Obama: Pastor-in-Chief
February 28, 2012
Joshua Genig
I am not political. At least I try not to be. I do not spend time, nor do I enjoy, discussing national politics. Some do. Some pastors get so bogged down in such things that they never really get on to the business of caring for souls. Blogging about this colleague or that colleague, this president or that president, is not, in my estimation, pastoral care.
However, I have found myself over the past few weeks rather energized for a political cause, in part because it has so profoundly affected some of my dearest friends in the Church of Rome and, even if to a lesser degree, it has also affected my own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
I give my bishop, Matthew Harrison of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, enormous credit for issuing a strong defense of religious freedom and, moreover, our solidarity with our brothers and sisters of the Catholic Church. His wonderfully pastoral letter ends this way:
Increasingly we are suffering overzealous government intrusions into what is the realm of traditional and biblical Christian conscience. We believe this is a violation of our First Amendment rights. We will stand, to the best of our ability, with all religious and other concerned citizens, against this erosion of our civil liberty. Come what may, we shall do everything we can, by God’s grace, to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
It seems that, for the moment, my denomination has “grandfathered” status, so far as the HHS mandate is concerned. In short, we can carry on as usual, without any governmental involvement. Word from other “grandfathered” religious organizations, however, seems to indicate that this status applies only so long as changes to the insurance plan do not occur.
What is most troubling in all of this, however, is that by even discussing such a mandate, let alone enforcing it, Mr. Obama has unilaterally assumed the role of Pastor-in-Chief of the United States of America. And frankly, I’m offended by that.
I find it unconscionable that a president, who just days previously had made it clear that he would mandate that religious organizations violate their consciences, stood before hundreds at the National Prayer Breakfast and said (1) that he is a Christian, and (2) that somehow the teachings of holy scripture in general and, in particular, Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, have a direct correlation to his presidency and moreover to the mandates he has put into place (whether healthcare-related, economic, or otherwise). Simply put, it is hard to see how Mr. Obama can mandate a violation of conscience one day, and say the following with a straight face just days later, while remaining an honest man:
It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these–for the poor; for those at the margins of our society. To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”…Treating others as you want to be treated.
Who is speaking up for the children who will lose their lives because of the HHS mandate? Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have “control” of their own bodies? Who is speaking up for the multitude of physicians who refuse to give out death-inducing prescriptions and, in turn, are ridiculed or even discriminated because of it? Those folks are the “least of these” of which Jesus speaks. To the president, however, they are nobodies.
We can forgive the president for not being a good theologian. But in return, he should stop acting like one. After all, if he had read the totality of the biblical story before his recent prayer breakfast speech, he would have remembered the haunting words of St. Paul to those who pass judgment–as he has on the religious faithful of America:
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God (Rom 14:10-12).
If St. Paul was right, then the truest words Mr. Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast were these: “No matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels.” As Lutherans are wont to say: This is most certainly true.
Joshua Genig is pastor of The Lutheran Church of the Ascension in Atlanta, GA and is finishing a Ph.D. in systematic theology at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.
Comments:
2.28.2012 | 1:21am
Padre Dave Poedel, STS says:
I agree. For a Synod that can rightly be accused of "quietism", I too, share thanks that our Roman Catholic friends have been out front defending their doctrine and I applaud my Bishop from standing along side of them.
2.28.2012 | 3:17am
Rick says:
I'm confused. The essay ends with a ringing call to not pass judgement on others, no matter how sinful they may seem to us, a call supported, appropriately, with the words of Saint Paul, but the entire text of the article is a stinging condemnation of Obama. He seems to be an almost satantic figure with no redeeming features--a leering, power-mad baby-killer. Is there a contradiction here, or am I missing something?
2.28.2012 | 4:39am
dadfly says:
welcome to the battle, as we in the tea party have been fighting alone in the trenches for 4 years and counting. it is nice to see that some few others are beginning to wake up and see what we knew was coming 4 years ago. indeed what is now here has been brewing for 100 years. the statists and utopians have been busy for many years, undermining our foundations, while we Americans have slowly forgotton and been shorn of our heritage, our unalienable, God given rights to Life (i.e., our possessions as earned or produced with our own intellect and hands, and our stewardship of our own bodies and this good earth as delivered to us by God alone); Liberty (i.e., our Free Will as gifted to us by our Maker and thus our original and *sole,* rightful owner), and our Pursuit of Happiness (i.e., our existence as an individual, free and secure from the harassment of other individuals, factions, or un-authorized, unlimited governments).
and yes, if you believe in the providential origins of America, we are fighting for no less then our own and our children's individual souls, since America was founded as the "shining city on the hill" and has been a beacon of/for Christ for neigh on to two and one-half centuries.
perhaps now you begin to understand that for me as an individual, much less as consenting citizen under the Constitution, that there is no *separation* of Church and State, that our founding documents and therefore the law of the land (based on the Declaration and the Constitution) require and even reference God directly, and thus, America, being a more a work of God than man, would justify and require my defense.
and yes, if you believe in the providential origins of America, we are fighting for no less then our own and our children's individual souls, since America was founded as the "shining city on the hill" and has been a beacon of/for Christ for neigh on to two and one-half centuries.
perhaps now you begin to understand that for me as an individual, much less as consenting citizen under the Constitution, that there is no *separation* of Church and State, that our founding documents and therefore the law of the land (based on the Declaration and the Constitution) require and even reference God directly, and thus, America, being a more a work of God than man, would justify and require my defense.
2.28.2012 | 5:26am
nick b says:
it is worth noting that the current crisis is bringing solidarity if not doctrinal unity among the separated brothers of the Body of Christ. much like the abortion struggle, when the rubber hits the road, Christians are standing together. this is an ecumanism worth having; born of the grass roots, and having more real life than all the commissions and study groups of the last century.
2.28.2012 | 6:05am
Maxim says:
Mr. Obama has been unfailingly faithful to one of the interests he represents, that of international finance. It would perhaps be unfair to him to represent him as having any other religion than that.
2.28.2012 | 8:02am
ferd says:
Thank you, Pastor, for your support and the support of your Biship in this time of crisis.
2.28.2012 | 9:15am
Felapton says:
I'm not sure which Biblical passage this article is referring to, but the phrase "least of these" is usually taken to be an allusion to Matthew 25:37-39, where Christ explicitly names those who are hungry, thirsty, without shelter, without clothing, sick or captive.
It is not unreasonable to be sympathetic to a physician who is ridiculed, or a woman who is coerced into feeling like she should be able to control her body, but they are not really the people Christ was talking about.
The Obama administration has not done a particularly good job of helping the truly destitute, but at least Obama recognizes that they exist and need help. Whereas it is something close to an abomination for a Christian pastor to dismiss, ignore or minimize their suffering in order to displace sympathy onto (mostly imaginary) political-rhetorical symbols.
It is not unreasonable to be sympathetic to a physician who is ridiculed, or a woman who is coerced into feeling like she should be able to control her body, but they are not really the people Christ was talking about.
The Obama administration has not done a particularly good job of helping the truly destitute, but at least Obama recognizes that they exist and need help. Whereas it is something close to an abomination for a Christian pastor to dismiss, ignore or minimize their suffering in order to displace sympathy onto (mostly imaginary) political-rhetorical symbols.
2.28.2012 | 9:16am
WNB says:
I never thought that when Paul wrote of "judgment" he was speaking of decisions of public policy. It always seemed to me that he was speaking of the ways we sometimes pretend that we have the information available to us to announce in a final way whether or not someone is a Christian. In that sense, the only one judging in this article is the author himself, who feels very free to question the faith of a man he has never met.
2.28.2012 | 9:46am
patricksarsfield says:
I disagree that Obama is trying to be the Pastor-in-Chief. If any simile should be sought for this blatantly unconstitutional action, a better one would be that he is behaving like a Commissar of Religions. While in Hawaii, Obama was a protege of a hard Communist named Frank Marshall Davis. While at Columbia, Obama attended Socialist Conferences at Cooper Union in NYC. His associations with another couple of hard leftist revolutionaries, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, are well known. His associations with a hard leftist pastor are also well-known. So the better place to look for a simile is in the Gulag rather than the cloister.
