Fortnight for Freedom - Religious Liberty and Its Contemporary Enemies
Jul 5, 2012
George Weigel
Independence Day concludes the Fortnight for Freedom mandated by the U.S. bishops, a two-week period of reflection and prayer on the defense of religious liberty that began on the vigil of the liturgical memorial of St. Thomas More. In July 2012, we may be grateful that none of us faces the headsman’s axe, as More did in Tudor England. But neither should we be indifferent to, or flippant about, the 21st century threats to religious liberty that surround us. They have yet to bring anyone to today’s equivalent of the scaffold on Tower Hill, but they are already putting severe pressure on both believers and religious institutions.
That pressure is more subtle than it was in More’s day, and it involves a kind of governmental pincer movement. The first arm of the pincer aims to reduce religious liberty to a privacy right: a permission slip from the government to engage in certain recreational activities considered matters of personal taste. The second arm of the pincer—embodied in the Obama administration’s contraceptive/abortifacient mandate (which many Catholic entities are challenging in court)—aims to conscript religious institutions so that they become virtual departments of the government.
Between the two arms of the pincer, religious liberty is being subjected to a slow but steady wasting disease. Recognizing that disease is essential; so is an accurate diagnosis of its causes.
What are the sources of this new assault on religious freedom in full? The pressure comes in part from a newly aggressive American secularism that is sadly similar to its counterparts in 21st century Europe. There, secularism is not benign, tolerant and pluralistic, asking only that secular views have free play in the public square. Rather, 21st century European secularism is intolerant, hegemonic, and anti-pluralistic. It demands the entire public square for itself and tries to use the coercive power of the state to drive religious conviction to the far margins of society and public life. It is, in the pungent term deployed by the international legal scholar Joseph H. H. Weiler (himself an Orthodox Jew), “Christophobic.” That this new form of bigotry has at least something to do with ancient animosities over the Church-state alliances of Old Europe, no one should doubt.
Yet that is why its translation across the Atlantic is somewhat odd: For there is no “established Church” in American constitutional history against which 21st century radical secularists can wave the bloody shirt. Nonetheless, contemporary American secularists of the sort found in prestigious law schools and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are quite like their European counterparts: They do not seek an open public square in which all points of view are welcome; they demand secularist hegemony in public life. And they are quite prepared to throw some sharp elbows in getting what they want.
How has this new cultural phenomenon gotten a beachhead in our public life? In part, by surfing waves created by over six decades of confused Supreme Court rulings in First Amendment cases—rulings that have unbalanced “free exercise” and “no establishment” in matters of religion and public life. The framers of the Constitution did not intend that their proscription of a national church (“no establishment”) should create a radically secular American public square; they intended “no establishment” to serve the cause of “free exercise.” The United States would build a hospitable and civil public space where differences could be engaged intelligently and tolerantly, and where all points of view were welcome. “No establishment” was the means; “free exercise” was the end.
Sixty-five years of Supreme Court rulings, however, have turned this inside out, such that “free exercise” has been reduced to a set of exceptions or exemptions within the overwhelmingly secular public space the federal judiciary has created since 1947. Wittingly or not, the Supreme Court has often aligned itself with the hegemonic secularists and the anti-pluralists, bringing its moral authority into play on their side of the debate.
As we conclude the Fortnight for Freedom, some serious work is before us: serious cultural work, serious legal work, and serious political work.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.5.2012 | 1:35pm
Ray Ingles says:
It's always a lot simpler when your opponents have only evil motives.
7.5.2012 | 2:18pm
Betty Blue says:
I have to say that Daniel's question has also often occurred to me: why now? I have noticed that secularists here in Ireland often express the hope and belief that, in a post-Christian Ireland, rationality and tolerance will prevail. For those who know history or human nature, that seems a remote possibility.
7.5.2012 | 2:20pm
Heraclitus says:
Secularism and atheism are winning in the Western world: only they are winning in dying societies. Hence, I think that the current aggressive attacks by atheists and secular humanists reflect this situation in being by turns overly-confident - let's stick it to the churches as they empty out! - and desparate - we'd better create our atheistic, progressive utopia before we head to demographic extinction (if we are not first crushed by astronomical levels of debt). This is a dangerous combination, since both attitudes, though contradictory, breed drastic, ill-considered and ever more fantastic goals completely divorced from reality.
