Constitutional Law, Politics, Religion, Uncategorized

Contraception and Separation

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.

526 thoughts on “Contraception and Separation”

  1. idealist707

    You obviously have absolutely no understanding of scripture. Jesus came to fulfill the law but not do away with it. Levitical laws do not apply to any race except the Jews. All but 0ne of the ten commandments were reinforced in the New Testament and therefore the New Testament Church (including Gentiles) come under them. However, the Greatest commandment is to Love God with all of our Heart soul and mind. The second is to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is why I help people. Jesus never commanded that government do it. Simply following the laws though can’t get one to heaven. That is all about faith and trust. Grace is God giving me what I do not deserve which is eternal life. My part is simply trusting in him.

  8. SwM,

    Thank you, the question was not in jest.
    It is, with that description, a gated community guarded by your option.
    Just guessing, the University influence and very old money, which is indifferent to misogynists, flagellists, and Ponzi salesmen.

  11. Bob

    Those were commands for only the Israelites; not the Gentiles. I am under Grace and not the law. I suggest you speak with your local Rabbi

    1. Jim,

      You have grace. Who imparted that. It’s all a con game. Tell us about your epithanícal moment.

      Imitating JC, “Surely it will be easier for the stupid to enter heaven than the wise.” I said that.
      If you can pick and choose, and ignore points besides, then I can make up my own gospel

      Just last night, lying in bed, I invented a Lenny Bruce inspired monologue about the true story of Saul of Tarsus, aka as St. Paul.

      It all starts with Saul, a used donkey salesmen, having heard about the “Hebs” (Lenny’s word) in Jerusalem bding hot to buy donkeys after their leader popularized them as the IN thing to ride on. (Something to do with the Torah (?) being fulfilled in quintuplicate (insert appropriate multiplication factor).
      Saul, who often writes of his “affliction” (masturbation?), departs thither post (something I won’t write again).
      His auditorial experience was a cover story.
      He meeting “the Rock”, finds the market flooded with donkeys, but listening to Rocky, he decides this could be a franchisable idea to sell to the Greeks hanging around the synagogues of Asia Minor. The Greeks, having found that philosophy was tough to handle, thought that the Jewish menu for daily use more appetising.
      ——–this continues until Saul is crucified in Rome (upside down I contend).
      Etc, etc.

  12. http://365thingsaustin.com/ Idealist, go that website and you will get a feel for the place. Most of the residents there try to ignore Perry and the legislature. You don’t seen republican bumper stickers or yard signs there. Obama signs are mixed with a few Ron Paul signs

  13. We need a Democratic ALEC. Now that Mr what’s-his-name from Hungary who breaks national currencies including the pound, is RETIRING.
    Perhaps he could devote his funds and energies to pushing this to solution.

    Obama has other concerns. And his charisma does not move the politicians, apparently, I say.

  14. SwM,

    Love to see a memoir.

    Jokingly, my experiences of Texas have been brief but pleasant, flying in. That said living where there’s a day’s travel within the same mindset and border would be “Appropriate Gulliver’s adjective please”.

    The ocean around Hawaii was in some way surpassable.
    But two days to pass Texas by car in the 60’s was tough to take.

    What are the merits of Austin, is it the attraction of the formal center of politics?

  15. idealist707, I retired from politics. Now I am a volunteer and an observer, but I will probably always be a political junkie. When Ann Richards lost in Texas in the nineties things went downhill for the democrats here. I am not a Texan just live here until my husband retires. Austin is the only place I would consider retiring to here.

  17. SwM,

    Women got cigarettes, suffrage, to work bringing home real money and managing it (WWII), got to choose furniture, got the pill—-look what a mess that’s got us. Let’s go back to “barefoot and pregnant” and chained to the woodpile, etc.

    The Grand Old Party, with emphasis on OLD.

Comments are closed.