We shouldn't sugar coat what Obama is trying to do. He is trying to force christian churches to do what he very well knows violates their consciences. Despite that knowledge, his response is to push ever harder to achieve the goal. Although he knows that groups of nuns (or a student in a Catholic university) do not speak for the Church, he/his minions talk up their dissent as proof of the essential appropriateness of what he has done and thereby use the oldest tactic of oppressive governments to get his way: "divide and conquer."
And, Obama's recent supposed "accommodation" is hardly that. Rather, Obama is still forcing the Church institutions to do something against their consciences but merely making somoene else pay for the contrraceptive services that the Church has to order for its employees. And making the insurance compnies pay for it actually heightens the degree to which the violation of the Church's conscience violates the First Amendment. In effect, Obama has jumped from the "Free Exercise violation frying pabn" into the "Establishment Clause fire" by requiring the insurance companies to pay the Church's mandated expense. Short of an actual declaration that a particular church is the established church, there could be no more basic violation of the Establishment Clause than for the Government to require a private individual to pay a Church's expenses for it.
We shouldn't sugar coat what Obama is trying to do. He is trying to force christian churches to do what he very well knows violates their consciences. Despite that knowledge, his response is to push ever harder to achieve the goal. Although he knows that groups of nuns (or a student in a Catholic university) do not speak for the Church, he/his minions talk up their dissent as proof of the essential appropriateness of what he has done and thereby use the oldest tactic of oppressive governments to get his way: "divide and conquer."
And, Obama's recent supposed "accommodation" is hardly that. Rather, Obama is still forcing the Church institutions to do something against their consciences but merely making somoene else pay for the contrraceptive services that the Church has to order for its employees. And making the insurance compnies pay for it actually heightens the degree to which the violation of the Church's conscience violates the First Amendment. In effect, Obama has jumped from the "Free Exercise violation frying pabn" into the "Establishment Clause fire" by requiring the insurance companies to pay the Church's mandated expense. Short of an actual declaration that a particular church is the established church, there could be no more basic violation of the Establishment Clause than for the Government to require a private individual to pay a Church's expenses for it.
2.28.2012 | 2:46pm
The Moz says:
Great article. When are America's other denominations going to step up? Speak now or forever hold your peace folks!
Today it may be the Catholics but tomorrow it may be the Evangelicals, and the day after that all generic Christians and then anyone else who dares stick their head above the parapet.
Don't believe for a second this is some great distraction, that basic freedoms aren't at stake. This is for real and unless people of courage stand up for themselves and their fellow citizens America will be in for a long cold winter.
Today it may be the Catholics but tomorrow it may be the Evangelicals, and the day after that all generic Christians and then anyone else who dares stick their head above the parapet.
Don't believe for a second this is some great distraction, that basic freedoms aren't at stake. This is for real and unless people of courage stand up for themselves and their fellow citizens America will be in for a long cold winter.
2.28.2012 | 3:06pm
Beefalo says:
As a Catholic I thank the author for the display of solidarity. All Christians should stand together to thwart secular humanism wherever, as here, it slouches toward our religious freedom to devour it. One point: using the phrase "Church of Rome" to describe the Catholic Church could be interpreted as a pejorative. We Catholics do not profess adherence to the "Church of Rome." Indeed, there is only one Catholic Church. The designation "Roman" refers to a specific rite within the Church (i.e., an ecclesiastical tradition reflecting how the sacraments are celebrated). There are other rites (e.g., Maronite, Syriac, Chaldean, Mozrabic, etc.) but there is only one Catholic Church.
2.28.2012 | 3:21pm
Jack Perry says:
Timothy Shriver (yes, THAT Timothy Shriver) was absolutely giddy about Obama as Pastor-in-Chief shortly after the 2008 election:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/11/pastor_in_chief.html
Just remember, Obama is the Pastor-in-Chief; Santorum (& his fellow Republicans) are the Theocrats. (Seriously. Check out today's headlines on the same newspaper.)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/11/pastor_in_chief.html
Just remember, Obama is the Pastor-in-Chief; Santorum (& his fellow Republicans) are the Theocrats. (Seriously. Check out today's headlines on the same newspaper.)
2.28.2012 | 3:37pm
maineman says:
For that matter, Beefalo, there really is only one true Church, the politically motivated divisions within it that have developed over many years notwithstanding.
What seems to be happening is that the divisions are beginning to melt away because of the confrontation with the enemy, in whose court Obama unwittingly but clearly resides. Just how confused liberals are now becoming, due to their indifference to the Truth writ large is evident in the words of those here who somehow manage to equate the author's thoughtful piece with the tyrannical lurches of a president whose disregard for the truth, and for life, are his most conspicuous qualities.
It's hard not to think that the City of Man has squared off against the City of God in this one and that things will continue to deteriorate until the two are once again in balance.
What seems to be happening is that the divisions are beginning to melt away because of the confrontation with the enemy, in whose court Obama unwittingly but clearly resides. Just how confused liberals are now becoming, due to their indifference to the Truth writ large is evident in the words of those here who somehow manage to equate the author's thoughtful piece with the tyrannical lurches of a president whose disregard for the truth, and for life, are his most conspicuous qualities.
It's hard not to think that the City of Man has squared off against the City of God in this one and that things will continue to deteriorate until the two are once again in balance.
2.28.2012 | 3:51pm
Karyn says:
Thank you, your bishop, and all people of conscience who oppose this mandate. I realize the Catholic Church is seen as the one's most effected by this mandate, but in reality it's anyone who morally opposes what it sanctions. Freedom of religion is the right of all individual Americans. What about the Evangelical pharmacist who feels it's wrong to administer abortion inducing drugs? What about the Baptist lawyer in private practice who feels convicted that these drugs and procedures are immoral and go against his/her religious beliefs? What about the atheist/agnostic who is ethically opposed to abortion but owns a business and wants no part of insuring abortion for others? That's why we need all people of good will to stand against this mandate. On a side note, while Beefalo is right about seeing "Church of Rome" as pejorative (and I don't think the author meant it that way)--it was coined during the reformation as a contrast to Anglo-Catholics--most Catholics in the West are part of the Latin Rite. There is no Roman rite.
2.28.2012 | 3:55pm
Beefalo says:
Jack,
Thanks for your post.
That's quite a contrast reading the "Obama is Pastor-in-Chief" article in juxtaposition to the hit piece against Santorum as a theocratic extremist. Santorum says he thinks the First Amendment doesn't mean churches can't have any influence or involvement in the governance of the state and he's the ayatollah. Obama waxes theological about scriptural support for his welfare policy and the media say nothing about it. What a farce.
Thanks for your post.
That's quite a contrast reading the "Obama is Pastor-in-Chief" article in juxtaposition to the hit piece against Santorum as a theocratic extremist. Santorum says he thinks the First Amendment doesn't mean churches can't have any influence or involvement in the governance of the state and he's the ayatollah. Obama waxes theological about scriptural support for his welfare policy and the media say nothing about it. What a farce.
2.28.2012 | 4:06pm
Them says:
As Perry honestly and accurately noted?
Indeed, the only real difference between Obama and Santorum in this regard, is that Santorum is far, far more intense about forcing his religious values on others.
My Protestant church allows contraception and abortion. So, when Santorum and the Church force their - clearly religious-based - views into law? They are discriminating against my religion.
Once again, Catholicism is attacking Protestantism.
Indeed, the only real difference between Obama and Santorum in this regard, is that Santorum is far, far more intense about forcing his religious values on others.
My Protestant church allows contraception and abortion. So, when Santorum and the Church force their - clearly religious-based - views into law? They are discriminating against my religion.
Once again, Catholicism is attacking Protestantism.
2.28.2012 | 4:57pm
Beefalo says:
Them says "Once again, Catholicism is attacking Protestantism." I suppose the author is aptly named, given the old saying, "Them's fighting words." Best to ignore that.
