That sound you hear is the sound of the authors of our
Constitution rolling in their graves.
Our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution the right to
the freedom of religion. And not only did they put it in to the Constitution:
They featured it, we might say, in the Bill of Rights. And not only did they
feature it in the Bill of Rights: They put it first.
How tragic it is there, therefore, that the present
administration should choose this right to infringe.
In decreeing that religious institutions must abide by rules
that violate their core religious convictions, the present administration has
declared war—not just on religion, but on the very principles upon which it
itself was established.
Let us remember: It wasn’t the Catholic Church—or any
Protestant church—that articulated the right to the freedom of religion. It was
the authors of the very government in whose name the present administration
pretends to act.
We do not ask that the United States government abide by a
religious principle formulated by our own Church. Instead, we ask that it abide
by the civil principle formulated by its own creators.
Americans of faith, however they feel about the issue of
contraception, are now banding together to stand—not only with their own
churches—but with those who laid the foundations of our form of government.
If the Obama administration can infringe upon this first
right, all of our other rights are placed in jeopardy.
12 comments:
Did everyone laugh?
Martin,
We've always made laws for the public interest which the religious have to comply with even when it violates their beliefs. Faith healers can be prosecuted for not taking their kids to the doctor. Native Americans can be banned from using peyote in their ceremonies. Quakers have to pay taxes which are used to pay for military defense. Mormons had to give up polygamy. This law is no more unconstitutional than those laws.
Anonymous,
I don't mind when commenters make snarky remarks on the blog, but the expectation here (which the regulars here do a pretty good job of meeting) is to do it in the context of an actual argument.
If you need me to explain what an argument is, I'll be glad to oblige.
KyCobb,
You're begging the question. Native Americans can be banned from using peyote in their ceremonies, for example, only in a post Smith v. Employment division world. But the whole issue is whether the decision was a good decision.
After Smith, any generally applicable law can prevail against the free exercise of religion. What that decision did was to do away with the compelling interest standard--that the state had to have a compelling interest in infringing on free exercises rights.
'What that decision did was to do away with the compelling interest standard--that the state had to have a compelling interest in infringing on free exercises rights.'
So - even ignoring Smith v. Employment - you are saying that making sure that women who work for religious organizations receive the same basic healthcare that women in other private sector jobs receive is not of compelling interest to the state?
I'd love to see you support that claim.
Catholic organizations are free to use any policies they want in ministries to other Catholics, employing other Catholics. In minitries to tyhe general public, employing the general public, they have to play by the rules of the general public. It's simple, straightforward, and fair.
OneBrow,
Is that supposed to be an argument? It looks an awful lot like an assertion to me. Can I just assert my position too? If I do, then how do we decide between the two?
OneBrow,
Is that supposed to be an argument? It looks an awful lot like an assertion to me. Can I just assert my position too? If I do, then how do we decide between the two?
Um, Martin, the fact is that you have done nothing more than assert, without any reasoning or argument that is based in any sort of reality, your position.
Martin,
Martin Cothran said...
OneBrow,
Can I just assert my position too? If I do, then how do we decide between the two?
If you want to assert that it is not simple, not straightforward, or not fair to expect Catholics to play by the rules of the general public when serving the general public, feel free. As usual, individuals will decide between the two for various reasons.
One Brow writes: "Catholic organizations are free to use any policies they want in ministries to other Catholics, employing other Catholics. In minitries to tyhe general public, employing the general public, they have to play by the rules of the general public. It's simple, straightforward, and fair."
No, it's not. Because central to the Church's ministry is to extend the charity of Christ to all those who are made in the image of God, including those who do not share the Church's faith. What you are suggesting is that the scope of the Church's mission should be defined by the state and that it has an unquestioned authority to do so. But why should anyone accept that as a first principle, since it is so obviously false, especially when it comes to "ministries," e.g., hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc., that were invented by the Church and not by the state. The state wants its hegemonic dominance over them now. But might does not make right.
'But why should anyone accept that as a first principle, since it is so obviously false, especially when it comes to "ministries," e.g., hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc.,'
A suggestion: If you yourself even put 'ministries' in apostrophes in this context, it is quite clear that you you are perfectly aware that your 'argument' doesn't stand up to rudimentary scrutiny. These 'ministries' provide public services wholly removed from any missionary work (or since when does bypass surgery constitute missionary work?) and therefore is not even covered by your own argument.
What you are suggesting is that the scope of the Church's mission should be defined by the state and that it has an unquestioned authority to do so,
To take one example, do you oppose the state limiting the scope of the mission of the FLDS by saying they can only legally marry one person? Or, it is only the limitations to the sacopes of the ministries you support that are outside the purview of the government? That one does not even go outside the FLDS.
If you want to treat the general public to something called medical care, for example, you have to use a licensed doctor. That is the state limiting the scope of a ministry, but one I suspect you will agree even applies to Catholics.
I don't think you really believe your own argument, except for certain limitations you want to claim a priviledged stance towards.
Post a Comment