By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
In Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man, Stephen Daedalus is asked by his friend Cranly whether, having forsaken Roman Catholicism, he will become a Protestant. “I said I had lost the faith,” he replied, “but not that I had lost selfrespect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?”
But God works, as they say, in mysterious ways. A black man, accused of being secretly a Muslim, a socialist and an illegitimate pretender to the presidential throne, has accomplished what all of the post-Vatican II reconciliation committees and joint worship services and inter-faith conferences could not. Rev. Mike Huckabee has declared that Protestants will at last abandon illogic and incoherence. No longer will the Pope be called the Antichrist, nor Holy Mother Church the Whore of Rome. Once again, he says, we are all Catholics. My late Irish grandmother’s faith has been vindicated.
Christians have reunited under the banner of Richard “Coeur de Lion” Santorum to defeat apostasy and reclaim America for Christendom. The enemy this time? An HHS regulation requiring most health insurance plans to include FDA approved forms of contraception in coverage for preventive health services. There is, of course, an exception for churches, but not for religious institutions serving the general public. The outrage has been intense, widespread and misguided.
The newest crusade, like its historical predecessors, is largely fueled by the bad faith of its leaders and the ignorance of its foot soldiers. The President has graciously described the controversy as a difference of opinion between reasonable people, but his comments are undeservedly charitable. The argument that the requirement is an assault on religious freedom is legally frivolous. The suggestion that it raises serious questions under the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is laughable, unless one is a graduate of the Michele Bachmann School of Constitutional Revisionism and Beauty Culture.
It has never been the law that the First Amendment exempts religion from all civil authority. The First Amendment “embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-304 (1940). Public policy demands have been found to trump freedom of religion in a number of contexts. The Mormon practice of polygamy was long ago held to be subordinate to criminal statutes. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). Jehovah Witnesses have been compelled to comply with child labor laws prohibiting the sale of printed materials on public streets by minors. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). Bob Jones University was unable to prevent the loss of its tax exempt status despite its religious convictions opposing interracial dating and marriage. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). And the courts have frequently ordered the provision of emergency medical care to minors over the religious objections of their parents.
The new regulation implements portions of the Affordable Care Act intended to expand the availability of preventive health services to women by requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for those services. Meeting the public health needs of millions of women pursuant to a grant of legislative authority surely fits any reasonable definition of a compelling governmental interest. And the impact on religious expression? None. Religious institutions are not required to change their moral views on contraception. No woman will be compelled to practice birth control.
But if the regulation does not raise constitutional issues, why all the fuss? The answer is that the reaction is a contrived and cynical political attack for election year consumption by Catholics and right-wing evangelicals. It is an effort to extend the notion of religious expression to include what are clearly non-ministerial functions. It is also part of an effort to further weaken the wall of separation between government and religion. Indeed, the position of the Catholic bishops reinforces my opposition to the entire faith-based initiatives program. How is it that a religious body can assert the propriety of accepting public tax dollars to support what it asserts to be a public function, such as operating a general hospital, and simultaneously insist that the operation of that same hospital is protected religious expression for all other purposes?
The government is obligated to respect the free exercise of religion. Religious bodies engaged in the operation of public facilities are obligated to respect the rights of all employees, including those having incompatible religious beliefs, and to comply with applicable laws. Once this has been made clear to all, Christians can return to warring among themselves.
Gene,
Like I said, if it goes to SCOTUS, it’ll be up to Kennedy.
Bob,Esq
That is not what God said and therefore I will not agree to it.
Gene H.
.
I did (?) understand the quote.
and you write so purty, and so demolishingly, to those who can think. Not Jim.
Mike S.
““Conservative Christian”, if one understands the Gospels, they would know you can’t be both”
A similar realizaion at ten years, was enough to end my Christian indoctrination after two church services with my neighbors. Professing Jesus, but not following him was hypocrisy I felt.
PS My father did, but that meant abandoning his family. Just as Jesus admonished his disciples to do.
Gene,
The article anon nurse posted, about institutions that are self-insured, highlights where and how the free exercise problem comes into play.
BTW, just how do you word the compelling governmental interest in mandating insurance for birth control without sounding totalitarian?
Unless medically required, how is birth control not an elective type procedure?
Mike spindell,
Wrong! What Onan did is exactly what contraception does. No fertilization! I have never said anything about making our nationa theocracy. I live by what the Bible says and I have said nothing to contradict that.
“What Onan did is exactly what contraception does”
Jim,
Are you normally obtuse, or are you just having a bad day? This thread is about the church not wanting to pay for health plans for their employees that want contraception, even if they are not Catholic. The basis for the Churches anti-contraception stance is Onan, because Jesus certainly never discussed it. Yes pulling out is a form of contraception, as is the “rhythm method”, though neither works particularly well and that is why so many people who share your beliefs have children out of wedlock.
Jim,
You’re right in that Obama is mandate happy but your metaphysics of morals is severely wanting.
For example, before entering into a life long commitment of marriage, the concept of trying before you buy (i.e. living together first), or measuring twice and cutting once is far more wise than the contrary.
Gene H.
“Start here.”
Only Kant knows where it will end.
Kant’s name only gave me palpitations. Scared of heights.
But will check it out. If it is all so accessible and rigorous, then fine.
id707,
It’s one of those philosophical ideas that you’re best to try on for size yourself first rather than to have someone explain it up front. There’s a lot of meat on them thar frog bones Bob refers to.
idealist707
You have much to say but nothing of substance. You probably are a loaner who needs this blog to get day “High”.
Bob,
Not to re-open an old wound, but church proper meet church owned public commercial enterprise. A church of any denomination is not the same thing as a church owned business that avails themselves to the culturally diverse public, is a diverse employer, and takes government money for their services. The Lukimi facts were fairly narrow, so unless like that case you can prove this is some sort of planned attack on the RCC and wasn’t written to serve a legitimate secular function, your position may not be at the bottom of the hill, but I think it stands on the downward slope.
BOB
It is the pattern of Obama trying to mandate what he thinks we need. I believe from now on everytime their is a mandate of any nature the People will respond like a roaring lion.Remember Pelosi saying we have to pass it first before we know what is in it? That is the problem with government and why it is failing.
id707: “Bob, Esq. Who is the quote from.?”
I believe a frog living in 18th century Prussia whispered it to some guy with the instructions: “now discuss.”
Jim,
Evasive little devil. Chicken! Declare yourself, or has your rant tired you?
Mike A and Gene H.
I plead ignorance, not a legal but perhaps human defence.
So what is the categorical imperative. Specific or generic. Legal. Come onl don’t play keep-away with me.
id707,
Start here:
Categorical imperative
Immanuel Kant
Mike A.: “the regulation does not impact religious expression under the First Amendment.”
Not sure what you mean by religious expression, but it does in fact affect the free exercise rights of Catholicism; no matter how silly it may seem.
Speaking of silly, if they couldn’t find a compelling governmental interest in the ban of choking the chicken in Lukimi, how will they find one mandating the option to choke the chicken here?
But as medical students were advised: When hearing the sound of hooves, do not think of zebras.
So law most likely.
Mike A.
Most of the chapters in my life are filled with rough notes in passing.
Categorical imperative.
I can’t even see what it relates to: grammar, law, philosophy, scientific method., something to do with Nero?? Wish we had come so long that the computers could enable a quick download for me.
Please enlighten me.
Mike A,
So true.
idealist707
Obviously you get my point.
Jim,
If I did not reply, then clarify. What is the issue as you see it? ‘And your position as well.
Your turn to be explicit, instead of perjorative.
“Our society has become lazy and that is a fact.”
Jim,
I love my country and the people in it, even if some are as ignorant as you. The problem is you don’t love the country, or the people. That is why you would destroy the Constitution and turn this country into a Theocracy.
Secondly, as much as I know that all you would prefer to do is blow propaganda for the rich people whose behinds you worship perversely, this thread is about contraception. The chief religious argument against contraception is taken from the story of Onan and those who make it have perverted its meaning through ignorance.
Thirdly, it is the states where your philosophy is king who have the highest rate of out of wedlock births and also divorces. They also take more money per capita from the federal government than do the “liberal” states. The truth is that those who profess their religious views the loudest are usually the biggest hypocrites. That hypocrisy, rather oxymoron, is characteristic of someone that would call themselves a “Conservative Christian”, if one understands the Gospels, they would know you can’t be both. Now in your case I bet you’ve never read your Bible completely through and what you’ve read you don’t comprehend. You are the type who obeys someone who pretends to be an authority on morals, when all they are doing is watching the collection plate. In that respect you are hardly the independent thinker you think you are.