7.5.2012 | 2:37pm
Michael PS says:
European conservatives always maintained that a constitutionally anchored religious unity was necessary to secure respect for the civil authority, to promote social order, and to enable the Church to carry out most effectively her supernatural mission. A confessional State relied on the Church for the religious instruction of the youth, for the promotion of family life by protecting the sacramentality and indissolubility of marriage, and for the corroboration of the civil order in countless ways through a legal concordat between Church and State.
This led to the identification of the Church with the Ancien Régime, both by Catholics and Republicans. Because of the dominant position of the Catholic Church, many of the most vocal supporters of laïcité, especially between 1870 and 1940 were Protestants and Jews. This goes some way to explaining Lefebvre’s opposition to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom.
The spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during that 70 year, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic, which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé. Leo XIII had exhorted Catholic to "rally to the Republic," explaining that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved, only to be accused by the Catholic press of "kissing the feet of their executioners." In 1940, alas, too many Catholics rallied, not to the Republic, but to Vichy. After the Liberation most of the leaders of the Catholic parties were in jail, a few were shot and the rest fled abroad. It was De Gaulle and the Fifth Republic that began to heal the divisions.
This led to the identification of the Church with the Ancien Régime, both by Catholics and Republicans. Because of the dominant position of the Catholic Church, many of the most vocal supporters of laïcité, especially between 1870 and 1940 were Protestants and Jews. This goes some way to explaining Lefebvre’s opposition to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom.
The spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during that 70 year, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic, which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé. Leo XIII had exhorted Catholic to "rally to the Republic," explaining that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws which ought to be improved, only to be accused by the Catholic press of "kissing the feet of their executioners." In 1940, alas, too many Catholics rallied, not to the Republic, but to Vichy. After the Liberation most of the leaders of the Catholic parties were in jail, a few were shot and the rest fled abroad. It was De Gaulle and the Fifth Republic that began to heal the divisions.
7.5.2012 | 2:52pm
michael Currie says:
No where in in his essay does Mr. Weigel use the word evil. He presents his point of view and apparently you disagree with it. To deny that there is a secular trend in Europe which has accelerated at least from the end of WW1 to today and that elements of this have grown in the U.S. is to deny reality. Whether the motives behind it are evil or not I believe that its results are. There is no denying that some of the causes of this can be traced to Religious institutions themselves but even that truth is blown out of proportion. So unless one is saying that the secularzation of Europe and the U.S. is good then it is fair to say that it is bad.
7.5.2012 | 3:02pm
Rick says:
The role of religion in European societies is certainly more complicated than Mr. Weigel indicates. For instance, religious instruction (Catholic and Lutheran) is still an established part of the curriculum in Germany's public schools. Crosses may be displayed in classrooms, if there is no objection from any student in the room. One thing these societies really need, though, are strongly pro-family and pro-baby government policies that will encourage a higher fertility rate.
Concerning the HHS mandate, the latest scientific evidence strongly indicates that the "morning after" pill works by delaying ovulation, so, the term "abortifacient" does not appear to be accurate.
Furthermore, religious institutions (churches) themselves are entirely exempt from the mandate, and religious affiliated employers are not required to directly provide contraception to employees through their HR benefits packages. The Obama administration does insist, though, that these employees must still have access to contraceptive technology directly from the insurance companies. While it is perfectly legitimate for these institutions to complain if they feel their employees should not be provided these services from any direction, it seems a far cry from the administration "conscripting" religious institutions into service as "departments of the government."
I do strongly agree with Mr. Weigal, though, that the Supreme Court has pushed the interpretation of the First Amendment too far in the direction of expunging religion from public life. I particulary like his use of the interrelationship between "no establishment" and "free exercise." When I discovered recently that the principal of my sons' school was permitted to say "Happy Holidays" but not "Merry Christmas," I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Concerning the HHS mandate, the latest scientific evidence strongly indicates that the "morning after" pill works by delaying ovulation, so, the term "abortifacient" does not appear to be accurate.
Furthermore, religious institutions (churches) themselves are entirely exempt from the mandate, and religious affiliated employers are not required to directly provide contraception to employees through their HR benefits packages. The Obama administration does insist, though, that these employees must still have access to contraceptive technology directly from the insurance companies. While it is perfectly legitimate for these institutions to complain if they feel their employees should not be provided these services from any direction, it seems a far cry from the administration "conscripting" religious institutions into service as "departments of the government."
