Freedom of Worship’s Assault on Freedom of Religion
July 13, 2012
Wesley J. Smith
Until very recently, the West saw religious liberty as a weight-bearing pillar of human freedom. Thus, the very first clause of the First Amendment (1789) states,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
More broadly, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provides:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
That’s unequivocal. Freedom of religion means the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” our religion or belief in practice, both “in public or private,” without interference from the state.
These days, that and $2 will buy you a small cup of Starbucks’ coffee. Strident secularism is on the march and freedom of religion is the target, with secularist warriors attempting to drive religious practice behind closed doors by redefining religious liberty down to a hyper-restricted, “freedom of worship.”
What’s the difference? Under freedom of worship, the Catholic and Orthodox churches both remain perfectly free to teach that the Eucharistic bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Christ. Muslims can continue to require women to be segregated from men at the mosque. But outside worship contexts, the state may compel the faithful to violate their faith by acting in accord with secular morality rather than consistently with their dogmatic precepts.
These assaults on religious practice are becoming increasingly commonplace. For example, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs.
Circumcision is controversial today, but redefining the rite into “mutilation” or “child abuse” is blatant secular imperialism. For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). Indeed, prohibiting the rite deprives male children of these faiths a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity.
Jewish and Muslim religious practice is also under assault in the Netherlands, where a new law may outlaw methods of animal slaughter that comply with the obligations of kosher and halal. Religious liberty? What’s that? The atheist bioethicist Peter Singer sniffed that Jews and Muslims who don’t like the ban should just become vegetarians, writing that since the ban would not prohibit worship practices, no freedoms are being infringed.
We see the same freedom of worship assault against freedom of religion in President Obama’s “Free Birth Control Rule.” The Affordable Care Act now requires that most employers provide their workers with free contraception, sterilization, and other reproductive services. True, the rule exempted religious employers that oppose contraception, but the shield was drafted so narrowly that—surprise, surprise—it only protects freedom of worship. Specifically, to qualify for a religious exemption:
1. The “inculcation of religious values” must be the employer’s “purpose” for existing;
2. The employer must “primarily” employ “persons who share its religious tenets.”
3. The employer must “primarily” serve “persons who share its religious tenets.”
Lest there be any doubt, the rule further states, “Specifically, the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions.” Thus, the group health insurance covering nuns in a Catholic religious order would probably not have to cover contraception. But insurance provided by the order’s elementary school employees, probably would.
Religious liberty is also under assault from efforts to eviscerate the right of medical conscience. Victoria, Australia, for example, legally compels every doctor to participate in abortion—even if morally or religiously opposed—either by doing the deed when asked, or referring the pregnant patient to a doctor they know supports abortion. The Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) recently promulgated a similar ethical rule requiring all Dutch doctors to kill, or if opposed on religious or moral grounds, refer when legally qualified patients ask to be euthanized. In other words, the affected doctors are free to believe that participating in abortion and euthanasia are egregious sins; they just can’t legally or ethically escape so sinning and remain in practice.
At this point in the discussion, opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. Not so. Even fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a Jehovah’s Witness child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates Witness dogma.
Here's the bottom line. If the freedom of worship assault against freedom of religion succeeds, creed-motivated philanthropic and service organizations such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and religiously sponsored schools, hospitals, nursing homes, pregnancy counseling centers, etc., will be forced to choose between acting contrary to their faith and closing their doors. That would not only make our society far less free, but would materially harm the millions of men, women, and children whose lives are immeasurably benefited by faithful people practicing their religion in the public square.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, and consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
RESOURCES
Peter Singer, The use and abuse of religious freedom
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.13.2012 | 11:20am
Ferde Rombola says:
I've often wondered what would happen to federal, state and local budgets should religious charitable organizations cease to exist. Maybe it's time to find out.
7.13.2012 | 11:48am
Joe DeVet says:
The points made in this article are so self-evidently true, it's hard to figure out how to engage the ever-increasing opposition. I call their position an instance of "irrefutable illogic."