2.28.2012 | 5:38pm
Botolph says:
Perhaps "Them" belongs to the the group that appreciates what Henry VIII did to the Catholics and early Protestants in his country. The pastor in chief cannot quite say he is head of the Church but he certainly is following Henry's script
2.28.2012 | 7:36pm
Clubbeaux says:
Seeing as how the Catholic bishops overwhelmingly endorsed ObamaCare, it's kind of hard not to observe the hypocrisy of them feeling they had the right to pronounce on political matters, while claiming the government has no right to pronounce on religious matters.
And it's pretty tough to feel sorry for the Catholic Church for being affected by bad legislation its bishops so heartily endorsed in the first place.
And it's pretty tough to feel sorry for the Catholic Church for being affected by bad legislation its bishops so heartily endorsed in the first place.
2.28.2012 | 8:23pm
Philosopher Mom says:
Bravo, sir! As a Roman Catholic, I thank you for your solidarity: indeed, as you illustrate, this is not a "Catholic" issue, but an issue of the usurpation by the state of the pastoral role. Thanks and many blessings!
2.28.2012 | 8:41pm
A Rasmussen says:
Obama is not trying to oppress the church. The idea that that is his goal is absolutely ridiculous. He is trying to provide affordable healthcare to every American. Maybe you disagree with that goal, but it is ridiculous to categorize his healthcare plan as an attack on religion. It is not an attack on religion. It is an attempt at achieving universal healthcare coverage.
In the context of the current dispute, it is an attempt to ensure that universal healthcare includes coverage for women's contraception, a concept that has widespread support from both the public and the medical community. It is not an attack on the church.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't approve of blood transfusions. Yet no one seriously thinks that healthcare which does not include blood transfusions is meaningful health care. There are those religious groups who oppose all professional medical care at all, believing that prayer is the only spiritually acceptable cure for illness. Does that mean that they are excused entirely from providing health insurance even if they operate in the public sector? No. Is it permissible for the government to prosecute them for criminal negligence when their children die of medical neglect? Yes.
Look, I know that these are sensitive topics, and there maybe very good reasons for not mandating healthcare, but characterizing this as a deliberate attack on the church is mistaken. The goal is healthcare. That means balancing a wide variety of interests, including the interests of religious organizations that operate in the public sector. By operating in the public sector they open themselves up to some level of government regulation... they are subject to child labor laws, workplace safety laws, industrial insurance laws, etc., etc., etc.
I support fully the churches' right to protest these regulations, and if they are violations of First Amendment protections (which is debatable among people of good conscience on both sides) then they should be struck down. But I can't stand the false claims of deliberate persecution. To suggest that Obama is motivated by a desire to persecute Christians, as opposed to the desire to provide universal healthcare to all Americans, is ridiculous.
In the context of the current dispute, it is an attempt to ensure that universal healthcare includes coverage for women's contraception, a concept that has widespread support from both the public and the medical community. It is not an attack on the church.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't approve of blood transfusions. Yet no one seriously thinks that healthcare which does not include blood transfusions is meaningful health care. There are those religious groups who oppose all professional medical care at all, believing that prayer is the only spiritually acceptable cure for illness. Does that mean that they are excused entirely from providing health insurance even if they operate in the public sector? No. Is it permissible for the government to prosecute them for criminal negligence when their children die of medical neglect? Yes.
Look, I know that these are sensitive topics, and there maybe very good reasons for not mandating healthcare, but characterizing this as a deliberate attack on the church is mistaken. The goal is healthcare. That means balancing a wide variety of interests, including the interests of religious organizations that operate in the public sector. By operating in the public sector they open themselves up to some level of government regulation... they are subject to child labor laws, workplace safety laws, industrial insurance laws, etc., etc., etc.
I support fully the churches' right to protest these regulations, and if they are violations of First Amendment protections (which is debatable among people of good conscience on both sides) then they should be struck down. But I can't stand the false claims of deliberate persecution. To suggest that Obama is motivated by a desire to persecute Christians, as opposed to the desire to provide universal healthcare to all Americans, is ridiculous.
2.28.2012 | 8:59pm
Jon Rowe says:
"and yes, if you believe in the providential origins of America, we are fighting for no less then our own and our children's individual souls, since America was founded as the 'shining city on the hill' and has been a beacon of/for Christ for neigh on to two and one-half centuries."
This interpretation of America's origins & the Christian faith are EVERY bit as contentious and arguably heretical as Obama's. You don't like it when he does it; why should we put up with it when you do it (at least in principle; I know you don't have the power of POTUS). By the way, Winthrop's "Shining City" did disgracefully UN-Christian things to the Indians, Quakers and Roger Williams. And Winthrop thought Mass. was an exalted New Israel. As Mark Noll, George Marsden and Nathan Hatch noted in their classic "The Search For Christian America," from a sound biblical orthodox evangelical Christian perspective, this is a case of "mistaken identity." In other words a Christian heresy.
"perhaps now you begin to understand that for me as an individual, much less as consenting citizen under the Constitution, that there is no *separation* of Church and State, that our founding documents and therefore the law of the land (based on the Declaration and the Constitution) require and even reference God directly, and thus, America, being a more a work of God than man, would justify and require my defense."
The DOI mentions a more generic God (not the Christian God, arguably not the God of the Bible) of some sort in 4 places. The Constitution, other than in the customary way of stating the date, is Godless.
America's Founding political structure is clearly a work of man. According to the Bible, God stopped making governments in Ancient Israel. Orthodox Christianity does not teach "Christian Americanism," Mormonism does. They are both Christian heresies.
This interpretation of America's origins & the Christian faith are EVERY bit as contentious and arguably heretical as Obama's. You don't like it when he does it; why should we put up with it when you do it (at least in principle; I know you don't have the power of POTUS). By the way, Winthrop's "Shining City" did disgracefully UN-Christian things to the Indians, Quakers and Roger Williams. And Winthrop thought Mass. was an exalted New Israel. As Mark Noll, George Marsden and Nathan Hatch noted in their classic "The Search For Christian America," from a sound biblical orthodox evangelical Christian perspective, this is a case of "mistaken identity." In other words a Christian heresy.
"perhaps now you begin to understand that for me as an individual, much less as consenting citizen under the Constitution, that there is no *separation* of Church and State, that our founding documents and therefore the law of the land (based on the Declaration and the Constitution) require and even reference God directly, and thus, America, being a more a work of God than man, would justify and require my defense."
The DOI mentions a more generic God (not the Christian God, arguably not the God of the Bible) of some sort in 4 places. The Constitution, other than in the customary way of stating the date, is Godless.
America's Founding political structure is clearly a work of man. According to the Bible, God stopped making governments in Ancient Israel. Orthodox Christianity does not teach "Christian Americanism," Mormonism does. They are both Christian heresies.
2.28.2012 | 10:41pm
Daniel says:
What?? "falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have 'control' of their own bodies"..? This line comes straight out of antiquity. I can't believe I'm reading this on a computer screen in the 21st century and not etched on a 2000 year old slab of clay.
I call you to either try to explain how you could possibly believe that anyone should have "control" over a woman's body other than that woman herself or admit that what you have written here is an utter mistake.
Despite the aforementioned atrocity, I respect your right to feel offended by President Obama's policies; however, I advise you and everyone in agreement with your position to at least briefly presume a different perspective than your own initial outrage. This is a Women's Health issue. Remember, contraception is 1) legal and 2) not only used for birth prevention (e.g. oral contraceptives for preventing the development ovarian cysts). Think of all the women who would be denied the right to free access of a perfectly legal healthcare product.
Moreover, you must realize the egotism of demanding exemption from providing a particular type of healthcare. The mandate is applied to ALL employers. You cry for "freedom of religion" but what you're asking for is authority of religion. You're asking for the authority to exempt yourselves from the rules that all of us in this country must follow. We live in a society! We cannot all get exemptions from things we do not like, or we wouldn't be sharing the same responsibilities. As employers, the heads of these institutions have a responsibility to provide their workers with access to a preventative care service, a responsibility which, under this law, all employers will have to share.
Besides, it is clear that the uproar coming from the Church is merely political.
I call you to either try to explain how you could possibly believe that anyone should have "control" over a woman's body other than that woman herself or admit that what you have written here is an utter mistake.
Despite the aforementioned atrocity, I respect your right to feel offended by President Obama's policies; however, I advise you and everyone in agreement with your position to at least briefly presume a different perspective than your own initial outrage. This is a Women's Health issue. Remember, contraception is 1) legal and 2) not only used for birth prevention (e.g. oral contraceptives for preventing the development ovarian cysts). Think of all the women who would be denied the right to free access of a perfectly legal healthcare product.
Moreover, you must realize the egotism of demanding exemption from providing a particular type of healthcare. The mandate is applied to ALL employers. You cry for "freedom of religion" but what you're asking for is authority of religion. You're asking for the authority to exempt yourselves from the rules that all of us in this country must follow. We live in a society! We cannot all get exemptions from things we do not like, or we wouldn't be sharing the same responsibilities. As employers, the heads of these institutions have a responsibility to provide their workers with access to a preventative care service, a responsibility which, under this law, all employers will have to share.
Besides, it is clear that the uproar coming from the Church is merely political.
2.29.2012 | 2:16am
Savia D'cunha says:
Rasmussen and Daniel,
If someone wants contraception, let them buy it themselves. Why should contraception be free, when even food isn't?
The coverage also mandates abortion drugs and sterlizations. Besides, contraception is already available, why mandate it, and then force others to pay for it.
There are thousands of women employees who have come against the mandate too.
As for women's health, I am not buying it, since the WHO lists hormonal contraceptives as a No.1 carcinogen.
Obama also could have found other ways to provide these services, but he chose to pick a fight with the church. In fact when the Bishops supported Obamacare, they were told would have conscience exemptions. Obama lied.
As for child labour laws etc, this is an issue of public safety, contraception is not.
It's like arguing that refusing to fund hamburgers forces people to be vegetarians.
If someone wants contraception, let them buy it themselves. Why should contraception be free, when even food isn't?
The coverage also mandates abortion drugs and sterlizations. Besides, contraception is already available, why mandate it, and then force others to pay for it.
There are thousands of women employees who have come against the mandate too.
As for women's health, I am not buying it, since the WHO lists hormonal contraceptives as a No.1 carcinogen.
Obama also could have found other ways to provide these services, but he chose to pick a fight with the church. In fact when the Bishops supported Obamacare, they were told would have conscience exemptions. Obama lied.
As for child labour laws etc, this is an issue of public safety, contraception is not.
It's like arguing that refusing to fund hamburgers forces people to be vegetarians.
2.29.2012 | 10:05am
Peg says:
"Jehovah's Witnesses don't approve of blood transfusions. Yet no one seriously thinks that healthcare which does not include blood transfusions is meaningful health care. There are those religious groups who oppose all professional medical care at all[...]Is it permissible for the government to prosecute them for criminal negligence when their children die of medical neglect? Yes."
You are describing critically ill or wounded patients who need medical intervention. Contraception, sterilization and abortion are not comparable. It's like comparing the condition of a bleeding hemophiliac with my need for new eyeglasses. The fact that some employers will not provide insurance coverage for contraception, abortion and sterilization does not mean the employees cannot get them. They have been doing it all along, in fact.
"Remember, contraception is 1) legal and 2) not only used for birth prevention (e.g. oral contraceptives for preventing the development ovarian cysts). Think of all the women who would be denied the right to free access of a perfectly legal healthcare product."
I have seen this stated before, but I don't know that #2 need for oral contraception would be excluded. Who says it would be? Is it now?
"Moreover, you must realize the egotism of demanding exemption from providing a particular type of healthcare. The mandate is applied to ALL employers. You cry for "freedom of religion" but what you're asking for is authority of religion. You're asking for the authority to exempt yourselves from the rules that all of us in this country must follow."
Well, I am not ready to goose my steps yet, just because "all of us" must follow "the rules", including those that go against my conscience and religious beliefs. I refuse to cooperate with evil. "I was just following orders" is no defense. Also, note that there have been hundreds of exemptions and waivers given to other employers---mostly unions, but also McDonald's, Jack in the Box, Piggly Wiggly Alabama, etc. for myriad reasons (mostly financial, not moral---money and campaign contributions win out!):
http://ifawebnews.com/2012/02/07/mcdonalds-trumps-catholic-church-with-exemption-from-obamacare/
You are describing critically ill or wounded patients who need medical intervention. Contraception, sterilization and abortion are not comparable. It's like comparing the condition of a bleeding hemophiliac with my need for new eyeglasses. The fact that some employers will not provide insurance coverage for contraception, abortion and sterilization does not mean the employees cannot get them. They have been doing it all along, in fact.
"Remember, contraception is 1) legal and 2) not only used for birth prevention (e.g. oral contraceptives for preventing the development ovarian cysts). Think of all the women who would be denied the right to free access of a perfectly legal healthcare product."
I have seen this stated before, but I don't know that #2 need for oral contraception would be excluded. Who says it would be? Is it now?
"Moreover, you must realize the egotism of demanding exemption from providing a particular type of healthcare. The mandate is applied to ALL employers. You cry for "freedom of religion" but what you're asking for is authority of religion. You're asking for the authority to exempt yourselves from the rules that all of us in this country must follow."
Well, I am not ready to goose my steps yet, just because "all of us" must follow "the rules", including those that go against my conscience and religious beliefs. I refuse to cooperate with evil. "I was just following orders" is no defense. Also, note that there have been hundreds of exemptions and waivers given to other employers---mostly unions, but also McDonald's, Jack in the Box, Piggly Wiggly Alabama, etc. for myriad reasons (mostly financial, not moral---money and campaign contributions win out!):
http://ifawebnews.com/2012/02/07/mcdonalds-trumps-catholic-church-with-exemption-from-obamacare/
2.29.2012 | 8:39pm
mtm says:
Rasmussen wrote, "characterizing this as a deliberate attack on the church is mistaken. The goal is healthcare."
Perhaps we can give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he doesn't intend to attack the Church. Even so, his actions certainly constitute a direct attack on the Church.
What he is doing is rather like landing a bomb on London that does significant damage to London, and also harms some neighboring cities. Sure, some neighboring cities are affected, but London took the direct hit.
Why do I draw the analogy of the direct hit? First, the Catholic Church is the practically only institution that clearly teaches (and has consistently taught) that contraception, abortion, and sterilization are immoral. Think about that. Second, we know that the question of whether Catholics should be exempted from the mandate was hotly debated within the administration, with even Joe Biden arguing in favor of a broad exemption. They were thinking about Catholics, specifically, and they decided on making them second class citizens.
Perhaps we can give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he doesn't intend to attack the Church. Even so, his actions certainly constitute a direct attack on the Church.
What he is doing is rather like landing a bomb on London that does significant damage to London, and also harms some neighboring cities. Sure, some neighboring cities are affected, but London took the direct hit.
Why do I draw the analogy of the direct hit? First, the Catholic Church is the practically only institution that clearly teaches (and has consistently taught) that contraception, abortion, and sterilization are immoral. Think about that. Second, we know that the question of whether Catholics should be exempted from the mandate was hotly debated within the administration, with even Joe Biden arguing in favor of a broad exemption. They were thinking about Catholics, specifically, and they decided on making them second class citizens.
3.1.2012 | 10:13pm
Tom Lawton says:
This is Obama's attempt to separate the head from the body of the Church, as the Romans bade Paul.
3.4.2012 | 12:34pm
Constitutionalist says:
Rasmussen attempts to justify Obama's actions on the basis of his goal to provide universal healthcare. And it may indeed be true that Obama's goal is to provide universal healthcare and not to attack the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious institution or anyone with moral beliefs that conflict with his, although one goal also does not rule out others that are in line with, and achievable by, pursuit of the first goal. The real objection is that the Constitution sets out the basic principles under which our government is to operate, notwithstanding the good or benefits of a proposed policy and, if that policy violates one of those principles, then the principle governs. If you believe that the goal of universal healthcare is so important that it should trump the first amendment right to freedom of religion, then the first step to be taken is to amend the Constitution, not to intentionally, and blatantly, ignore it and violate its principles.
3.4.2012 | 3:58pm
Keith Bostic says:
We need to spread the word, this isn't just about contraception.
Imagine the workplace of the future: if you work for Jehovah's Witnesses, no blood transfusions; for Scientologists, no mental-health care; for Catholics, no birth control; for Buddhists/Hindus no analgesics or animal-based or tested medicines; for Jews, no autopsies; for Muslims, no gelatin or alcohol based medications.
Christian Scientists will provide a vial of oil in the lunchroom for anointing as needed. The Pentecostals, well, if you were right with God, you wouldn't be sick.
Imagine the workplace of the future: if you work for Jehovah's Witnesses, no blood transfusions; for Scientologists, no mental-health care; for Catholics, no birth control; for Buddhists/Hindus no analgesics or animal-based or tested medicines; for Jews, no autopsies; for Muslims, no gelatin or alcohol based medications.
Christian Scientists will provide a vial of oil in the lunchroom for anointing as needed. The Pentecostals, well, if you were right with God, you wouldn't be sick.
3.4.2012 | 4:01pm
OGWiseman says:
I'm not a religious person, but I totally agree that the federal government shouldn't be dictating people's consciences to them. I just wonder, though, and this is not snarky, it's an actual question: What's the Lutheran church's stance on the Defense of Marriage Act? (DOMA) That's certainly an attempt by the federal government to dictate people's consciences to them. Do you believe that ought to be overturned so that individual people can make their individual decisions about who to marry? If you do believe that, I think it adds a lot of credibility to this argument, and vice versa.
What about an end to the federal 'War on Drugs'? I'd like to be able to smoke marijuana, which was put here by God, and my conscience tells me that's fine. Shouldn't I be able to do that if I want?
What about the War in Iraq? I thought and continue to think that war is an unjustifiable moral abomination, and yet the federal government uses my tax dollars to fight that war. Should I be able to refuse to pay taxes until they end the war?
This same thing is true of the incarceration of people convicted of non-violent crimes. I think that's immoral, but my tax dollars are used to do it. Should I be able to 'opt-out' of this somehow?
Or is it possible, is it just possible, that my membership in society requires me to occasionally bite my tongue and be a part of something that I think is wrong because that's what the society has decided to do?
Food for thought. But if the answer is 'Our consciences matter on the issue of birth control, but your conscience doesn't matter on those issues you just mentioned', then that is hypocrisy of the first order.
What about an end to the federal 'War on Drugs'? I'd like to be able to smoke marijuana, which was put here by God, and my conscience tells me that's fine. Shouldn't I be able to do that if I want?
What about the War in Iraq? I thought and continue to think that war is an unjustifiable moral abomination, and yet the federal government uses my tax dollars to fight that war. Should I be able to refuse to pay taxes until they end the war?
This same thing is true of the incarceration of people convicted of non-violent crimes. I think that's immoral, but my tax dollars are used to do it. Should I be able to 'opt-out' of this somehow?
Or is it possible, is it just possible, that my membership in society requires me to occasionally bite my tongue and be a part of something that I think is wrong because that's what the society has decided to do?
Food for thought. But if the answer is 'Our consciences matter on the issue of birth control, but your conscience doesn't matter on those issues you just mentioned', then that is hypocrisy of the first order.
3.4.2012 | 4:20pm
proterozoic says:
If I understand correctly, under the Obama HHS compromise, Catholic institutions don't have to shell out a single dime for contraceptives, don't have to be involved in, promote, or endorse their distribution, acquisition and use.
However, the Catholic hierarchy still feels oppressed and aggrieved... because women are getting an option you don't want them to have. Contraception is part of the mandate because medical professionals deem it to be essential preventive care, but you consider it a part of your religious rights to prevent women, whether or not they belong to your religion, from getting it as part of their insurance.
It appears that clergy like Joshua Genig see themselves as trailing giant clouds of rights that blanket everything they see.
However, the Catholic hierarchy still feels oppressed and aggrieved... because women are getting an option you don't want them to have. Contraception is part of the mandate because medical professionals deem it to be essential preventive care, but you consider it a part of your religious rights to prevent women, whether or not they belong to your religion, from getting it as part of their insurance.
It appears that clergy like Joshua Genig see themselves as trailing giant clouds of rights that blanket everything they see.
3.4.2012 | 4:25pm
Jilli says:
"Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have “control” of their own bodies? "
Good lord, are you serious? You do know it's 2012, don't you?
The separation of church mandates freedom of religion, but it also implies freedom from religion. Your beliefs should not be forced on everyone. I respect our constitution and the Presidents efforts to help the masses - regardless of their religious affiliation. I wish I could say the same of the religious leaders advocating against the contents of the legislation.
Good lord, are you serious? You do know it's 2012, don't you?
The separation of church mandates freedom of religion, but it also implies freedom from religion. Your beliefs should not be forced on everyone. I respect our constitution and the Presidents efforts to help the masses - regardless of their religious affiliation. I wish I could say the same of the religious leaders advocating against the contents of the legislation.
3.4.2012 | 4:51pm
Sarah says:
" Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have 'control' of their own bodies? "
Why is control in quotations? Why have only a couple people replied to this?
I think I can predict the "justification" (notice the quotation marks) for this, but I hope that you do not deny woman some control over her body. Does the mother have control over the welfare of her child, but none for herself?
Why is control in quotations? Why have only a couple people replied to this?
I think I can predict the "justification" (notice the quotation marks) for this, but I hope that you do not deny woman some control over her body. Does the mother have control over the welfare of her child, but none for herself?
3.4.2012 | 4:54pm
Peg says:
Far from trying to force religious people and institutions to themselves take part in choices they don't themselves approve, Obama is trying to prevent them from forcing their own choices onto others.
Health care is a benefit: a form of payment. It's not the right of a religious institute to insist on how that payment will be used. A man may wish it applied to prostate testing, viagra, and fertility treatments. A woman may wish it applied to contraception, for a range of reasons. As it is part of his or her payment, he or she has a right to expect that choice to be allowed, regardless of the position of the employer.
An employer is not allowed to refuse to provide payment in other forms because he or she doesn't approve of how that payment will be spent. It should be no different in the area of health benefits: how those benefits are used should be the decision of the recipient, the doctor, and the insurance company. Not the employer. Or do you want your employer to start refusing to pay you because he or she doesn't "believe" in your ethical choices?
The reason for blocking religious pressure in secular forums (such as in regards to employee benefits) is to ensure maximum religious freedom in all forums, to all people. Allowing religious employers to force their own moral choices on their employees actually restricts the employees' religious freedom.
Health care is a benefit: a form of payment. It's not the right of a religious institute to insist on how that payment will be used. A man may wish it applied to prostate testing, viagra, and fertility treatments. A woman may wish it applied to contraception, for a range of reasons. As it is part of his or her payment, he or she has a right to expect that choice to be allowed, regardless of the position of the employer.
An employer is not allowed to refuse to provide payment in other forms because he or she doesn't approve of how that payment will be spent. It should be no different in the area of health benefits: how those benefits are used should be the decision of the recipient, the doctor, and the insurance company. Not the employer. Or do you want your employer to start refusing to pay you because he or she doesn't "believe" in your ethical choices?
The reason for blocking religious pressure in secular forums (such as in regards to employee benefits) is to ensure maximum religious freedom in all forums, to all people. Allowing religious employers to force their own moral choices on their employees actually restricts the employees' religious freedom.
3.4.2012 | 5:14pm
anti-theist says:
"Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have “control” of their own bodies?"
Ah, the good old Marxist "false consciousness" argument rears its ugly head. These poor, deluded women. They think they should have control over their own bodies when everyone knows that sexual morality needs to be dictated by the elderly virgins who make up the Catholic hierarchy, much as the workers needed the dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent "incorrect" thoughts about political and economic rights.
Ah, the good old Marxist "false consciousness" argument rears its ugly head. These poor, deluded women. They think they should have control over their own bodies when everyone knows that sexual morality needs to be dictated by the elderly virgins who make up the Catholic hierarchy, much as the workers needed the dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent "incorrect" thoughts about political and economic rights.
3.4.2012 | 5:20pm
Bob Puharic says:
The good pastor's comments are wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. First what is wrong with women having control over their own bodies? Self control is the beginning of discipline. And women are not breeding machines, to have assembly line production of children. I'm not sure why the pastor looks at women as baby factorys, but no child will lose its life because of the mandate. Such hysteria is unwarranted.
In addition, this is a license for Shari'a. If a Muslim employer wishes to enforce dhimmitude against Christians, will Christians defends this as a matter of conscience, given that it's standard practice in Muslim countries?
And this is a war against working people. Giving control of workers' private lives to their employers is a regression to 19th century laissez faire economics when people were treated as vassals.
Christianity in the US today has become a theological justification for plutocracy. It's a mark of the degeneracy of the religion that the pastor's comments are not roundly condemned, and even Rush Limbaugh is barely excoriated for his giving voice to the sotto voce hatred of women that's present in much of American Christianity today.
Tragic. Truly tragic what Christians have done to their religion. Very ugly.
In addition, this is a license for Shari'a. If a Muslim employer wishes to enforce dhimmitude against Christians, will Christians defends this as a matter of conscience, given that it's standard practice in Muslim countries?
And this is a war against working people. Giving control of workers' private lives to their employers is a regression to 19th century laissez faire economics when people were treated as vassals.
Christianity in the US today has become a theological justification for plutocracy. It's a mark of the degeneracy of the religion that the pastor's comments are not roundly condemned, and even Rush Limbaugh is barely excoriated for his giving voice to the sotto voce hatred of women that's present in much of American Christianity today.
Tragic. Truly tragic what Christians have done to their religion. Very ugly.
3.4.2012 | 5:46pm
Steven Vigdor says:
President Obama has announced a health care policy with regard to contraception coverage that mirrors those long in effect in more than half the states in the Union, often enacted by Republican legislatures and Republican governors (including some of the previous governors who now inveigh most strongly about the policy). I find it odd that an avowedly apolitical pastor would find it necessary to object to such a policy only now, when it is put into effect by a Democratic president. Such selectivity is political, whether the author chooses to call it so or not.
3.4.2012 | 7:26pm
Renee says:
I do believe that those of us women who have been "faslely coerced into believing that to be a woman is to have control of our own bodies" can speak for ourselves, thanks. Your implication that what we think and believe about our bodies is somehow the result of coercion is absurd and and insult to all women. If a fetus has some rights, as you imply here, then the pregnant women who are made to carry them (by government mandate, as you would have it) cannot have equal rights, to men or the unborn. Does this not make them, suddenly, "the least of these" that Jesus calls us to minister to? Your care for life extends only to it's definition and not for it's sustainability. Why not have a care to be quiet and listen, rather than preach without empathy or clear logic on something you cannot understand? Until you get your period, or let a man inside you, or feel life kicking in your womb, you can't understand motherhood, or pregnancy, or where God intends life to begin or end with any more authority than a woman does. All life extends beyond our definition of it, so perhaps it's better to sustain and support the life of the living rather than fixate on what is to become of the unborn. You ought to kneel in awe of women sir, and their strength, rather than bully them from your pulpit. As a lifelong card-carrying member of the ELCA, I find your position on this issue to be baffling and a discredit to a faith that I take great pride in, and your opinion of women to be degrading and insulting. I won't be attending a Missouri Synod church anytime soon.
3.4.2012 | 7:40pm
Jen says:
"The coverage also mandates abortion drugs and sterlizations. "
Really? In fact, it mandates access to these things. It in NO way requires that any person avail themselves of them.
I *personally* didn't have blood tests while pregnant (after the first time) to look for spina bifida/Down Syndrome or any other testing available (other than ultrasound) because it wouldn't make any difference in how I treated my pregnancy. However, that was a decision I (and my husband made). As strongly as I felt they were wrong for me, I feel it is up to each woman to make that choice for herself.
Having free access to the tests did not make me choose them or in any way require that I avail myself. Having access to contraception does not make anyone take it.
As someone above noted, oral contraceptives are used to treat several conditions -- will employers require a letter from a doctor stating the reason for the prescription? Is there any other medical treatment that requires your boss to sign off on it, rather than your doctor?
And again, churches are not subject to these regulations -- but if they decide to venture forth into the for-profit worlds of colleges, hospitals, etc., and are not allowed to only hire those of their faith...then yes, it is mandatory that they follow the rules!
Really? In fact, it mandates access to these things. It in NO way requires that any person avail themselves of them.
I *personally* didn't have blood tests while pregnant (after the first time) to look for spina bifida/Down Syndrome or any other testing available (other than ultrasound) because it wouldn't make any difference in how I treated my pregnancy. However, that was a decision I (and my husband made). As strongly as I felt they were wrong for me, I feel it is up to each woman to make that choice for herself.
Having free access to the tests did not make me choose them or in any way require that I avail myself. Having access to contraception does not make anyone take it.
As someone above noted, oral contraceptives are used to treat several conditions -- will employers require a letter from a doctor stating the reason for the prescription? Is there any other medical treatment that requires your boss to sign off on it, rather than your doctor?
And again, churches are not subject to these regulations -- but if they decide to venture forth into the for-profit worlds of colleges, hospitals, etc., and are not allowed to only hire those of their faith...then yes, it is mandatory that they follow the rules!
3.4.2012 | 10:06pm
Donna says:
The Church is completely free to NOT employ anyone. If the church choose to employ people, the terms of employment are regulated by the United States Department of Labor. Very simply, if you don't like those terms, DON'T employ anyone! Being an organization based on charity, after all, you should do just fine to rely on volunteer labor only.
3.4.2012 | 11:07pm
Larry Luder says:
Blessings Pastor Genig, Great commentary worthy of discussion on the public square. Our Lord, take into account the prayers of his saints as he governs his world. Heavenly Father, You create men in Your own image, and You desire that not even the least among us should perish. In Your love for us, You entrusted Your only Son to the holy Virgin Mary. Now, in Your Love, protect against the wickedness of the devil, those little ones to whom You have given the gift of life.
3.5.2012 | 12:16am
Jason says:
The one thing I don't hear in these debates is the fact that Catholic charities has received over $1.5 billion in federal funding over the last two years, an amount that has been increased under the Obama administration. Shouldn't that figure into the debate over federal mandates that all U.S. health insurance policies cover birth control?
3.5.2012 | 2:05am
Mulvi says:
"Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have “control” of their own bodies?"
Why is control in quotations? Why shouldn't a woman have control (no quotes!) over her own body? Have men been falsely coerced into thinking they have "control" over their own bodies?
Also, I didn't see anything in the Bible, especially Jesus, about contraception--not a word!--but I did see that it's wrong to plant two separate kinds of seed in the same field and not to mix wool and linen. Oh yeah, that book is totally down with slavery too!
Why does free will scare you?
Why is control in quotations? Why shouldn't a woman have control (no quotes!) over her own body? Have men been falsely coerced into thinking they have "control" over their own bodies?
Also, I didn't see anything in the Bible, especially Jesus, about contraception--not a word!--but I did see that it's wrong to plant two separate kinds of seed in the same field and not to mix wool and linen. Oh yeah, that book is totally down with slavery too!
Why does free will scare you?
3.5.2012 | 4:16am
SteveLaudig says:
"Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have “control” of their own bodies?" Coming from a member of the church hierarchy that has done nothing voluntarily [only when menaced by the law] to prevent and punish child sexual torture by other members of the hierarchy this argument rings very very hollow. Who is speaking up for children who, by those claiming to be God's representative on earth, have been coerced into submitting to crimes? Not the Vatican. When your house is clean then you may have credibility to offer advice to others.
If you don't want government involvement, pay your taxes, then you'd have a right to complain about the government you are [not now] paying for.
If you don't want government involvement, pay your taxes, then you'd have a right to complain about the government you are [not now] paying for.
3.5.2012 | 11:51am
Dave says:
There is so much good possible in the world, but this is your focus?
This kind of politicking, with the half-hearted apology at the front end, are what brings churches into a realm that is not there's. It seems that the good pastor is nearly intentionally misunderstanding the legislation which asks no compromise in conscience whatsover. The insurance companies will provide birth control, the church will not. And ... like most of women in America (some say as high as 98%), your parishers will use it too.
I suggest that instead of tilting at windmills you focus on the behavior of your own church members who are in willful violation of your own rules. Pointing fingers at the governtment does not absolve you - especially when the government is not to blame.
This kind of politicking, with the half-hearted apology at the front end, are what brings churches into a realm that is not there's. It seems that the good pastor is nearly intentionally misunderstanding the legislation which asks no compromise in conscience whatsover. The insurance companies will provide birth control, the church will not. And ... like most of women in America (some say as high as 98%), your parishers will use it too.
I suggest that instead of tilting at windmills you focus on the behavior of your own church members who are in willful violation of your own rules. Pointing fingers at the governtment does not absolve you - especially when the government is not to blame.
3.5.2012 | 4:30pm
mroberts says:
It is interesting how you criticize the president for judging others, when this entire article is a judgement on the president.
And why do we have to mix politics and religion anyway? It seems to me that the US should be divided into two different countries - those who want to be governed by religion (good luck trying to make that work!) and those who would prefer to keep religion out of politics. Being a religious person myself, I would much rather be on the keeping the two separate. Especially seeing as there are a whole lot of people in this country who do not follow any religion at all. Who wants to be governed by a set of religious beliefs that aren't their own?
And why do we have to mix politics and religion anyway? It seems to me that the US should be divided into two different countries - those who want to be governed by religion (good luck trying to make that work!) and those who would prefer to keep religion out of politics. Being a religious person myself, I would much rather be on the keeping the two separate. Especially seeing as there are a whole lot of people in this country who do not follow any religion at all. Who wants to be governed by a set of religious beliefs that aren't their own?
3.5.2012 | 9:04pm
Tom says:
No one cares about your consciences. What if I honestly believe that clothes hide my body from the view of god, who created me to take pleasure in the site of me? What about my conscience?
Where the was your sanctimony when the widespread pederasty of the church came to light? Where was it when we entered two foreign wars? Where is it when cops are beating and killing nonviolent protestors?
Your collective piousness is a facade for your pride and lust for control.
Where the was your sanctimony when the widespread pederasty of the church came to light? Where was it when we entered two foreign wars? Where is it when cops are beating and killing nonviolent protestors?
Your collective piousness is a facade for your pride and lust for control.
3.5.2012 | 10:02pm
By Golly! says:
Thank you Peg. I'll simply repost your comment as you have articulated my thoughts so well.
"Peg says:
Far from trying to force religious people and institutions to themselves take part in choices they don't themselves approve, Obama is trying to prevent them from forcing their own choices onto others.
Health care is a benefit: a form of payment. It's not the right of a religious institute to insist on how that payment will be used. A man may wish it applied to prostate testing, viagra, and fertility treatments. A woman may wish it applied to contraception, for a range of reasons. As it is part of his or her payment, he or she has a right to expect that choice to be allowed, regardless of the position of the employer.
An employer is not allowed to refuse to provide payment in other forms because he or she doesn't approve of how that payment will be spent. It should be no different in the area of health benefits: how those benefits are used should be the decision of the recipient, the doctor, and the insurance company. Not the employer. Or do you want your employer to start refusing to pay you because he or she doesn't "believe" in your ethical choices?
The reason for blocking religious pressure in secular forums (such as in regards to employee benefits) is to ensure maximum religious freedom in all forums, to all people. Allowing religious employers to force their own moral choices on their employees actually restricts the employees' religious freedom."
"Peg says:
Far from trying to force religious people and institutions to themselves take part in choices they don't themselves approve, Obama is trying to prevent them from forcing their own choices onto others.
Health care is a benefit: a form of payment. It's not the right of a religious institute to insist on how that payment will be used. A man may wish it applied to prostate testing, viagra, and fertility treatments. A woman may wish it applied to contraception, for a range of reasons. As it is part of his or her payment, he or she has a right to expect that choice to be allowed, regardless of the position of the employer.
An employer is not allowed to refuse to provide payment in other forms because he or she doesn't approve of how that payment will be spent. It should be no different in the area of health benefits: how those benefits are used should be the decision of the recipient, the doctor, and the insurance company. Not the employer. Or do you want your employer to start refusing to pay you because he or she doesn't "believe" in your ethical choices?
The reason for blocking religious pressure in secular forums (such as in regards to employee benefits) is to ensure maximum religious freedom in all forums, to all people. Allowing religious employers to force their own moral choices on their employees actually restricts the employees' religious freedom."
3.6.2012 | 8:17am
Barry says:
Aside from the starting fact that the author is crazy, in the 'slavery=freedom' sense, I just can't recall too many times where right-wingers backed off from forcing the rest of us to pay or obey due to personal religious/moral reasons.
When they wield the sword of state, their word is not just law, but the Word of God
When they wield the sword of state, their word is not just law, but the Word of God
3.6.2012 | 11:14am
Thene says:
Why do you pass judgment on your sister? Or you, why do you despise your sister? And your mother, and your daughter?
As Dave noted, upwards of 95% of American women of reproductive age use birth control. This includes almost all Catholic women in America. Your sisters and daughters use it. Your mother used it. Almost all the fertile women in your church use it. Why are you speaking for them and demanding 'control' over their bodies rather than asking them what policies would help them live? When have you ever spoken to the women in your church about the contraception they use and why they use it? When have you ever asked poor women in your church how they access contraception?
When have the Catholic bishops, or the Pope, ever asked American Catholic women to speak to them about contraception? There's nothing in the Bible about contraception; they're not deriving their mandates from the word of God, or from care and compassion towards their female parishioners, so I hope you can tell me where you think they are getting their views from.
The truth is that contraceptive access is both efficient and vital to women's health and prosperity. It's a lot less expensive for insurers and employers to provide contraception than to provide care during an unwanted pregnancy, and unwanted pregnancy is a huge burden on society; a poor woman with a child she doesn't want can claim thousands of dollars per year in EIC, Additional Child Tax Credit, childcare credits and other benefits, all the while being miserable and unable to cope with her child and denied access to jobs because she has a young child, and all for lack of accessible contraception.
As Dave noted, upwards of 95% of American women of reproductive age use birth control. This includes almost all Catholic women in America. Your sisters and daughters use it. Your mother used it. Almost all the fertile women in your church use it. Why are you speaking for them and demanding 'control' over their bodies rather than asking them what policies would help them live? When have you ever spoken to the women in your church about the contraception they use and why they use it? When have you ever asked poor women in your church how they access contraception?
When have the Catholic bishops, or the Pope, ever asked American Catholic women to speak to them about contraception? There's nothing in the Bible about contraception; they're not deriving their mandates from the word of God, or from care and compassion towards their female parishioners, so I hope you can tell me where you think they are getting their views from.
The truth is that contraceptive access is both efficient and vital to women's health and prosperity. It's a lot less expensive for insurers and employers to provide contraception than to provide care during an unwanted pregnancy, and unwanted pregnancy is a huge burden on society; a poor woman with a child she doesn't want can claim thousands of dollars per year in EIC, Additional Child Tax Credit, childcare credits and other benefits, all the while being miserable and unable to cope with her child and denied access to jobs because she has a young child, and all for lack of accessible contraception.
3.6.2012 | 2:47pm
Randi Harper says:
I'm confused. Death-inducing prescriptions? I thought this was about birth control. Last I checked, birth control is what prevents women from having abortions. So much inflammatory language, not enough logic or facts.
3.6.2012 | 4:36pm
Barbra says:
I understood "death-inducing prescriptions" to refer to abortifacents and contraceptives that prevent embryos from implanting, thereby inducing the death of a new life. Also, please address the fact that the number of abortions have increased since the advent and wide-spread use of birth control.
It is heart-breaking to me that so many commenters have misunderstood that the article is speaking in defense of all people who do not feel represented by the current political administration, including women who in today's culture essentially have no choice but to subscribe to the belief that they can only control their bodies through contraception and abortion although the prevalence of both haven't necessarily led to a better life for women, as well as the aborted children - half of whom are women - who have control of their own bodies forcibly taken from them.
It is heart-breaking to me that so many commenters have misunderstood that the article is speaking in defense of all people who do not feel represented by the current political administration, including women who in today's culture essentially have no choice but to subscribe to the belief that they can only control their bodies through contraception and abortion although the prevalence of both haven't necessarily led to a better life for women, as well as the aborted children - half of whom are women - who have control of their own bodies forcibly taken from them.
3.7.2012 | 1:41pm
Raven says:
Looking at the Census data for the years 2000, 2005, and 2008, it looks like the actual real life numbers show that abortions have declined somewhat over the past decade. That they haven't declined more seems to me another symptom of the scientifically demonstrated abject failure of abstinence-only sex education and the misinformation it brings. Last year contraception prevented an estimated 800,000 abortions, and anyone who doesn't like abortions should be applauding that.
The idea that women "essentially have no choice but to subscribe to the belief that they can only control their bodies through contraception and abortion" is rather silly. The point is for it to be an option for those who want it, and was never, ever for it to be required, legally or through social pressure, for anyone who doesn't.
Another thing to keep in mind about abortion is that in an important sense we are not talking about human beings, but rather a barely-developed organism that has the potential to become a human being. Pro-life protestors' photos of aborted fetuses are usually of late-term abortions, the kind that in real life are almost never done except in a life and death situation. Most abortions happen far before then, and the removed embryo is a little gray thing that you could easily mistake for some undersea creature. The "morning after pill" goes into action even before then, at a point when the zygote is so small that you can kill more human cells by scratching your nose.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but sometimes following them is going to have consequences you don't like. That has always been the case, from the very beginnings of Christianity and since the beginning of humanity. Being part of a society means you can't do everything you want, and your money will sometimes go towards things you don't like. Ask me how much I like my tax dollars going towards the "war on drugs," or actual wars, or oil subsidies, or having the largest prison population in the world, or any number of real injustices that actually hurt people.
The idea that women "essentially have no choice but to subscribe to the belief that they can only control their bodies through contraception and abortion" is rather silly. The point is for it to be an option for those who want it, and was never, ever for it to be required, legally or through social pressure, for anyone who doesn't.
Another thing to keep in mind about abortion is that in an important sense we are not talking about human beings, but rather a barely-developed organism that has the potential to become a human being. Pro-life protestors' photos of aborted fetuses are usually of late-term abortions, the kind that in real life are almost never done except in a life and death situation. Most abortions happen far before then, and the removed embryo is a little gray thing that you could easily mistake for some undersea creature. The "morning after pill" goes into action even before then, at a point when the zygote is so small that you can kill more human cells by scratching your nose.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but sometimes following them is going to have consequences you don't like. That has always been the case, from the very beginnings of Christianity and since the beginning of humanity. Being part of a society means you can't do everything you want, and your money will sometimes go towards things you don't like. Ask me how much I like my tax dollars going towards the "war on drugs," or actual wars, or oil subsidies, or having the largest prison population in the world, or any number of real injustices that actually hurt people.
3.8.2012 | 11:42am
Barbra says:
You are accurate that the number of abortions have declined in the last ten years, which many would attribute to rise of the pro-life movement, not the failure of abstinence education. I was referring to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, which estimate that pre-Roe v Wade abortion numbers in the US were between 200,000 and 1.2 million per year. 2008 abortion numbers in the US were also 1.2 million. So in those 40 years, during which contraception became a cultural norm that was advocated in part as a way to lower the number of abortions, the number of abortions has not decreased, and possibly grown. In addition, more than half of the women who have abortions report using contraception at the time, also indicating that contraception is not as effective as promised.(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
I will not engage you on the morality of contraception, because I know the disagreement runs so deep fundamentally. I do believe that, religious beliefs aside, contraception has not lived up to its promise to women (e.g. divorce has increased, workplace statistics like wages and employment opportunities are still not equal, STD incidences have risen, etc), a point to which I believe the article was also referring. I also do not wish for an extended debate on abortion, though I strongly disagree with Raven's position. But none of these are the issues being argued in this particular circumstance. This is also not an issue of government funding, though the discussion mistakenly takes that turn more and more. The issue is this: churches that find contraception and abortion to be against their beliefs do not want the government to force them to provide these services to their employees. Please debate this issue.
I will not engage you on the morality of contraception, because I know the disagreement runs so deep fundamentally. I do believe that, religious beliefs aside, contraception has not lived up to its promise to women (e.g. divorce has increased, workplace statistics like wages and employment opportunities are still not equal, STD incidences have risen, etc), a point to which I believe the article was also referring. I also do not wish for an extended debate on abortion, though I strongly disagree with Raven's position. But none of these are the issues being argued in this particular circumstance. This is also not an issue of government funding, though the discussion mistakenly takes that turn more and more. The issue is this: churches that find contraception and abortion to be against their beliefs do not want the government to force them to provide these services to their employees. Please debate this issue.
3.8.2012 | 4:01pm
Ed says:
Despite that knowledge, Obama's response is to push ever harder to achieve the goal. Allowing religious employers to force their own moral choices on their employees actually restricts the employees' religious freedom.
3.22.2012 | 11:21am
grendelkhan says:
"Who is speaking up for the mothers who, under HHS mandate, have been falsely coerced into feeling that to be a woman means to have “control” of their own bodies?"
You... you do know that nobody is mandating that women take birth control, or get abortions, right? Because reading this, I honestly can't quite tell.
Barbra: "more than half of the women who have abortions report using contraception at the time, also indicating that contraception is not as effective as promised." At least ninety percent of women of childbearing age use contraception. Two percent of women between the ages of 15-44 get an abortion every year. Leaving aside that inconsistent contraceptive use is much more likely to lead to pregnancy (as noted in the Guttmacher) link, let's do some math!
(I'm using Bayes' Theorem here; you can read about it on Wikipedia.)
p(contraception) = 0.9
p(contraception|abortion) = 0.54
p(abortion) = 0.02
p(abortion|contraception) = p(contraception|abortion)*p(abortion)/p(contraception)
p(abortion|contraception) = 0.54*0.9/0.02 = 1.2%
(If you use contraception, the probability that you'll have an abortion in a given year is 1.2%.)
p(abortion|~contraception) = p(~contraception|abortion)*p(abortion)/p(~contraception)
p(abortion|~contraception) = 0.46*0.1/0.02 = 9.2%
(If you don't use contraception, the probability that you'll have an abortion in a given year is 9.2%.)
So, using contraception--even inconsistently--cuts your likelihood of getting an abortion by a factor of more than seven. What kind of significance were you expecting?
You... you do know that nobody is mandating that women take birth control, or get abortions, right? Because reading this, I honestly can't quite tell.
Barbra: "more than half of the women who have abortions report using contraception at the time, also indicating that contraception is not as effective as promised." At least ninety percent of women of childbearing age use contraception. Two percent of women between the ages of 15-44 get an abortion every year. Leaving aside that inconsistent contraceptive use is much more likely to lead to pregnancy (as noted in the Guttmacher) link, let's do some math!
(I'm using Bayes' Theorem here; you can read about it on Wikipedia.)
p(contraception) = 0.9
p(contraception|abortion) = 0.54
p(abortion) = 0.02
p(abortion|contraception) = p(contraception|abortion)*p(abortion)/p(contraception)
p(abortion|contraception) = 0.54*0.9/0.02 = 1.2%
(If you use contraception, the probability that you'll have an abortion in a given year is 1.2%.)
p(abortion|~contraception) = p(~contraception|abortion)*p(abortion)/p(~contraception)
p(abortion|~contraception) = 0.46*0.1/0.02 = 9.2%
(If you don't use contraception, the probability that you'll have an abortion in a given year is 9.2%.)
So, using contraception--even inconsistently--cuts your likelihood of getting an abortion by a factor of more than seven. What kind of significance were you expecting?
3.22.2012 | 3:46pm
grendelkhan says:
Just a note--my conclusions are correct, but I wrote my math down wrong. p(abortion|contraception) is 0.54*0.02/0.9 = 1.2%; p(abortion|~contraception) is 0.46*0.02/0.1 = 9.2%.