I do strongly agree with Mr. Weigal, though, that the Supreme Court has pushed the interpretation of the First Amendment too far in the direction of expunging religion from public life. I particulary like his use of the interrelationship between "no establishment" and "free exercise." When I discovered recently that the principal of my sons' school was permitted to say "Happy Holidays" but not "Merry Christmas," I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
7.5.2012 | 3:04pm
MT says:
Mr. Ingles,
With all due respect, accusing an author of distorting the truth in order to vilify his or her enemies is too accuse them of "evil motives." Perhaps you are right that "It's always a lot simpler when your opponents have only evil motives." As you you have so ably gained such insight into Mr. Weigle's intentions, why, it seems worth asking, are you hampered by such a lack of reflection into your own reading of his article? You call for charity while displaying none.
MT
With all due respect, accusing an author of distorting the truth in order to vilify his or her enemies is too accuse them of "evil motives." Perhaps you are right that "It's always a lot simpler when your opponents have only evil motives." As you you have so ably gained such insight into Mr. Weigle's intentions, why, it seems worth asking, are you hampered by such a lack of reflection into your own reading of his article? You call for charity while displaying none.
MT
7.5.2012 | 3:13pm
Daniel says:
Betty Blue...........it's only fitting that an Irish Christian, like yourself, would make a comment about post-Christian Ireland.
One of history's greatest figures, St. Patrick, began a process that brought pagan, barbarian Ireland out of it's darkness.
Patrick protested against slavery, blood feuds and libertine sexual practices.
Due to Patrick's good news.......the Irish became more peaceful and more restrained..........as well as......Christian.
Maybe some of your Irish secularists should familiarize themselves with the real St. Patrick.
One of history's greatest figures, St. Patrick, began a process that brought pagan, barbarian Ireland out of it's darkness.
Patrick protested against slavery, blood feuds and libertine sexual practices.
Due to Patrick's good news.......the Irish became more peaceful and more restrained..........as well as......Christian.
Maybe some of your Irish secularists should familiarize themselves with the real St. Patrick.
7.5.2012 | 3:46pm
alan says:
Weigel is certainly correct that there is hostility toward religion in the public square. As an earlier commentator noted, this hostility has led to action as the churches "empty out", as their hold on the populace decreases--such action would be politically impossible otherwise. Nonetheless, Weigel seems to be implying that religious institutions have a right to be exempted from laws (such as the requirement of providing health care that includes contraception) that are secular in their aim and do not single out religious institutions for disparate treatment. Yet such a constitutional standard, as Justice Scalia noted in Employment Division v. Smith, would make "each conscience a law unto itself," and so the Court ruled that government need not grant exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws. Put this at the individual level for a second. Government (used to) draft individuals for military service and did not give conscientious objector status to those who refused service in particular wars (selective conscientious objection). It imposes taxes on those who object to their money being used to support the military. Unless one wishes to argue that the invalidity of all laws that violate a person's or institution's claim that they violate religious liberty, one is left with a much more complicated issue than Weigel's essay suggests.
7.5.2012 | 3:59pm
Andrzej says:
In Europe, the churches are not being transformed into libraries and concert halls, as the secularist idealist having been hoping for. Rather, in most cases they become bars or other commercial property:
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01161/Tesco-Church1_682_1161473a.jpg
http://mellonbmx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/church-skatepark.png
Note the devil's flag in the last one...
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01161/Tesco-Church1_682_1161473a.jpg
http://mellonbmx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/church-skatepark.png
Note the devil's flag in the last one...
7.5.2012 | 5:26pm
patricksarsfield says:
I think there is a simpler explanation for the desire of the US Government to block the Catholic Church from meaningful participation in the life of the country (beyond narrowly defined worship): the will to power that has animated controllers of government since before Christ founded the Church. During the Christian Era, whether it was Julian the Apostate or the Byzantine Emperors who made cats' paws of their Constantinopolitan patriarchs (and who were succeeded by the Sultans who continued to keep the Phanar in captivity (the Turkokratia)) or Phillip Le Bel who hijacked the Church to Avignon or Henry VIII and the Scandinavian kings and the North German Princes and the Hohenzollern who decided to laicize his abbacy over the Teutonic Knights, kings and potentates saw the Church as something to be taken over and used for their own benefit. Even "Catholic" kings such as the French kings with Galllicanism and the Emperor Joseph in Austria with his "Enlightened" policies sought to control the Church. Things got no better under "more democratic " politicians. The English parliamentarians who overthrew Charles I and James II were totalitarian in their religious policies and were particularly vindictive against the Catholic Church that couldn't be owned by either a king (in the case of Anglicanism) or by lords (in Presbyterianism and the independent churches). Likewise, the Church underwent severe attacks from democrats during the French Revolution and its successor regimes in France (such as the 1905 Laws under the Third Republic) and during the Kulturkampf in Germany. Mr. Weigel's "Church-State alliances of Old Europe" were generally ones where if the State couldn't control the Church, it would go to war with the Church.
Protestant and Orthodox churches have generally been easier for the state to control than the Catholic Church for at least three reasons: 1) the Catholic Church was a universal church which could not be totally controlled the way a local or countrywide-only church could be; 2) those "meddlesome priests" that governments sought to control were more or less celibate and therefore might not be susceptible to blandishments that appealed to people looking to provide for their families; and 3) the other Christian churches were willing to acknowledge the paramount role of the local king over the Church, as in the Orthodox acknowedgment of the Emperor as Isopostolos, Luther's ceding of control over the Church to the local lords "on an emergency basis" and the surrender of the Church of England under Henry that was rescinded under Mary I but then grabbed by Elizabeth through the simple expedient of throwing most of the Marian Hierarchy into prison and replacing them with lackeys.
In America, the hostility of the Government to the Catholic Church, even after the end of the penal legislation that had been carried over from England, was still shown in the frigid reception Catholics got when they sought the same aid for their schools that was given to protestant sects' schools. The whole public school movement and the regime of Blaine Amendments throughout this country was the opening salvo in the war on Catholic schools, but it was then built on by such notorious anti-Catholics as Justice/Klansman Black in his rulings designed to nail the coffin on any meaningful aid to Catholic schools. Despite the strong efforts of Catholics throughout the Northeast in the 1940s to 1970s to get aid through the legislative process, the age of the Cathlic schools is drawing to a close in America. The next targets are Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies and they are also endangered species.
Protestant and Orthodox churches have generally been easier for the state to control than the Catholic Church for at least three reasons: 1) the Catholic Church was a universal church which could not be totally controlled the way a local or countrywide-only church could be; 2) those "meddlesome priests" that governments sought to control were more or less celibate and therefore might not be susceptible to blandishments that appealed to people looking to provide for their families; and 3) the other Christian churches were willing to acknowledge the paramount role of the local king over the Church, as in the Orthodox acknowedgment of the Emperor as Isopostolos, Luther's ceding of control over the Church to the local lords "on an emergency basis" and the surrender of the Church of England under Henry that was rescinded under Mary I but then grabbed by Elizabeth through the simple expedient of throwing most of the Marian Hierarchy into prison and replacing them with lackeys.
In America, the hostility of the Government to the Catholic Church, even after the end of the penal legislation that had been carried over from England, was still shown in the frigid reception Catholics got when they sought the same aid for their schools that was given to protestant sects' schools. The whole public school movement and the regime of Blaine Amendments throughout this country was the opening salvo in the war on Catholic schools, but it was then built on by such notorious anti-Catholics as Justice/Klansman Black in his rulings designed to nail the coffin on any meaningful aid to Catholic schools. Despite the strong efforts of Catholics throughout the Northeast in the 1940s to 1970s to get aid through the legislative process, the age of the Cathlic schools is drawing to a close in America. The next targets are Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies and they are also endangered species.
7.5.2012 | 8:24pm
Don Roberto says:
Alan, it is indeed a complicated issue (we have a Magisterium precisely so that each conscience may not delude itself into thinking it has superior insight into Truth), but the "pill" promotes promiscuity (makes a most intimate act seem inconsequential), poisons people (causes cancer) and pollutes the planet (permeates waterways, detrimentally impacting wildlife). It is a harmful recreational drug, the neo-pagans' peyote. To imply that it is a necessary public good for which we must pay, whether we like it or not (equating it with national defense), is misleading. What it really is is evidence of the degree to which the worshippers of care-free sex have allowed lust to destroy their reason, i.e., they force a fight over something that is not a medical necessity and which any teenager can get for free or purchase very cheaply from myriad (non-Catholic) pharmacies throughout the world.
7.5.2012 | 10:16pm
Ray Ingles says:
michael Currie, MT - If I'm to look for "charity", I assume I need seek no further than "intolerant, hegemonic, and anti-pluralistic.... bigotry"?
7.5.2012 | 11:14pm
Pr. Dan Biles says:
Our fellow believers of the Roman Catholic Church have taken the front lines in this struggle for our "first freedom"; Lutherans should not be on the sidelines. (Some, like Bp. Harrison of the LCMS, are not.)
7.5.2012 | 11:48pm
Rick says:
@alan
I think you made some salient legal points. I still think an interesting parallel is the question of what would be done if the Jehovah's Witnesses objected that they could not in good religious conscience provide health care coverage to their employees which included blood transfusions for those bleeding to death on an operating table.
Regarding my comment above about the need for European governments to adopt family-friendly, pro-baby policies, it just occured to me that the last European government to strongly promote large families was Nazi Germany. Of course, the Nazis were eager to swamp the world with a particular kind of baby--aryan--and this may have left Europeans with a suspicion of any attempt at fertility boosting. The last notable Asian nation to encourage large families was China under Mao. Mao was intoxicated with the idea of the energies to be unleashed by the liberation of the masses, and the more masses to liberate, the better. Still, if Europe and Japan continue on their sterile courses, national extinction will be the inevitable result.
I think you made some salient legal points. I still think an interesting parallel is the question of what would be done if the Jehovah's Witnesses objected that they could not in good religious conscience provide health care coverage to their employees which included blood transfusions for those bleeding to death on an operating table.
Regarding my comment above about the need for European governments to adopt family-friendly, pro-baby policies, it just occured to me that the last European government to strongly promote large families was Nazi Germany. Of course, the Nazis were eager to swamp the world with a particular kind of baby--aryan--and this may have left Europeans with a suspicion of any attempt at fertility boosting. The last notable Asian nation to encourage large families was China under Mao. Mao was intoxicated with the idea of the energies to be unleashed by the liberation of the masses, and the more masses to liberate, the better. Still, if Europe and Japan continue on their sterile courses, national extinction will be the inevitable result.
7.6.2012 | 6:55pm
Don Roberto says:
Rick, one difference is that the prophylactics objected to are not used to treat disease; blood transfusions are among the most efficacious treatments known for a variety of situations. Of course, though I do not classify blood transfusions among them, all sorts of truly immoral treatments do exist. Comes across to me as an excellent argument against *any* mandate. †
7.7.2012 | 12:09pm
michael Currie says:
Ray Ingles, first you attribute to Mr. Weigel something he did not say when it would be easier and ,in my opinion, more accurate to say that he thinks the trends that he identifies are wrong and destructive to human flourishing which is a judgement. Then you identify what he wrote as bigotry which is a tad ironic given the almost universal ownership of two of the words, intolerant and anti-pluralistic, by the left. Hegemony has a more purple hue. The question is are these words in themselves indications of bigotry, if not then it would seem that you think they are inapplicable as used which is at least debatable. Bigotry is a fine word but when it is used it should at least be supported by a little evidence.
7.8.2012 | 1:24pm
Quine says:
Remember that Secularism is not Atheism. Secularism supports an even playing field for all religions and non-religion. That is the freedom protected by the U.S. Constitution. Religion gets its fair voice in the Public Square along with non-religion. However, there is a limit to how far we are willing to go to allow exemptions to the common law, that all must follow, in order to provide for "Free Exercise" of religion. Atheist groups don't get the tax breaks that religions enjoy (even Scientology). If religions want to keep those privileges in the U.S., they must follow the labor laws, and respect the rights of the other citizens.
7.8.2012 | 7:10pm
Rick says:
Don:
You are correct that, unlike contraceptives, blood transfusions are primarily used to save lives, but did you know that some women use the pill to treat serious medical conditions? For example, there has been support expressed for the mandate by young women at Catholic schools because they need the pill for conditions such as cysts on their ovaries that could render them barren. I remember being quietly shocked when a fine young woman in Peace Corps service with me in West Africa made the offhand comment that she needed to get more birth control pills from the Peace Corps doctor. What was this upstanding graduate of Mount Holyoke College, the daughter of a naval officer, like me, doing on the pill?! She later explained that she used them because of a problem she had with irregular and extremely painful periods.
You are correct that, unlike contraceptives, blood transfusions are primarily used to save lives, but did you know that some women use the pill to treat serious medical conditions? For example, there has been support expressed for the mandate by young women at Catholic schools because they need the pill for conditions such as cysts on their ovaries that could render them barren. I remember being quietly shocked when a fine young woman in Peace Corps service with me in West Africa made the offhand comment that she needed to get more birth control pills from the Peace Corps doctor. What was this upstanding graduate of Mount Holyoke College, the daughter of a naval officer, like me, doing on the pill?! She later explained that she used them because of a problem she had with irregular and extremely painful periods.
7.10.2012 | 1:37pm
Ray Ingles says:
Michael Currie - Weigel doesn't simply identify 'a secular trend in Europe which has accelerated at least from the end of WW1 to today and that elements of this have grown in the U.S.' He posits a particular *type* of secularism and calls it 'bigotry'.
And yes, I find specific problems with his points. Speaking of 1947 - as he does - can only refer to Everson v. Board of Education, which applied the Establishment Clause to the states. I'm not clear on which part of the decision Weigel objects to:
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."
...but I'm okay with all of that. I don't see how any of that banishes religion from the public square. It just blocks government from *supporting* religion in the public square. Benjamin Franklin was okay with that, too:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
In short, yes, Weigel is attributing evil motives - suppression of religion - to actions which sure seem to me to have rather different motivations.
All that said, I don't think the HHS mandate is wise policy, and I'm not at all sure it's Constitutional. But to claim that it's what's been being worked toward for the last 65 years, or is an inevitable result of prejudices on the part of its proponents, is a bit much.
And yes, I find specific problems with his points. Speaking of 1947 - as he does - can only refer to Everson v. Board of Education, which applied the Establishment Clause to the states. I'm not clear on which part of the decision Weigel objects to:
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."
...but I'm okay with all of that. I don't see how any of that banishes religion from the public square. It just blocks government from *supporting* religion in the public square. Benjamin Franklin was okay with that, too:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
In short, yes, Weigel is attributing evil motives - suppression of religion - to actions which sure seem to me to have rather different motivations.
All that said, I don't think the HHS mandate is wise policy, and I'm not at all sure it's Constitutional. But to claim that it's what's been being worked toward for the last 65 years, or is an inevitable result of prejudices on the part of its proponents, is a bit much.
7.10.2012 | 1:38pm
Quine says:
The President said this in a recent interview [source:http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Obama-Not-fair-to-deny-contraception-coverage-at-Catholic-institutions-161876405.html]:
Obama: “Yeah. Well it’s absolutely true that religious liberty is critical. I mean that’s what our country was founded on. That’s the reason why we exempted churches, we exempted religious institutions, but we did say that big Catholic hospitals or universities who employ a lot of non-Catholics and who receive a lot of federal money, that for them to be in a position to say to a woman who works there you can’t get that from your insurance company even though the institution isn’t paying for it, that that crosses the line where that woman, she suddenly is gonna have to bear the burden and the cost of that. And that’s not fair.”
This position is the subject of the current disagreement. Granted, the Bishops see it as the Government stepping over on to their side of the Religious Freedom line. The problem for them is that the line has to be drawn in relatively the same place for all religions, and an argument that would allow the JW or Christian Science folks from withholding health care is not going to hold up just because it is professed by a bigger or older Church.
Obama: “Yeah. Well it’s absolutely true that religious liberty is critical. I mean that’s what our country was founded on. That’s the reason why we exempted churches, we exempted religious institutions, but we did say that big Catholic hospitals or universities who employ a lot of non-Catholics and who receive a lot of federal money, that for them to be in a position to say to a woman who works there you can’t get that from your insurance company even though the institution isn’t paying for it, that that crosses the line where that woman, she suddenly is gonna have to bear the burden and the cost of that. And that’s not fair.”
This position is the subject of the current disagreement. Granted, the Bishops see it as the Government stepping over on to their side of the Religious Freedom line. The problem for them is that the line has to be drawn in relatively the same place for all religions, and an argument that would allow the JW or Christian Science folks from withholding health care is not going to hold up just because it is professed by a bigger or older Church.
7.10.2012 | 2:04pm
Steven Kaminski says:
This article very nearly concurs with the conclusion I've recently reached.
It appears to me as if the net effect of Supreme Court and Federal policies of the last few decades amount to the establishment of "de facto atheism" as the official state religion of the USA. All the more ironic that they have done so largely by harnessing the Bill of Rights 'anti-establishment clause.'
Mind you, 'de facto atheism' is not the same as atheism. They aren't so foolish as to attempt to force everybody to profess atheism. Only to behave, reason and set policy as if we are.
It appears to me as if the net effect of Supreme Court and Federal policies of the last few decades amount to the establishment of "de facto atheism" as the official state religion of the USA. All the more ironic that they have done so largely by harnessing the Bill of Rights 'anti-establishment clause.'
Mind you, 'de facto atheism' is not the same as atheism. They aren't so foolish as to attempt to force everybody to profess atheism. Only to behave, reason and set policy as if we are.
7.11.2012 | 5:02pm
Quine says:
@Steven Kaminski,
I think you are partially correct, there. However, atheism is a religion the way abstinence is a sex position, and so is "de facto atheism." The part you got correct is that Federal policies cannot rely on a belief in a deity or deities or any dogma or scripture purported to be thereof. No part of the government can assert that Krishna is completely mythological and does not really exist, but also cannot base a decision on what will or will not be done on Thursday because that day is holy to Thor. In order to protect the rights of the citizens to freely believe or not in any given supernatural position, the government must take care not to express belief or disbelief. It's not "de facto atheism" as much as it is simply staying clear of the fight.
I think you are partially correct, there. However, atheism is a religion the way abstinence is a sex position, and so is "de facto atheism." The part you got correct is that Federal policies cannot rely on a belief in a deity or deities or any dogma or scripture purported to be thereof. No part of the government can assert that Krishna is completely mythological and does not really exist, but also cannot base a decision on what will or will not be done on Thursday because that day is holy to Thor. In order to protect the rights of the citizens to freely believe or not in any given supernatural position, the government must take care not to express belief or disbelief. It's not "de facto atheism" as much as it is simply staying clear of the fight.
7.11.2012 | 7:14pm
Steven Kaminski says:
Quine,
That’s a semantic dodge there. You are technically correct that atheism isn’t a religion. But that does nothing to change the fact that it is simply one of the many religious worldviews out there. Everybody has a worldview. You’re arguably mentally ill if you don’t. The problem with Federal policy today (all three branches) is that there has become an entrenched attitude like yours that treats atheism (de facto or otherwise) as special and apart from other worldviews. This is diametrically opposed to the intent of the Bill of Rights which was to prevent that outcome!
I find it hard to believe that you can believe your own assertion that federal policies are intended to just ‘stay clear of the fight.’ How are any of the following ‘staying clear of the fight?’
- The details of religious motivations have been purged from public education in history, music, art, literature. This has vacated the meaning of so much of these subjects! I was long done with my bachelor’s degree before I ever heard mention of how Shakespeare so brilliantly demonstrates the human condition of ‘good, but fallen’ and how that view was so resonant in his era that was so tempted to fall for the ‘utter depravity of man’ arguments. Can’t teach it in public schools.
- Parents who wish their children to be educated in a specifically religious environment (often due to the above) must first forfeit all rights to taxes they have paid into the public education system and shoulder 100% of the cost of private school. Making us pay twice is ‘staying clear?’
- Catholic Charities has placed hundreds of thousands of orphans in good families in this country’s history, but will soon be disqualified from licensing altogether simply because they refuse to place orphans with gay couples. It’s really ‘staying clear’ to ban us from this ministry rather than the state providing alternative agencies for, ahem, non-traditional parents?
- Under the ACA all Americans will be forced to pool their money and pay for the sterilization and contraceptives of anybody who wants them. That’s staying clear?
Sorry, but the evidence is piling up all around us. This government has established ‘de facto atheism’ as the official religious worldview of the USA. Unbelievers in this unbelief are tolerated only if they keep their mouths shut and their wallets open.
That’s a semantic dodge there. You are technically correct that atheism isn’t a religion. But that does nothing to change the fact that it is simply one of the many religious worldviews out there. Everybody has a worldview. You’re arguably mentally ill if you don’t. The problem with Federal policy today (all three branches) is that there has become an entrenched attitude like yours that treats atheism (de facto or otherwise) as special and apart from other worldviews. This is diametrically opposed to the intent of the Bill of Rights which was to prevent that outcome!
I find it hard to believe that you can believe your own assertion that federal policies are intended to just ‘stay clear of the fight.’ How are any of the following ‘staying clear of the fight?’
- The details of religious motivations have been purged from public education in history, music, art, literature. This has vacated the meaning of so much of these subjects! I was long done with my bachelor’s degree before I ever heard mention of how Shakespeare so brilliantly demonstrates the human condition of ‘good, but fallen’ and how that view was so resonant in his era that was so tempted to fall for the ‘utter depravity of man’ arguments. Can’t teach it in public schools.
- Parents who wish their children to be educated in a specifically religious environment (often due to the above) must first forfeit all rights to taxes they have paid into the public education system and shoulder 100% of the cost of private school. Making us pay twice is ‘staying clear?’
- Catholic Charities has placed hundreds of thousands of orphans in good families in this country’s history, but will soon be disqualified from licensing altogether simply because they refuse to place orphans with gay couples. It’s really ‘staying clear’ to ban us from this ministry rather than the state providing alternative agencies for, ahem, non-traditional parents?
- Under the ACA all Americans will be forced to pool their money and pay for the sterilization and contraceptives of anybody who wants them. That’s staying clear?