Ferde, don't tempt the Feds as long as the present corrupt regime is in power. That is exactly what Obama wants--an excuse to take over the roles of Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, etc. Think of the rhetorical opportunity: "Those insensitive Catholics have abandoned [fill in the victim group here], and so I have ordered [fill in a Federal department] to take up the task..."
Ferde, don't tempt the Feds as long as the present corrupt regime is in power. That is exactly what Obama wants--an excuse to take over the roles of Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, etc. Think of the rhetorical opportunity: "Those insensitive Catholics have abandoned [fill in the victim group here], and so I have ordered [fill in a Federal department] to take up the task..."
7.13.2012 | 11:51am
tristian says:
Another day, another example of overheated rhetoric about religious freedom...
There is a reasonable construal of “religious freedom” that is well expressed by Justice Scalia’s decision in Employment Devision v Smith, according to which that the freedom is being respected so long as laws are religiously neutral in intent and applied equally. Such a principle would I think render all of these as consistent with religious freedom. I mention this not because I agree with Scalia, because I don’t. I think this is too restrictive of understanding of religious freedom. My point is that the controversies listed here do not represent some kind of profound challenge to religious freedom as such, and the are not remotely illuminated by the specious contrast between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Rather the are exactly the kinds of issues we would expect to arise within a broader consensus of the importance of religious freedom. In modern pluralistic liberal democracies, lines have to be drawn, and the process will always be messy and contentious.
What we need, then, is careful consideration of the issues and complexities. A broader reading of the principle of religious freedom allows for accommodation even with those laws that meet the two criteria mentioned above. Trying to decide when and to what extent this should happen requires balancing the extent to which the threatened practices are central to faith, the availability of other remedies, and the strength of the state’s interests. By these standards I think that the case against a ban circumcision is much stronger than that for the exemption from the HHS regulation, with the abortion requirement probably coming in between. But these are all matters about which people committed to a robust conception of religious freedom can disagree.
There is a reasonable construal of “religious freedom” that is well expressed by Justice Scalia’s decision in Employment Devision v Smith, according to which that the freedom is being respected so long as laws are religiously neutral in intent and applied equally. Such a principle would I think render all of these as consistent with religious freedom. I mention this not because I agree with Scalia, because I don’t. I think this is too restrictive of understanding of religious freedom. My point is that the controversies listed here do not represent some kind of profound challenge to religious freedom as such, and the are not remotely illuminated by the specious contrast between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Rather the are exactly the kinds of issues we would expect to arise within a broader consensus of the importance of religious freedom. In modern pluralistic liberal democracies, lines have to be drawn, and the process will always be messy and contentious.
What we need, then, is careful consideration of the issues and complexities. A broader reading of the principle of religious freedom allows for accommodation even with those laws that meet the two criteria mentioned above. Trying to decide when and to what extent this should happen requires balancing the extent to which the threatened practices are central to faith, the availability of other remedies, and the strength of the state’s interests. By these standards I think that the case against a ban circumcision is much stronger than that for the exemption from the HHS regulation, with the abortion requirement probably coming in between. But these are all matters about which people committed to a robust conception of religious freedom can disagree.
7.13.2012 | 1:19pm
Quine says:
I am glad that Mr. Smith mentioned the JW transfusion example because it highlights a situation in which what looks completely irrational to almost everyone can be held as perfectly righteous to those within a sect or cult. Further, Mr. Smith is also correct that the desire to have religious freedom in a secular society cannot be fulfilled without facing the difficult issues of where to draw the lines in law that all are required to follow. As tristian notes above, "the process will always be messy and contentiousness" exactly because the world does not look the same from inside the sect or cult, as it does to others on the outside. A general exemption from obeying the law cannot be granted on mere religious objection, or cults will spring up exactly for that purpose. Messy and contentious as may be, it is our common task to craft laws that balance the freedom to practice religion against the freedom form having someone's religion practiced upon you, against your will.
