2011 | 10:06am
"Maybe the pedophilia rampant within the catholic clerical ranks should be included as a reason for democracy's decline."

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?
2.1.2012 | 8:15pm
highninside says:
Do I not recall the nearly unanimous support of Obamacare and all of its tangents by the Catholic Bishops and priests from the pulpit?? Sorry fellas, you got what you deserve. When you allow the anti-religious and immoral into the tent you will have to pay the piper. The piper is here, looking for his pay.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact