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.
BobEsq,
“The problem, as with the health care law, lies in the mandate. ”
You are soon mired up to your knees.
Mandate hither and yon. Interesting legally. But where were you and yours when Congress enacted the Patriot Act without reading nor understanding it, published as it was two hours before voting on it, and pertaining to word changes in over 200 laws. No where in sight. As most of the nation was.
Congressional laws are not god-given, although they do have power and status. So please clarify or link me to where the limits of mandates are, so I may understand your concern for this one, as being in some way untenable?
rafflaw:
My parents used the rhythm method and succeeded in producing five children in four years (two of my siblings are twins).
I remember complaints in the ’50s that Catholics were having too many children. The right was concerned with over-production of Democrats. Now the right is demanding that production of whites be increased because they fear that we will be overrun by black and brown people. My cynical self believes that much of the debate over contraception is related to political demographics. Perhaps the disagreements would resolve themselves if the President proposed another compromise limiting the availability of free contraception coverage to blacks and Hispanics.
So now you’re going to hinge your argument on the mandate issue instead of the free exercise issue? Interesting idea (because as we both know the purchase mandate has other legal flaws), but that doesn’t eliminate the flaw in the free exercise argument which seems to be the hook the RCC is hanging their hat upon. The flawed reasoning behind mandated purchasing is really quite different from the flawed reasoning behind the coverage issue regarding free exercise. If this is long game (as Mike A. suggests) for universal coverage, I’ll have to give major points in the strategy department, but honestly, I don’t think most in Washington have a good long game if they have one at all. The microcosm and cycle time of begging for graft, er, campaign finance money makes that kind of play unwieldy at best and impractical at worst. So that leaves what? Happy accident?
Bob Esq,
“especially considering how evil (no matter how silly we may feel it sounds) it is perceived by Catholicism.”
Since when does the Constitution permit sins to guide our laws. I thought it was just the protection/exclusion we were expounding.
As for 2000 year old churchly tenets, they were 1750 years old when the Constitution was written, and specifically ignored except for an almost philosophical reference to God somewhere in the DoI etc.
Admit one tenet and we are lost. God said that, as Jim would claim.
I admire you, and your writings, but will take exception. Ignorance (mine) does not recognize the claims of tenets nor that of hubris or insubordination.
Mild snark. Smile.
Bob,
Many Catholic institutions already cover that same contraception coverage in their employees plans and have for some years without a whimper. This contraception uproar is an attempt by the Church to control everyone, not only their members. Their members agree in significant numbers that the contraception tenet is bs. The need for contraception services is far from just pregnancy avoidance.
By the way, growing up Catholic, the joke about the “rhythm” method of conraception was What do you call people who use the rhythm method?….Parents.
Bob Esq
Well meant, well intended..
I too am ashamed that dental status is a class questio in the uSA.. Not so here fortunately. Free including orthodontal procedures up to 18 years.
As for rankings, you can get dentures on welfare.
But considering the number of youths who can’t afford the costs of the pill, and college students here also find it economically burdensome, and the consequences of conception on both the possible parent and child, I would still rank contraception higher.
Unfortunately, the church and its followers see it as encouraging SIN.
Mike A.: “What confuses the discussion is the fact that we have to pursue the goal (so far at least) through the private insurance market.”
The mandate; exactly.
Gene,
The problem, as with the health care law, lies in the mandate.
If you made contraception coverage available to all above the age of consent through medicare and medicaid — where’s the conflict??
Bob, Esq.:
It seems to me that whether mandatory dental coverage should have priority over mandatory contraception coverage is the sort of debate that legislative bodies should have when determining public policy. A “compelling governmental interest” is created when the legislature makes a public policy determination and enacts legislation to implement it.
In this instance, I still perceive the goal to be universal health coverage, and coverage for contraception is one more step toward that goal. What confuses the discussion is the fact that we have to pursue the goal (so far at least) through the private insurance market.
**religious tenet
Ummm . . . allowing non-Catholic employees to make their own informed health care decisions based on available medical technology instead of religion tenet (belonging to someone else’s religion no less)?
Mike A.,
I was stretching Lukimi for the joke; but like I said, I don’t see the compelling governmental interest in mandating insurance coverage for birth control outweighing a tenet of Christianity that’s been around for 2000 years; albeit limited more to the Catholic church as of late.
Bob, Esq.:
Your comment on Leviticus completely smited me.
idealist707,
In an ideal world I’d like to see mandated dental insurance before mandated contraceptive insurance. Compare the cost of buying a few rubbers or a prescription for the pill to a tooth extraction and implant.
I’m just saying it’s hard to argue that there’s a compelling governmental interest in mandating the insurance coverage for birth control; especially considering how evil (no matter how silly we may feel it sounds) it is perceived by Catholicism.
I hope you have more success bringing that point up with Bob than I have, Mike A.
Bob, Esq.:
The first point is that the court in Lukumi was concerned with an ordinance directed at a specific religion and which essentially forbade believers to perform a sacramental ritual. In the current dispute, the regulation under attack is neutral in its application and intent.
Bob Esq.
You addressed Gene, but permit a comment from me.
Fortunately, even medically motivated procedures are ELECTIVE.
We provide a service but do not compell its use.
And further, while seemingly elective, contraception has been shown of worth to people without the special medical needs mentioned by Elaine.
Spacing gives healthier and happier mothers, children, husbands, and whole families, including relatives not overly taxed by frequent baptism gifts.
Tha last meant jokingly you of course know.
But you of course were pursuing another point, and I come with another.
Please ignore.
As Bob accuses me, I get a high here. But I at least meet queries, he just ignores them.
Bob,
LOL and good to see SIYOM ride again.
Dear Jim,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your [posts] … however I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Stay in your own movie,
Bob,Esq.
http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html
Bob,
And I’ve already agreed (SJ) that this is a matter ripe for adjudication.
“That is not what God said and therefore I will not agree to it.”
Jim,
Just for my information could you give me the exact quote from Scripture where God said that?