7.13.2012 | 2:35pm
Mizo says:
Several years ago there was an article in FT written by Elliott Richardson where he wrote about the evolution of the secular Jew, in America. In the article, it was asserted that Jews had emmigrated to America from the earliest years of European colonization, although as a minority the rapidly assimilated into the dominant Christian Culture.
Thus when the major immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia occurred towards the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Rabbis were concerned that they too would be assimilated and to overcome this assimilation, they promulgated a practice of being Jewish on the sabath, and American during the rest of the week.
My recollection of thios article was that the overwhelming result was that, if you were only a JEW on one day, ultimately you assimjilated into the dominant culture, perhaps even at a faster rate.
It is interesting to see that attendance at synagogue, with the exception of the Orrthodox, is almost negligent, even with a surge on the High HOLY Days.
Probable the most secularistic group, in America and likely Israel are secularist, as reports that have been published even in Israel indicate that a majority identifying themselves as Jewish, rarely if ever practice their faith.
The empire that lasted the longest was the BYZANTINES, and their decline can be shown to closely parrallel an erosion of faith.
Thus when the major immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia occurred towards the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Rabbis were concerned that they too would be assimilated and to overcome this assimilation, they promulgated a practice of being Jewish on the sabath, and American during the rest of the week.
My recollection of thios article was that the overwhelming result was that, if you were only a JEW on one day, ultimately you assimjilated into the dominant culture, perhaps even at a faster rate.
It is interesting to see that attendance at synagogue, with the exception of the Orrthodox, is almost negligent, even with a surge on the High HOLY Days.
Probable the most secularistic group, in America and likely Israel are secularist, as reports that have been published even in Israel indicate that a majority identifying themselves as Jewish, rarely if ever practice their faith.
The empire that lasted the longest was the BYZANTINES, and their decline can be shown to closely parrallel an erosion of faith.
7.13.2012 | 3:43pm
Darel says:
I have to agree (mostly) with tristian on this posting.
There have long been two kinds of secularism in Western countries. They go by many different names, but I will follow the usage of Elizabeth Shakman Hurd and call them [1] Judeo-Christian secularism and [2] laicist secularism. The first is the most common among Western countries and is the American tradition. Here "religion" is considered a social good and given wide berth to define itself and to practice in society. The second is less common and is the French tradition. Here "religion" is considered socially dangerous by nearly all and socially bad by many. It is given very narrow berth to define itself and to practice in society.
What we have in the United States today, in my view, is a shift from Judeo-Christian secularism to laicist secularism. This is driven primarily by elites who largely stopped thinking of themselves as Christians in the 1960s and 1970s. One can see the same march of laïcité today in the German circumcision case, the HHS regulations, British police harassment of conservative Christians, etc. etc. What is notable is that these are three countries which never followed laicist secularism but are increasingly doing so now.
The threatened future of the United States and other Western countries is not the Soviet Union but instead France of the Third and Fourth Republics (or perhaps Turkey under Atatürk). The laicist goal is not to destroy religion, but certainly it is to make religion publicly irrelevant.
I do disagree with tristian, however, when he suggests that this is all part and parcel of the long history of religious liberty in the West where things are forever "messy and contentious". There is mess and contention certainly, but one should not miss the forest for the trees. We are on the move from one stand of timber to another very different from what we in the US are accustomed.
There have long been two kinds of secularism in Western countries. They go by many different names, but I will follow the usage of Elizabeth Shakman Hurd and call them [1] Judeo-Christian secularism and [2] laicist secularism. The first is the most common among Western countries and is the American tradition. Here "religion" is considered a social good and given wide berth to define itself and to practice in society. The second is less common and is the French tradition. Here "religion" is considered socially dangerous by nearly all and socially bad by many. It is given very narrow berth to define itself and to practice in society.
What we have in the United States today, in my view, is a shift from Judeo-Christian secularism to laicist secularism. This is driven primarily by elites who largely stopped thinking of themselves as Christians in the 1960s and 1970s. One can see the same march of laïcité today in the German circumcision case, the HHS regulations, British police harassment of conservative Christians, etc. etc. What is notable is that these are three countries which never followed laicist secularism but are increasingly doing so now.