Sorry, but the evidence is piling up all around us. This government has established ‘de facto atheism’ as the official religious worldview of the USA. Unbelievers in this unbelief are tolerated only if they keep their mouths shut and their wallets open.
7.12.2012 | 4:32am
Quine says:
@Steven Kaminski
Thanks for your reply, I will try to keep this brief as it only tangentially touches the OP. Yes, people generally do have thoughts and beliefs about religious subjects, but having a religion is more than the sum of those (or even a "world view"). Most, with whom I have discussed this subject agree that religion requires some kind of act of faith. The government of the U.S. has a policy of secularism, that permits multiple world views and religions to live together in this Nation. Secularism does not deny the validity of faith, it just does not pick sides. The founders of the Nation came from lands where the religions fought bloody civil wars for political power. They saw that to protect the rights of each person to freely worship, or not, the struggle to get control of government power to be used for or against any religion, had to be prevented. Religion under our secular government has done very well for itself. Now as to your points:
1) I don't understand your use of "religious motivations have been purged" in the areas you listed. Nothing stops public school teachers from explaining what details motivated artists, etc., nor explaining the beliefs of religious systems. That religions exist is a fact. There are facts about what people believe. The only restriction is teaching about validity of faith beyond facts.
2) People without children still have to pay taxes to educate yours. If you want to send your children to religious schools, that is your choice but you are not entitled to tax breaks any more than people without children.
3) The Government is working to make health care available to the people in order to promote the common good. They are doing that based on the best professional medical understanding at this time. Transfusions are not going to be excluded just because they are against the JW religion, nor is faith healing going to be exclusively used as required by the Church of Christian Science. Religion is being held out of the health care fight, for the common good. If contraception or sterilization are against your religion, don't use them.
As far as "mouths shut and wallets open" goes, the airways are awash with religious programming. Private citizens have the right to public speech about religion. It's legally protected. On the wallet issue, folks are taxed the same regardless of religion or lack thereof.
Thanks for your reply, I will try to keep this brief as it only tangentially touches the OP. Yes, people generally do have thoughts and beliefs about religious subjects, but having a religion is more than the sum of those (or even a "world view"). Most, with whom I have discussed this subject agree that religion requires some kind of act of faith. The government of the U.S. has a policy of secularism, that permits multiple world views and religions to live together in this Nation. Secularism does not deny the validity of faith, it just does not pick sides. The founders of the Nation came from lands where the religions fought bloody civil wars for political power. They saw that to protect the rights of each person to freely worship, or not, the struggle to get control of government power to be used for or against any religion, had to be prevented. Religion under our secular government has done very well for itself. Now as to your points:
1) I don't understand your use of "religious motivations have been purged" in the areas you listed. Nothing stops public school teachers from explaining what details motivated artists, etc., nor explaining the beliefs of religious systems. That religions exist is a fact. There are facts about what people believe. The only restriction is teaching about validity of faith beyond facts.
2) People without children still have to pay taxes to educate yours. If you want to send your children to religious schools, that is your choice but you are not entitled to tax breaks any more than people without children.
3) The Government is working to make health care available to the people in order to promote the common good. They are doing that based on the best professional medical understanding at this time. Transfusions are not going to be excluded just because they are against the JW religion, nor is faith healing going to be exclusively used as required by the Church of Christian Science. Religion is being held out of the health care fight, for the common good. If contraception or sterilization are against your religion, don't use them.
As far as "mouths shut and wallets open" goes, the airways are awash with religious programming. Private citizens have the right to public speech about religion. It's legally protected. On the wallet issue, folks are taxed the same regardless of religion or lack thereof.
7.13.2012 | 2:53am
john okna says:
I think that with the recent win for ObamaCare in the high court came the continuation of the HHS mandates inimical to religious freedom. The hoped for death blow was not struck by the court. Now, we Catholics -- and other religious people protected by the First Amendment -- must await favorable outcomes from lower courts. But regardless of those decisions, the Supremes eventually will rule.
But the explanation of the psychological root cause of this hostility has not been completely expressed in any forum publicly that I have seen.
This is the real question..........why now?
Consider man's rebellion in the Garden of Eden. Think about Nimrod and his Tower of Babel.
Consider the human-centric revolution of the Enlightenment.
France contributed Bonapartism and the Paris Commune. Russia contributed the Bolsheviks.
Nihilism leads to a dismantling of Western culture............and a return to a primitive paganism dressed up in modern clothes.
This is where we are heading, as we will soon find out.