The threatened future of the United States and other Western countries is not the Soviet Union but instead France of the Third and Fourth Republics (or perhaps Turkey under Atatürk). The laicist goal is not to destroy religion, but certainly it is to make religion publicly irrelevant.
I do disagree with tristian, however, when he suggests that this is all part and parcel of the long history of religious liberty in the West where things are forever "messy and contentious". There is mess and contention certainly, but one should not miss the forest for the trees. We are on the move from one stand of timber to another very different from what we in the US are accustomed.
7.13.2012 | 4:06pm
severalspeciesof says:
"For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). Indeed, prohibiting the rite deprives male children of these faiths a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity."
Actually it was done FOR god, to them...
also, "a religious benefit" really? REALLY?"
and:"...dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity." Sorry, but until they've reached an age of personal consent, the only thing they are being dispossessed of is foreskin....
Actually it was done FOR god, to them...
also, "a religious benefit" really? REALLY?"
and:"...dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity." Sorry, but until they've reached an age of personal consent, the only thing they are being dispossessed of is foreskin....
7.13.2012 | 4:17pm
Ferde Rombola says:
Joe DeVet, if Obama thinks he can take on the massive increase in welfare outlay without a general collapse of the world economy, he isn't thinking clearly. If he thinks he can also handle the massive increase in crime that is certain to follow, he isn't thinking at all.
Quine, you jumped over the issue to get to your point. This isn't about an exemption from obeying the law, it's about whether the law is constitutional. "...the free exercise thereof." means what it says. Of course words don't always mean what they used to mean, so you may be right, but my bet is on the plain language of the Constitution.
Quine, you jumped over the issue to get to your point. This isn't about an exemption from obeying the law, it's about whether the law is constitutional. "...the free exercise thereof." means what it says. Of course words don't always mean what they used to mean, so you may be right, but my bet is on the plain language of the Constitution.
7.13.2012 | 5:30pm
andrew says:
to a jehovah's witness, protecting a child from receiving a medically necessary blood transfusion is an action that is done "for" the child and with consequent "religious benefit."
7.13.2012 | 6:03pm
severalspeciesof says:
@Joe DeVet, et al.,
You do realize that 2/3rds of the revenue that Catholic Charities receives comes from government. As long as that is the case, the rules should not be abandoned regarding service to the regular public (including its employees). So if one wants religious freedom the way that Smith colors it, religious institutions should free itself from the government.
You do realize that 2/3rds of the revenue that Catholic Charities receives comes from government. As long as that is the case, the rules should not be abandoned regarding service to the regular public (including its employees). So if one wants religious freedom the way that Smith colors it, religious institutions should free itself from the government.
7.13.2012 | 6:19pm
Quine says:
Hi Ferde,
Yes, there is quite a bit of constitutional case law from the Courts working to put "free exercise" into practice. The first really significant case was Reynolds v. United States in 1879. That was about polygamy under federal law and if that practice could be protected under free exercise. My point was that the Mormons at that time saw that as a valid justification, although the rest of the society did not. In modern times, the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith decided that religious free exercise did not allow the defendants to use peyote as part of a religious ritual, and set forth the current standard that neutral laws of general applicability limit protection under the Free Exercise Clause.
The requirement for employers to provide health insurance coverage is just such a neutral law of general applicability. The JW Church is not going to get an exemption re transfusions, and the Church of Christian Science is not going to get an exemption re faith healing, and the Church of Scientology is not going to get an exemption re drugs to treat mental illness. The RCC is not being singled out re insurance coverage for contraception, it is just under the same legal requirements.
Yes, there is quite a bit of constitutional case law from the Courts working to put "free exercise" into practice. The first really significant case was Reynolds v. United States in 1879. That was about polygamy under federal law and if that practice could be protected under free exercise. My point was that the Mormons at that time saw that as a valid justification, although the rest of the society did not. In modern times, the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith decided that religious free exercise did not allow the defendants to use peyote as part of a religious ritual, and set forth the current standard that neutral laws of general applicability limit protection under the Free Exercise Clause.
The requirement for employers to provide health insurance coverage is just such a neutral law of general applicability. The JW Church is not going to get an exemption re transfusions, and the Church of Christian Science is not going to get an exemption re faith healing, and the Church of Scientology is not going to get an exemption re drugs to treat mental illness. The RCC is not being singled out re insurance coverage for contraception, it is just under the same legal requirements.
7.13.2012 | 11:37pm
Darel says:
Quine et al., you realize that all religious organizations classified under Section 1402(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code are exempt from the Obamacare mandates? Your depiction of the law could really use more nuance derived from the law itself rather than from a cherry-picked list of Supreme Court cases.
7.14.2012 | 1:08am
Quine says:
Yes, Darel, I am glad you brought that up. The Churches themselves are exempt, and I think that is a gracious gesture on behalf of the Obama administration that is often lost in the debate. The issue is with the organizations that are owned and operated by the Church. If the RCC were allowed to extend their religious exemption to the organizations they owned, then Scientology could go out and buy whole corporations and exempt them from whatever labor laws they wanted, by invocation of "religious freedom."
7.14.2012 | 6:26am
Michael PS says:
Darel
Laïcité concerns the religious beliefs of individuals, not in order to restrict them, but in order to exclude their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and the public authorities., This prohibition obliges individuals to respect common rules in these relations; they cannot exempt themselves from them for religious reasons – which comes down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs.
Of late, the Conseil d’État has stressed that laïcité also implies that the state does not intervene in the religious sphere and hence that it, in turn, is excluded from the latter. This assumes a complete separation between state and civil society, between the public sphere and the private domain, the framework of society, which is the domain not only of individuals but of groups and associations (and thus of churches and religious communities). This is why religious freedom is at once individual (freedom of conscience) and collective (freedom of religious communities). It implies that the latter organize themselves and operate freely.
The two concepts are not as different as you suggest.
Laïcité concerns the religious beliefs of individuals, not in order to restrict them, but in order to exclude their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and the public authorities., This prohibition obliges individuals to respect common rules in these relations; they cannot exempt themselves from them for religious reasons – which comes down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs.
Of late, the Conseil d’État has stressed that laïcité also implies that the state does not intervene in the religious sphere and hence that it, in turn, is excluded from the latter. This assumes a complete separation between state and civil society, between the public sphere and the private domain, the framework of society, which is the domain not only of individuals but of groups and associations (and thus of churches and religious communities). This is why religious freedom is at once individual (freedom of conscience) and collective (freedom of religious communities). It implies that the latter organize themselves and operate freely.
The two concepts are not as different as you suggest.
7.14.2012 | 1:47pm
Paul Shonk says:
"The Churches themselves are exempt, and I think that is a gracious gesture on behalf of the Obama administration that is often lost in the debate." The word "gracious" speaks volumes about your underlying assumptions. The churches are exempt, not because of the rights of freedom of religion and free association, but because President Obama is gracious.
7.14.2012 | 3:07pm
Don Roberto says:
How anyone could fail to distinguish between blood transfusions and cancer-causing, promiscuity-inducing pill is beyond me.
7.14.2012 | 8:17pm
Darel says:
Quine, you have demonstrated my point exactly. The Obama administration has made some religious organizations exempt from its new mandate but not others. What is the logic behind this choice as opposed to some other? Quite frankly, it is a political decision, not one dictated by reason. Obama had to change existing law to bring the country to the point it is at today, after all. Why did he change it? Again, a political decision, not one dictated by reason.
You can support Obama's politics and his political choice, but you cannot pawn that support off as a necessary conclusion from reason.
You can support Obama's politics and his political choice, but you cannot pawn that support off as a necessary conclusion from reason.
7.14.2012 | 8:26pm
Darel says:
MichaelPS,
I do not know which "two concepts" you are referring to in your 3:26am posting. If you are referring to the two forms of secularism, they are very different indeed. In particular, the two forms differ markedly in the degree to which they allow religious bodies to define themselves and the degree to which religious expression is permitted in the public sphere.
I do not know which "two concepts" you are referring to in your 3:26am posting. If you are referring to the two forms of secularism, they are very different indeed. In particular, the two forms differ markedly in the degree to which they allow religious bodies to define themselves and the degree to which religious expression is permitted in the public sphere.
7.15.2012 | 3:22am
Quine says:
@Paul Shonk,
Yes, "gracious" because HHS could have made following the insurance requirement apply to the direct employees of the Churches, as well, as they do with, say, the minimum wage requirement. However, the President showed consideration and did not do that. When complaints were made about insuring the employees of associated organizations that were not in themselves Churches, again consideration was made by arranging that it would be handled outside those organizations, by the insurance companies, and not at the expense of the employers. Yes, I know that means that in order to accept that accommodation, the organizations that self-insure will have to switch to using an outside company, but the accommodation has been graciously extended to them none the less.
Again, the clearly proper role of the Churches is to persuade people to freely choose not to use contraception if that is the Church position, but it is not proper for religious owned organizations to act to interfere with the exercise of free will by the citizens.
Yes, "gracious" because HHS could have made following the insurance requirement apply to the direct employees of the Churches, as well, as they do with, say, the minimum wage requirement. However, the President showed consideration and did not do that. When complaints were made about insuring the employees of associated organizations that were not in themselves Churches, again consideration was made by arranging that it would be handled outside those organizations, by the insurance companies, and not at the expense of the employers. Yes, I know that means that in order to accept that accommodation, the organizations that self-insure will have to switch to using an outside company, but the accommodation has been graciously extended to them none the less.
Again, the clearly proper role of the Churches is to persuade people to freely choose not to use contraception if that is the Church position, but it is not proper for religious owned organizations to act to interfere with the exercise of free will by the citizens.
7.15.2012 | 3:29am
Quine says:
More detail is given in this article written by Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/15/catholics-bishops-statement-fosters-uncivil-society/
7.15.2012 | 11:12am
Heloise says:
There must also exist a distinction between Free Exercise active and passive. The state and, rather, society have an interest in preventing or stopping certain active practices based on religious grounds (say, female "circumcision," which is truly mutilation of a life-threatening and traumatizing degree or sati) for greater common democratic principles. (Good luck, of course, defining those without appeal to a deeper religious or metaphysical system of thought.)
By the same token, our society can find reasons for supporting the active exercise of certain religious groups by way of their benefit to all. It is simply more convenient to let churches and temples and mosques run soup kitchens.
The government has found for its own sake (and the sake of taxpayers) that an infrastructure of medical and social services--originally run entirely on the organization's dime--fills a void the government cannot. It took advantage of a preexisting system and pays into it to avoid the much greater cost of opening its own facilities. The idea that this somehow makes the religious groups indebted to the government is preposterous. If these facilities have now come to rely on government money to run, it still in no way alters the good which the government has become compelled to support. Healthier organizations should avoid the strings attached to Uncle Sam's handouts, but it is society that benefits from these groups, not the other way around.
Furthermore, we must continue to point out that ALL employers, not just ones receiving government funds, are affected by this. If I, a Catholic lay-woman, open an ecumenical for-profit that provides NFP training to at-risk women and shares information on the dangers of contraception and sterilization, I would be legally required to provide to my employees the very service we oppose.
Herein we see passive side of Free exercise being attacked, the violation of conscience by compelling a person to engage complicitly in adverse practices. When the government forces someone to do something against their own conscience--not to save their own life--we have a terrifying intrusion on the soul.
Of course, opposing that one be required to provide these services does not prevent another's freedom to seek them elsewhere. If a person deems these services in vital to his or her lifestyle, she or he can still obtain them legally. If they want them included in their insurance package, I have a simple suggestion: work for someone whose conscience you aren't violating.
By the same token, our society can find reasons for supporting the active exercise of certain religious groups by way of their benefit to all. It is simply more convenient to let churches and temples and mosques run soup kitchens.
The government has found for its own sake (and the sake of taxpayers) that an infrastructure of medical and social services--originally run entirely on the organization's dime--fills a void the government cannot. It took advantage of a preexisting system and pays into it to avoid the much greater cost of opening its own facilities. The idea that this somehow makes the religious groups indebted to the government is preposterous. If these facilities have now come to rely on government money to run, it still in no way alters the good which the government has become compelled to support. Healthier organizations should avoid the strings attached to Uncle Sam's handouts, but it is society that benefits from these groups, not the other way around.
Furthermore, we must continue to point out that ALL employers, not just ones receiving government funds, are affected by this. If I, a Catholic lay-woman, open an ecumenical for-profit that provides NFP training to at-risk women and shares information on the dangers of contraception and sterilization, I would be legally required to provide to my employees the very service we oppose.
Herein we see passive side of Free exercise being attacked, the violation of conscience by compelling a person to engage complicitly in adverse practices. When the government forces someone to do something against their own conscience--not to save their own life--we have a terrifying intrusion on the soul.
Of course, opposing that one be required to provide these services does not prevent another's freedom to seek them elsewhere. If a person deems these services in vital to his or her lifestyle, she or he can still obtain them legally. If they want them included in their insurance package, I have a simple suggestion: work for someone whose conscience you aren't violating.
7.15.2012 | 1:16pm
severalspeciesof says:
@Don Roberto
Blood transfusions carry risk (one of them being death), (see http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.1043/1543-2165%282007%29131%5B708%3ANCOBT%5D2.0.CO%3B2 )
and the cancer causing part of your statement, while the risk may be increased in some (for some others it may even decrease risk for breast cancer), may be overstated (see http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives )
As for your promiscuity statement, I'll have to ask my mother...
Blood transfusions carry risk (one of them being death), (see http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.1043/1543-2165%282007%29131%5B708%3ANCOBT%5D2.0.CO%3B2 )
and the cancer causing part of your statement, while the risk may be increased in some (for some others it may even decrease risk for breast cancer), may be overstated (see http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives )
As for your promiscuity statement, I'll have to ask my mother...
7.15.2012 | 3:36pm
Charles R. Williams says:
"Compelling public interest" aye there's the rub. There is a compelling public interest in requiring blood to be administered to children when their lives are at stake. Certain fanatics think there is a compelling public interest in preventing involuntary circumcision. A few nut cases think there is a compelling public interest in funding recreational sex through free abortifacient drugs paid for by an employer-purchased insurance plan.
The bottom line is that the ultimate protection of religious freedom for Christians is for Christians to be numerous enough and disruptive enough to prevent the state from forcing them to act against their consciences.
Viva Cristo Rey!
The bottom line is that the ultimate protection of religious freedom for Christians is for Christians to be numerous enough and disruptive enough to prevent the state from forcing them to act against their consciences.
Viva Cristo Rey!
7.15.2012 | 3:40pm
Quine says:
Darel asked me: "What is the logic behind this choice as opposed to some other? Quite frankly, it is a political decision, not one dictated by reason." That contains a good observation and something with which I partially agree. In our system of Government, the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Judicial Branch interprets them, and the Executive Branch enforces them. The President often makes political decisions about how aggressively to carry out enforcement. Given any law, one group of the population may be more in favor of strict enforcement than another, and political push and shove is generated. Ultimately, if one group thinks that laws that should be enforced more strictly are not, that group is left with the option of going to Court to force the Executive Branch to do so.
No one knows how this is going to turn out in the Courts, but it is expected to be adjudicated over the next few years. The Bishops would like the Courts to draw the line such that the owned organizations are included in the exemption, but it could go the other way and the Courts could rule, with you, that there was no logic in that choice, and therefore, the direct employees of the Churches are not exempt, either.
No one knows how this is going to turn out in the Courts, but it is expected to be adjudicated over the next few years. The Bishops would like the Courts to draw the line such that the owned organizations are included in the exemption, but it could go the other way and the Courts could rule, with you, that there was no logic in that choice, and therefore, the direct employees of the Churches are not exempt, either.
7.15.2012 | 11:19pm
David Katz says:
Does religious liberty imply that secular laws do not apply to those whose religion opposes them? Do Muslims have the right to polygamy, while evangelicals do not? How will the claims of religious exemption be adjudicated. Does religious belief require an established institution, or do personal beliefs carry weight without institutional affiliation?
These issues are only solvable with a state preferred religion.
These issues are only solvable with a state preferred religion.
7.16.2012 | 5:47pm
Tristian says:
These issues can be resolved by courts granting or denying accommodations case by case, which is more or less what the US has settled for. It is messy and guaranteed to be never more than only partly satisfying, but it’s arguably better than the only viable alternative, which is a strict neutrality.
One reason that this will never be fully satisfying is that courts will vary in their decisions, leading to inconsistencies and decisions guaranteed to surprise and anger one group or another. (One reason, by the way, that the Bishops and the various plaintiffs in the suits against the HHS are playing a dangerous game. This could blow up in their faces, legally. If it does they will find they have painted themselves into a particularly uncomfortable corner). A second endemic worry is that this approach will require courts to answer questions about the centrality of a practice to a religious faith, and about what constitutes a religion in the first place. Arguably these aren’t the sorts of questions we want judges deciding as a matter of law.
One reason that this will never be fully satisfying is that courts will vary in their decisions, leading to inconsistencies and decisions guaranteed to surprise and anger one group or another. (One reason, by the way, that the Bishops and the various plaintiffs in the suits against the HHS are playing a dangerous game. This could blow up in their faces, legally. If it does they will find they have painted themselves into a particularly uncomfortable corner). A second endemic worry is that this approach will require courts to answer questions about the centrality of a practice to a religious faith, and about what constitutes a religion in the first place. Arguably these aren’t the sorts of questions we want judges deciding as a matter of law.
7.18.2012 | 8:04am
darren says:
I think most people do leave their religion at the door on the way out of church. We as a society have lost our ability, or have not taken the time to form a good moral conscience.
7.19.2012 | 6:01pm
Steven Barrett says:
Has anybody from the government said we cannot hold Masses?
Has anybody from the government say we cannot say Rosaries?
Has anybody from the government imposed anything as onerous as the strictures placed against Catholics during the Reformation, or here in the US where Catholics were forbidden to practice their faith in some states long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights became the (national) law of the land?
And does anybody seriously believe that some kind of workable agreement can't be reached, especially now that Obamacare is the law of the land ... unless God forbid, we're inflicted with a Romney presidency?
It's articles like this that will eventually send me right over to the Episcopalians. Nice going, Mr. Smith.
Has anybody from the government say we cannot say Rosaries?
Has anybody from the government imposed anything as onerous as the strictures placed against Catholics during the Reformation, or here in the US where Catholics were forbidden to practice their faith in some states long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights became the (national) law of the land?
And does anybody seriously believe that some kind of workable agreement can't be reached, especially now that Obamacare is the law of the land ... unless God forbid, we're inflicted with a Romney presidency?
It's articles like this that will eventually send me right over to the Episcopalians. Nice going, Mr. Smith.
10.3.2012 | 10:44am
Bella says:
No, Steven, no one has said we can't say rosaries. But they have said in no uncertain terms that we MUST be complicit in abortion - in teaching about it, funding it through taxes that go to Planned Parenthood, in ramming it down the throats of every southern hemisphere country in the world (hmm, wonder why?), etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. They are passing laws all over the world that doctors and nurses MUST assist in these things, in some cases; in others, they allow the "out" of demanding that the professional do everything but drive them to the door of another recommended provider of these "services." And laws like the HHS mandate, TO WHICH ONLY HELOISE HAS PROVIDED AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE IN THESE COMMENTS, simply embolden others to move forward to the day they envision, when all we CAN do is say rosaries behind closed doors.
